Three scores, kept separate. They are not averaged into one “quality” number. They point in different directions (F is a 0–9 count, higher-better; Z is a distress distance, higher-safer; M is a manipulation screen, lower-cleaner) and were fitted on different samples for different questions — a blended figure would be ours, not theirs, and would hide exactly the disagreement that is worth reading.
Sector context. The percentile columns on the trend rows are the ones this payload serves: “vs own” ranks the latest value inside this company’s own served history, “vs sector” inside its sector pool. A blank sector cell means the pool was too thin to rank honestly (or the metric is a currency level, where a cross-currency rank would be meaningless). The three SCORES carry no sector percentile: the payload’s percentile block covers the served ratios only, so “is this Z good for Services?” is a question we cannot answer from what is served, and we don’t pretend to.
Latest vintage only. A 12-year F-Score / Z-Score strip is not drawn. The point-in-time factor store carries valuation, returns, margin, momentum and growth factors — not these composites — and recomputing them here from the annual columns would produce a series that disagrees with the headline above (different vintage of facts, different restatement handling). A score that disagrees with itself is a wrong number, so the history is omitted rather than approximated.
The nine named F-Score checks, the Merton distance-to-default / default probability, ROIIC and the growth-durability CAGRs live on FS · Financial Strength; the full ratio grid — every served ratio, with its own trend and both percentiles — is the Ratios section below.
