AugurSignals does not recommend securities, rate transactions as buy or sell, or direct investment decisions. This is a design choice, not a limitation.
This page describes the reasoning and what the platform makes visible instead. For the analytical methodology, see Our Methodology. For competitive positioning, see How AugurSignals Differs.
What a Filing Contains
Consider two purchases of identical size at the same company on the same day. One is by a CEO who has bought shares at this company six times in eight years, each time within a few months of a subsequent price increase. The other is by a director making a first-ever open-market purchase three weeks after joining the board.
The Form 4 filings look similar. The histories behind them do not.
Each filing records transaction codes, ownership structures, derivative and non-derivative table relationships, and timing relative to the same person's other filings at the same company. A single record can contain a straightforward purchase, an option exercise paired with a same-day sale, a gift through a family trust, or several of these in combination. The structure varies. The motivations behind it vary more.
When the layered record stays intact, these differences remain visible — the CEO's pattern, the director's first entry, the structural distance between them. A directional label compresses both into the same output. Some platforms do this. AugurSignals preserves the record instead.
What the Platform Makes Visible
The platform applies consistent measurement across approximately 161,000 corporate insiders, constructing each career record the same way regardless of trading frequency or issuer count.
Using the P-Factor methodology, it builds performance records from two perspectives: the insider's execution timing and a hypothetical follower's post-disclosure entry point. The gap between those two measurements reflects how much timing advantage survives the disclosure lag. For some insiders, the gap is narrow. For others, most of the advantage dissipates before a follower could act. Both patterns are in the data.
At the relationship level, owner-issuer analytics map how individual insiders have transacted at specific companies over time: frequency, scale, timing patterns, and shifts in economic exposure. A ten-year relationship between an executive and a single issuer produces a different analytical record than a board member's scattered transactions across four companies. The shape of the relationship is part of the record — and so are the clusters and gaps within it: periods of concentrated activity, years of silence, transactions that appear alongside same-filing sales.
Transaction context — peer activity at the same issuer, market conditions at filing time — sits alongside individual records rather than behind a composite score.
The outputs carry documented constraints: single-vendor price data, fixed measurement horizons, equal weighting regardless of dollar size, exclusion of sales from primary scoring. These choices are stated in Our Methodology alongside the results they shape.
Different Readings
Two users examining the same insider's career record may focus on different dimensions. One may look at consistency of the track record across multiple issuers. Another at recency of activity, or concentration of purchases at a single issuer, or the size of the gap between insider and follower returns over a defined horizon.
These are different analytical questions applied to the same structured data. The platform does not select between them. The user's own context — risk tolerance, time horizon, thesis — determines which dimensions matter for their purposes. The platform surfaces the analytical record. The user decides what to do with it.
Transparency of Analytical Choices
AugurSignals selects what to measure, defines time horizons, sets data quality thresholds, and focuses on open-market purchases while excluding sales from primary scoring. Each of these is an analytical position. They shape what the platform surfaces and what it does not.
These choices are documented with stated rationale rather than abstracted behind a composite score or a directional label. The structure of the data, the constraints of the methodology, and the uncertainty that remains after measurement — all of it is visible, together.