opening
the reading
the reading
runningChoosing a company to open on
The words that appear on every reading, and exactly what each one commits to.
Every reason a company is held for gets one of a small number of states after each filing. The states are not adjectives. Each one is a specific claim about what the document did, and each one carries a different level of commitment.
Knowing which is which is most of what it takes to read a reading.
The filing was read against this reason and did not change it.
This is not the same as the filing ignoring the reason. Sentences in the document bore on it, they were checked, and they left the argument where it was. The reading reports how many were checked, so you can tell the difference between a reason that was examined and confirmed and a reason nothing touched.
A quarter where most reasons hold is a normal quarter. It is also the state people find least interesting and most want summarized away, which is precisely why it gets reported in full.
Something the reason rests on is no longer the same.
A disclosure was rewritten, a figure was restated, a detail was removed or added, an attribution shifted. The reason has not been confirmed and it has not been undermined. The ground under it is different.
Moved usually arrives with the words direction unstated attached, and that phrase is doing real work. It means the filing establishes that a change occurred and does not establish which way it cuts. We report the change, show both versions of the sentence, and stop there.
This is the state people find hardest to accept, because it looks like an unfinished thought. It is a finished thought about an unfinished situation. The alternative would be to supply a direction the document does not support, which is the failure this whole system is built to avoid.
The filing undercut the reason.
This is a directional claim and we only make it when the document supports the direction. The support the reason depended on got smaller, softer, or disappeared, and the filing is clear enough about it that saying so is description rather than interpretation.
Weakened does not mean sell, and it does not mean the argument is dead. It means the evidence behind one reason for holding a company got worse, in a document you can open and check.
The filing supported the reason more than the previous one did.
Same standard in the other direction. The disclosure the argument was written against moved the way the argument predicted, or the company's own description of it firmed up. It is the only state besides weakened where the engine commits to a direction, and it is held to the same evidentiary bar.
Strengthening is worth its own state rather than being folded into holds, because a reason that is gathering support is in a different position from one that is merely intact.
It would read more smoothly to collapse these. Changed and unchanged, or good and bad, would be easier to scan.
But moved and weakened are different findings, and the difference is the entire question of whether anyone knows what a change means. A system that reports both as bad news is guessing on half of them and you cannot tell which half. A system that reports both as changed has thrown away the cases where the filing actually was clear.
The states are granular because the evidence is granular. Each one says as much as the document supports and no more, which means the word itself tells you how much weight it can carry.