How to track stock news and SEC filings in ThesisMemo

Begin with the company, not a market-wide headline

Open the company you are researching. NVIDIA, Palantir and AMD have public previews that let you try the process without signing in. Navigate to the news and SEC filing timeline on the company page. Your first task is to establish which company and which event a timeline entry actually describes.

A familiar ticker in a headline is not enough to establish significance. Reporting can mention a company as a supplier, customer, competitor or incidental comparison. Read the entry in that context before treating it as evidence about the business itself.

Find a relevant entry and open its source

Use the timeline’s available filters to narrow the entries to news or filings and the topic relevant to your question. Filters help organize the collected material; they do not certify that the remaining entries form a complete history. If you cannot find an expected event, consult the issuer’s own investor-relations disclosures as well.

Open the source link for an entry. Keep the original document available beside ThesisMemo so that you can compare the summary with its supporting material. A concise summary can help you find a topic, but the original disclosure is where you should confirm the exact language and qualifications.

Distinguish the document from its interpretation

For a filing, record the form and filing date displayed with the source. For a news article, record the publisher and publication date. Then identify whether the claim comes from a company statement, a reporter’s account, an estimate or an interpretation. These categories can be useful together without being interchangeable.

If the timeline entry concerns an earnings announcement, check the period discussed in the original document. Publication date answers when the information became available; the reporting period answers what interval the financial results describe. Neither should be silently substituted for the other.

When a source refers to guidance, keep it labeled as an expectation. When it reports completed results, check whether the figure is consolidated or relates to one business segment. Avoid comparing two numbers until their periods, units and accounting basis match.

Build a small evidence trail

Use your own notes to capture four fields: event, source URL, date or reporting period, and the question it changes. For example, an announcement might prompt you to ask whether a previously stated milestone has been completed. The announcement itself may answer only part of that question.

Next, compare the source with Current key factors. If the filing is newer than the assessment, the page may show that a review is pending. Do not assume an older factor has already incorporated the new information. You can continue reading the source while preserving that distinction.

If the interpretation and the source appear inconsistent, keep the uncertainty visible in your notes rather than resolving it by guessing. The Data & Methodology page explains source coverage and provides a way to report a specific data issue.

A worked example: investigate an earnings-related entry

Imagine that you find a timeline entry about a company’s quarterly announcement. This is a hypothetical workflow rather than a claim about a current earnings release. Open the source and establish which fiscal quarter it covers. Then choose one statement to verify, such as whether a reported change refers to company-wide revenue or only one segment.

Record the actual wording and unit in your own notes. If another source discusses the same announcement, compare what each source adds. One may quote the release, another may report management commentary, and a third may offer an opinion about market expectations. These can all be relevant without being three independent confirmations of the same fact.

Next, inspect the company assessment’s source references. Ask whether its interpretation relies on the reported result, on future guidance or on an assumption connecting the two. If a later filing adds detail, preserve the sequence rather than replacing the earlier date with the latest one. Your evidence trail should show what was known at each point.

Finish by writing a question that the available documents do not answer. For instance, an announcement may describe a contract without establishing its future profit contribution. Keeping the unanswered part visible helps you avoid converting an interesting event into an unsupported earnings estimate.

Compare two accounts of the same event

Imagine a company announcement describes an agreement, while a news headline describes a major opportunity. Begin by separating the agreement's disclosed terms from the journalist's interpretation. In your external notes, write what is explicitly stated, what is attributed to management and what is inferred by the report. This example is hypothetical and does not describe a specific contract in the current timeline.

Next, check whether the two documents share the same original source. A news report that repeats a company release can help explain it, but it is not an independent observation of execution. Look for incremental evidence such as an additional disclosed condition or a separate on-record explanation. Keep that extra evidence distinct from the repeated statement so that source count does not become a substitute for verification.

Finish by identifying the question both documents leave unanswered. An agreement may not establish delivery timing, recognized revenue or profitability. If those details are absent, record the gap rather than borrowing an estimate from an unrelated transaction. Your resulting note can acknowledge that the announcement matters while remaining precise about what it has and has not demonstrated.

Create a source record that survives the next update

Give each material observation a short descriptive name, such as “quarterly segment revenue comparison,” rather than saving a link with no explanation. Record the issuer or publisher, document title, publication date and relevant section. Add the reporting period separately. These fields let you return to the exact claim even if a later entry about the same company becomes more prominent in the feed.

When a newer source changes the context, append an update with its own date. Do not silently rewrite your earlier note to make it look as though you knew the new information from the start. A simple sequence of original observation, later disclosure and revised interpretation is more useful than a collection of undated conclusions. The process can be maintained in any ordinary document.

If a source is inaccessible, label the verification incomplete. A headline or search snippet is not enough to confirm a material figure. Try the issuer's corresponding public disclosure or an available original filing, and check that it addresses the same claim. If you still cannot read the supporting material, keep the uncertainty visible and avoid treating the summary as a completed source check.

Revisit the evidence rather than counting headlines

Several articles can cover the same announcement. More entries do not necessarily mean more independent confirmation. Compare their underlying sources and ask whether they introduce a genuinely new fact, a different perspective or a repetition of the original event.

End the session with the strongest available source and one follow-up question. On your next visit, check whether new evidence answers it. ThesisMemo helps organize access to collected news and disclosures, but it does not replace reading material sources or guarantee that the feed contains every development. That limit is especially important when you are investigating an event that has just occurred.