Pattern Intelligence ยท NSI

FLAIR quant read

FLAIR WRITING INDUST LTD ยท Industrials

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

1-week positive match rate 29.8%

Historically negative ยท avg analogue -3.08%

Stronger historical lean
4-week blended positive rate 37.3%

Historically negative ยท avg analogue -0.53%

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

4 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
237.58
Trend Line
279.88
Fair value
290.63
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 -10.88%

What weaker historical analogues tended to deliver.

Median example -7.28%

The middle outcome from the nearest resolved examples.

Upper quartile -0.49%

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 -15.11%

Price is below trend, which keeps pressure on the setup.

Price vs Fair Value -18.25%

Price is trading below Fair Value, which can create recovery potential if pressure improves.

Market Dynamics -0.01

Market Dynamics are neutral.

Relative Strength -0.13

The stock is lagging relative strength.

Market Activity -0.56

This component is a drag.

Price Cycle -0.18

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
000721
SHZ
2026-06-05 0.5968 lower -10.55%
600682
SHH
2026-06-05 0.5954 lower -7.85%
600327
SHH
2026-06-05 0.5851 lower -8.79%
ELME
NYSE
2026-06-05 0.5827 lower -21.67%
000501
SHZ
2026-06-05 0.5816 lower -2.61%
600859
SHH
2026-06-05 0.5745 lower -10.99%
688602
SHH
2026-06-05 0.5714 higher +12.20%
603359
SHH
2026-06-05 0.57 lower -18.53%
002561
SHZ
2026-06-05 0.5689 lower -10.32%
002977
SHZ
2026-06-05 0.5625 lower -6.35%
601010
SHH
2026-06-05 0.5617 lower -5.29%
600009
SHH
2026-06-05 0.5608 lower -1.94%
301533
SHZ
2026-06-12 0.5567 lower -7.00%
688602
SHH
2026-06-12 0.5554 higher +1.64%
002251
SHZ
2026-06-05 0.5541 lower -27.16%
301533
SHZ
2026-06-05 0.5513 lower -6.80%
603069
SHH
2026-06-05 0.5507 lower -14.41%
MMS
NYSE
2026-06-12 0.5482 lower -9.07%
603690
SHH
2026-06-05 0.5468 higher +25.50%
NA9
GER
2026-06-12 0.5464 higher +118.74%
AEIN
GER
2026-06-12 0.5463 higher +10.43%
BC8
GER
2026-06-12 0.5456 higher +1.94%
3963
JPX
2026-06-12 0.5431 higher +18.47%
600859
SHH
2026-06-12 0.5422 lower -8.63%
603069
SHH
2026-06-12 0.5402 lower -11.33%
605179
SHH
2026-06-05 0.5381 lower -7.55%
SSNC
MEX
2026-06-12 0.5365 flat 0.00%
000812
SHZ
2026-06-05 0.5345 lower -11.20%
600679
SHH
2026-06-05 0.5325 lower -12.96%
ALISA
HEL
2026-06-12 0.5296 lower -4.21%
Distinctive drivers

What made this setup unusual

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

  • Volume pressure 1.17823
  • Sector structure 0.85612
  • Momentum context 0.70789
  • Market Activity -0.60825
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 26 companies and 2 entry weeks. 2026-06-05โ€“2026-06-12.

Median return-7.28%4 weeks after entry
Middle 80% of outcomes-14.82% to 12.83%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%
10
โˆ’10 to โˆ’5%
9
โˆ’5 to 0%
3
0 to 5%
3
5 to 10%
0
โ‰ฅ 10%
5

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

Does one observation change the story?

Selected-example mean
-1.21%
Without the best outcome
-5.35%
Without the worst outcome
-0.32%
Non-overlapping within each company
-0.42% ยท 26 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
23.1%
-1.36%3055%0.55
SectorSame country
35.6%
-2.00%3030%0.29
IndustrySame country
93.2%
5.48%1015%0.15

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