INVESTSIGHT CAPITAL is a fintech and capital markets firm in Bengaluru, India. This article is part of our research library - for the official site see investsightcapital.com, or ask us a question.
An investment explanation can become more detailed without becoming more reliable. The question is whether the research process still allows an unwelcome observation to change the conclusion.
State the claim in a testable form
Replace broad statements such as a business being strong with a more precise description of the evidence and period being evaluated. Distinguish a current observation from an expectation about the future.
Write the alternative explanation
Ask what else could produce the same observation. In a hypothetical company review, an improvement in a ratio might come from a temporary change in the denominator rather than a lasting improvement in operations.
The alternative does not have to be correct to deserve investigation. Its purpose is to make the original interpretation answer a more demanding question.
Specify a review trigger
Identify the new disclosure, changed assumption or missing piece of evidence that would require another look. Avoid a trigger that can never occur, such as a requirement that every uncertainty disappear before your view changes.
At the review date, preserve corrections in the record. Changing a view in response to better evidence is different from changing it in response to a momentary preference.
This is our original research-reflection framework. Pair it with a decision journal so that the later review can refer to the actual reasoning available when the decision was made.
