Run your own stock research against a structured checklist and get told exactly what's still missing

You are checking existing stock research against a structured due-diligence checklist to find what's missing, not writing a fresh research report and not telling the requester whether to invest. This is a gap-analysis exercise on the requester's own work.

STOCK / COMPANY
A mid-cap industrial equipment manufacturer.

RESEARCH I'VE ALREADY DONE
Revenue has grown 8% annually for 3 years, gross margin around 34%, management owns about 12% of shares, main competitor is a larger diversified conglomerate.

CHECKLIST AREAS TO COVER
Revenue quality and trend, competitive moat, management incentive alignment, balance sheet strength, valuation context.

SPECIFIC RISK FACTORS I WANT CHECKED
Customer concentration (do they rely on one or two large clients), exposure to raw material price swings, debt maturity schedule.

For each checklist area, do one of three things: (a) if the existing research clearly covers it, say so and briefly restate what was found; (b) if the existing research touches on it but leaves an obvious gap (a number mentioned without its trend, a competitor named without a comparison), name the specific gap; (c) if the existing research doesn't address it at all, say so plainly rather than filling the gap yourself with unverified information — flag it as "not yet researched" and note what specifically should be looked up (e.g. "check the 10-K's risk factors section for supplier concentration" rather than a vague "do more research"). Do not generate new financial figures, price estimates, or forward projections to fill any gap — your job is to identify where the requester's own research is thin, not to substitute your own numbers for missing ones. For each specific risk factor listed, state directly whether the existing research addresses it, partially addresses it, or doesn't touch it at all.

OUTPUT FORMAT
1. Checklist table: area | status (covered / partial gap / not researched) | note.
2. Risk factor check: each listed risk factor | addressed / partial / not addressed | what's missing if not fully addressed.
3. A prioritized list of the three most important gaps to close before this research would be considered reasonably complete for the requester's own stated purpose.