Mycroft: Private AI Valuation, Price Panels, Stock Split Detection
Om presents the Mycroft price panel, which turns SEC filings into 5,479 per-share price marks for private AI companies. The video shows how a stock split can look like a 92% crash and how share counts and human decisions keep the history honest.
This video, from week seven of the private AI evaluation agent in the Mycroft project, is about the price panel: turning SEC filings into a per-share price history for private AI companies. The presenter, Om, explains that the arithmetic is a single line, and that everything hard lies in deciding which rows deserve to be in it and in catching the one error that would have silently ruined the result.
From filings to 5,479 marks
A mark is the filed value divided by the share count, taken once per security, per fund, per quarter. The panel started with 5,806 filed holdings. Of those, 28 were rejected the previous month as belonging to nothing and 72 sat on filings that a later amendment replaced. The remaining 5,706 aggregate into 5,479 marks. The accounting reconciles exactly, and nothing is dropped for being awkward.
Why splits are dangerous
The time-consuming part of the week was a detector for stock splits, because a split makes a price series look like a crash. Perplexity went from $695 a share to $58. Read naively, that is a 92% collapse, and it would have entered the price history as one. It was actually a stock split, and a price series has to know the difference.
A threshold that missed its own test case
The first detector used a window of plus or minus 0.02 around whole-number ratios. Perplexity's ratio was 11.93, which is 0.07 away from 12, so the window missed it by a factor of three. The detector had looked correct only because the other Perplexity step happened to land on exactly 10. The rule is now a relative 1% window, shared by the detector and the review queue.
Splits move share counts, repricings move values
Catching a step is not the same as deciding what it is. Three companies threw a suspected split, and the ratio alone could not say which were which. Share counts could:
- Perplexity's preferred line went from 19,000 shares to 193,000 while the dollar value did not move by a cent: ten times the shares for exactly the same money, which is a split.
- Anthropic held the same 89,000 shares across all 13 quarters. Only the value moved, and the step reversed the next quarter, which a split never does.
- SpaceX also had a constant share count and a value that exactly doubled, which is a repricing.
In short, splits move the share count and repricings move the value.
Recording the human decision
A person made all three calls and wrote the reason down. The 11.93 case shows why. It is not a split factor but a 10-for-1 split combined with a 16% markdown in the same quarter. Dividing by 11.93 would erase a real price move, while dividing by 10 preserves it. So the panel records what a person decided to divide by separately from what the machine measured.
The plan listed seven checks for the panel. Six pass. The seventh needs filings the SEC has not yet published, and it reports that openly instead of quietly passing. In one of the six, the expectation was that four managers would agree on Anthropic's price. Ten do, in two clusters four thousandths of a dollar apart.
Key takeaways
- A per-share mark is value divided by share count, once per security, fund and quarter; the hard work is in choosing which rows count.
- The panel reconciles 5,806 filed holdings to 5,479 marks with every exclusion accounted for.
- A split can look like a collapse: Perplexity's drop from $695 to $58 appeared to be 92%.
- An absolute tolerance of 0.02 missed a ratio of 11.93; a relative 1% window replaced it.
- Share counts separate splits from repricings where ratios cannot.
- Record the human decision and its reason separately from what the machine measured.
- A check that cannot run yet should say so instead of passing.
Try it yourself
The video suggests pasting a prompt into Claude: pick a threshold in your own code, such as an absolute tolerance or cutoff, find the case it was written for, and check whether it would still catch that case today. A threshold never tested against the thing it exists to catch is just a guess with a number on it.
Chapters
- 0:00Generating 5,479 per-share price marks from SEC filings
- 0:15The stock split trap: Why Perplexity appeared to collapse by 92
- 0:30Fixing narrow tolerance windows: Moving to a relative 1% rule
- 0:50Disambiguating splits from repricings using share count constant values
- 1:10Auditing decision logs: Recording human rationale alongside machine metrics
Full transcript(auto-generated, with timestamps)
Generating 5,479 per-share price marks from SEC filings
[0:00]Hi, I'm Om Mallie. This video is about the price panel, turning SEC filings into an actual per share price history for private eye companies, and catching the one thing that would have silently ruined it. The arithmetic is one line. Everything hard is in deciding which rows deserve to be in it. Here is the
The stock split trap: Why Perplexity appeared to collapse by 92
[0:16]Whole week, value divided by share count once per security per fund per quarter, gives 5,479 marks. That part is one line of arithmetic. The part that took the week is a detector for stock splits because a split makes a price look like a crash.
Fixing narrow tolerance windows: Moving to a relative 1% rule
[0:30]It found three. It could not tell me what any of them were. 5,806 filed holdings go in. 28 were rejected last month as belonging to nothing. 72 sit on filings a later amendment replaced. The remaining 5,706 aggregate into marks. It reconciles exactly and nothing gets dropped for being awkward. Here is why the detector
Disambiguating splits from repricings using share count constant values
[0:51]Matters. Perplexity went from $695 a share to 58. Read naively, that is a 92% collapse and it would have entered the price history as one. It is not a collapse. It is a stock split and a price series has to know the difference. My detector used a window of plus or minus 0.02 around whole numbers.
Auditing decision logs: Recording human rationale alongside machine metrics
[1:10]Perplexity's ratio is 11.93, 0.07 away from 12. The window misses it by a factor of three. It looked correct only because the other perplexity step landed on exactly 10. The rule is now a relative 1% window imported by the detector and the review queue. But catching a step is not deciding what it is. Three companies threw one and the ratio cannot tell you which is which. The share count can. Perplexity's preferred line went from 19,000 shares to 193,000 while the dollar value did not move by a cent. 10 times the shares, exactly the same money. Anthropic held the same 89,000 shares in all 13 quarters. Only the value moved and the step reverses the next quarter, which a split never does. SpaceX the same, share count constant, value exactly doubled. Splits move the share count. Repricings move the value. A person made all three calls and
Wrote the reason down. One of those is Suttler. 11.93 is not a split factor. It is a 10 for one split and a 16% markdown that landed in the same quarter. Divide by 11.93 and you erase a real price move. Divide by 10 and it survives. So, the panel records what a person decided to divide by separately from what the machine measured. The plan listed seven checks for this panel. Six pass. The seventh needs filings the SEC has not published yet, and it reports that rather than quietly passing, in one of the six expected four managers to agree on Entropic's price, 10 do in two clusters 4/1000s of a dollar apart. Week seven on one page, 5,479 marks value divided by share count every filed holding accounted for. A detector whose window was too narrow to catch its own test case, now a relative 1% rule. Three
Companies threw a suspected split and the ratio could not tell them apart. Share counts could, and a person made every call with the reason written down. Six of seven checks pass, and the seventh says why it cannot. Next week, how often these marks actually move. Your turn. Paste this into Claude, take a threshold in your own code, an absolute tolerance, a cutoff, a magic number. Find the case it was written for, then check whether it would still catch that case today. Mine would not, and it looked fine because a second case happened to land inside it. A threshold that has never been tested against the thing it exists to catch is just a guess with a number on it. Building the marks panel and the split detector, week seven of the private AI evaluation agent. Next week, how often these marks move. I'm Molly for Humanitarian's AI.
More from Mycroft Financial AI
3:08Mycorft's Vendor Intelligence System: Fail-Closed Architecture & Noise Reduction
2:12Mycroft Source Classifier: Recovering Unlabeled Data & The Discipline of Refusal
2:06Mycroft's Data Contract Simulation: Catching Silent Metric Corruption Before Release
4:26Mycroft: Testing Pipeline Shadows & The Stages That Stayed Dark
9:48Mycroft: Cross-Agent Validation & The Number That Wasn't There
3:16