Golf relevance needs evidence.

A recognizable golf business is worth investigating. Whether it belongs in a transparent public-equity benchmark is a separate question.

Use a golf-specific numerator.

Our intended approach starts with documented revenue categories. If a disclosed category mixes golf with other sports or lifestyle products, we should not label all of it golf. A verified minimum can be useful, but it should not be presented as a precise total.

Look at what can actually be traded.

The research also needs dated share counts, an appropriate assessment of investable shares, and a consistent review of trading activity. A company can be highly relevant to the golf story while still being unsuitable for a particular index design.

Don’t force a preferred result.

Japan and South Korea are central to the editorial brief. That commitment is a reason to do the research, not a reason to invent a revenue fraction, waive a failed check or force a geographic allocation.

The benchmark’s eventual membership should follow its rules. The publication can cover an important golf business even when its shares do not qualify for the index.

Eligibility thresholds and concentration limits for the broader public benchmark remain in development. The separate paper research pilot uses documented provisional rules, including a 25% issuer cap, disclosed-holder float estimates and a screen based on reported daily trading activity. Pilot inclusion does not establish public benchmark membership or recommend a security.