Key takeaways · 6
- A low-float breakout scan answers who fired tonight; it says nothing about whether that thin-supply group actually goes anywhere afterward.
bo float<25m | track 1mfreezes the cohort and answers the second question. | track [win]locks in the exact members a query returned and follows that same list forward for the chosen window, faders included. No substitution, no quietly dropping a name that rolled over to flatter the average.- The report describes the group, not any single ticker: median RS, median ADR, percent above the 50-day line, percent off the 52-week high, and advancers minus decliners, each shown as a path from the window's start to now.
- On a real
bo float<25mlist, one name posted the loudest single-day thrust on the board (DT 10.2x) while sitting at RS 21, Stage 4, and 94.2% below its high. Next to it sat PVLA, INBX, ASYS and MNPR at RS 79-95 in Stage 1-2 uptrends. The day-one snapshot cannot tell you which kind of name you are looking at. - On the full breakout cohort tracked over the prior month (real data,
bo | track 1m), percent above the 50-day line rose 52.0% to 80.0% and percent off the 52-week high recovered -24.9% to -15.5%, with every one of the 50 frozen names net higher: a group that strengthened into its breakout, not one that faded from it. - Every reading is end-of-day and describes a cohort that already happened, not a forecast. It says whether a signal held together. It does not say what to do about it.
Fifty names, and already a contradiction
Run bo float<25m tonight and the terminal hands back fifty names: every stock that closed up at least 4% on above-average volume, floored to a float under 25 million shares so the list skews toward the thin-supply names that move fastest on demand. On a real capture of this screen, the top of the board tells the story before you track anything. One name posted the loudest print of the fifty, a 10.2x reading on the board's thrust column (DT) on a +31.5% day, the kind of bar that would anchor a highlight-reel recap. Its relative strength ranked 21, its stage read Stage 4 decline, and it sat 94.2% below its 52-week high. The loudest name on the board was, structurally, the weakest one on it.
A few rows down sat the names that actually looked like leadership: PVLA at RS 79 in a Stage 2 uptrend just 6.4% off its high, INBX at RS 92, ASYS at RS 89, and MNPR at RS 95 basing in Stage 1. None of them made a headline single day. All four looked structurally sound. The scan itself does not separate the two kinds of name; both close up 4%-plus on volume tonight, so both make the same fifty-row list. The composition backs that up: of the fifty, 22 were already sitting in Stage 4 decline against 14 in Stage 2 and 9 in Stage 1, the rest too fresh to stage yet. The median gain across the whole cohort was +6.23%, on median relative volume of 1.1x and median daily range of 8.4%, and, unsurprisingly, every one of the fifty closed higher today. That last fact is not evidence the group is durable; it is the screen's own entry requirement.
None of that proves the screen works. It only shows what fired tonight, on one close, and a roster this mixed cannot say whether the group goes anywhere from here. Answering that means watching the same fifty names forward, not reading the list once and filing it away.
What `track` actually freezes
Chain | track [win] onto any query and the terminal does something a screen alone cannot: it locks the exact roster the query returned at that moment, then walks that fixed list forward across the window you give it, a week, a month, a quarter, and recomputes the group's aggregate condition fresh on every session in between. bo float<25m | track 1m takes tonight's fifty float-floored breakouts, whichever fifty they turn out to be, and reports how the group's health moved over the prior month. Not a forecast. A measured path.
The metrics are chosen to describe the cohort, not any one member in it. Median RS is the group's middle relative-strength rank, so a single loud outlier cannot drag it, and median ADR is its typical daily range. Two more track breadth inside the cohort itself: percent above the 50-day line (what share of the frozen names are still trading above their own trend line) and percent off the 52-week high (how far the group sits, on average, below its own highs). Last is the simplest tally of all, advancers minus decliners: how many of the fifty are net higher over the window versus lower.
The word that matters most is frozen. track never swaps a name out because it stopped qualifying, and it never drops a loser to make the average look better. A name that broke out and then rolled over stays in every calculation for the whole window and drags the median down, exactly as it should. That is what survivorship-free means here, and it is the only way a group statistic can be trusted: the same fifty names, measured start to finish, no editing along the way.
The shape of a cohort that actually held together
The real example of what that path looks like comes from the full, unfiltered breakout list rather than the float-floored version above, tracked with the same command: bo | track 1m, fifty names frozen on the 2026-07-08 close and walked back to 2026-06-05. The shape is worth reading in detail because it is the difference between a cohort that improved and one that merely popped.
Median RS barely moved, 79.0 to 80.0, and median ADR held near 7.5% to 8.0%, so the typical name kept its rank and its range rather than cooling off. The breadth rows are where the month actually shows up: percent above the 50-day line jumped 52.0% to 80.0%, a 28-point gain, and percent off the 52-week high closed nearly ten points of ground, -24.9% to -15.5%. Percent qualifying sat at 0.0% a month out, as expected for a one-day breakout flag, and advancers minus decliners read 0 to +50: every one of the fifty frozen names finished the window net higher than where it started.
That is a cohort that strengthened into its breakout rather than faded from it, and it is worth being precise about what it is not: it is the full bo list, not the float-floored bo float<25m subset this piece opened with. Whether narrowing to thin-supply names first sharpens that path further, or whether the extra volatility of a smaller float cuts both ways, is exactly what running bo float<25m | track 1m tonight would tell you. The mechanism is identical either way; only the roster changes.
Typed live: bo | track 1m on the full, unfiltered breakout list. The same tracking mechanism runs this piece's float-floored version, bo float<25m | track 1m, on the narrower thin-supply cohort.
Why a thin float raises the stakes on this check
A float floor does not change what track measures; it changes how much the answer matters. Thin supply is exactly what produces a name like the one leading the board above: a stock that can gap 30%-plus on a single session precisely because there are not enough shares outstanding to absorb the demand calmly. That same thinness cuts the other way when the move fails, since a small float can round-trip just as violently as it expanded. The cohort check exists for both directions at once, and it matters more on a float-floored list than a generic one, not less, because the float floor selects for exactly the names most likely to produce a standout single day that has nothing to do with the group's real health.
The window argument applies here the same way it does on any tracked cohort. A week out is close to noise, since a fresh breakout cohort can look strong or weak for a session or two on nothing but the broad tape's mood. A month, and further out at three or six months, is where a real pattern separates from a coincidence, and stretching the same command from 1m to 3m costs nothing but a keystroke.
Every number in the path is end-of-day and stamped to the close it was computed from. track describes what already happened to a frozen group of thin-float breakouts. It does not predict the next session, and it does not recommend the cohort, or any name in it. Reading a strengthening path is a fact about the tape, not an instruction.
Freezing tonight's list
The bo screen, the float floor, and the track consumer all live in the same terminal line, so checking whether a signal holds up costs one extra clause rather than a separate tool. bo float<25m gets tonight's thin-supply breakouts; | track 1m freezes that exact fifty and reports the group's path a month out, three or six months out, however far you want to look.
The interactive terminal is a Pro feature at $28 a month, grandfathered, and every reading it returns is end-of-day and point-in-time honest, survivorship-free by construction. Open it, run bo float<25m | track 1m, and read the group's path instead of remembering the one ticker that happened to run. You already know the story of the loudest name on the board. Track the other forty-nine and find out whether the screen is worth running again next month.
Frequently asked questions
What does `bo float<25m | track 1m` do in the tickerstance terminal?
It runs the 4%-breakout screen bo, floors it to floats under 25 million shares, and freezes the exact roster that returns tonight. | track 1m then follows that same list of names forward for a month and reports the group's aggregate health, median RS, median ADR, percent above the 50-day line, percent off the 52-week high, and advancers minus decliners, as a path from the start of the window to the current close.
Why check a breakout screen with `track` instead of just watching the names?
Because a raw breakout list mixes quality and junk on the same night. On a real capture of bo float<25m, one name posted the loudest single-day thrust on the board while sitting at RS 21 and 94.2% off its high, next to several names in the RS 79-95 range that were building sound uptrends. A screen cannot tell those apart; tracking the whole frozen group forward is what shows whether the cohort as a whole held up, or whether one loud mover was drawing attention from a mediocre group.
What does survivorship-free mean for a tracked cohort?
track never edits the roster after freezing it. A name that broke out and then rolled over stays in every calculation for the whole window, pulling the group averages down exactly as it should. Most claims that a screen "works" survive only because the losers get forgotten; freezing the exact fifty names and measuring all of them, start to finish, makes that impossible.
What window should I track a breakout cohort over?
Start with 1m. A week is close to noise, since a fresh cohort can look strong or weak for a session or two on nothing but the broad tape's mood. A month begins to separate a real pattern from a coincidence, and the same command extends to 3m, 6m, or 1y by changing one argument.
Does narrowing to float<25m change how `track` works?
No, the mechanism is identical: freeze the roster the screen returns, then walk it forward. What changes is the stakes. Thinner floats produce sharper single-day moves in both directions, so the aggregate check matters more on this list than on a generic one, precisely because a float-floored screen is more likely to include a name whose one loud day has nothing to do with the group's real health.
Does a strengthening cohort path mean I should buy the group?
No. track reports what already happened to a frozen set of names, end-of-day and point-in-time. A path where breadth and distance-from-highs both improve is a fact about the tape's recent behavior, not a forecast and not advice. What you do with that fact, on which names, at what size, stays entirely your call.