Question Bank › Winning more per swing than they used to — and t

Winning more per swing than they used to — and the change is recent, real, and still playing out

Calls Tested
482
Answered YES
6
Hit Rate
1.2%
rare by design

Curtiss-Wright Corporation (CW) — this company's answers

NO on the Q1 2024 call 2024-05-02 B+
The model's full reasoning — Q1 2024 call → NOWe need to determine if management conveys improved conversion of opportunities into won business, with self-comparison, real evidence, and still in force. Scan the transcript for relevant statements. Lynn and Chris discuss strong orders, backlog, book-to-bill, etc. They mention "new orders also demonstrated tremendous growth in the first quarter, up 26% year-over-year to more than $900 million and resulted in an overall book-to-bill of 1.26 times." Also "record backlog in excess of $3 billion". They talk about strong demand, but do they contrast current conversion against their own prior rate? They mention "we continue to benefit from strong conversion on its healthy and growing backlog" for Defense Electronics. But that's about converting backlog to sales, not about winning new orders. They also mention "the breadth of our tactical communications product portfolio continues to expand beyond its historically served US Army and Marine Corps customers. During the first quarter, this business was awarded their first win with the US Air Force" - that's a new customer, but is it a higher conversion rate? Not necessarily. They also mention "strong order growth in Naval Defense supporting current and next-generation submarine programs." But no explicit comparison of win rates or success rates. The question asks: does management convey that the company has recently begun converting opportunities into actual won business at a clearly higher rate or scale than its own recent past? The transcript shows strong orders, but no explicit statement like "our win rate has improved" or "we are now landing more deals than before." They talk about growth in orders, but that could be due to market conditions, not improved conversion. They also mention "we are off to a great start" and "strong demand" but no self-comparison of conversion efficiency. Also, the improvement must be grounded in real events (they have orders) and still in force (they expect continued growth). But the key is the self-comparison showing improved conversion. I don't see that. They mention "book-to-bill of 1.26" but that's a ratio, not a comparison to prior conversion rates. They don't say "we used to win X% and now we win Y%". They don't say "we are winning more than we used to" in terms of conversion. They just report strong orders. Thus, answer NO.

← Back to the full CW analysis

Show the exact prompt the model was given
Using ONLY the supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management convey that the company has RECENTLY BEGUN CONVERTING ITS OPPORTUNITIES INTO ACTUAL WON BUSINESS AT A CLEARLY HIGHER RATE OR SCALE THAN ITS OWN RECENT PAST — that when the company goes after orders, customers, contracts, projects, approvals, placements, or engagements, it is now landing them more often, faster, or bigger than it was landing them several quarters ago — AND does management ground this improvement in real events that already happened while indicating that the same improved conversion is still continuing right now? Answer YES when management's own words convey, in whatever form fits the business, ONE coherent phenomenon with all three parts present: (1) A SELF-COMPARISON SHOWING IMPROVED CONVERSION. Management contrasts how the company is currently converting opportunities into won business against how it converted them before — for example: win rates, success rates, close rates, or hit rates described as visibly higher than the company's own recent norm; a much larger share of pursuits, bids, evaluations, trials, or discussions now ending in the company's favor; wins now arriving at a frequency, pace, or size the company was not achieving several quarters ago; business the company used to lose, miss, or fail to land now being captured; or management plainly saying that its efforts are producing more than the same efforts used to produce. The comparison must be against the company's OWN prior experience — not against competitors, the industry, or last year's market conditions. (2) THE EVIDENCE IS REAL AND ALREADY BANKED. The improved conversion must be demonstrated by things that actually happened in the recent period — actual wins, signings, orders, awards, placements, openings, or customers landed and identifiable in management's account — not by pipeline, interest, proposals outstanding, or management's confidence about future closings. (3) THE IMPROVEMENT IS PRESENTED AS STILL IN FORCE. Management conveys, directly or plainly in substance, that this improved conversion is not a finished episode: further wins of the same kind are continuing to arrive, are in late stages, or are expected from the same drivers already at work — so the recent wins read as the early stretch of a changed trajectory rather than a completed burst, with reasons for the improvement attached to the company itself (its offering, capability, reputation, positioning, or execution) rather than to a one-time external event. Answer NO if management reports strong demand, growth, or good results without contrasting current conversion against the company's own prior rate of converting. NO if the claimed improvement rests on pipeline, quotes, proposals, or hoped-for closings rather than on business actually landed. NO if the improvement is attributed mainly to a one-time event, a single unusual deal, an easy comparison, seasonality, or a temporary condition management expects to fade. NO if management describes the run of wins as concluded, slowing, or unlikely to continue. NO if winning at this rate is simply normal for this company and nothing about its conversion has recently changed. NO if the idea appears only in an analyst's question or characterization that management does not itself affirm. Use only the supplied transcript. Answer only YES or NO.

Companies that answered YES

TickerCompanyCallDateCall grade
NICE NICE Ltd. Q4 2023 2024-02-22 B+
IMAX IMAX Corporation Q2 2023 2023-07-26 B+
GVP GSE Systems, Inc. Q1 2023 2023-05-15 D
FAT FAT Brands Inc. Q4 2021 2022-03-21 F
TENB Tenable Holdings, Inc. Q2 2021 2021-07-27 A
LBTYK Liberty Global's Q1 2016 2016-05-10 C+

How the model reasoned

FAT · Q4 2021 → YESThe question is about whether management conveys that the company has recently begun converting its opportunities into actual won business at a clearly higher rate or scale than its own recent past. ...**YES** Management conveys an improved conversion rate through the statement that new construction and franchise sales are "stronger than we've seen in many years, if not ever," directly contrasting current performance against their own historical experience.
IMAX · Q2 2023 → YESThe question is about whether management conveys that the company has recently begun converting its opportunities into actual won business at a clearly higher rate or scale than its own recent past. ...YES Management explicitly contrasts current signings performance against its own recent past (84 YTD vs. 47 in all of 2022; 46 in Q2 vs. 13 in Q2 2022; 68 new systems vs.
LBTYK · Q1 2016 → YESThe question is about whether management conveys that the company has recently begun converting its opportunities into actual won business at a clearly higher rate or scale than its own recent past. ...**YES** Management conveys exactly this three-part phenomenon. (1) Self-comparison: They repeatedly contrast current conversion against their own recent past.

More from the question bank

This quarter could not have been described lBetting on a customer they cannot yet nameConversion calendar in handSecond wave already orderingGround-level proof points accumulatingInsiders still discovering the upsideAll questions →
Not investment advice. Artul.ai publishes AI-generated earnings-call quality grades and expected-volatility estimates — never buy or sell recommendations. We tested over 1,600 predictive hypotheses against 165,000 transcripts; the honest result, including what failed, is documented in our methodology.