Elliot, thanks for the comment. You bring up a good point that I was actually going to mention in the original article, but avoided this time as I thought the reader might already be exhausted by the length! Screens based on historical data definitely deserve more merit as they avoid the consensus expectations obstacle. I also generally agree that screens can be a useful tool, as long as the user takes a step back and truly understands the data that is being analyzed and the inputs are chosen in an unbiased manner.

One of the underlying messages from the article is that a screen (whether traditional or non-traditional) is only the first step in the investment process. It is essentially a time management tool that allows the user to narrow the list of investment candidates to analyze further, not a blind tool that determines the final investment decision. What comes after this step is the "art" or personal investment criteria that must be applied as the second half of the investment process. I agree that investing must always have an art component integrated into the process, with "science" as the primary driving force that facilitates time management.