The score rose 2 points, mainly due to valuation and price changes. Price fell 9.3%, from $54.98 to $49.87. Reported EPS was unchanged, so the lower price improved valuation support.

Valuation and price changes added 1.6 points. The comparison uses the same available inputs on both dates. Displayed changes are rounded to whole points.

Historical cheapness: current PE is 23× versus the full-history median of 23.4× shown in the valuation table, producing 51.1/100. Positive weekly observations receive equal weight; lower past EPS alone does not disqualify them.

Outlook-adjusted valuation: 54.4/100. The model applies a 19.6% earnings-growth assumption and a 10% annual return hurdle, with positive credit limited by evidence coverage and confidence.

Forward price scenarios use recent PE history separately. Recent history has a separately weighted median of 20.8× (18-month half-life). A reliable earnings-based price target is unavailable. A return to the full-history median is not assumed.

Business trends are mixed. Over the past year: revenue +2.5%, earnings -17.1%, operating margin -1.4 percentage points. The business score is 47.3/100. Growth, margins and cash generation drive the score. Missing or older data receives less weight.

Weaker business results limit upside support. Price history provides the reference because earnings are difficult to compare.

The calculation starts with the stock’s typical weekly price movements, adjusted for business performance and outlook. Unusually large jumps have less influence. The result is 21.4% upside, or about $58.09.

This is a scenario based on our model, not a forecast or probability.

Historical price swings are the main risk driver, even without a sharp profit decline.

The stock’s historical price swings drive this figure; the separate operating stress is 25.9%. Price history and operating stress provide the reference because comparable earnings do not support a future PE target. Operating stress reflects revenue, earnings, margins, outlook and relevant debt exposure. The larger stress gives 37% downside, or about $30.15, with a 15% minimum.

This is a scenario based on our model, not a forecast or probability.