Methodology
How we score our calls · April 24, 2026
Every market call we publish carries four signals — direction, conviction, timeframe, and status — plus a probability score for forecast-style claims. This page explains what those signals mean, how we set them, and how we score whether we were right.
We publish wrong calls as loudly as right ones. The point of a public scorecard is the scorecard, not the calls.
Direction
Which way the thesis cuts
We expect the price or thesis to be validated higher within the timeframe.
We expect the price or thesis to be invalidated lower within the timeframe.
Range-bound or no clear directional edge — surfaced because the setup matters.
No call yet — we are tracking a setup until conviction crystallises.
Conviction
How sure we are
Strong evidence, multiple converging sources, and a clear catalyst path. We expect to be right; if we are wrong, we want to know quickly.
A reasoned position with meaningful uncertainty. Worth tracking; not worth betting the house.
A directional lean we are publishing for transparency, not endorsement. Often calls we are watching evolve.
Conviction is also tracked over time — every revision is logged on the call detail page so you can see when and why we changed our mind. A drift from HIGH to LOW is a signal in itself.
Timeframe
The window we are committing to
Tactical positioning — earnings windows, near-term catalysts, sentiment shifts.
Cyclical positioning — sector rotations, capex cycles, mid-term thesis testing.
Strategic positioning — full earnings cycle, secular trends with mid-term inflection.
Structural positioning — long-cycle theses, technology adoption, multi-year compounders.
A call without a timeframe is a wish. The clock starts at publication and ends at the stated horizon — at which point the call resolves to Validated, Invalidated, or Expired.
Status
Where the call is in its lifecycle
Position is live. We are tracking and updating with new evidence as it lands.
The thesis played out within the timeframe. Outcome documented and added to track record.
The thesis was wrong. We say so explicitly — wrong calls teach more than right ones.
The timeframe lapsed without resolution. Marked closed; not counted as right or wrong.
Brier scoring
How we score probabilistic forecasts
For probabilistic claims (“65% chance HBM4 ships at scale before Q4 2027”), we use the Brier score — the squared error between our predicted probability and the actual outcome.
Lower is better. A perfect predictor scores 0; a coin-flip-as-everything scores 0.25. Every resolved forecast contributes to the running Brier on /kb/calibration, along with a calibration curve showing whether our 70% forecasts actually resolve true 70% of the time.
The point: confidence calibration is a discipline. Saying “90% sure” means you should be right ~9 times in 10. If you're not, your scale is broken — and Brier shows it.
What we don't do
Boundaries and disclosure
- No financial advice. Calls are research and opinion, published for transparency. They are not personalised recommendations.
- No undisclosed positions. Where the author or MenFem holds a position in a named security at publication, the call states so explicitly in its disclosure block.
- No silent edits. Every revision to a published call — conviction change, status change, target change — is logged on the call page with a timestamp and reason.
- No retroactive scoring. A call counts in the track record only at its stated horizon, by its stated thesis. We don't move the goalposts.
Editorial
Who writes the calls
Calls are authored by the MenFem editorial desk. Where appropriate, individual analyst attribution and per-author calibration scores will appear alongside the byline. For now, assume MenFem editorial unless the call states otherwise.