Editorial Standards

This document sets out the editorial framework under which Vector Research originates, reviews, certifies, and publishes investment research (each, a “Report”). It is written for two audiences: (i) the reader who needs to evaluate the epistemic weight of a Vector Research conclusion before acting on it, and (ii) the regulator, counterparty, or counsel who needs to evaluate the integrity of our publication process. The standards below apply to all Reports irrespective of length, format, or distribution mode.

1. Editorial Charter

Vector Research operates as an independent research publisher. Our editorial charter is to produce thesis-driven, evidence-anchored analysis at a quality standard consistent with the conventions of institutional research practice. The framework set out below describes how we generally work; it does not constitute a regulatory registration, accreditation, or fiduciary undertaking.

We do not aspire to neutrality. Where we have a view, we state it, defend it, and label its conviction. Where we do not, we say so. We regard analytical hedging language — “could,” “may,” “potentially” — without supporting structure as a failure of the editorial mission, not its fulfillment.

Vector Research operates a human-led, computationally- augmented workflow: analysts set the analytical agenda, computational systems gather and structure data and surface candidate signal, analysts review and decide what is published.

2. Analyst Affirmation

As a general principle, the analyst responsible for a Report affirms that the views expressed in that Report reflect their own independent judgment, and that their compensation is not tied to any specific view, rating, or recommendation contained in the Report. Such affirmation, where given, reflects the analyst’s position as of the publication date and is not to be construed as surviving subsequent reassessment, the receipt of material new information, or the passage of time.

3. Conviction Framework

Every Report that advances a thesis attaches a conviction level to the central call. Conviction is a probabilistic construct, not a price target, an entry signal, or a recommendation. It encodes the author’s subjective Bayesian posterior on the thesis after accounting for available evidence and known unknowns.

• High Conviction — the analyst believes the weight of available evidence renders the central thesis substantially more likely than its complement, and that the dispositive risk factors are identified and mapped. Reserved for theses where the analyst has examined and tested the strongest counter-cases.
• Moderate Conviction — the analyst regards the central thesis as the best available read of the evidence, but acknowledges material residual uncertainty, dependent on identified variables, or on the resolution of identified catalysts.
• Exploratory — the analyst presents a structured working hypothesis under active development. The Report documents the analytical scaffolding rather than the verdict.

Conviction is not a substitute for position sizing, risk management, or suitability analysis, all of which lie wholly outside the scope of any Report and within the sole responsibility of the reader.

4. Confidence Labeling of Statements

Within each Report, individual statements of fact, inference, or prediction may be tagged with a confidence label to signal the epistemic basis on which that statement is made. The purpose of confidence labeling is to allow the reader to weight each load-bearing claim independently of the surrounding prose.

• Fact — a statement directly attested by a primary source (e.g., SEC filing, audited financial statement, official corporate communication, regulatory order) and verifiable by the reader against that source.
• Inferred — a statement derived through chain of reasoning from one or more underlying Facts, with the inference step traceable and the underlying Facts disclosed.
• Estimated — a quantitative or qualitative estimate produced by the analyst, identified as such, with the methodology and material inputs disclosed sufficient for a competent reader to reconstruct the estimate.
• Speculative — a forward-looking or imagination-bound statement that is structurally not verifiable as of publication; flagged so that the reader does not mistake speculation for analysis.

5. Source Attribution and Citation Discipline

Every load-bearing factual assertion in a Report is, where practicable, attributable to a source the reader can independently verify. We use the following source taxonomy, presented in descending order of evidential weight:

• Primary — Regulatory: issuer filings submitted to recognized regulators or stock exchanges, regulatory orders, audited financials, and official corporate releases.
• Primary — Issuer: earnings transcripts, investor presentations, sustainability reports, supplementary financial data filed by the issuer.
• Secondary — Independent: reputable trade publications, peer-reviewed research, central-bank publications, recognized industry data providers, court filings.
• Triangulated: non-attributable signals corroborated across at least two independent secondary sources.
• Estimated by Vector Research: derived figures produced by the analyst applying disclosed methodology.

We do not knowingly publish material that depends on a single non-public, non-attributable source. We do not pay for, solicit, or knowingly receive material non-public information (“MNPI”). Where we receive what may constitute MNPI, we follow the protocol set out in Section 13 below.

6. Pre-Publication Review

No Report is published until it has cleared the following gates, applied with proportionality to the materiality of the call:

• Thesis Test: the central thesis is articulable in one to three sentences and expresses a falsifiable proposition.
• Evidence Audit: every load-bearing claim is sourced per Section 5, and the strongest reasonably available counter-cases have been examined and addressed in the body of the Report.
• Devil’s Advocate Pass: a structured adversarial review against the thesis, including a “pre-mortem” analysis of the strongest plausible ways the thesis could prove wrong.
• Numerical Sanity Pass: all financial computations, implied multiples, target levels, and growth assumptions are re-derived independently of the original computation pipeline.
• Compliance and Disclosure Pass: position, compensation, and conflict disclosures are confirmed; restricted-list and quiet-period checks are performed; jurisdictional distribution restrictions are confirmed; the Report is screened for inadvertent MNPI, market-manipulation language, and personalized-advice language.
• Editorial Pass: register, hedging, and citation discipline are reviewed by an editor distinct from the originating analyst where the Report is non-trivial.

7. Embargo, Quiet Periods, and Anti-Scalping

From the time a Report is finalized for publication until the moment of publication, the responsible analyst is subject to a trading embargo on the security that is the subject of the Report. Limited exceptions apply only to closing pre-existing positions for bona fide reasons that are themselves disclosed within the Report.

Vector Research and its analysts aim, as a matter of editorial practice, not to initiate, increase, or liquidate positions in any covered security for the purpose of profiting from price movements caused by a Vector Research publication (a practice generally referred to as “scalping”). This is an editorial principle reflecting our commitment to publication-side independence; it is not an undertaking made to any reader, regulator, or counterparty.

8. Correction and Revision Policy

Where, after publication, the analyst identifies a material factual error in a Report — meaning an error that, if corrected, would alter a reasonable reader’s evaluation of the thesis — the Report is amended with a dated, visible correction notice describing what was changed, why it was changed, and how it affects the call. We do not silently overwrite published material.

Where the analyst’s view evolves — on the basis of new information, the resolution of an identified catalyst, or further analysis — we may issue a revision note or supersede a prior Report with an updated Report. We are not, however, obligated to do so, and the absence of a revision must not be construed as affirmation of the prior view.

9. Forward-Looking Statement Discipline

Reports may contain forward-looking statements — for example, projections, scenario outputs, target ranges, and expected catalyst paths. Such statements are, by construction, subject to material risks and uncertainties and may differ materially from actual outcomes. Where the structure of a forward-looking statement materially affects the conclusion, we generally identify the principal driving assumptions and, where reasonably practicable, present sensitivity to those assumptions.

10. Independence and Conflict Avoidance

Vector Research does not engage in investment banking, market-making for clients, principal trading on behalf of clients, asset management, or paid promotion of issuers. We do not accept compensation, equity, options, gifts, hospitality, or any other consideration of value from covered companies, their officers or affiliates, or third parties with an economic stake in our coverage.

Analyst compensation is structured to be independent of any specific recommendation or rating in any Report. No analyst’s compensation is contingent upon, or tied in any way to, the performance of a covered security following publication, the adoption of any view by any reader, or the procurement of any transaction.

11. Author Personal Investing

Author(s) of Reports personally invest their own capital and may, at any time before, during, or after publication, hold long, short, or derivative positions in securities, issuers, instruments, or asset classes covered or referenced in a Report. Positions may be initiated, increased, decreased, hedged, or closed without prior notice. Readers should not assume the absence of a position disclosure means the author holds no position; they should instead assume an economic interest may exist and evaluate the Report accordingly. The full position framework is set out in our Disclaimer, Section 11.

12. Material Non-Public Information Protocol

Vector Research does not knowingly solicit, receive, or trade on MNPI. Where the analyst encounters information that may constitute MNPI — whether received unsolicited, encountered in a primary source on which a corporate insider may not have acted, or obtained through any other channel — the analyst observes the following protocol: (a) the information is segregated and not used; (b) the relevant security is added to a restricted list; (c) the analyst does not transact in the security until the information is publicly disclosed by the issuer or otherwise becomes stale; and (d) where appropriate, the analyst consults with counsel.

13. Use of Computational and AI-Assisted Tools

Vector Research uses computational tools, including large language models, retrieval systems, structured-data pipelines, statistical packages, and quantitative screens, as research infrastructure. These tools are used principally for: document ingestion and structured extraction from filings and transcripts; cross-referencing of facts across multiple primary sources; numerical modeling and sensitivity analysis; pattern recognition across comparable companies, sectors, and historical periods; structured adversarial framing.

Computational outputs are inputs to analyst judgment, not substitutes for it. No Report’s thesis is determined by an automated system; all editorial conclusions are formed and certified by the human analyst named on the Report. Outputs from AI-assisted systems are subject to known failure modes — including factual hallucination, retrieval drift, and bias inherited from training data — and the analyst is responsible for verifying the underlying facts before any AI-derived material is relied upon in a Report.

14. Intellectual Honesty

We hold ourselves to the following intellectual-honesty norms:

• Adverse evidence: the strongest counter-arguments are presented in the Report, not omitted, and are addressed on the merits.
• Updated priors: when new information would change the conclusion, we update the Report or supersede it; we do not retroactively reinterpret prior conclusions to fit new outcomes.
• Outcome separability: we evaluate the analytical process independently of the realized outcome. Good processes sometimes lose; bad processes sometimes win. Both are recorded.
• Hindsight bias resistance: closed positions are reviewed against the analyst’s pre-event-published thesis, not against ex-post rationalization.
• No silent edits: material post-publication changes are dated and described.

15. Records and Retention

Vector Research maintains a contemporaneous record of (i) published Reports and material revisions, (ii) editorial review checkpoints and the disposition of significant editorial questions, (iii) analyst conflict disclosures and restricted-list maintenance, and (iv) any material communications with covered issuers, in each case consistent with our internal governance and applicable law.

16. Distribution and Audience

Reports are intended for sophisticated readers — including portfolio managers, family offices, allocators, operators, and professionals capable of independently evaluating analytical conclusions in the context of their own circumstances. Reports are not directed at, nor tailored to, any individual reader. Nothing in any Report is intended as a recommendation suitable for any particular reader; readers must assess suitability for themselves and, where appropriate, in consultation with their own qualified professional advisers.

17. Limits of These Standards

These Editorial Standards are aspirational and procedural in character. They describe how we generally aim to work. They do not create a contractual obligation to any reader, do not constitute a guarantee of accuracy, completeness, or future performance, and do not establish any fiduciary, advisory, or similar relationship between Vector Research and any reader. Vector Research may depart from any provision of these Editorial Standards in its discretion, and any such departure does not, by itself, give rise to any claim or cause of action. Compliance is judged by Vector Research’s internal governance and is not certified by any third party.

18. Updates

We may revise these Editorial Standards from time to time. The operative version is the version posted to this page as of the date a Report is published. Material revisions will be reflected in the “Last updated” date above and, where appropriate, in a change log.