How the verdict is rendered

Rules, version 1 · in force from 11 September 2026

When you search a company, the wire writes a verdict. Nobody types it. It is assembled from the filings by the rules on this page, and nothing else. This page is the whole method — every rule, the line that fires it, and the sentence it prints — so you can read exactly why a verdict said what it said.

The rules change. This is version 1. The algorithm is being built out, and as it is, rules will be added, thresholds moved and gaps closed. Every change is dated in the log at the foot of this page, and every verdict carries the version it was rendered under — so a verdict from last month and the rule it fired on can always be put side by side.

It computes; it does not conclude. The verdict names what the record shows — repriced, diluted, split, paid to convert — and never why anybody did it. Motive is not in the filings and does not belong in a sentence a machine assembles.

It says so when it does not know. A figure that is not on file is left out and the verdict says it was left out. A verdict built from three numbers out of five says so. Nothing on this page is estimated.

Nothing here says any company or any person did anything wrong. A rule firing means the filing is worth reading. That is all it means.

Three verdicts on every company page

The automatic verdict is the product. The human ones sit beneath it, under a name, and are opinions.

Rendered by the rules

The automatic verdict

Computed from the filings by the rules on this page. Lists which rules fired. Carries the version number. Included in the $12 search.

Founder · opinion, not advice

Mark Nejmeh’s verdict

Written after reading the company’s warrant paper himself. Signed and dated. Never altered by the rules and never altering them. Requested separately, $200.

GIG reader · opinion, not advice

A named reader’s verdict

A verified person under their real name. Priced by the reader. A reader who has registered a professional licence with Warrant Wire or 8K10Q may give advice, and is marked as such. Nobody else may, and nobody here is anonymous.

Part one — what the wire knows about every company

The wire has read the full text of every filing since 2021 and recorded the ones carrying warrant-financing language, with the terms found in each and the day it was filed. These rules run on that record, for any company, the moment it is searched.

How often

Looks at: Filings on the wire per year, over the period on record — the count divided by the years between the first and the latest (never less than one year).
Fires when: Always, where the dates are on file. Under 1.5 a year prints occasionally; 1.5 to 4 prints repeatedly; over 4 prints serially.
Prints: 60 filings carrying warrant terms since 2021-10-22 — 12.4 a year, serially.

The heavier terms

Looks at: What share of the company’s wire filings carry at least one of the six heavier terms.
Price resetReduced exercise price Cashless exerciseWarrant inducement Variable rate transactionEquity line
Fires when: Half or more of the filings carry one.
Prints: The heavier terms are in 35 of its 60 filings.

The price was cut

Looks at: Filings carrying reduced exercise price or price reset.
Fires when: 2 or more separate filings carry either term.
Prints: Has lowered the price on its warrants in at least 4 filings.

Paid to convert early

Looks at: Filings carrying warrant inducement or inducement agreement — two phrases with one meaning, counted once.
Fires when: 1 or more prints the first line; 3 or more adds the second.
Prints: Has paid warrant holders to convert early. … It has done so in 9 filings, which is a habit.

The stack

Looks at: Whether one filing carries three or more of the five terms that, together, mean the price can only go one way.
Pre-funded warrantsATM programme Variable rate transactionEquity linePrice reset
Fires when: 3 or more of the five appear in a single filing.
Prints: One filing carried 4 of the 5 terms that stack.

Arranged to sell, not hold

Looks at: A filing carrying both pre-funded warrants and an ownership blocker (the buyer’s stake is capped).
Fires when: Both appear in the same filing.
Prints: The buyer’s stake is capped and the stock is already paid for — the paper is arranged to be sold, not held.

How recent

Looks at: The date of the latest filing on the wire.
Fires when: Within the last 90 days.
Prints: The most recent was 31 days ago.

Where it is incorporated

Looks at: The state of incorporation on the company’s own cover page.
Fires when: Nevada — a reverse split by board resolution, no stockholder vote. Delaware — since August 2023, a majority of votes cast, not of shares outstanding. Texas — the Delaware standard, adopted 2025.
Prints: Incorporated in Nevada, where a reverse split needs no vote.

Nothing on the wire

Looks at: Whether any filing from this company has ever matched.
Fires when: None has.
Prints: Nothing on the wire. No filing from this company has matched the language of a warrant financing since 2021. No verdict is rendered, and this is not a clean bill of health — the wire watches for warrant language and nothing else.

Part two — what we have read by hand

For the companies we have studied, the record goes deeper: share counts off every cover page, every reverse split, the warrants still outstanding, every repricing, and the people who arranged it. These rules run only where that record exists. Where it does not, the verdict says not on file and stops.

Dilution

Looks at: The first and the latest share count on file, off the cover pages.
Fires when: The latest is 2× the first or more. Ten times or more is printed as a whole number.
Prints: A holder from 2024-08-26 has been diluted 46-fold.

Reverse splits

Looks at: Every reverse split on file, with its ratio.
Fires when: 1 or more. The ratios are multiplied, not listed — three splits of 35, 10 and 25 are one split of 1-for-8,750, because that is what a holder lived through.
Prints: 3 reverse splits, compounding 1-for-8,750, 2022 to 2025.

The overhang

Looks at: Warrants still outstanding and their exercise price, against shares outstanding on the latest cover.
Fires when: Any warrants are outstanding.
Prints: 12,400,000 warrants exercisable at $0.42 — 38% of the shares outstanding.

The last reprice

Looks at: The most recent inducement: the old exercise price, the new one, and the stock’s close on the day they exercised — not the day they repriced. Repricing is an offer; exercising is the act.
Fires when: Any inducement is on file. The premium prints only when the new price is above the market.
Prints: Has repriced its warrants downward 4 times, most recently into an exercise 29% above the market price.

Research against overhead

Looks at: R&D and G&A in the latest period on file.
Fires when: Overhead is 1.5× research or more.
Prints: It spent 4.7 times as much on overhead as on research.

Who arranged it

Looks at: Every named party on the company’s deals — placement agent, counsel, the buyers — and how many other companies the same name appears on.
Fires when: Always, where parties are on file. The count is the finding.
Prints: A face and a name beside a role: Leslie Marlow, issuer counsel — also on 6 other issuers, 250 filings.
The photo: Goes up only when the firm’s own page ties the picture to the name — the name in the caption, in the alt text or in the file name. A face on a page with several people on it is never used. It carries its source and its credit every time it renders.

What the verdict does not do

It is about the warrants only. It does not evaluate the company’s products, its science, its market or its management. A company with a drug that works and a verdict that reads badly is a company whose financing reads badly — nothing more.
It does not say why. Motive is not in the filings.
It does not advise. It is not a recommendation to buy, sell or hold anything.
It does not allege. Every term it names is ordinary and lawful, and most of these deals are unremarkable.
It does not guess. A missing number is left out and named as missing, never estimated.
It does not rank companies against each other. Each verdict is about one company’s own record.

What it misses, as of this version

Written down so nobody has to discover it. Each of these is a rule that does not exist yet, and closing them is the work.

What the stock did next. No rule yet reads the price in the days after a filing.
Insider selling. Form 4 sales by officers and directors are held by the site but not yet set beside the warrant paper.
The same people across companies. Officers and directors who sit on several issuers at once. The names are on file; the rule is not written.
Going-concern language in the 10-K or 10-Q.
Exchange deficiency notices — the minimum-bid letter, and how long before the reverse split.
The placement agent’s record — how many of its deals ended in a reverse split within a year.
Short interest around the filing dates.
The exhibit itself. Part one reads the wire’s record of terms found; it does not yet pull the exercise price and the share count out of the exhibit for companies we have not read by hand.

The log

Every change to the rules, dated. A verdict names the version it was rendered under, so it can always be read against the rules of its day.

v1 · 2026-09-11First published set. Part one, W0 to W8, runs on the wire’s record for every company. Part two, R1 to R6, runs where the hand-built record exists. The gaps above are the gaps. Same day, before publication: W1 changed from filings in the last 24 months to filings per year over the period on record, because the wire does not yet hand the page a date for each filing — only the first and the latest. When it does, W1 goes back to a 24-month window and this log will say so.

A rule is changed on this page first, then in the code, never the other way round. If a verdict on the site disagrees with this page, this page is right and the verdict is wrong — write to research@warrantwire.com.