NASDAQ:TTWO Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.

Industry benchmark — Net-Bookings Growth + Non-GAAP EBITDA Margin (the publisher's Rule of 40)

FY27 guided bookings growth +20.5% (midpoint $8.1bn on FY26's $6.72bn) plus the guided non-GAAP EBITDA margin 12.6% ($1,023m midpoint) = 33.1. That is below the 40 line. Run the same test on consensus FY28 — the first full Grand Theft Auto VI year — and it improves to roughly 13% growth + ~26% margin ≈ 39: better, still not elite. Rating: PASSES ON GROWTH, FAILS ON MARGIN. Benchmark score 60/100. The honest read is that even at post-launch scale this is a good, not exceptional, composite — the margin leg is structurally capped by mobile user-acquisition costs and a decade of Zynga amortisation.

Competitive Environment (step 7c — the dynamic read the moat sub-scores above are derived from)

Take-Two does not compete for the Grand Theft Auto customer — there is no substitute product — so the franchise itself is not under share attack. It competes for engagement hours and discretionary wallet, and on that axis the trend is not in its favour: Fortnite, Roblox, Call of Duty and EA Sports FC have spent eight years training players to spend inside live-service economies, and by Bank of America's assessment the current GTA Online monetises below all four. The competitive question for this stock is therefore not "will someone build a better GTA" but "can Rockstar close a monetisation gap its rivals opened while it was in development" — and the answer is unknown until the game ships. Two structural changes landed this quarter. Electronic Arts completed its $55bn take-private on 4 August 2026 (PIF 93.4% / Silver Lake 5.5% / Affinity 1.1%) — a rival with a sovereign balance sheet and no quarterly reporting obligation can now spend through cycles in a way a listed Take-Two cannot. And Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 4 moved to 23 October 2026, explicitly to clear the November window — a competitive compliment, and confirmation that the whole industry is pricing GTA VI as the event of the cycle. Net: share trajectory stable, threat level moderate.

ROIC, capital allocation and skin in the game

Weighted = 0.40×45 + 0.30×45 + 0.30×42 = 44.1/100.

How the 57 is built — and an honest account of what moved it

Universal sub-signals (bookings 65, profitability 40, cash 45, balance sheet 58) average 52, weighted 30%. Sector-specific (recurrent mix 75, slate 55) = 65, weighted 12%. Industry benchmark 60, weighted 18%. Moat 65, weighted 25%. ROIC / capital / alignment 44.1, weighted 15%.
0.30×52 + 0.12×65 + 0.18×60 + 0.25×65 + 0.15×44.1 = 57.

A correction to how this cut was explained. An earlier draft attributed the 70→57 move to the competitive moat trims, the capital-allocation cut and "acting on FMP's D+ rating". That account does not survive contact with the arithmetic, and an audit was right to say so. The moat composite moved only 66→65 — pricing power rose 70→78 and intangibles 88→90, all but cancelling the switching-cost and cost-advantage trims — which is −0.25 points at a 25% weight. Capital allocation and skin-in-the-game together are about −0.6. And FMP's D+ is worth zero: the framework treats get_ratings_snapshot as a secondary cross-reference carrying a small confidence bonus, not as a Quality input, and no such deduction appears in the calculation above.

What actually moved it, stated properly. Two things, both methodological and both worth naming:

• The four universal sub-signals were re-scored from 74 / 56 / 55 / 72 to 65 / 40 / 45 / 58 — roughly −3.7 points of the total move, and the largest single component. The prior scores were set against the FY2027 guide; these are set against what the company has actually reported.
• The sector-specific block was restructured: a single "Franchise & catalogue depth 88" line was replaced by the pair "recurrent mix 75 / release-slate depth 55" — roughly −2.8 points. The intellectual-property stable did not change; the measurement did. Presenting a methodology change as though it were news would be dishonest, so it is labelled as what it is. The case for the change is that "franchise depth" double-counted the intangible-assets moat score of 90, while recurrent mix and dated-slate visibility measure things the moat grid does not.

The genuinely new evidence — which is what should carry a downgrade — is this quarter's numbers, and they support it: Q1 non-GAAP EBITDA fell to $167.0m from $225.5m a year earlier, −26%; cash and equivalents fell from $1,545.5m to $1,364.9m; and the current ratio slipped from 1.24 to 1.06. Net bookings fell 3% and recurrent consumer spending fell 1%. That is a business consuming resources into its launch, which is expected — but it is deterioration in the reported period, and it is the honest basis for marking profitability, cash generation and the balance sheet down.

This remains the hinge of the report. Quality sits eight points below the 65 "High" threshold. With Valuation in the Expensive band (see §4), the decision matrix reads Medium quality × Expensive valuation → SELL. Had Quality cleared 65, the same valuation would have produced High × Expensive → HOLD (great business, wrong price). So this eight-point gap is the difference between Hold and Sell, and the reader is entitled to see exactly that. A clean post-launch FY2028 on consensus — net income ~$1.9bn, EBITDA margin ~26%, ROIC ~14% — would very probably lift Quality through 65. That is falsifiable and dated: the first two quarters of GTA VI revenue, reported February and May 2027.

The Warranted-Multiple Anchor — computed, applied, and it lands Expensive

A correction, stated plainly. The previous draft of this report withdrew the valuation anchor (val_band: "na") on the argument that no clean multiple resolves. That was wrong, and an independent audit was right to reject it. The framework permits skipping the anchor only for a pre-revenue explorer or a negative-EBITDA trough. Take-Two is neither: it has fifteen analysts publishing FY2027 and FY2028 earnings estimates and its own guidance for $993–1,053m of non-GAAP EBITDA. Withdrawing the anchor also silently disabled Gate 3's Expensive arm and Do-Not-Buy Trigger 2. The anchor is computed below and its consequences are carried through the decision matrix — including to a SELL, which is where they lead.

Weighted = 0.40×12 + 0.20×45 + 0.15×30 + 0.10×25 + 0.15×75 = 4.8 + 9.0 + 4.5 + 2.5 + 11.25 = 32.05, plus a +3 embedded-optionality tilt (the low end of the permitted +3 to +8, because a demonstrably expensive core earns less credit for free upside) = 35. The weights sum to 1.00. Valuation = 35 — Expensive. The framework is explicit that optionality "must never turn an expensive core into Attractive on hope alone", so the tilt operates strictly inside the band.

Timing is the pillar that moved most this run, and for a specific reason: on 31 July the name sat inside a seven-day earnings blackout with zero open entry paths. Take-Two reported on 7 August before the open, the stock closed +6.04% at $246.50 on 2.12× its 20-day average volume, ran to $253.57 the following session, and has since consolidated. The blackout is gone, the reaction was confirmatory, and the next earnings date is 82 days away. Timing rises from 54 to 64 — and it is worth saying at the outset that a better tape does not rescue this name, because the decision matrix at Medium quality and an Expensive valuation returns SELL on any timing score at all.

Timing = 0.30×78 (multi-timeframe) + 0.20×40 (risk-reward) + 0.10×38 (macro) + 0.20×64 (sentiment) + 0.20×78 (catalysts) = 23.4 + 8.0 + 3.8 + 12.8 + 15.6 = 64 — the "Improving" band. Confidence 70%: base 75, less 5 for the Polygon date-shift that had to be reconstructed against Yahoo (see §15). The earlier 10-point analyst-grades penalty has been removed because the data gap it was based on did not exist.

Upcoming events (next 30 days)

Recent surprises (last 7 days)

Take-Two carries low macro sensitivity (10% weight inside the Timing pillar), so nothing on this calendar overrides the stock-specific catalysts. But the two releases that landed on 14 August — retail sales at −0.6% against +0.1% expected, and Michigan sentiment at 51.0 — are the weakest consumer pairing of the year, and they are the reason the macro sub-score is 38 rather than 50. The honest counterweight is that video games have historically held up in weak consumer environments (an $80 title bought once is cheap entertainment per hour), that management explicitly denied seeing a slowdown on the 7 August call, and that GTA VI is the least price-elastic product this industry has ever released. No high-impact release falls within three trading days, and Take-Two is not a high-macro-sensitivity sector, so no WAIT-for-event override is triggered. The event that actually matters for this stock in the next fortnight is not on this table — it is the 27 August Extended Look.

Every timeframe points the same way, which is unusual and is the reason Timing rose eleven points. Price at $246.95 sits above its 20-day ($241.70), 50-day ($237.86) and 200-day ($229.04) averages, the 50-day is above the 200-day, and the daily MACD histogram has been positive for five consecutive sessions. Weighted 30/25/25/12/8 across monthly, weekly, daily, hourly and 15-minute, the multi-timeframe score is 78 — Mostly Bullish. The tool's own confluence label reads "strongly bullish"; we score it a notch lower, deliberately, for two reasons.

First, the highs are lower. The 52-week high of $265.94 was set on 7 July; the post-earnings rally stopped at $256.62 on 10 August. Until $256.62 goes, this is a rising series of lows under a falling series of highs — a coil, not a breakout. Second, the volume is not there. Friday's advance came on 1,118,851 shares against a 20-day average of 2,100,212 — 0.53×. That single fact is what keeps the Technical entry group unmet in §12: the framework's breakout branch requires a close above the 50-day on more than 1.5× average volume, and a half-volume advance into resistance is not confirmation.

The monthly MACD histogram has also rolled slightly negative (−1.41) even as the monthly trend stays up — the classic early sign of a long-timeframe move losing momentum, worth nothing on its own and worth watching alongside the lower high. The textbook pattern here is higher-timeframe bullish with price consolidating beneath resistance ahead of a dated catalyst. Support convergence is tight and useful: the 50-day at $237.86, the 13 August low at $239.52 and the rising 20-day at $241.70 cluster within 2%, and beneath them sits the 228.20–230.67 swing-low shelf that defines the stop.

125 daily sessions to the 14 August 2026 close, with the 50-day simple moving average. Rebuilt from correctly-dated Yahoo bars after the Polygon series was found to be shifted one trading day early (see §15); the computed SMA50 of $237.86 reconciles exactly to the independent indicator feed. The February collapse to $189, the March low of $187.63, the recovery through spring, the 7 July high of $265.94 and the 7 August earnings gap from $232.47 to $246.50 are all visible.

Probability-weighted fair value = 0.55×$240 + 0.25×$332 + 0.20×$168 = $249 — +0.7% against the 14 August close of $246.95. Twelve months, the largest launch in the industry's history, and an expected return of essentially zero, with a spread running from −32% to +34%. That is the case for the Sell in one line: you are being asked to carry a genuinely bimodal, unhedgeable event risk for no expected compensation, because the outcome is already in the price. Our standing fair-value estimate is set at $191 — the warranted multiple of 19.15× applied to FY2028 consensus EPS of $9.99 — which is what the framework says the shares are worth on fundamentals rather than on the scenario weights.

Forecast: Fundamental group — newly closed, and the most important of the three. It failed this run because the corrected anchor puts fair value at $191 against a $246.95 price. Reopening it requires either a 29% fall in the share price, or a rise in warranted fair value — which needs either lower long rates (each 50bp off the 4.70% ten-year lifts the warranted multiple by roughly 1.4 turns, worth about $14 of fair value) or an upgrade to Business Quality that cuts the risk add-on. FORECAST: not before the FY2028 earnings base is visible, i.e. February–May 2027; CONFIDENCE Moderate.

Technical group — open, on two routes. Route A, the volume breakout: a close above the 50-day ($237.86, already true) on more than ~3.15m shares. Volume that heavy has occurred three times in the last month, every time on news — 6 and 7 August (3.99m each) and 10 August (3.78m) — so it is catalyst-dependent, not time-projectable, and the catalyst is dated: the 27 August Extended Look, twelve days out. FORECAST: a genuine possibility on 27–28 August; CONFIDENCE Moderate. Route B, the higher low: a pullback into the $227–232 shelf that holds above $228.20. At the current $8.24 ATR that is ~1.8 ATR away. FORECAST: unlikely inside four weeks absent a negative catalyst; CONFIDENCE Low.

Catalyst group — met, and ageing. The 7 August reaction satisfies all three sub-conditions today; treat it as met through roughly mid-September, then re-earned or lost at the 5 November print.

What would actually change the signal — and it is not the ladder. The signal is SELL because the decision matrix reads Medium quality (57) × Expensive valuation (35). Two distinct routes out, and they can be watched independently. Route 1, valuation: the Expensive band clears when the current-year multiple falls below 1.40× warranted, i.e. below 26.8× — which on FY2027 consensus EPS of $6.78 means a share price under $182, or an upgrade to FY2027 consensus above $9.20. It also clears mechanically on 1 April 2027, when FY2028 becomes the current year and the same $246.95 price is 24.7× rather than 36.4× — below the 26× guardrail. That is not a trick; it is the honest observation that this stock is expensive on the year it is in and merely full on the year after. Route 2, quality: a clean post-launch FY2028 — net income ~$1.9bn, EBITDA margin ~26%, ROIC ~14% — would very probably lift Quality through 65, which turns the same Expensive valuation into High × Expensive → HOLD rather than SELL. FORECAST for both: Q3 FY2027 results, early February 2027; CONFIDENCE Moderate-High if the game ships on time.

Forecast: Stop-loss ($228): 7.7% below the price and below three converging supports; a 2.30-ATR move. FORECAST: unlikely in the next 4–6 weeks absent a negative catalyst; CONFIDENCE Moderate. The identifiable risk trigger is 27 August — a content-thin Extended Look would be the first credible route to the shelf. Thesis invalidation: the delay leg resolves discretely and cannot be time-projected; the competitive leg cannot resolve before the launch quarter reports in February 2027. FORECAST: no read available before 27 August; CONFIDENCE Low by construction. Profit-target ($290 with RSI > 70): needs +17.4% and roughly 16 RSI points, plausible only on a launch-driven move. FORECAST: not before 19 November; CONFIDENCE Moderate. Note the tension worth naming: this trigger would have a holder trimming at $290 while our own fair value is $191 — the profit-target rule is a momentum-exit convenience, not a valuation statement, and on this name the valuation work says the trimming should not wait for it.

No portfolio allocation or role was specified for this analysis, so the framework's rule applies: position sizing is not computed, and no default is invented. What can be said usefully is the shape of the risk.

The §12 Conviction Ladder reads Half-Size (1 of 3 paths open) — only the Catalyst group is met, the Fundamental group having closed when the corrected anchor put fair value at $191. Read it for what it is: the ladder describes how much you would buy if you were buying, and the signal on all three horizons is SELL. The ladder is therefore informational here, not a size instruction. For an existing holder the mechanical exit action is Hold — no stop, thesis-invalidation or profit-target rule is live — but the signal and the exit rules answer different questions, and §12 sets out why reducing into strength is the more consistent reading.

{
  "ticker": "TTWO",
  "date": "2026-08-15",
  "version": "v6",
  "brand": "",
  "company": "Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc.",
  "currency": "USD",
  "exchange": "NASDAQ",
  "exchange_ticker": "NASDAQ:TTWO",
  "isin": "US8740541094",
  "api_ticker": "TTWO",
  "gics_sector": "Communication Services",
  "sector": "Communication Services",
  "analysis_status": "on-going",
  "finder_ticker": "TTWO",
  "finder_exchange": "NASDAQ",
  "user_context": {
    "horizon": null,
    "allocation_pct": null,
    "portfolio_role": null
  },
  "price_at_rating": 246.95,
  "price_as_of": "2026-08-14 close (15 Aug is a Saturday; US markets closed)",
  "signal_short": "SELL",
  "signal_medium": "SELL",
  "signal_long": "SELL",
  "primary_signal": "SELL",
  "short_hold_reason": null,
  "short_hold_reason_note": "Not applicable - the SKILL scopes short_hold_reason to a short HOLD or half-size starter. signal_short is SELL, produced directly by the base matrix (Medium quality x Expensive valuation), not by any cap.",
  "short_cap_reason": "Not a cap and not a hold. The base decision matrix returns SELL on all three horizons from Medium quality (57) x EXPENSIVE valuation (35). short_entry_confirmed is TRUE (Catalyst group met: +6.04% post-earnings close on 2.12x the pre-event 20-day average volume with FY27 guidance reiterated), so the short technical-confirmation cap is not engaged - it only ever applies to a short BUY. The half-size quality-starter override does not fire either: it requires a base HOLD, Quality >= 65 (actual 57), a non-Expensive valuation (actual Expensive) and both medium and long BUY-or-better (both SELL). Gate 3 and Gate 5 are triggered and cap at HOLD MAXIMUM, which cannot raise a SELL.",
  "short_entry_confirmed": true,
  "quality_score": 57,
  "lifecycle_stage": "growth",
  "quality_detail": {
    "industry_benchmark_name": "Net-Bookings Growth + Non-GAAP EBITDA Margin (publisher Rule of 40)",
    "industry_benchmark_value": "FY27 guided +20.5% growth + 12.6% EBITDA margin = 33.1 (below the 40 line)",
    "industry_benchmark_score": 60,
    "moat_score": 65,
    "roic_percentile_vs_peers": null,
    "capital_allocation": 45,
    "management_skin_in_game": 42,
    "moat_subscores": {
      "pricing_power": 78,
      "network_effects": 62,
      "switching_costs": 48,
      "cost_advantage": 45,
      "intangible_assets": 90
    }
  },
  "valuation_score": 35,
  "valuation_detail": {
    "fcf_yield": 0.7,
    "fcf_yield_forward": 1.5,
    "implied_growth_rate": 26.7,
    "implied_growth_note": "Solved from the two-stage formula at r=10.20%, g_term=3%: the growth needed for 5 years to warrant the actual 36.42x. Cross-check: warranted(26.65%)=36.42x, warranted(22%)=30.64x.",
    "consensus_growth_rate": 15.4,
    "consensus_growth_basis": "FY2027-FY2031 consensus EPS CAGR ($6.78 -> $12.02 = 15.39%) - the rate the anchor haircuts and the PEG denominator uses",
    "consensus_growth_post_fy28": 6.4,
    "consensus_growth_post_fy28_basis": "FY2028-FY2031 consensus EPS CAGR ($9.99 -> $12.02) - the post-launch plateau rate",
    "historical_valuation_decile": 8,
    "ev_sales": 7.07,
    "ev_forward_bookings": 5.84,
    "ev_usd_bn": 47.29
  },
  "warranted_multiple": 19.15,
  "actual_multiple": 36.42,
  "val_multiple_basis": "Forward P/E on FY2027 consensus EPS of $6.78 (n=15) - the CURRENT fiscal year, ending 31 March 2027. Both actual_multiple and clean_pe are struck on this same year, correcting an earlier draft that mixed FY2027 and FY2028. Actual 36.42x vs warranted 19.15x = 1.90 ratio -> EXPENSIVE; and 36.42x is independently at/above the 26x Communication Services guardrail (step 5b, no growth exception), so the band fires on two legs. Secondary read disclosed in section 4: FY2028 consensus EPS $9.99 gives 24.72x = 1.29 ratio (Full band, below the guardrail) - FY2028 is the only year of the five under estimate that sits under the line, so setting the band on it would be selecting the more comfortable answer. Warranted inputs: r = 10.20% (4.70% 10-Y from the 2026-08-12 macro report + 4.50% ERP + 1.00% add-on for Quality in the 40-64 band), g_near 10.0% (consensus FY27-FY31 EPS CAGR 15.39%, haircut 25% to 11.54%, capped at the 10% cyclical/legacy Communication Services line), g_term 3.0%. Robust: at a 4.63% risk-free the ratio is 1.88, and at a 15% secular growth cap it is 1.56 - Expensive on every defensible parameter set.",
  "discount_rate_r": 10.2,
  "risk_free_10y": 4.7,
  "g_near": 10.0,
  "g_term": 3.0,
  "warranted_ratio": 1.9,
  "val_band": "expensive",
  "eps_trailing": -1.72,
  "trailing_pe": -143.6,
  "relative_strength_vs_spy": -3.2,
  "relative_strength_vs_sector": 4.6,
  "timing_score": 64,
  "timing_detail": {
    "mtf_confluence": 78,
    "risk_reward_score": 40,
    "relative_strength_vs_spy": -3.2,
    "relative_strength_vs_sector": 4.6,
    "catalyst_clustering_score": 55,
    "dynamic_macro_weight": 0.1,
    "rsi_14": 54.2,
    "atr_14": 8.24,
    "sma50": 237.86,
    "sma200": 229.04,
    "vol_ratio_latest": 0.53,
    "vol_ratio_earnings_day": 2.12
  },
  "driver_score": 80,
  "driver_label": "Strong Tailwind",
  "driver_amplifies": "Does NOT fire, and cannot. Amplification only intensifies the direction the fundamentals already point. The base signal is SELL, and a SELL amplifies to STRONG SELL only on a driver <= 35 alongside Headwind economic pressure. The driver is 80 (Strong Tailwind) pointing the OPPOSITE way to the base signal, and economic pressure is Neutral - so both conditions fail. A driver disagreeing with the base signal is recorded as a caveat and is never permitted to soften the signal.",
  "driver_commodity_trend": "n/a - not a commodity-leveraged name",
  "nonop_pct_of_net_income": -22.4,
  "nonop_note": "NEGATIVE = a drag, not an inflation. TTM totalOtherIncomeExpensesNet -$71.8m against a -$320.4m net loss. No inflated earnings figure to strip; the distortions are deferral accounting (-$132.4m in Q1), acquired-intangible amortisation ($168.4m) and a one-off $43.4m cancelled-title impairment.",
  "clean_pe": 36.42,
  "clean_peg": 2.4,
  "competitive_share_trajectory": "stable",
  "competitive_threat_level": "moderate",
  "economic_alignment_stance": "Neutral",
  "economic_alignment_conviction": 45,
  "economic_alignment_pressure": "Neutral",
  "economic_alignment_source": "sector-map",
  "macro_report_date": "2026-08-12",
  "overall_confidence": 62,
  "fair_value_est": 191,
  "fair_value_basis": "Warranted 19.15x applied to FY2028 consensus EPS $9.99. Disclosed asymmetry: the BAND is set on FY2027 (36.42x), and on that same year the warranted fair value would be 19.15 x 6.78 = $130. The $191 figure is the more generous of the two and is used for the entry rule because that rule is forward-looking over the next 12 months, by which point FY2028 is the operative earnings year. The Fundamental entry group closes on either figure.",
  "stop_loss": 228,
  "target_price": 240,
  "scenario_base_target": 240,
  "scenario_bull_target": 332,
  "scenario_bear_target": 168,
  "scenario_probabilities": {
    "bull": 25,
    "base": 55,
    "bear": 20
  },
  "scenario_weighted_target": 249,
  "entry_groups_met": 1,
  "entry_conviction": "Half-Size",
  "exit_groups_live": 0,
  "exit_action": "Hold",
  "hard_gate_state": "caution",
  "gates_triggered": [
    "Valuation Ceiling (Gate 3) - Expensive band on BOTH legs: actual 36.42x (FY2027 consensus EPS $6.78) / warranted 19.15x = 1.90 ratio, AND 36.42x is at/above the 26x Communication Services guardrail (step 5b, no growth exception). Caps at HOLD maximum; the base matrix already reads SELL, and a ceiling cannot raise a signal.",
    "Binary Event (Gate 5) - Grand Theft Auto VI launch 19 Nov 2026: a two-sided outcome worth >20% (scenarios span -32.0% to +34.4%). Caps at HOLD maximum. Date reaffirmed this run from SEC 8-K exhibit 99.1, accession 0001628280-26-054580, filed 2026-08-07."
  ],
  "gates_caution": [
    "Financial Distress - GAAP interest-coverage artefact (-0.8x on GAAP EBIT vs 10.6x on EBITDA using gross interest expense of $93.2m); not a cash shortfall"
  ],
  "dnb_trigger2_adjudication": "Does NOT fire. Arm (a) needs actual >= 2.0x warranted (38.30x) or >= 1.5x guardrail (39.00x); actual is 36.42x, below both by ~5%. Arm (b) needs Expensive PLUS a Structural Business Model Threat or an armed systemic tail that materially applies; there is no structural threat and TTWO is not in the AI-concentration cohort.",
  "do_not_buy_triggers": [],
  "analyst_consensus_target": 287.11,
  "analyst_target_high": 368,
  "analyst_target_low": 170,
  "analyst_target_median": 290.0,
  "analyst_target_upside_pct": 16.3,
  "analyst_target_source": "Yahoo panel n=29 (FMP recent-window panel: consensus 291.30, median 292.50, range 270-313)",
  "analyst_grades_consensus": "Buy",
  "analyst_bullish_pct": 79,
  "analyst_coverage_count": 29,
  "analyst_coverage_note": "29 firms with published price targets (Yahoo panel); 57 firms issuing ratings in the grades distribution (45 Buy / 12 Hold) - different populations",
  "fmp_rating": "D+",
  "fmp_overall_score": 1,
  "recent_upgrades_30d": 0,
  "recent_downgrades_30d": 0,
  "recent_maintains_30d": 7,
  "grades_note": "Seven maintains dated 2026-08-10 (Oppenheimer, BTIG, Wells Fargo, Roth, DA Davidson, Wedbush, Baird) - no upgrades, no downgrades. An earlier draft wrongly recorded a data gap here.",
  "gta6_release_window": "2026-11-19 - REAFFIRMED this run from a PRIMARY source: SEC Form 8-K exhibit 99.1, accession 0001628280-26-054580, filed 2026-08-07 (CEO quote 'the November 19th launch of Grand Theft Auto VI' + the future-lineup table). Standard edition $80. Next dated catalyst: 'GTA VI: An Extended Look' on 2026-08-27.",
  "q1_fy27": {
    "net_bookings_usd_m": 1390,
    "net_bookings_yoy_pct": -3.0,
    "gaap_revenue_usd_m": 1533.9,
    "gaap_eps": -0.18,
    "non_gaap_ebitda_usd_m": 167.0,
    "impairment_usd_m": 43.4,
    "rcs_pct_of_bookings": 84
  },
  "fy27_guidance": {
    "net_bookings_usd_m": "8000-8200",
    "gaap_revenue_usd_m": "7900-8100",
    "gaap_diluted_eps": "0.55-0.75",
    "non_gaap_ebitda_usd_m": "993-1053",
    "ocf_usd_m": ">1000",
    "capex_usd_m": 290
  },
  "next_update_date": "2026-08-28",
  "next_update_basis": "'GTA VI: An Extended Look' 2026-08-27 + 1 trading day (the binding arm; the +14d default would fall 2026-08-29, a Saturday, rolling to 2026-08-31)",
  "delta_vs_prior": "Versus calibration-TTWO-20260731-1200.json, whose gates_triggered array was empty: Gates 3 and 5 are NEWLY TRIGGERED, so this report carries two triggered gates where 31 July carried none. Gate 3 Valuation Ceiling, clear -> TRIGGERED: the Expensive band fires on both of its independent legs - actual 36.42x against a warranted 19.15x = 1.90 ratio, and 36.42x is at/above the 26x Communication Services guardrail - where the 31 July report priced the name off a synthetic 25.5x blend that landed half a point beneath that guardrail (val_band fair -> expensive). Gate 5 Binary Event, caution -> TRIGGERED: 31 July carried 'Binary Event - GTA VI 19 Nov' in gates_caution, and it is promoted this run because the 19 November 2026 Grand Theft Auto VI launch is a genuinely two-sided outcome worth more than 20% either way (the section 11 scenarios span -32.0% to +34.4%); conceding that span while filing the event as a caution would contradict this report's own scenario table. Both gates cap at HOLD maximum, and a cap is a ceiling rather than a floor: the SELL is produced independently by the base decision matrix (Medium quality 57 x Expensive valuation 35), so the two gates confirm rather than cause it. The rest of gates_caution turns over: 31 July's 'Earnings Event Risk (7 Aug)' has cleared now that Q1 FY2027 is reported, leaving the Financial Distress GAAP interest-coverage artefact (-0.8x on GAAP EBIT vs 10.6x on EBITDA) as the single remaining caution."
}

This snapshot is the machine-readable record behind every number above. The fields most likely to matter downstream: val_band is "expensive" — the warranted-multiple anchor computes to 19.15× against an actual 36.42×, a ratio of 1.90, and the actual also breaches the 26× Communication Services guardrail, so both legs of the Expensive test fire; gates_triggered carries two gates (Valuation Ceiling and Binary Event), each capping at HOLD maximum, which cannot lift the base matrix's SELL; do_not_buy_triggers is empty after both arms of Trigger 2 were adjudicated and failed by roughly 5%; nonop_pct_of_net_income is negative, meaning non-operating items are a drag rather than an inflation, the inverse of the usual step-7b case; and hard_gate_state is "caution", which is the schema's derivation for a name with triggered gates but no Do-Not-Buy trigger.