The key nuance is that you don’t just need spot to “tag” $95 again; you need a large share of Oct 2025–Dec 2026 trading days above that level, which is harder than the headline story of a tight uranium market implies. I’d treat sub‑25% prices as too low and anything above ~55% as overestimating how stubborn utility inventories and new supply (e.g., Uzbek ramp‑up) can be in capping a sustained move well north of current levels.

The key nuance is the metric: a 15‑month trailing average three months lagged requires sustained tightness, not just spikes. On current policy momentum and demand from new nuclear (including hyperscalers) versus the lumpy, slower supply response, I’d lean slightly more bullish than the market price here.

Structurally tight fundamentals and Kazakhstan/Russia concentration justify elevated uranium prices and intermittent spikes above $95, but getting a 15‑month trailing average above that threshold requires both high and persistent stress in a market where miners are already responding with new supply and utilities are shifting back to term contracts. I’d lean under the current market odds and treat this as a somewhat overbought “uranium panic” play rather than a base‑case outcome.

Given that we’re already near the threshold today, the question is about duration, not direction: any additional disruption from Kazakhstan/Russia or faster‑than‑expected nuclear contracting would likely push the 15‑month trailing average over $100, while only a surprisingly fast supply response by 2027 would keep the average capped in the $80‑90s.