Methodology
Every analytical label or proprietary score we publish has a public methodology page describing what it measures, the inputs, the algorithm, the tiers, and the known limits. Methodology transparency is the load-bearing evidence for the “fair and accurate” branch of qualified-privilege defence under the Defamation Act 1992 §16(2), and the strongest signal we can give data subjects, regulators, and any future Privacy Commissioner inquiry that our analytical observations are evidence-based.
CEO Pay vs Returns
NZXPay-performance misalignment: director compensation rising while shareholder returns underperform the NZ50 benchmark.
Active Shareholder Voice
NZX · /activistsNamed individuals who repeatedly engage in earnings-call Q&A or hold substantial positions in issuers they question.
Governance Risk Score (GRS)
NZX · per companyComposite 0–100 score across board composition, audit, ownership, remuneration disclosure, and continuous-disclosure cadence.
Concern Signals
CharityData · per charityStructural observations on charity profiles where a graded score cannot be produced. Donor-facing prompts for closer reading — not failure predictions.
Tenure Flag (Long Service)
CharityData / NZXplorer · per personNeutral observation when an individual has served on a single board for more than 10 years.
Dividend Cut Probability
NZX · per companyProbability score (0–95%) for a dividend cut at the next declaration. Combines payout-ratio stretch, coverage trend, earnings revisions, and stress signals.
These six are the analytical labels we publish in user-facing copy. Other proprietary scores (insider-cluster alerts, credibility momentum, earnings quality, OCI divergence, governance deterioration) are Pro-tier surfaces with their own methodology documentation accessible from the relevant insight pages — see the insights index for the full set.