OwnerMind Build, challenge, and preserve your own investment case. Saved just now
OwnerMind structures your thinking. It does not give a verdict.
Company
FLWS
Assessment
FLWS — Jul 2026
Status
Active
Data as of
7/28/2026
Choose companySearch the SEC universe or start with a vague idea.
Build thesisCapture evidence, assumptions, and counter-work.
Decision memoExport a user-owned record when gates pass.
DETAILED ANALYSIS

Compound, quality, and valuation

Build the operating case in layers. Every index exposes its user ratings, weights, and separate confidence.

Compound Analysis Valuation extension
FIVE-AREA REORGANIZATION

Business Quality

Keep economic quality, governance, and financial resilience visible as separate judgments.

Component ratings stay separate and unconfirmed.
CONTRARY Every one of the five areas ends with Contrary evidence — the product asks for the case against your own rating in each of them. Treated here as a step in the method, not an optional note at the bottom of a form.
1

Competitive advantage

What evidence shows durable customer value, switching friction, network effects, cost advantage, or intangible strength?

Contrary evidence Disconfirmation
competitive advantage Weight 20.0%
2

Industry quality

How attractive and stable are industry economics, structure, bargaining power, and change?

Contrary evidence Disconfirmation
industry quality Weight 20.0%
3

Management and governance

How do incentives, governance, candor, and capital-allocation history affect the case?

Contrary evidence Disconfirmation
management governance Weight 20.0%
4

Business model

How does the company create, retain, and expand economic value?

Contrary evidence Disconfirmation
business model Weight 20.0%
5

Financial quality and balance sheet

How resilient, cash-generative, and transparently financed is the business?

Contrary evidence Disconfirmation
financial quality balance sheet Weight 20.0%
Business Quality Score (BQS)om-calc-v3State 1 · as captured, unratedYour ratings only
USER-RATED INDEX

Business Quality Score (BQS)

A transparent summary of your five area ratings, kept separate from CSI.

— / 100 The captured reading, and the one FLWS is actually in: until all five areas carry a mark there is no arithmetic to run, so the product prints an em dash rather than a zero. An unrated index is not a low one, and the difference matters when you come back to this page in six months. The marks shown on the five areas above belong to the worked example in State 2.
Competitive advantage Weight 20.0%
Industry quality Weight 20.0%
Management and governance Weight 20.0%
Business model Weight 20.0%
Financial quality and balance sheet Weight 20.0%
Your confidence in this index Its own scale, on its own row, and never folded into the number above. Confidence says how well-founded your five marks feel; it does not raise or discount them.
Nothing to interpret yet. The product will not open with a suggested reading, will not offer a starting rating, and will not fill this box from your notes. The index stays at an em dash until you put five marks in it yourself.
Business Quality Score (BQS)om-calc-v3State 2 · rated example, designedYour ratings only
USER-RATED INDEX

Business Quality Score (BQS)

A transparent summary of your five area ratings, kept separate from CSI.

68 / 100 The same panel once every area carries a mark. The number moved because you moved it: five marks, five published weights, one addition. Set any area back to unrated and the display returns to — / 100.
Competitive advantage Weight 20.0%
Industry quality Weight 20.0%
Management and governance Weight 20.0%
Business model Weight 20.0%
Financial quality and balance sheet Weight 20.0%
Your confidence in this index You marked 3. The index still reads 68 — confidence is recorded beside it and never inside it.
68/100
Competitive advantage20.0%16.0
Industry quality20.0%12.0
Management and governance20.0%12.0
Business model20.0%16.0
Financial quality and balance sheet20.0%12.0
Where this number came from: each area contributes (your mark ÷ 5) × 20.0 points — 4 is worth 16.0, 3 is worth 12.0 — and the five contributions are added. 16.0 + 12.0 + 12.0 + 16.0 + 12.0 = 68.0, by a formula you can open (om-calc-v3). Change a mark and the index moves. Nothing here is scored by the app, and 68 is not its opinion of FLWS — it is your own five marks under published weights.
Written by you · 28 Jul 2026
Additional contextFLWSFacts already held
DATA CONTEXT

Additional context

Facts already available to OwnerMind are shown here. A missing field is a source gap for this company, not a global statement.

Available for review is the product’s own phrase, shortened for the grid: a source-backed value is available for review. A gap reads no source-backed value is available; this needs your judgment or an additional source.

Ticker
FLWS
SEC EDGAR · registrant record
Sector
Not available
No matching source record is held
Industry
Not available
No matching source record is held
Reviewed period
FY 2025
SEC EDGAR · pinned to this assessment
Revenue
Available for review
SEC EDGAR (FY 2025)
FCF margin
Available for review
SEC EDGAR (FY 2025)
Free cash flow
Available for review
Derived from revenue (FY 2025) × FCF margin (FY 2025)
EOD price
Available for review
Finnhub cache · 2026-07-28T18:58:02.000Z
Market capitalization
Available for review
Finnhub · price × shares outstanding
Capital expenditure
No source-backed value
Source gap for FLWS · needs your judgment or an additional source
Cash from operations
No source-backed value
Source gap for FLWS · needs your judgment or an additional source
Net income
No source-backed value
Source gap for FLWS · needs your judgment or an additional source
Read the blanks carefully. “Not available” means OwnerMind holds no record for FLWS that carries this field — it is not a finding about the company, and it is not a claim that the field is unknowable. Supplying one yourself is a legitimate move; the entry will simply be marked as yours.
Directory comparisonDesigned, not captured

The same factual fields, side by side, across the assessments you have saved. The populated capture reached the panel’s heading but not its rows, so the three below are designed rather than observed. The current assessment appears in the list on the same footing as the rest — it is not pinned to the top.

YOURSFLWS — Jul 2026Current assessment · no area rated yet · index reads — / 100
YOURSCascade Rail · CSRYour BQS 61 · five areas rated 2 Jun 2026 · your confidence 2 / 5
YOURSHarbor Logistics · HRBFour of five areas rated · index stays at — / 100 until the fifth is set
Every figure in this list is one you produced. The rows are not ordered by score, there is no peer average, and the app holds no view on which of these businesses is the better one. It lines up your own work so you can see where you were generous and where you were hard.
TWO INDICES YOU BUILT

CSI–BQS alignment

Read your two indices against each other. The app subtracts and asks; it does not settle the argument for you.

DESIGNED This tab’s live content was not observable in the capture — the running product needs a company loaded before it will render it. The panel below is designed, not captured. The tab name, the page header and the tab strip above it are verbatim.
CSI ↔ BQS alignmentRated exampleComparison, not conclusion
In the captured state for FLWS both indices read — / 100 and the difference is Unavailable — there is nothing yet to subtract. The figures below carry the rated example from the tab beside this one, so the comparison is legible.
Compound Strength
70
Your four compound ratings, from Compound Analysis.
Business Quality
68
Your five area ratings, from the tab beside this one.
Difference
2 pts
Arithmetic. Neither index outranks the other.

Do your two indices agree? They were built from different components on different days. Where they part company is usually where you are least settled.

Mostly they agree, and the two points sit exactly where I expected them to. My compound marks lean on the reinvestment runway; my quality marks pull the same business back on governance. I am not going to average the two — I want to know whether that governance 3 is a fact I can point at in the filings or a mood I was in on Tuesday.
Written by you · 28 Jul 2026 · revised twice
What the app did here: it put two numbers you built next to each other and subtracted one from the other. It has no view on which index is the truer one, will not reconcile them into a third number, and does not read a two-point gap as good or bad. The interpretation above is yours and stays attributed.
Component read-acrossRated exampleYour marks, side by side

The two indices are built from different components, so they cannot be matched one to one. What can be read across is where you were generous in one and hard in the other — the same business, marked twice, by you.

CSI 4 · BQS 3Economics against financial qualityYou marked the cash economics a 4 and the balance sheet a 3. Both marks are yours and both stand; the gap is the question, not an error to reconcile.
CSI 3 · BQS 3Reinvestment runway against industry qualityThe two lowest marks in either index landed on the same part of the case. That agreement is worth as much attention as any disagreement.
CSI 3 · BQS 3Capital allocation against management and governanceMarked separately, on different days, and they came out the same. Check whether that is two readings or one reading entered twice.
The app did nothing here but line up your own marks. It does not weight one index against the other, does not resolve a gap into a third number, and holds no view on which of your two readings is the better one. Where they part company is usually where you are least settled — that is a place to work, not a score to fix.