Unclear · avg analogue -0.57%
Mixed historical leanPattern Intelligence · ASX
MMI quant read
Metro Mining Limited · Basic Materials
The pattern is not clean enough for a strong directional call. The chart needs confirmation.
Pattern dated 9 Oct 2026 · 4-week historical comparison · Completed weekly prices
Unclear · avg analogue +1.88%
Mixed historical lean3 of the core evidence blocks are acting as headwinds.
A decisive weekly close that pulls the 1-week and 4-week evidence into agreement.
Current weekly tape
Price, trend line, and fair value
Compare the stored pattern with completed weekly prices. The Fair Value line is the latest reference within this chart, held constant across the display.
- Close
- 1.18
- Trend Line
- 1.40
- Fair value
- 1.11
Hover chart for weekly context.
Signal stack
What changed underneath price?
Each signal is standardized against its own recent history, so the lines show whether the current reading is unusually strong or weak for this stock.
Hover for standardized signal values.
Historical memory
Selected 4-week example returns
Each bar is a stored example’s subsequent return, ordered by similarity. This selected set differs from the weighted global, sector and industry blend above.
Hover for analogue return and similarity rank.
Outcome frame
How varied were the historical outcomes?
The lower quartile, median and upper quartile of the selected examples. Actual future outcomes can fall outside this historical range.
What weaker historical analogues tended to deliver.
The middle outcome from the nearest resolved examples.
What stronger historical analogues tended to deliver.
Evidence stack
Why the model sees this setup
These are the current conditions feeding the analogue read. The point is not the number alone; it is whether the evidence agrees with the historical read.
Price is below trend, which keeps pressure on the setup.
Price is close to Fair Value.
Market Dynamics are neutral.
The stock is lagging relative strength.
This component is a drag.
This component is supportive.
Historical rhymes
Closest resolved setups
The table keeps the model honest: these are the actual examples behind the selected-example statistics.
| Ticker | Week | Similarity | Outcome | 4W return |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| KT NYSE |
2026-06-12 | 0.5033 | lower | -3.03% |
| KT NYSE |
2026-06-05 | 0.4817 | lower | -2.37% |
| CMCSA NASDAQ |
2026-06-12 | 0.4675 | lower | -2.46% |
| RAMANEWS NSI |
2026-06-12 | 0.4608 | higher | +0.21% |
| CCA ASX |
2026-06-12 | 0.458 | higher | +2.78% |
| CHD NYSE |
2026-06-12 | 0.4329 | lower | -1.23% |
| 600926 SHH |
2026-06-12 | 0.4307 | lower | -8.02% |
| AUSS OSL |
2026-06-12 | 0.4175 | lower | -4.50% |
| VZ NYSE |
2026-06-12 | 0.4165 | lower | -10.98% |
| 4300 SAU |
2026-06-12 | 0.4161 | higher | +4.53% |
| PEP MEX |
2026-06-12 | 0.411 | lower | -3.10% |
| 6070 SAU |
2026-06-12 | 0.4106 | higher | +0.24% |
| LND NYSE |
2026-06-12 | 0.4065 | lower | -1.87% |
| K1TC34 SAO |
2026-06-05 | 0.4064 | higher | +4.60% |
| SYY NYSE |
2026-06-12 | 0.4057 | higher | +6.55% |
| 1093 HKG |
2026-06-12 | 0.4039 | higher | +14.53% |
| CENT NASDAQ |
2026-06-12 | 0.4032 | higher | +0.09% |
| FPI NYSE |
2026-06-05 | 0.402 | lower | -5.13% |
| 600216 SHH |
2026-06-12 | 0.402 | higher | +0.85% |
| CME MEX |
2026-06-12 | 0.401 | lower | -5.57% |
| PCTN LSE |
2026-06-12 | 0.3976 | higher | +2.24% |
| 8195 HKG |
2026-06-12 | 0.3955 | higher | +5.26% |
| CTP2 GER |
2026-06-12 | 0.3955 | lower | -0.44% |
| FRPT NASDAQ |
2026-06-12 | 0.3945 | higher | +1.82% |
| CENTA NASDAQ |
2026-06-12 | 0.3941 | lower | -0.64% |
| 6070 SAU |
2026-06-05 | 0.3941 | higher | +3.63% |
| K1TC34 SAO |
2026-06-12 | 0.394 | lower | -4.25% |
| 4300 SAU |
2026-06-05 | 0.3936 | higher | +3.90% |
| INS GER |
2026-06-12 | 0.3933 | higher | +3.17% |
| TKC NYSE |
2026-06-05 | 0.3927 | higher | +1.21% |
Distinctive drivers
What made this setup unusual
These are the largest deviations from the run baseline, renamed into plain market language.
- Volume pressure 1.6794
- Sector structure 0.85619
- Momentum context 0.80791
- Yield context 0.71914
This is historical analogue evidence, not advice. It becomes more useful when historical rate, average return, chart evidence, and nearby examples all point in the same direction.
Sample audit · Selected examples
How much evidence stands behind the reading?
30 distinct examples across 26 companies and 2 entry weeks. 2026-06-05–2026-06-12.
Median return0.15%4 weeks after entry
Middle 80% of outcomes-5.17% to 4.67%10th–90th historical percentiles
Largest company share7%Of selected examples
Weight-equivalent sample29.9Accounts for unequal weights, not dependence
The distribution, including losses
< −10%
1
−10 to −5%
3
−5 to 0%
10
0 to 5%
13
5 to 10%
2
≥ 10%
1
0 unchanged outcomes. Bins use equal counts, not similarity weights; positive means strictly above zero.
Does one observation change the story?
- Selected-example mean
- 0.07%
- Without the best outcome
- -0.43%
- Without the worst outcome
- 0.45%
- Non-overlapping within each company
- 0.17% · 26 cases
Removing one extreme outcome reverses the mean’s sign. Treat the historical lean as fragile. Companies can still share the same market shock; these checks do not prove independence.
Does the result travel across comparison groups?
The headline 4-week rate blends these stored groups. The selected example chart and one-week calculation use a combined shortlist, so they will not necessarily reproduce that blend.
| Comparison group | Positive rate | Mean return | Matches | Blend weight | Median similarity |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Global | 52.3% | -0.01% | 30 | 55% | 0.40 |
| SectorSame country | 40.9% | 5.08% | 30 | 30% | 0.15 |
| IndustrySame country | 34.4% | 2.46% | 30 | 15% | 0.14 |
Groups can share examples. Their counts must not be added together as independent observations. Similarity measures resemblance, not a likelihood of success.
What would strengthen or weaken this case?
Historical lean meets chart support
A decisive weekly close that pulls the 1-week and 4-week evidence into agreement.
Look for the next completed weekly observation to sustain agreement in trend, relative strength and activity.
Similar history, different conditions
If current price and direction oppose the historical lean, keep it as an unconfirmed case. Review the weaker peer group and whether the result depends on extreme examples.
The setup changes
A change in trend, fading relative strength or a materially different pattern can make the old matches less relevant. Recheck the pattern date and the next published reading.
Read the evidence in the right order
1. Compare like with like
Weekly price and indicator conditions are matched with resolved historical setups. Each listing appears once, using its most recent stored reading. Check the date and outcome horizon.
2. Separate frequency from payoff
The headline is a similarity-weighted blend of global, same-country sector and industry results where available. A high positive rate can coexist with large losses. Inspect the median, tails and individual examples.
3. Demand current confirmation
These are descriptive historical matches, not calibrated odds or an independently validated trading edge. Examples may overlap in time, share companies and reflect later data corrections. Costs, liquidity and delisted-company coverage need separate evaluation.