> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://matterhorn-doc.mometic.com/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://matterhorn-doc.mometic.com/investor-playbooks/weekly-review.md).

# Weekly review

Build a focused weekly research habit with Matterhorn rankings, watchlists, market movers, evidence checks, and thesis confirmation conditions.

The objective of a weekly review is to improve a few decisions, not to reread every score. Use a short, repeatable sequence and spend more time only where something meaningful changed.

## Scan: what deserves attention?

Start with the source and ML snapshot dates. Read **Top 10 Opportunities** and your **Watchlist**, then **Moved this week**. Note new candidates, meaningful rank disagreements between standard and ML views, and changes in market strength. Treat a new rank as a question rather than proof of a new business development.

## Investigate: what changed underneath?

Choose one or two companies. Open the financial checklist and examine the latest relevant evidence. Compare growth with gross profit and cash generation, demand with conversion, and business expansion with dilution or leverage. Read **History** to distinguish stored-score movement from your interpretation of it.

## Challenge: what is the alternative explanation?

Read the bear case and manager synthesis. Check CAN SLIM for timing context, then compare a plausible alternative. A shift in accounting scope, acquisition, price momentum, or coverage can explain a change that otherwise looks like an operating inflection.

## Record: what happens next?

Keep this compact review note outside the watchlist:

| Field               | Write one useful sentence                                      |
| ------------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------- |
| Company and dates   | Which ticker, evidence period, and scoring mode did I inspect? |
| Thesis              | What mechanism could improve per-share economics?              |
| New evidence        | What changed since the prior review?                           |
| Strongest objection | What credible alternative explanation remains?                 |
| Confirmation        | What future observation would increase conviction?             |
| Invalidation        | What observation would materially weaken the case?             |
| Next action         | Investigate, monitor, or remove from the research list         |

## After an earnings release

Check whether the new release, transcript, financial facts, and price data have actually been stored. A recently completed job is not enough: inspect the output and the reporting period. A refreshed ordinary company view can coexist with an older ML snapshot.

> **Pro Tip — Keep yesterday's reasoning.** It is easy to remember the winners and forget why the original thesis was fragile. Dated notes make your own research process auditable.

Related: [refresh and freshness](/keep-research-current/refresh-and-freshness.md), [emergence-to-durability](/investor-playbooks/emergence-to-durability.md).