Pattern Intelligence ยท SHH

601162 quant read

Tianfeng Securities Co., Ltd. ยท Financial Services

The nearest historical setups point to downside risk, and the completed-week chart evidence supports that caution.

1-week positive match rate 36.7%

Historically negative ยท avg analogue -0.41%

Moderate historical lean
4-week blended positive rate 38.8%

Historically negative ยท avg analogue -0.84%

Moderate historical lean
Completed-week chart evidence Chart evidence challenges the read

3 of the core evidence blocks are acting as headwinds.

Evidence agreement Clean alignment

Downside risk is confirmed while price remains below trend and relative strength keeps lagging.

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
3.58
Trend Line
3.61
Fair value
3.86
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 exampleโ€™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.

Lower quartile -5.11%

What weaker historical analogues tended to deliver.

Median example -0.61%

The middle outcome from the nearest resolved examples.

Upper quartile +1.92%

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 vs Trend Line -0.76%

Price is close to trend, so direction still needs confirmation.

Price vs Fair Value -7.33%

Price is close to Fair Value.

Market Dynamics +0.01

Market Dynamics are neutral.

Relative Strength -0.06

The stock is lagging relative strength.

Market Activity -0.13

This component is a drag.

Price Cycle -0.07

This component is a drag.

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
9530
SAU
2026-06-12 0.708 higher +0.29%
4014
SAU
2026-06-12 0.7012 lower -3.40%
4017
SAU
2026-06-12 0.7002 lower -1.19%
2120
SAU
2026-06-12 0.6989 lower -2.42%
2120
SAU
2026-06-05 0.6941 higher +0.88%
6049
JPX
2026-06-12 0.6875 lower -5.28%
2170
SAU
2026-06-12 0.6871 lower -5.62%
9612
SAU
2026-06-05 0.687 higher +1.98%
4007
SAU
2026-06-12 0.6809 lower -4.86%
6090
SAU
2026-06-05 0.6721 higher +4.04%
2284
SAU
2026-06-12 0.6721 lower -0.97%
2090
SAU
2026-06-12 0.6719 higher +1.63%
2281
SAU
2026-06-12 0.6703 lower -5.19%
4009
SAU
2026-06-12 0.67 higher +0.97%
9611
SAU
2026-06-12 0.668 lower -0.25%
4130
SAU
2026-06-05 0.6668 higher +10.90%
NNIT
CPH
2026-06-12 0.6667 lower -9.53%
4220
SAU
2026-06-12 0.6666 lower -5.19%
4080
SAU
2026-06-12 0.6659 lower -4.12%
2281
SAU
2026-06-05 0.6654 lower -9.29%
2284
SAU
2026-06-05 0.6644 higher +0.84%
VTEX
NYSE
2026-06-05 0.663 higher +13.74%
PQS
SET
2026-06-12 0.6623 higher +7.10%
4164
SAU
2026-06-05 0.6618 lower -2.85%
4130
SAU
2026-06-12 0.6604 higher +2.86%
6001
SAU
2026-06-05 0.6601 higher +5.97%
7089
KLS
2026-06-12 0.6599 higher +1.75%
7106
KLS
2026-06-12 0.659 lower -11.86%
2170
SAU
2026-06-05 0.6589 lower -9.46%
4070
SAU
2026-06-12 0.6586 higher +7.26%
Distinctive drivers

What made this setup unusual

These are the largest deviations from the run baseline, renamed into plain market language.

  • Sector structure 0.85619
  • Volume pressure 0.4456
  • Close location 0.40826
  • Trend Signal -0.36142
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 ยท Selected examples

How much evidence stands behind the reading?

30 distinct examples across 25 companies and 2 entry weeks. 2026-06-05โ€“2026-06-12.

Median return-0.61%4 weeks after entry
Middle 80% of outcomes-9.30% to 7.12%10thโ€“90th historical percentiles
Largest company share7%Of selected examples
Weight-equivalent sample30.0Accounts for unequal weights, not dependence

The distribution, including losses

< โˆ’10%
1
โˆ’10 to โˆ’5%
7
โˆ’5 to 0%
8
0 to 5%
9
5 to 10%
3
โ‰ฅ 10%
2

0 unchanged outcomes. Bins use equal counts, not similarity weights; positive means strictly above zero.

Does one observation change the story?

Selected-example mean
-0.71%
Without the best outcome
-1.21%
Without the worst outcome
-0.32%
Non-overlapping within each company
-0.40% ยท 25 cases

The two exclusion checks show how much the extremes affect the mean. Companies can still share the same market shock; these checks do not prove independence.

Peer comparison

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 groupPositive rateMean returnMatchesBlend weightMedian similarity
Global
46.5%
-0.72%3055%0.67
SectorSame country
6.3%
-4.00%3030%0.55
IndustrySame country
75.7%
5.08%3015%0.44

Groups can share examples. Their counts must not be added together as independent observations. Similarity measures resemblance, not a likelihood of success.

Research playbook

What would strengthen or weaken this case?

Continuation

Historical lean meets chart support

Downside risk is confirmed while price remains below trend and relative strength keeps lagging.

Look for the next completed weekly observation to sustain agreement in trend, relative strength and activity.

Conflict

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.

Reassessment

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.

Method and limits

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.

Evidence context