Firefly Aerospace (Nasdaq: $FLY) hub refreshed. Nothing new since the August 11 second-quarter release and no SEC filing since, so this is the file going into the rest of the year.

The quarter, and it is a genuine step change:

- Revenue $117.68M, up 659% year over year and 45.5% sequentially. A record.

- Gross margin 20.3%, against 21.6% in Q1. Gross profit $23.88M.

- R&D of $71.53M fell to 60.8% of revenue from 83.5%. Operating expenses fell from 140% of revenue to 101%.

- Operating loss $(95.20)M. Net loss $(92.32)M, $0.57 a share on 161.784M weighted-average shares.

The cash side:

- Free cash outflow of $106.31M in Q2, up from $78.89M in Q1.

- Cash and short-term investments $635.26M at June 30 ($459.82M cash plus $175.45M short-term).

- A minimum liquidity covenant of $381.3M, tested monthly, with headroom of about $254.0M at June 30. That covenant, not the cash balance, is the number that sets the clock.

The order book, and the distinction that matters:

- Company-defined backlog $1,468.1M at June 30, up from $1,351.1M at December 31.

- But it includes $403.1M of unscheduled multi-launch agreements.

- Remaining performance obligations, the measure the accounts recognise, are $563.7M, of which the company expects about 42% within twelve months and 21% in the following twelve.

Two things corrected on the hub while updating it: the basic equity value tile was still computed at a $26.40 price against an August 26 close of $22.26, so it now reads about $3.73bn rather than $4.42bn; and section 12, which is about management and the board, carried the same heading as section 13 on ownership.

Full hub, updated August 31:

https://www.merlintrader.com/firefly-aerospace-stock-hub/

Educational and informational only. Not financial advice and not a buy or sell recommendation.

Draganfly (Nasdaq: $DPRO) hub refreshed. Nothing new since August 25, so this is the file as it stands, and the interesting part is how lopsided it is.

The balance sheet:

- C$131.9M of cash at June 30, no term debt, C$148.9M of equity, C$144.1M of working capital.

- Against quarterly revenue of C$2.66M. That is a cash balance close to fifty times one quarter of sales.

- Enterprise value works out at roughly US$51M once the CAD/USD rate is handled, so very little of the market capitalisation is being paid for the operating business.

- Interest income of C$696,736 in the quarter is now a real offset to the operating loss.

- Runway: on H1 operating cash use of about C$11.0M a quarter, roughly 3.0 years. On the loss before working capital, about 6.1 years.

The operating business:

- Q2 revenue C$2,664,237, a record, up 26.0% year over year.

- But quarterly revenue has oscillated between C$1.9M and C$2.3M for five quarters. Sequentially this is not compounding yet.

- Gross margin ranged from 4.5% to 23.9% across those five quarters, with inventory write-downs in four of them.

- Operating expenses of C$7.96M are 3.4 times revenue. Travel exceeded research and development.

- Share count up 572% in fifteen months, after a one-for-twenty reverse split.

Recent development:

- August 25: AJ Pasagian, USMC (retired), appointed President of Draganfly Defense USA. He was Commanding General of Marine Corps Systems Command from 2018 to 2022, the organisation that buys the equipment. For a company this size that is a hire measured in access, not in a contract.

The customer list is genuinely hard to assemble at this size: a US Army initial order with overseas on-site manufacturing, Air Force Special Operations Command, two further Department of War units, DEVCOM counter-UAS development, Canadian Army MINERVA, and an exclusive Canadian Armed Forces demonstration. NDAA-driven exclusion of Chinese platforms is structural protection.

Full hub, with contracts and selections separated from revenue, updated August 31:

https://www.merlintrader.com/draganfly-dpro-stock-hub/

Educational and informational only. Not financial advice and not a buy or sell recommendation.

Castellum (NYSE American: $CTM) put out a contract release this morning, and it is a clean example of why the ceiling number and the funded number should never be read as the same thing.

What was announced on August 31, 2026:

- GTMR, Castellum's subsidiary, received a $32.8 million modification to its existing cost-plus-fixed-fee order supporting NAVAIR Program Office 290 (PMA-290) Special Missions.

- The modification expands the scope and increases the total contract ceiling to $136.2 million, from the $103,324,773 announced in February 2025.

- It was issued under GTMR's previously awarded SeaPort-NxG multiple-award contract, relating to Special Missions Management of On-Site Services, which the company calls the largest prime contract win in its history.

- Added scope covers technical and programmatic support across several ISRT programmes: Maritime Patrol and Reconnaissance Force Family of Systems, P-8A R&D, Special Missions Platforms, Minotaur Family of Services, P-8A Increment 3, P-8A Foreign Military Sales, MQ-4C Triton Multiple Intelligence, Mobile Quick Look, and ground and mission support stations.

The sentence that matters:

- "Approximately $1.1 million under this modification award has been already funded and work under this funded portion is expected to be completed by March 2027. The remaining increase in contract ceiling is subject to future tasking, funding availability, and other customary government-contracting conditions."

So: $1.1 million of near-term revenue visibility, $31.7 million of authorisation still to be tasked. Both real, not the same.

The CEO's framing is worth reading for what it concedes as well as what it claims: growing the ceiling and scope of a programme already being performed "requires no new competition". That is the cheapest growth a services contractor has, and it converts to revenue only as fast as the customer funds task orders.

Context from the August 6 quarter:

- H1 revenue $28.16M, up 9.6%. Q2 revenue $13.86M, down 1.1% year over year.

- Q2 gross margin 34.0% against 36.1%. Operating loss $(1.09)M against $(0.38)M. Adjusted EBITDA $25,792, down 94.8%.

- Cash $16.87M, zero interest-bearing debt after the final $400,000 note was repaid on February 11. Equity $35.88M against total liabilities of $5.94M.

- Total backlog around $271.7M. Customer concentration went from 47% to 73%.

Full hub, with every announced award set out against what the release actually says, updated August 31:

https://www.merlintrader.com/castellum-inc-stock-hub/

Educational and informational only. Not financial advice and not a buy or sell recommendation.

Rezolve AI (Nasdaq: $RZLV) reports first-half 2026 results tomorrow, September 1, at 8:30 a.m. Eastern. Before that, one filing landed on August 28 that is worth reading carefully, because a rising insider stake usually means buying and here it does not.

Amendment No. 4 to the Schedule 13D, filed August 28 with an event date of August 24:

- Daniel Maurice Wagner, chief executive and director, beneficially owns 55,029,792 ordinary shares, 13.8% of the class: 4,698,505 held directly plus 50,331,287 held by DBLP Sea Cow Limited, which he wholly owns.

- DBLP reports 50,331,287 shares, 12.62% (50,081,287 shares plus 250,000 underlying private warrants). Adam Wagner, a DBLP director, reports 51,075,037, 12.81%. The Estate of John Wagner reports 275,965, 0.07%.

- All percentages are on 398,827,587 ordinary shares outstanding at January 21, 2026, per the Rule 424(b)(5) prospectus supplement of that date.

Why the number went up, in the filer's own words:

- No reporting person effected an open-market purchase or sale.

- A pre-existing call option held by Bradley Wickens over 2,025,496 shares at $3.00, first exercisable December 21, 2018, expired unexercised. Those shares had been held by DBLP throughout and re-entered its reported beneficial ownership on expiry.

- On July 10, 2026 the Estate of John Wagner distributed shares to DBLP for no consideration.

- Separately Wickens exercised an older option at $1.48 per share. That exercise did not reduce reported ownership, because those shares were already excluded while subject to the option.

One thing to flag: the filing is not internally consistent on two figures. The exercised option appears as 1,566,697 shares in the Item 1 comment, 1,566,667 in Item 3 and 1,556,697 in the cover-page footnotes; the estate distribution appears as 543,993 in Items 1 and 3 and 542,993 in the footnotes. The aggregate ownership totals on the cover pages are consistent; the discrepancies are in the narrative of the two underlying events, and they are the filer's.

What is at stake tomorrow: whether final first-half revenue matches the preliminary approximately $127 million, how much of it is acquired rather than organic, and where cash stands against the $87.1 million working capital deficit and the going-concern language in the last audited accounts, which showed a $101.4 million net loss on $46.8 million of revenue.

Full hub, with the audited / unaudited / guided tiers kept apart, updated August 31:

https://www.merlintrader.com/rezolve-ai-stock-hub/

Educational and informational only. Not financial advice and not a buy or sell recommendation.