A depth-weighted blend of the name's per-theme scores — 0.4 × Exposure + 0.6 × Depth, taking the best across its themes. Exposure (1–10) = how much of the business is tied to the theme. Depth (1–10) = picks-&-shovels enabler vs end-product. Higher = a deeper, more thematically-pure infrastructure play.
Compounder = profitable/established; passes a fundamental quality gate (Piotroski F-score, margin trend, dilution, leverage) shown as PASS/FAIL. Emerging = pre-profit/early; scored on a runway + optionality scorecard (shown as x/5) instead of profitability.
Core — Compounder-track: proven, profitable infrastructure leader (e.g. TSM, NVDA, ASML).
Emerging — core technology is demonstrated/validated; remaining risk is execution / scale / capital (revenue may still be ramping).
Venture — core technology not yet proven: genuine "does it work at all" binary risk (e.g. a reactor not yet built, commercially-unproven quantum).
The Emerging-vs-Venture split is the tech-validation distinction (has the core tech been demonstrated?), NOT revenue timing — a proven-tech, pre-revenue name is Emerging, not Venture.
Absolute bands on the thesis composite: A ≥ 8.5 · B 7.0–8.5 · C < 7.0.
Surfacing priority. Promote = clears the bar, actionable. Review = on-theme, below the promote bar. Prospects = on-theme farm team, below the review bar. (Off-theme names are "Buried" and never shown here.)
Where in the theme's value chain the name sits (Compute, Foundry, Launch, Reactor OEM, …). A multi-theme name holds one role per theme. §4 shows each role's dependencies and how many of your covered companies fill them.