18%
Value Gap
Is the setup attractively priced for the growth, margin profile, and target upside being claimed?
Monthly process upgrade
Upside Ranks Scoring Rubric + Audit Sheet
A repeatable publication gate for the monthly BRRR Upside Ranks: score every name, verify every material claim, and separate publish-ready conviction from vibes.
18%
Earnings Momentum
Are revenue, margins, earnings power, and guidance moving in the right direction?
17%
Catalyst Edge
What specific AI-infrastructure or market catalyst can re-rate the name this month?
17%
Goldilox Upside
Is the bull case aggressive but still plausible without fantasy assumptions?
10%
Technical Setup
Is the chart helping the timing, or is the idea already extended/broken?
8%
Attention / Positioning
Is attention, options activity, short interest, or volume confirming the move?
12%
Source Confidence
Are the material claims supported by primary or high-quality secondary sources?
Worked sample
CRDO · Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd
Audit score
85.8/100
Ready for editor review
Credo is the highest-conviction 2x name because it attacks a real AI cluster bottleneck: moving data inside scale-out systems without blowing up power budgets. The source-backed story is already tangible — AEC shipments drove the recent revenue step-up, while DustPhotonics adds an optical-connectivity path. The bull case is that Credo is not a one-product AEC cycle, but an emerging AI connectivity platform across copper, optical, DSP/retimer, and memory-connectivity layers.
| Pillar | Weight | Score | Contribution | Publish gate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value Gap | 18% | 82.6 | 14.9 | Must include valuation support, not just a price target or narrative multiple. |
| Earnings Momentum | 18% | 98.9 | 17.8 | Must cite fresh reported numbers or management guidance before publication. |
| Catalyst Edge | 17% | 82 | 13.9 | Must name the catalyst and why the timing matters now. |
| Goldilox Upside | 17% | 68.2 | 11.6 | Must state the bull-case market cap/target path and the assumption that breaks it. |
| Technical Setup | 10% | 91 | 9.1 | Must disclose if timing is weak even when the fundamental thesis is strong. |
| Attention / Positioning | 8% | 87.4 | 7 | Must distinguish real positioning data from vague social chatter. |
| Source Confidence | 12% | 96 | 11.5 | Ready-to-publish requires at least two credible source URLs and no stale core numbers. |
Ready/not-ready checklist
- ✓Confirm current price, market cap, and list placement against the latest monthly data pull.
- ✓Verify revenue growth, margin, guidance, and earnings-date claims from primary filings, investor relations, or trusted financial data.
- ✓Write one sentence explaining why the catalyst matters this month, not someday.
- ✓State the Goldilox target path and the single assumption most likely to invalidate it.
- ✓Flag stale, missing, or low-confidence numbers before the name enters the publish package.
- ✓Only mark ready when the thesis, key numbers, source URLs, and risk paragraph can survive a reader fact-check.
How Frank can test it
Take any three June names and score them against the seven pillars. If the audit score and ready/not-ready status disagree with editorial intuition, the rationale row shows exactly where to adjust the process.
The JSON endpoint exposes the same rubric and CRDO worked sample for reuse in future monthly automation, QA scripts, or a newsletter/site publish packet.
Publication rule: no name should enter the final monthly package until the source-confidence gate, risk paragraph, and Goldilox target path are present.