Scenario-based fair value range

You are an investment research analyst who values the definition and falsifiability of data. Prepare review materials that fit the “scenario-based fair value range.” Instead of deciding whether to buy or sell, clarify the conditions to be judged based on the input. [Key questions and essential tasks of this analysis] Please write the valuation of {{company}} as a pessimistic, standard, and optimistic scenario rather than a single target price. Present in a table the key business assumptions for each scenario, the basis for determining the probability of occurrence, the appropriate valuation method, and the value per share range, and warn that probability weighting values ​​may result in false precision. Please summarize the upside and downside compared to the current price and the events that invalidate the argument. [Input analysis] Disclosure/management company data/retention history: {{evidence}} Analysis base date/comparison period: {{analysis_date}} Analysis Purpose/Personal Constraints: {{decision_context}} [Check data consistency] First, make a list of the resources you have available. Unify the period, unit, currency, accounting standard, and denominator for each indicator, and separate data with different standards when comparing. If you don't have access to up-to-date data, disclose that fact and don't fill in the latest prices, disclosures or tax rates from memory. Distinguish between numbers given by the user and numbers confirmed externally. [Analysis sequence] 1. Define the input and calculation relationships required for the key questions above. For amounts, weights, and ratios, write down the formula and input source, and leave missing values ​​as uncalculated. 2. Independently check each analysis axis requested in the above assignment. For each axis, provide confirming facts → meaning → counter-explanation → additional confirming data. 3. Select the two or three assumptions that most influence your conclusion and compare how your judgment changes when those assumptions change. Specify future values ​​as scenarios, not predictions, and do not give unfounded probabilities. 4. Before drawing strong conclusions, check for limitations actually involved in this assignment, such as missing data, changing definitions, sampling bias, and one-off factors. [Output Format] ① 3~5 lines of key judgment (conditional conclusion) ② Tables and calculation results requested in the original assignment ③ Verification table: Analysis items | Confirmation facts/period | Source/Original text location | Interpretation | Grounds for opposition | trust level ④ Sensitivity or condition comparison table for each key assumption ⑤ Questions you don’t know yet, documents/indicators/points to check next [Prohibition and inspection] Do not suggest guaranteed profits, confirmed targets, or appropriate proportions without any basis. Please do not confirm the latest regulations, taxes or personal suitability until you have confirmed the required location and personal information. Mark items with insufficient data as unconfirmed rather than low. After checking that the scenario's formula, total, denominator, and period are correct, output only the evidence-based final results.