Intradyn Inc Posts Wider Losses on Both Reporting Windows of Its Interim Filing

Bottom line

For both reporting windows of INTRUSION INC's interim filing, profitability moved in a single direction: lower than the prior year. Earnings Per Share, Diluted for the three-month reporting period was -$0.13 per diluted share USD/SHARES, lower than the prior-year comparative of -$0.1 per diluted share USD/SHARES for the three months ended June 30, 2025; both windows were losses, with the transition loss to loss. Earnings Per Share, Diluted for the six-month year-to-date period was -$0.3 per diluted share USD/SHARES, lower than the prior-year comparative of -$0.21 per diluted share USD/SHARES for the six months ended June 30, 2025; that window, too, moved loss to loss. The bottom line showed the same contour: Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent for the three-month reporting period was -$2,590,000 USD, lower than the prior-year comparative of -$2,042,000 USD for the three months ended June 30, 2025, and Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent for the six-month year-to-date period was -$6,153,000 USD, lower than the prior-year comparative of -$4,140,000 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2025; both transitions were loss to loss. Operating Income (Loss) tracked the same shape: the three-month reporting period result of -$2,493,000 USD was lower than the prior-year comparative of -$2,086,000 USD for the three months ended June 30, 2025, and the six-month year-to-date result of -$6,065,000 USD was lower than the prior-year comparative of -$4,179,000 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2025, with both windows moving loss to loss.

Reporting-period identity and source scope. This analysis is built solely from the issuer's interim filing under accession 0001683168-26-006209, filed on 10-Q for period-ended-2026-06-30, by INTRUSION INC (CIK 0000736012, ticker INTZ). The cited note that anchors the funding context is Note 1, and stockholders' equity is described under Note 5. The relevant line-item positions within the filing — financial statements, controls and procedures, legal proceedings, risk factors, unregistered sales, quantitative and qualitative market-risk disclosures, other information, and exhibits — are referenced through the item blocks Item 1, Item 1A, Item 2, Item 3, Item 4, Item 5, Item 6, and Item 10. No peer or industry benchmark data appears in the cited material, so any cross-company comparison is left to the reader's own due diligence; see, for contrast, the multi-window commentary in Higher Bottom-Line Profit on a Softer Top Line for Both Windows of the Filing Period. The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause..

Financial performance

13 per diluted share USD/SHARES on Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent of -$2,590,000 USD, while Operating Income (Loss) was -$2,493,000 USD. 3 per diluted share USD/SHARES, Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent was -$6,153,000 USD, and Operating Income (Loss) was -$6,065,000 USD. 21 per diluted share USD/SHARES, -$4,140,000 USD, and -$4,179,000 USD for the six-month period.

- Year-over-year: On both the three-month and six-month windows, Earnings Per Share, Diluted moved lower against the prior-year periods, Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent moved lower, and Operating Income (Loss) moved lower; each remains a loss rather than a profit in the current period as it was in the prior-year comparative, so the underlying loss-to-loss character is unchanged. - Quarter-over-quarter: The filing evidence in this section does not include a quarter-versus-prior-quarter comparison; the filing as cataloged here exposes only the year-over-year relationships above, so a sequential-quarter read on the income statement is not authorized for this section.

- Management explanation: Management states that interim results are not necessarily indicative of full-year results and that the unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements should be read alongside the prior Annual Report. Management further flags a going-concern qualification, citing continued operating losses, negative operating cash flow, and reliance on equity and debt financing, with the ATM program cited as a planned funding channel. Management also notes that the company is analyzed as a single segment, with the CODM using Operating Loss and Net Loss to assess segment performance.

- Analyst inference: The authorized comparisons alone show that the three profitability measures each weakened year over year while preserving a loss-to-loss character, which is consistent with the management going-concern narrative but is not itself proof of any single driver. - Counter-evidence: None within the filing evidence; the filing does not present a peer or industry benchmark for these measures. - Unknowns: The filing evidence does not attribute the year-over-year change to any single cause.

The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause.. No peer or industry comparison is provided in the filing evidence. The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison..

A quarter-over-quarter direction on the income statement is not authorized in this section.

Operating drivers and segments

- The company is framed by management as a single reportable segment. The filing states that the CODM uses Operating Loss and Net Loss from the Consolidated Statement of Operations to assess performance of that single segment, and that the company's similar product and service offerings are not viewed as individual segments because management analyzes the business as a whole and expenses are not allocated to each product offering. The cited note confirms there are no other significant segment expenses or other segment items that would require disclosure. - Because segment data is not separately broken out, the only margin lens the filing provides is the consolidated Operating Loss. The Operating Income (Loss) for the three-month reporting period was -$2,493,000 USD, and the Operating Income (Loss) for the six-month year-to-date period was -$6,065,000 USD. Both windows are loss positions in the current period, and no product-line, geographic, or customer-segment split is published. - For the prior-year comparatives, the Operating Income (Loss) for the three-month period was -$2,086,000 USD and for the six-month period was -$4,179,000 USD, so both windows were also loss positions a year earlier. No revenue or gross-margin split is given that would let a reader isolate where the loss is being absorbed within the single segment.

- Management's commentary in the filing attributes the going-concern doubt to a continuing pattern of losses from operations, negative operating cash flows, and ongoing dependence on equity and debt financing, and indicates that further funding is expected to come from public or private financings, including the utilization of the ATM program. The filing explicitly warns that, if additional debt or equity financing is not obtained, the company may be unable to implement its business plan, fund its liquidity needs, or even continue operations, and the financial statements do not include any adjustments that would be required if the company were unable to continue as a going concern. - Management explains the strategic direction by describing the company as developing, selling, and supporting products that fuse advanced threat intelligence with real-time mitigation, marketed through value-added resellers, managed service providers, and a direct sales force, with end-user customers spanning U.S. federal, state, and local government entities and mid-market to large enterprises. The cited note sets out an acquisition of a majority stake in OW Cyber, LLC, d/b/a VigilAigent, structured over two distinct closings, with the second closing subject to specified closing conditions including required company stockholder and Nasdaq Stock Market or other regulatory approvals, and a cash earn-out payment tied to that second closing. The acquisition-related transaction costs were expensed as incurred within general and administrative expenses. - Beyond these narratives, the filing does not tie the consolidated operating loss on either reporting window to specific cost categories, product lines, or revenue trends. The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause. - Independent check: the only directly verifiable independent anchors in the filing are the consolidated operating-loss values themselves, since the prior-year comparatives are restated at -$2,086,000 USD and -$4,179,000 USD for the three-month and six-month windows respectively. Peer or industry context that would let a reader benchmark the size of the operating loss is not in the filing evidence. The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison. Readers comparing these figures with Higher Bottom-Line Profit on a Softer Top Line for Both Windows of the Filing Period should note that the directional pattern there is the opposite of the loss-to-loss transition shown here.

Cash flow and capital

Reported facts from the consolidated statement of cash flows show that operating activities used cash in both the current six-month period and the prior-year comparative, with the current period's outflow wider than the prior-year figure. Investing activities also used cash in both windows, though the current period's outflow narrowed compared with the prior-year comparative. Financing activities provided cash in both windows, with the current period's inflow lower than the prior-year inflow. Payments to acquire property, plant, and equipment were recorded in both six-month windows, with the current period's capex lower than the prior-year comparative, suggesting a lighter level of investment in long-lived assets during the period under review.

Management's discussion of capital structure focuses on the Streeterville Capital financing arrangements referenced in the cited note. The text describes an amendment earlier in the year that waived the noteholder's redemption rights for a defined period in exchange for a fee that was capitalized as additional debt issuance costs and added to total indebtedness. Later in the period, the outstanding principal under the cited note was reduced through debt-to-equity exchanges, which produced a reversal of previously recognized interest accretion and a write-off of unamortized debt issuance costs. A separate Note Purchase Agreement with the same investor is also described, including monthly cash redemption rights for the holder, a participation right in future financings, and a most favored nation provision, alongside a Short-Term Note Purchase Agreement completed late in the period that delivered net cash proceeds net of an original issue discount and transaction costs.

Balance sheet liquidity at the reporting date reflects cash and cash equivalents carried at a positive balance, with accounts receivable reported both gross and net of an allowance for credit loss, indicating the company is reserving for a portion of its billed receivables. Trade accounts payable were also recorded as a current liability at the balance sheet date. Working capital composition therefore consists of cash on hand, a net receivable position after the credit-loss allowance, and outstanding trade payables.

Analyst inference from the cash flow pattern is that the company funded its operating cash shortfall and its investing outflow partly through external financing rather than from on-hand cash, while also directing less capital into property, plant, and equipment than in the comparable prior window. The narrative around the Streeterville notes suggests an active year of liability management, including both a reduction of principal and the layering of new note obligations.

Counter-evidence is limited: the filing does not disclose the drivers behind the wider operating cash outflow or the narrower investing outflow, and it does not provide segment-level cash flow detail. Causality for the year-over-year shifts is therefore not attributed in the evidence. The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause. The filing evidence also contains no peer or industry comparison for these cash flow and capital allocation metrics. The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison. Liquidity adequacy at the balance sheet date and the post-period effects of the new note obligations are not addressed in the cited excerpts.

Peer and historical context

- For the three-month reporting period, Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent moved in a worse direction relative to the prior-year comparative, deepening from a loss to a larger loss, and Operating Income (Loss) followed the same pattern, sliding further into the red on a quarter-versus-prior-year basis. - For the six-month year-to-date period, the picture is consistent across both profit measures: Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent printed a loss rather than a profit and the loss was larger than the prior-year comparative, while Operating Income (Loss) likewise deteriorated on a half-year-versus-prior-year basis.

- Operating cash flow tells a separate, liquidity-flavored story: Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Operating Activities was a use of cash in the six-month year-to-date period and that use widened compared with the prior-year comparative, meaning the company consumed more cash from its own operations than it did a year earlier even as both years showed negative operating cash flow. - Putting the income-statement and cash-flow evidence side by side, the direction of change is the same on every window the filing discloses, and the transition on the bottom line is loss-to-loss on both the three-month and six-month reporting periods, with the current-period losses simply sitting deeper than the prior-year losses.

The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause. - Peer framing is thin by design: The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison.. The quoted narrative describes only the issuer's own leases, Streeterville notes, the ATM termination, the new Series A preferred stock, and routine litigation posture; it names no competitor set, no industry index, and no benchmark revenue or margin, so any cross-company read would have to be invented rather than cited from the filing.

- A historical read also has natural limits in the source. The notes section covering Note 1 and the new Series A preferred recapitalization under Note 5 speaks to capital-structure reshaping — amended redemption waivers, debt-to-equity exchanges, and a new class of preferred — but does not restate multi-year trend tables, and the cited note on the Streeterville facility focuses on terms rather than on prior-period operational benchmarks. - The reported comparisons for this section are limited to the lines above; nothing in the filing evidence permits a directional read on a quarter-versus-prior-year operating cash flow or on any period-over-period change in revenue, gross margin, share count, or balance-sheet liquidity items for this issuer.

- For a peerless issuer reporting widened losses on every window, the most honest historical comparison is the company's own prior-year comparatives — and on that basis the deterioration is broad-based across operating income, net income, and operating cash flow, with no single-line counter-signal visible in the filing. Readers looking for cross-company benchmarks will need a source outside this document. - Practical takeaway for the historical lens only: the year-over-year direction is consistent (worse) on the three profit-and-cash lines disclosed, the bottom-line transition on both windows is loss-to-loss, and there is no offsetting positive line item in the quoted evidence that would soften that read.

Scenario analysis

- The conditional scenarios below are anchored strictly to the four Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent lines declared for INTRUSION INC under 10-Q for period-ended-2026-06-30 (accession 0001683168-26-006209). The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause. - in the most likely path, the bottom-line loss remains a loss on both reporting windows.

-$6,153,000 for the full six-month window is a loss, and the prior-year -$4,140,000 for the same length was also a loss, with the reported comparison indicating a year-over-year decrease in the loss reported for the period. The quarterly pattern is consistent: -$2,590,000 for the three-month reporting period is a loss, and the comparative -$2,042,000 for the same quarter a year earlier was also a loss, with the reported comparison indicating a year-over-year decrease in the loss reported for the quarter. EPS Diluted follows the same contour, registering a loss in both the current and prior six-month and three-month periods, with the authorized direction on each window indicating a decrease.

The base case therefore carries forward a continuing-loss, loss-to-loss pattern across both windows, with the deeper-loss read across the six-month versus the three-month window as the most plausible continuation of the data already filed. - the constructive read hinges on the operating and financing cash-activity lines in the filing "going the right way" relative to the prior year, even though the bottom-line remains a loss. Operating cash flow for the six-month window deteriorated year over year (a larger outflow), and the diluted-loss read on both windows is the reported direction.

The financing line, set against the prior-year six-month comparative, also moved in a less constructive direction. The upside does not require a return to profitability; it asks whether the loss narrows or stabilizes on the current three-month window as the Streeterville note-related disclosures evolve through the period covered by the three months ended June 30, 2026. Because the filing provides only the four Net Income lines for these windows, the upside remains qualitative and anchored to the same loss-to-loss contour, with the constructive sign being the recent-quarter loss reading deeper than the prior-year reading and the financing-activity line still positive on the current six-month window.

- the cautious read is a continuation of the deeper-loss pattern at the bottom line, with the operating cash outflow widening and the financing-cash inflow shrinking on the six-month basis relative to the prior-year comparison. The downside does not require a fresh driver narrative; it simply extrapolates the direction tags already authorized for the period in the filing. The cited note covering the Streeterville note and the short-term note purchase agreement items flagged in the filing stands as the principal embedded contract contingent on continuation of the loss pattern, without further attribution in this section.

Investors comparing this read to Higher Bottom-Line Profit on a Softer Top Line for Both Windows of the Filing Period should note that the direction tags here run the opposite way on every reported comparison, so the conditional framing is closer to stabilization of a worse-than-prior loss than to any narrowing of the loss. - Across all three scenarios, the reporting windows the six months ended June 30, 2026, the three months ended June 30, 2026, and the corresponding prior-year comparatives the six months ended June 30, 2025 and the three months ended June 30, 2025 are used to describe trajectory, and the same four Net Income lines anchor the conditional spread.

The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison. The filing evidence does not disclose segment-level detail for this dimension. - The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause.

Risks and what to watch

- The dominant risk visible in 10-Q period-ended-2026-06-30 is the persistent loss profile carried by INTRUSION INC (ticker INTZ, CIK 0000736012, accession 0001683168-26-006209). The Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent for the three-month reporting period the three months ended June 30, 2026 was a loss of -$2,590,000 USD, and the six-month year-to-date period the six months ended June 30, 2026 was a loss of -$6,153,000 USD. Both sit below the prior-year comparables, which were a loss of -$2,042,000 USD for the three months ended June 30, 2025 and a loss of -$4,140,000 USD for the six months ended June 30, 2025.

With both windows deepening the loss, the path to profitability is the central risk to monitor. - Management's own commentary, drawn from Item 1A and the note referenced in Note 1 regarding the Streeterville Capital facility, frames the period as one of routine litigation exposure and continued reliance on equity-linked financing instruments. The ATM was terminated during the quarter, no sales were made under the shelf registration during the three- and six-month periods, and the SEPA with Streeterville was entered into in a later month with a stated term length and no purchases during the six-month window.

The Series A preferred stock referenced in Note 5 was fully redeemed or exchanged earlier in the year, leaving none outstanding in the more recent month. Together these suggest liquidity management remains active, with no single funding source dominating the period. - Counter-evidence to a strictly bearish read is thin.

The Earnings Per Share, Diluted comparison for both the six months ended June 30, 2026 versus the six months ended June 30, 2025 and the three months ended June 30, 2026 versus the three months ended June 30, 2025 is authorized only as a loss-to-loss transition with a decrease in magnitude, so the filing itself offers no positive offset on the bottom line. The filing evidence contains no peer or industry comparison. - Unknowns to track next period include any activation of the SEPA described in the cited note, the size of any new Streeterville-related note balances disclosed under Note 1, the resolution status of the routine litigation referenced in Item 1, and any updated risk-factor language under Item 1A and Item 3.

Controls disclosures under Item 4 and exhibit updates under Item 6 are also worth re-reading, as is the Regulation S-X caveat in Item 10 regarding interim disclosure scope. The filing evidence does not attribute this change to any single cause. The filing evidence does not disclose segment-level detail for this dimension.

- Metrics to watch in the next filing therefore include the Net Income (Loss) Attributable to Parent on both windows, Earnings Per Share Diluted on both windows, Operating Income (Loss) on both windows, the three cash-flow lines plus capital expenditure, and the SEPA utilization rate as the qualitative trigger most likely to move the bottom line. Readers building scenarios can keep the contrast top-of-mind by revisiting Higher Bottom-Line Profit on a Softer Top Line for Both Windows of the Filing Period.