Dados B3 › Transparency
Transparency
Transparency — how you check the numbers yourself
Data version 2026-09-27-reapresentacao-agreg · page generated 2026-09-27 06:52 UTC. If these do not match /saude, you are reading a cached copy.
What is checked, before every publication — 479 automated tests, collected live
14 are DATA invariants (does the number tie out?) and 120 are product tests — access gate, navigation, language, AI connector. Calling all 479 'invariants' would be inflating it: the split is checkable in the list itself. Not a hand-picked highlight reel: every test below was found by introspecting the actual test files just now, the same way pytest --collect-only would. Grouped by what it protects against, not by which file it lives in.
Level 1 — Integrity: does the data tie out? (14)
I-H09— Raw downloads never land inside `_build/`, the directory wiped at the start of every rebuild. This cost hours: the rebuild runs a subprocess with DADOS_DIR pointing at _build, and without ZIPS_DIR declared the naive default put ~3GB of raw files exactly there — every restart erased them and re-downloaded from scratch, so no attempt ever finished. The environment variable fixes it, but depending on one is fragile: deleting it was what created the loop. This test makes the DEFAULT safe, so configuration is a tweak and not a requirement.I-H10— The rebuild declares TMPDIR and SQLITE_TMPDIR outside /tmp. SQLite writes temporary files when creating indexes and sorting large tables, looking for a directory in this order: SQLITE_TMPDIR, TMPDIR, /tmp. Neither of the first two existed, so it fell through to /tmp — capped at 2GB on Render. The build died at the very end every time, right after ~550k REIT prices, during index creation: instance killed, restart, full ingestion again, never finishing. The first suspicion — the raw downloads — was wrong: moving those to disk changed nothing, because they were never the consumer at that stage.I-H11— A database missing the derived tables gains them at BOOT, not through a full rebuild. Covenants and the excluded-companies list depend on nothing the rebuild recomputes: they come from files versioned in the repository. Taking the official route of bumping the data version would cost around twenty-six minutes of reconstruction in a build that has already died of memory exhaustion and, on one occasion, took down an external audit in progress. The test loads into an empty database and checks it loaded, then runs again and checks it did NOT reload, because overwriting what a build placed would be the boot overruling the build's authority.I-H12— A failure loading a derived file becomes a log warning, never an exception at boot. One page missing is bad; the whole site being down is worse, and this product has already been unavailable precisely to the people trying to audit it. The attack forces ingestion to blow up and requires that the service still comes up, by checking that the caller wraps the load in a try/except rather than trusting it.I-H01— The flow case of 21/08: the external source returned ZERO and the database under construction was left with no rows at all.I-H02— The FX case of 21/08 — the one a `if it came back empty: copy` would let through, because it came back half-full, not empty.I-H03— The rule in one sentence: after inheritance, no table may hold FEWER rows than the previous database.I-H04— First build ever (or a wiped disk): there is nothing to inherit from, and that must not raise.I-H05— The REAL numbers of 21/08/2026 have to be refused.I-H06— The gate must NOT be zero, and this is the test that prevents it.I-H07— The normal case: a bigger new database. It passes.I-H08— First build ever: there is nothing to compare against, so it releases.I-H13— A new rule may legitimately remove rows (the restatement key gained the aggregation level and 9,467 rows became 8,654), but only by DECLARING how much, per data version, and only at the version switch: the same declaration does not license the next build of the same version to shrink again, a declaration for one count does not release another, and the drop cannot exceed what was declared. Without this, the anti-shrink guard refused the first rebuild in production and FII/ETF pages stayed unavailable.I-H14— The daily backup copies the three small databases on the persistent disk (follow-up requests, analytics, receipts) through SQLite’s backup API into DADOS_DIR/backup/YYYY-MM-DD/, whole and openable; it does not copy again on the same day; a missing database is left out; only the 7 most recent days are kept; /saude gives the date of the last one and how many files, with no path or content. Everything stays inside DADOS_DIR.
Level 2 — Semantics: does the account mean what the calculation assumes? (0)
Level 3 — Economic: is the result possible in the real world? (0)
Other product tests (0)
Access gate, navigation and the MCP connector — they test whether the product works, not whether a number is right, so they don't fit the 3 levels above by design. Still counted, still listed:
Reconstruct it yourself — net margin across 5 companies, 4 sectors
We don't ask you to trust the numbers. Here's the net margin of five companies in four different sectors, each rebuilt straight from its annual report (DFP) at the CVM — net income ÷ revenue, matching the published figure exactly. For ANY indicator, of any company, the whole chain down to the line in CVM's file is at /linhagem:
| Company · sector | Net income (CVM acct) | Revenue (CVM acct) | Margin =÷ |
|---|---|---|---|
| WEGE3 · industrial | R$ 6.78 bn DRE:3.11 | R$ 40.80 bn DRE:3.01 | 16.6% |
| VALE3 · mining | R$ 11.81 bn DRE:3.11 | R$ 213.59 bn DRE:3.01 | 5.5% |
| PETR4 · oil & gas | R$ 110.61 bn DRE:3.11 | R$ 497.55 bn DRE:3.01 | 22.2% |
| ITUB4 · bank | R$ 45.85 bn DRE:3.09 | R$ 387.12 bn DRE:3.01 | 11.8% |
| BBAS3 · bank | R$ 16.78 bn DRE:3.11 | R$ 319.46 bn DRE:3.01 | 5.3% |
Download any of these DFPs from the CVM, take the income and revenue accounts, divide — you get the same number. Banks use interest income as revenue (what makes sense for a bank), so the reconciliation is sector-aware; the others use sales revenue. Figures are the latest fiscal year.
Why we may differ from another site (and it's not an error)
A difference between two sites usually isn't one being wrong — it's a method choice. We disclose ours:
- Average vs ending capital: ROE and ROIC use average equity/capital (this year + last ÷ 2), not the ending balance — so they're not a naive single-year division.
- Controlling vs consolidated: we state which one each item uses.
- TTM vs annual: quarterly multiples use trailing-twelve-months earnings.
- IFRS 16, goodwill, cash, exceptional tax: each handled explicitly and flagged when it distorts.
Do the tests bite? Yes — real cases the suite has caught
A test that never fails could mean perfect data — or a weak test. These were born from real errors that slipped through, and now fail — only shown for tests that actually exist in the collected suite above:
- I-B16 · banks' P/E = 0: the CVM reports share count sometimes in units, sometimes in thousands (varying by company and year); market cap came out 1000× too small and P/E was zero. I-B16 (price × shares recomputed) caught it — we fixed 661 annual and 2,027 quarterly multiples.
- I-B24 · the vanishing profit: the profit/equity account varies by bank (Itaú 3.09, BB 3.11); if the label search fails, the number vanishes silently and ROE is born wrong. I-B24 makes that hole fail.
- H-B23 · the 800% dividend yield: old B3 dividends carry a price not adjusted for splits; without H-B23 the yield would look absurdly real. The flag keeps the record and warns.
- I-B20 · the missing COTAHIST 2023: on the first deploy one year of prices failed to download silently; the API shipped with ~50k fewer prices and the suite passed, because nothing checked coverage. We added I-B20 — a year without prices now fails the build loudly.
- I-B33 · Oil & Gas at −89.6% in one week: COTAHIST isn't split-adjusted; a 10:1 split read as a −90% weekly return and stayed in the cumulative return forever, with nothing failing (a blind amplitude filter didn't fix it either — it just flipped which direction was wrong). I-B33 (no sector week beyond ±35%, the ruler is the exchange itself) stops the build.
- I-B31 · 364 of 865 sector-index weeks frozen: extending the series back to 2010, a sector with no company carrying a market cap that week turned into a factor of 1.0 — a flat line that the cumulative return read as 'market stood still', and the 'since 2010' return came out fictional (+527%). I-B31 fails on any week repeated to the cent.
- I-E05 · EMBRAER's 2010 P/E priced with 2025 data: the point-in-time price lookup fell forward with no ceiling whenever the current ticker had no price at balance-sheet time (ticker change, share-class migration); the multiple came out priced 15 years into the future, in 22% of annual and quarterly rows, silently. The 45-day window (and I-E05) blocks it: no session inside the deadline, no multiple computed.
- I-E04 · AZUL at R$ 1.67 quadrillion market cap: the balance sheet carried 54.7 trillion shares from the judicial recovery issuance, but the price used was already on the post-reverse-split (1:150,000) basis — two ends measured on different bases, market cap wrong by orders of magnitude. I-E04 (market cap never above Brazil's GDP) fails the build on that absurdity.
How far back each block of data goes
No asterisks here: this is coverage year by year, counted right now. Indicators (ROE, ROIC, margins, growth) come from the filings alone and cover the whole series. Multiples (P/E, P/BV, EV/EBITDA) need a price and a share count — and the share count comes from CVM's reference form, which the further back you go the fewer companies filed in a usable format. The gap between the two columns is a source limit, not an ingestion hole. If you look for an old P/E and do not find it, it is because nobody has it — not because we hid it. The same numbers as JSON: /cobertura.
| Year | Companies with indicators | Companies with multiples |
|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 438 | 290 |
| 2024 | 444 | 296 |
| 2023 | 442 | 298 |
| 2022 | 429 | 295 |
| 2021 | 423 | 296 |
| 2020 | 410 | 274 |
| 2019 | 371 | 164 |
| 2018 | 326 | 164 |
| 2017 | 317 | 162 |
| 2016 | 311 | 152 |
| 2015 | 303 | 143 |
| 2014 | 301 | 139 |
| 2013 | 292 | 130 |
| 2012 | 291 | 111 |
| 2011 | 284 | 97 |
| 2010 | 277 | 34 |
Live coverage
456 companies · 876,076 price points · 8,654 recorded restatements · last refresh 2026-09-27 00:20:28. Full live counts at /saude.
Sources: CVM (open data, ODbL) and B3 (COTAHIST). Not affiliated with B3 or the CVM. Not investment advice.
Numbers on this page are live. Data version 2026-09-27-reapresentacao-agreg · page generated 2026-09-27 06:52 UTC. If this does not match /saude, you are reading a cached copy.