Independent Cross-Domain Equity Research

We map evidence, not opinions.

Systematic analysis across ten evidence domains using the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses framework. Every claim sourced. Every hypothesis tested.

Built by former UBS and Goldman Sachs executives.

ASX CLOSED
Loading prices...
Latest Research
Coverage Universe
ASX Company Sector Price Thesis Skew Updated Status
Deep Research

Evidence-driven research in depth

Each deep research page condenses a full Continuum report into a single landscape view: hypotheses, evidence matrix, discriminating data, and tripwires.

Portfolio Intelligence

Position Alignment Analysis

Upload your portfolio to see how your positions align with Continuum's evidence-based risk skew assessments across the coverage universe.

Drag & drop your portfolio file here
Or click to browse. Accepts Excel (.xlsx, .xls) and CSV files.
Expected columns: Ticker | Units | Avg Cost
Important

Position alignment analysis reflects how your holdings relate to Continuum's evidence-based risk skew assessments. Alignment indicators describe the relationship between your exposure and our analytical view. They are not investment recommendations. "Contradicts skew" does not mean "sell"; it means our evidence synthesis suggests risk is skewed differently to your position. Consult your own financial advisor before making investment decisions.

Our Approach

Evidence, not opinions.

Traditional equity research suffers from a structural problem: analysts form a thesis, then seek evidence to support it. This is confirmation bias operating at institutional scale, embedded in the business model of sell-side research.

We do the opposite. We collect evidence across ten independent domains, tag each piece with its epistemic quality, and then ask: which competing hypotheses does this evidence support or contradict?

Analysis of Competing Hypotheses

Our methodology is built on the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) framework, originally developed by Richards Heuer at the CIA for intelligence analysis. ACH forces the analyst to consider multiple explanations simultaneously, rather than anchoring on a single narrative.

For each stock, we define four competing hypotheses about the company's trajectory. We then systematically assess how each piece of evidence supports, contradicts, or is neutral to each hypothesis. The result is not a price target or a recommendation. It is a map of where the evidence actually points, and where the asymmetric risk sits.

Ten Evidence Domains

We assess evidence across corporate communications (motivated but primary), regulatory filings (statutory, under oath), broker research (consensus view), competitor disclosures (independent), economic data (objective), alternative data (behavioural signals), academic research (peer-reviewed base rates), media and social (noise, but directionally informative), leadership and governance (board composition, skin in game, succession), and ownership and capital flows (register composition, substantial holder movements, short interest).

Each domain receives an epistemic tag reflecting its reliability and motivation. Corporate communications are "Motivated." Regulatory filings are "Under Oath." Media is "Noise." We never treat all evidence as equal.

What We Are Not

We do not make buy, sell, or hold recommendations. We do not set price targets. We do not build valuation models. We do not manage money or take positions. We map the evidence landscape and identify where the asymmetric risk sits. What you do with that is your decision.

Built by former UBS and Goldman Sachs executives with decades of institutional experience across equities, fixed income, and portfolio management. No conflicts of interest. No corporate relationships. No investment banking revenue to protect.

Legal Disclaimer

Continuum Intelligence provides general information and analysis only. Nothing published on this portal constitutes personal financial advice under Australian law or any other jurisdiction. All factual claims are sourced from ASX filings, ACCC publications, ABS statistics, RBA data, company investor presentations, broker consensus data, and publicly available information. Hypothesis survival scores reflect editorial assessment based on the Analysis of Competing Hypotheses methodology. Readers should consult their own licensed financial advisors before making any investment decisions. Past performance is not indicative of future results. Continuum Intelligence, its principals, and contributors may hold positions in securities discussed. All content is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind.

Validate Your Conviction

Investment Thesis Comparator

Discover which of Continuum's four competing hypotheses your investment thesis aligns with -- or if you're pushing uphill against all of them.

Step 1: Select Company

1 of 2

Step 2: Your Investment Thesis

2 of 2
Your thesis aligns most closely with:
How Your Thesis Maps to All Four Hypotheses
Detailed Analysis
Evidence Supporting Your View
Evidence You May Be Missing