Our 10 dated small-cap calls are up 15.3%. I still trust the rejection log more than the return.

Last time I posted the five-week results of 23 unusual-volume names we rejected. Fifteen were down, eight were up, and the three biggest moves against us were the most useful because they forced us to recheck the original reasons for passing. **This is the other side of that process: the names that survived.** Since June 16, the dated call ledger has ten observations. **At Friday's close it was up 15.3% when weighted by our published rating tiers,** or 12.8% equal-weighted. Five of ten calls were ahead of their own sector benchmark. The losses are included. It is a good start and a tiny sample. **A broad metals rally helped, which is exactly why I do not trust the headline by itself.** Across four scanner runs this week, 792 rows cleared the mechanical screen. Friday alone produced 209 unique names. The biggest mistake would be treating those flags as picks. A volume event says something changed; it does not say the change is bullish, durable or investable. **Most names were rejected after review.** **The rejection log matters because it prevents hindsight.** If I publish the yeses but quietly forget the noes, I can make almost any young process look intelligent. Keeping both sides visible makes the next bad week more informative than the current victory lap. **So I am happy with +15.3%, but I would rather have another three months of dated yeses and noes than a cleaner screenshot today.** For anyone tracking penny-stock screens: do you keep the names you rejected, or only the positions you took? What has taught you more? Disclosure: my own research process; I hold some of the names in the ledger. No paid issuer relationships. Educational discussion only, not investment advice. Data through the August 7, 2026 close.