The discipline came from the frustration.

The Conviction

Markets are not efficient in the sense of being correct. They are efficient in the sense of rapidly incorporating shared beliefs into price.

When those beliefs rest on incomplete analysis—when assumptions go untested, alternatives unconsidered, contradictory evidence rationalised—price efficiently reflects the flaw.

Most analytical practice makes this worse, not better. Analysts satisfice. They seek confirmation. They anchor on early impressions. They rationalise rather than revise. These aren't personal failures—they're how cognition works. Awareness doesn't fix them. Only method does.

We believe disciplined analytical method—systematically generating alternatives, seeking disconfirmation, assessing what evidence actually discriminates, pre-committing to revision—is the only durable edge in competitive markets.

And we believe that method, to be applied consistently, must be implemented as infrastructure. Human discipline degrades under pressure. Systematic process does not.

The Origin

This conviction came from experience.

Twenty-five years of fundamental investing. Reading filings. Building models. Forming views. Watching those views prove right for the wrong reasons—or wrong despite feeling certain.

The pattern was consistent: the failures weren't information failures. The data was there. The failures were analytical failures. Hypotheses accepted too quickly. Disconfirming evidence explained away. Key assumptions never identified, let alone tested.

The question became: what would it mean to actually do this properly? Not as aspiration, but as process. Not dependent on discipline in the moment, but embedded in the workflow.

That question led here.

The Team