canonical/modules/M001-mission-ethics-and-the-analyst-charter.md

<!-- Generated loss-aware reference mirror from God_Level_Public_Company_Financial_Analyst_Job_Guide_V6_99_ALL_SUB70_FIXED.docx. Canonical source remains the bundled DOCX. -->

<!-- Module: 001 | Title: Mission, Ethics, and the Analyst Charter -->

## PART I - ANALYST OPERATING SYSTEM | MODULE 001

# Mission, Ethics, and the Analyst Charter

> Mission. Define the analyst's mission, evidence standard, decision rights, escalation paths, and non-negotiable ethical rules.

## Decision output

Objective: Define the analyst's mission, evidence standard, decision rights, escalation paths, and non-negotiable ethical rules. The completed work product must be reproducible from evidence, show the downstream financial or decision effect when material, state the strongest contrary case, and define a dated update rule.

## Explicit operating procedure

1. Write the mandate in one sentence: what securities/markets are in scope, what decisions the analyst supports, what time horizon matters, and what the analyst is not authorized to do.

1. Define evidence classes and minimum proof standards before research begins. Separate public fact, management claim, analyst calculation, external estimate, and judgment in every material work product.

1. Establish non-negotiable legal/compliance rules for MNPI, selective disclosure, expert networks, personal trading, conflicts, gifts, source licensing, and record retention. Escalate ambiguity rather than improvising.

1. Define decision rights and review gates: who may change model assumptions, publish a view, approve alternative data, or communicate externally.

1. Set materiality and stop rules so research effort is proportional to potential value/risk impact and does not continue merely because more information exists.

1. Write the analyst charter as a signed checklist that can be audited after a mistake or conflict.

## Required evidence and model bridge

- Primary-source set: source log, assumption register, decision journal, model-change log. Preserve exact document/version, date, period, and source location for every material factual input used in mission, ethics, and the analyst charter.

- For each key concept - mandate boundaries, MNPI stop rules, conflicts, personal trading, evidence standards, decision rights - state whether it is a reported fact, analyst calculation, management claim, external estimate, or judgment. Quantitative concepts must retain raw components and units; qualitative concepts must retain the specific evidence and counterevidence.

- Map only economically relevant findings into the model or decision record. Process-control modules such as mission, ethics, and the analyst charter may have no direct valuation line; in that case document the downstream error or governance risk the control prevents.

## Metrics and calculation controls

| Metric / concept | Construction | Required validation |
| --- | --- | --- |
| evidence coverage | Value-weighted % of material thesis claims supported by current primary or independently corroborated evidence; weight each claim by estimated valuation/risk impact. | evidence coverage: Recalculate from same-scope numerator and denominator; confirm period, units, cohort/geography, and issuer definition; reconcile material differences to filings or operating data. |
| unresolved-risk PV | Probability-weighted present value of unresolved adverse outcomes: sum of scenario loss × probability, discounted to the valuation date. | unresolved-risk PV: Recalculate independently from cited source data; verify definition, period, units, scope, signs, and any reconciliation to reported financial or operating totals. |
| source freshness | Age of the evidence supporting each material claim, measured in days from source date to analysis date; report median and oldest material source. | source freshness: Audit a sample back to dated evidence and decision records; verify the stated threshold/score is reproducible by an independent reviewer and tied to a defined decision consequence. |
| signoff completeness | % of required research, model, compliance, and senior-review checkpoints completed before publication or decision. | signoff completeness: Audit a sample back to dated evidence and decision records; verify the stated threshold/score is reproducible by an independent reviewer and tied to a defined decision consequence. |



## Worked application

> Case: supplier accidentally hints at an unreleased production shortfall.

- Reconstruct the relevant reported fact from primary evidence before interpreting the case. For mission, ethics, and the analyst charter, show the raw components rather than only the resulting ratio or narrative.

- Build the causal chain through mandate boundaries, MNPI stop rules, conflicts, personal trading, then identify which link is directly observed and which link remains an assumption.

- Calculate evidence coverage, unresolved-risk PV, source freshness, signoff completeness from sourced components under the reported/base interpretation and at least one skeptical alternative interpretation.

- Translate the difference between cases into the variable that matters for mission, ethics, and the analyst charter: evidence quality, revenue, operating profit/NOPAT, free cash flow, invested capital, financing/dilution, risk, or valuation. Mark non-applicable links instead of inventing them.

- Expert consistency test: design compliance into the workflow before research begins, not as a final gate.

- Precommit the specific future filing, KPI, customer/supplier observation, regulator action, or market input that would materially invalidate the mission, ethics, and the analyst charter conclusion.

## Failure tests

- FAIL if mandate boundaries cannot be defined and reproduced from the source pack.

- FAIL if decision rights, evidence standards, MNPI boundaries, or escalation rules are undefined, contradictory, or cannot be applied to a realistic research conflict.

- FAIL if the mission, ethics, and the analyst charter conclusion depends on an unstated assumption, unreconciled definition, or evidence that cannot be traced to its source/version.

- FAIL if evidence materially inconsistent with the mission, ethics, and the analyst charter conclusion is omitted, reclassified, or dismissed without a documented definition, materiality, causal, timing, and source-quality analysis.

## Completion test

A senior reviewer must be able to reproduce the mission, ethics, and the analyst charter conclusion, vary the most sensitive assumption independently, trace the change through the model, understand the strongest opposing case, and identify the next evidence that would force an update. If any link is missing, the module remains open.