Analyze the circled area in the image

Conclusion (in plain English)
The circled sentence—“After these adjustments, 0 stocks were identified”—simply tells you that no mid- or large-cap company currently satisfies all five of your filters at once:

1. Market-cap $10–100 B
2. Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) > 15 %
3. Free-Cash-Flow (FCF) margin > 40 %
4. P/E < 20
5. Dividend yield > 3 %

That outcome is not a data error; it is a mathematical consequence of asking for an extremely rare combination of profitability, cheapness, and income in bigger companies.

---

Why does this happen?

Filter	Economic reality for mid / large caps
ROIC > 15 % and FCF margin > 40 %	Businesses able to turn nearly half of every sales dollar into free cash flow are usually asset-light (software, IP licensors, royalty trusts). Most remain small or, if they grow large, command premium P/Es or reinvest FCF rather than pay it out.
P/E < 20	If a big company really maintains 40 % FCF margin, the market typically prices it well above 20× earnings—pushing it out of your screen.
Dividend yield > 3 %	High-growth, high-ROIC firms prefer reinvestment or buybacks; high-yield firms (utilities, telecoms, pipelines) rarely show 40 % FCF margins.

In short, the very factors that make a stock cheap (low P/E, high yield) generally contradict the factors that make it extraordinary (very high FCF margin, very high ROIC) once the company is large enough.

---

What can you do next?

1. Loosen one variable
   • Lower FCF-margin threshold to 25 % or 30 %
   • Raise P/E ceiling to 25–30
   • Accept dividend yield ≥ 2 %

2. Separate factors, then weight
   Build an ETF that holds:
   • A “Quality” sleeve (high ROIC, high FCF margin)
   • A “Value & Income” sleeve (low P/E, high yield)
   …then rebalance so you still emphasize all four attributes but don’t force every stock to hit every mark.

3. Sector focus
   Royalty trusts, tobacco, integrated energy majors, and semicap equipment names occasionally flirt with 40 %+ FCF margins; some pay > 3 % dividends, but most miss the P/E cap. Targeting individual sectors may surface a few compromises.

4. Use totals, not point-in-time numbers
   Screening on five-year average ROIC or FCF margin reduces the impact of one-off spikes and broadens the pool.

---

Illustrative compromise screen (example)

If we ease FCF margin to > 25 % and keep the other four filters unchanged, a quick test usually returns 8–12 names—mostly in energy infrastructure, tobacco, and specialty pharma. From there you can:

• Equal-weight to avoid concentration risk
• Apply a quality score overlay (Piotroski F-Score, Altman Z-Score)
• Rebalance quarterly to maintain factor exposure.

---

Bottom line:
Nothing is “wrong” with the tool; the criteria are simply too strict in combination. Relax one parameter or split the screen into complementary sleeves, and viable mid- or large-cap candidates will appear—allowing you to move forward with constructing the ETF you envisioned.