Bullfrog AI Holdings Inc. (BFRG) — RQD Stock Rating Cockpit

Per the Roarable RQD rating, BFRG scores 34 out of 100 with a letter grade of E, labeled "Roarable Strong Sell — Forensic Risk / Avoid." The five pillars are:

• Fundamental Cash Engine: 6 / 20 (ROIC -35%; FCF yield 0%). This is the weakest reading. The company is not generating returns on capital or free cash flow in the reported data, so there is no current cash-generation support for the valuation.
• Whale 13F Flow: 11 / 20 (institutional accumulation and options positioning). This is a mid-range reading. Institutional flow is not described in detail in the source data, so the score cannot be traced to specific holders.
• Insider Conviction: 3 / 20 (SEC Form 4 and Congressional PTR cluster flow). This is the second-weakest reading, indicating limited or negative insider signaling in the rating's inputs.
• Macro Regime Fit: 6 / 20 (Beta 1.0; sector sensitivity). A beta of 1.0 means the stock is rated as moving in line with the market, but the sector-sensitivity component scored low.
• Forensic Balance Sheet: 8 / 20 (Altman Z 2.5; Piotroski F 3/9; Debt/Equity 0.5). The balance sheet reads as mixed to weak: the Altman Z of 2.5 and Piotroski F of 3/9 are cited within the rating's forensic component.

For a prospective investor evaluating the stock today, the rating points to a company with negative operating economics, no reported free-cash-flow yield, and forensic flags that the rating treats as the dominant risk. A sub-$1 share price with a $9.4M market capitalization also means that small changes in sentiment or financing can move the stock sharply; the 52-week range of $0.43 to $1.96 illustrates that volatility.

Per the Profile section, Bullfrog AI Holdings Inc. (BFRG) is a NASDAQ-listed issuer in the Health Care sector, operating in the Biotechnology: Pharmaceutical Preparations industry. Revenue for the reported periods is small, at $0.1M, —, and $0.1M.

Per the recent news feed, the catalysts are headline items from multiple outlets dated within roughly the last 15 hours of the data timestamp:

• A Moomoo report covering BFRG market action and institutional positioning (flagged as a catalyst).
• A Yahoo Finance report titled around advancing a major depressive disorder drug discovery program with a global pharma partner (flagged as a catalyst; the most substantive program-level headline).
• A Stock Titan report noting the company's CEO will present to investors in Los Angeles on Oct. 20 (flagged as market wire, yellow).
• An Investing.com report on the LD Micro conference, describing pharma deal validation as a growth driver (flagged as a catalyst).
• A Yahoo! Finance Canada seasonal returns chart (flagged as a catalyst, but informational only).
• A TradingView report describing the AI platform, its pharma deal, and an expanding pipeline (flagged as market wire, yellow).

Risk watch: the news items are secondary-source summaries and do not disclose deal terms, milestones, or payment amounts. The Butterfly Supply-Chain Graph reports no supply-chain links and no proprietary signals.

Per the Butterfly Supply-Chain Graph, the supply chain is listed as NONE, with no butterfly links and no proprietary signals. The source data therefore does not establish upstream suppliers, downstream customers, or sector correlations beyond the classification of Health Care / Biotechnology. The 2nd-order item an investor should track is the pharma partnership itself: because the company's revenue is only $0.

• What are the specific terms, milestones, and payment structure of the pharma partnership referenced in the news, and how much of the FY 2025 operating loss is expected to be offset by it?
• What is the company's cash runway at the FY 2025 burn rate given the reported cash of $2.2M and free cash flow of $-5.5M?
• What drives the operating expenses behind the -$6.6M operating loss, and is there a plan to reduce them?
• Why is the EPS, debt, and TTM earnings data reported as N/A or unavailable, and does that reflect share structure or disclosure gaps?
• Who are the institutional and insider holders behind the 13F and Form 4 flow that the RQD rating references, given that the holders section is empty in the source data?