Stocks › A › AEHR
AEHR · Earnings-call lab · 45 calls graded · 2016–2026

Aehr Test Systems

The call grade, management's tone measured against 177,437 other calls, what changed since the quarter before, and every one of the 500 checks.

500checks per call
45calls analyzed
2016–2026coverage
NEWESTQ4 2026 call
2026-07-14 · 500 / 500 checks · members only
LockedStarter · $1 first week
AI call read
Grade locked
Grade and plain-English verdict
Expected 45-day move
Locked
Move size estimate, not direction
AI checks completed
500/ 500
Every check answered YES or NO

This is the current report. Unlock its call read, expected move size, and all 500 answers.

Unlock the newest quarter for every company, plus this month's four picks. Already a member? Log in
OPENQ3 2025 call
2026-04-08 · 4 analysts · 13 questions · 500 / 500 checks
Free · full reportThe quarter before the newest
D
Call grade · Bottom 26% of 177,437 calls
Weak call. Management withdrew guidance against mixed demand signals. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics.
Management toneResultTypical range · middle half of all callsFlag
Candor7 /9
—
Evasion4 /9
H
Specificity8 /9
—
Confidence7 /9
—
Uncertainty6 /9
H
Promotion6 /9
—
Stress3 /9
—
Complexity7 /9
H
Since the quarter before · Q3 2026 → Q3 2025
Guidance raisedwithdrawnDemand acceleratingmixedMargins contractingstablePricing stableBacklog growingCapex increasing⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured⚑ Question left hanging✓ Resolves doubts✓ Volume step-up ahead✓ Early product, fast growth
Notable checks detected
  • Are there more than ten analyst questions in total?
  • Does the operator use the phrase "next question" at least three times?
  • Does any speaker use "we're" where "we are" could substitute, more than twenty times overall?
  • Does the transcript contain the phrase "next question" at least twice?
ScreenersGuidance WithdrawnHigh CandorSkeptic ReassuredCritic AmmunitionFounder-LedVolume Step-UpEarly Product, Fast GrowthUnderused Fixed Costs
Lab panel · Q3 2025 call

30 markers, measured against 177,437 calls

Language counted straight from the transcript, behaviour read by the 500 checks, tone above. The band is the middle half of every call we have graded; a flag means this call sits outside it.

12 flags on this call
LanguageResultTypical range · middle half of all callsFlag
AI mentionsTimes management said AI, generative, LLM or agentic.33 mentions
typical 0–0
H
"Great question"Management praising a question before answering it.3 times
typical 0–1
H
Thank-yousEvery thanks on the call, in both directions.16 times
typical 13–31
—
BuzzwordsSynergies, headwinds, flywheels, best-in-class and friends.0.9 /1k words
typical 0.6–1.8
—
HedgesSort of, kind of, roughly, I think, probably.8.2 /1k words
typical 5.5–10.5
—
SuperlativesRecord, unprecedented, tremendous, incredible.0.5 /1k words
typical 0.3–1.2
—
Outside forcesMacro, weather, currency, tariffs, supply chain.34 mentions
typical 1–9
H
Stonewalls"Not going to comment", "we don't break that out".1 times
typical 0–0
H
NumbersFigures per thousand words of management speech. Low means vague.16.5 /1k words
typical 21.2–35.3
L
"Excited"Excited, exciting, thrilled.17 times
typical 0–3
H
Script shareShare of the call spent on prepared remarks rather than questions.36% % of call
typical 35%–55%
—
CEO shareHow much of the talking the CEO did.90% % of mgmt words
typical 29%–68%
H
Longest answerThe longest single management answer in the Q&A.1,034 words
typical 249–461
H
Reading levelFlesch–Kincaid grade level of management answers.7.3 US grade
typical 7.6–9.6
—
Behaviour · from the 500 checksDetectedTypical range · middle half of all callsFlag
FlatteryCompliments, thank-yous and first names between analysts and management.19 of 49
typical 16–30
—
DodgingQuestions declined, deferred or answered with a different question.10 of 15
typical 5–9
H
BlameResults attributed to weather, macro, currency or other outside forces.3 of 27
typical 3–12
—
HypeSuperlatives and excitement in management language.10 of 11
typical 2–8
H
Analyst pushbackHow hard the analysts pressed: follow-ups, two-part questions, challenges.12 of 22
typical 5–10
H
ConfessionAdmissions, apologies and self-corrections.5 of 11
typical 1–5
—
Call theaterStage management: operator mechanics, scripted cues, "color".22 of 33
typical 12–19
H
Capital returns talkAttention paid to buybacks, dividends, M&A and the balance sheet.0 of 7
typical 1–5
—
Counts are literal: "AI mentions" is the number of times management said it. Behaviour indices count how many checks in a themed group came back YES. Rankings across all companies →
Full transparency

All 500 AI checks

Q3 2025 · 500 checks

Every answer is below. Open any check to see what its YES or NO means.

500checked
263detected
237not detected
YES Does an executive answer a question by describing a process rather than an outcome? Activist · seen in 86.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 86.8% of calls 85.3% repeat consistency
YES Is there a question the executive answers with a question back to the analyst? Activist · seen in 31.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 31.3% of calls 88.3% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone compare the company to an unnamed "competitor" or "peer" rather than naming it? Activist · seen in 63.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 63.3% of calls 83% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone use "historically" or "traditionally" while defending a current practice? Activist · seen in 28.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 28.6% of calls 83.7% repeat consistency
NO Is a departure, transition, or role change mentioned only in passing without a thank-you or tribute? Activist · seen in 10% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 10% of calls 91% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone reference a private conversation ("as I told...", "as we discussed offline")? Activist · seen in 18% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 18% of calls 85% repeat consistency
YES Does the transcript contain the phrase "next question" at least twice? Air Traffic · seen in 83.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.8% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
YES Does an analyst ask a question spanning more than five sentences? Air Traffic · seen in 75.4% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.4% of calls 88.6% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst ask a question containing multiple sub-questions (three or more)? Air Traffic · seen in 89.5% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 89.5% of calls 94% repeat consistency
YES Does the CEO answer a question personally after another executive initially responds? Air Traffic · seen in 58% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 58% of calls 90% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker use the phrase "if you look at" at least twice? Air Traffic · seen in 35.1% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 35.1% of calls 90% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst preface a question by summarizing the company's stated results? Air Traffic · seen in 75.4% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.4% of calls 80.6% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker use the word "obviously" at least twice? Air Traffic · seen in 55.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 55.8% of calls 83.8% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone say "guidance" in the same sentence as a specific number? Air Traffic · seen in 56.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 56.4% of calls 90.3% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst say "congrats" or "congratulations" to management? Air Traffic · seen in 35.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 35.8% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
YES Is the word "scale" or "scaling" used as a verb? Air Traffic · seen in 22.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 22.7% of calls 97.7% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst ask a question beginning with a number ("two questions", "three quick ones")? Air Traffic · seen in 32.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.8% of calls 88.7% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst say "thank you" before asking their question? Air Traffic · seen in 71.4% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 71.4% of calls 90.4% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst name two or more executives when asking their question? Air Traffic · seen in 35.1% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 35.1% of calls 86.9% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "outperform," "outperformance," or "beat" appear? Air Traffic · seen in 31.7% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 31.7% of calls 95.7% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "the environment" when describing market conditions? Air Traffic · seen in 51.5% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 51.5% of calls 83.9% repeat consistency
NO Does any executive use the word "momentum" at least twice? Air Traffic · seen in 29.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 29.5% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
NO Does an executive begin an answer with "Great question," "Thanks," or "Appreciate"? Air Traffic · seen in 46% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 46% of calls 88.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the CFO use the phrase "adjusted" or "non-GAAP" at least three times? Air Traffic · seen in 51.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 51.6% of calls 96.9% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "thank you" more than three times? Air Traffic · seen in 78.4% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 78.4% of calls 80.1% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "with that" as a transition phrase? Air Traffic · seen in 76.4% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 76.4% of calls 99% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the phrase "on a comparable basis" or "adjusted for"? Air Traffic · seen in 17.6% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 17.6% of calls 92.6% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "moving to" or "turning to" when changing topics? Air Traffic · seen in 74.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 74.8% of calls 93.8% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "over to you" or "I'll turn it over"? Air Traffic · seen in 79.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 79.9% of calls 81.1% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "operator" aloud during the call? Air Traffic · seen in 43.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 43.9% of calls 87.6% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone repeat the same stock phrase three or more times? Anthropologist · seen in 85.4% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 85.4% of calls 82.7% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone use the phrase "as you know" to introduce a claim? Anthropologist · seen in 49% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 49% of calls 90.7% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker apologize without attaching a fix to the apology? Anthropologist · seen in 21.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 21.2% of calls 85.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the call end without any closing statement from the CEO? Anthropologist · seen in 24.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.4% of calls 93% repeat consistency
NO Is there a request to move the call along or to the last question? Bankruptcy · seen in 20% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 20% of calls 86.3% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive answer a question with another question? Bankruptcy · seen in 36.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 36.2% of calls 84.3% repeat consistency
NO Does an executive mention the weather? Bankruptcy · seen in 26.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 26.1% of calls 96% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone describe a negotiation currently in progress? Bankruptcy · seen in 31.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 31.5% of calls 90% repeat consistency
NO Does an executive describe a competitor with anything resembling respect? Bankruptcy · seen in 13.2% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.2% of calls 90% repeat consistency
NO Does the operator announce more than ten questioners in the Q&A? Clinical Trial · seen in 21.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 21.8% of calls 98% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone use the phrase "kind of" at least twice? Clinical Trial · seen in 75.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.9% of calls 87.5% repeat consistency
YES Does any question include the word "color"? Clinical Trial · seen in 59.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 59.8% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the CEO deliver the opening remarks rather than the CFO or IR head? Clinical Trial · seen in 87% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 87% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone say "if I may" or "if you don't mind"? Clinical Trial · seen in 16.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 16.3% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
NO Does any executive's first sentence include the word "revenue"? Clinical Trial · seen in 11.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 11.4% of calls 84.8% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst use the word "clarification" or "clarify" in a question? Compliance · seen in 29.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 29.5% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any question contain the phrase "color on" or "some color"? Compliance · seen in 53.1% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 53.1% of calls 86.6% repeat consistency
NO Does the operator use the phrase "our final question" before closing? Compliance · seen in 12.9% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 12.9% of calls 92.8% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "let me" at least three times? Compliance · seen in 32.5% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.5% of calls 94.8% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "aggressive" or "aggressively" appear at least once? Compliance · seen in 35.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 35.4% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst ask a question referencing "the puts and takes"? Compliance · seen in 10.7% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.7% of calls 97.6% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the phrase "to be clear"? Compliance · seen in 16.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 16.3% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst's question include a compliment followed by "but"? Compliance · seen in 14.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 14.1% of calls 85.6% repeat consistency
NO Does the CFO use the word "sequential" or "sequentially" at least once? Compliance · seen in 31.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 31.5% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "with that" at least twice? Compliance · seen in 51.5% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 51.5% of calls 91.8% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone say "for the benefit of" or "just to remind" when restating context? Compliance · seen in 10.7% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.7% of calls 91.8% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the phrase "early days"? Con Artist · seen in 12.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 12.8% of calls 96.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "journey" appear? Con Artist · seen in 19.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 19.8% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the speaker describe a strategy as "disciplined" without describing any trade-off? Con Artist · seen in 23.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.1% of calls 84% repeat consistency
NO Is there an apology offered to a specific analyst by name? Con Artist · seen in 11.2% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 11.2% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone use the phrase "to be honest" or "frankly"? Couples · seen in 33.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.8% of calls 97% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone promise to "follow up" or "take that offline" and fail to commit to when? Couples · seen in 15.6% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 15.6% of calls 85.3% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone on the call interrupt a colleague mid-sentence? Couples · seen in 13.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.4% of calls 91% repeat consistency
YES Does someone use a personal anecdote rather than a metric to justify confidence? Couples · seen in 20.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 20.8% of calls 81.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "question" appear in the operator's speech more than three times? Courtroom · seen in 88.1% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 88.1% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "growth" appear at least ten times? Courtroom · seen in 69.4% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 69.4% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone use the phrase "a couple of"? Courtroom · seen in 81% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 81% of calls 93.6% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst ask about capital allocation or buybacks? Courtroom · seen in 46.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 46.3% of calls 90.9% repeat consistency
NO Does management use the word "strong" at least three times? Courtroom · seen in 83.2% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.2% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive use the phrase "we're seeing" at least twice? Courtroom · seen in 53.4% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 53.4% of calls 87.5% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "opportunity" appear at least three times? Courtroom · seen in 77.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 77.2% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency
NO Does management use the word "confident" or "confidence" at least twice? Courtroom · seen in 53.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 53.4% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the phrase "record" appear at least twice in the transcript? Courtroom · seen in 34.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 34.9% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "team" appear at least twice? Courtroom · seen in 72% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 72% of calls 93.9% repeat consistency
NO Does management promise to follow up or take a question offline? Courtroom · seen in 18.2% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 18.2% of calls 85.5% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "we're excited about" or "we're pleased with"? Courtroom · seen in 62% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 62% of calls 82.3% repeat consistency
NO Do two or more analysts from the same firm ask questions? Courtroom · seen in 11.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 11.5% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone use the phrase "moving forward" or "go forward"? Courtroom · seen in 40.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 40.7% of calls 85.5% repeat consistency
YES Does management mention a specific number of stores, locations, or markets? Courtroom · seen in 48% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 48% of calls 88.9% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the word "folks"? Courtroom · seen in 23.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.5% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "thank you" more than five times in total? Courtroom · seen in 87.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 87.2% of calls 88.2% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive use the phrase "we believe"? Courtroom · seen in 83.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.6% of calls 94.9% repeat consistency
YES Does the operator use the phrase "next question" at least three times? Debate · seen in 75.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.2% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst mention a specific percentage figure in their question? Debate · seen in 66.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 66.3% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "quarter" appear in at least ten questions or answers during the Q&A? Debate · seen in 75.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.7% of calls 91.2% repeat consistency
NO Does at least one analyst ask a question about margins or costs? Debate · seen in 88.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 88.5% of calls 95.6% repeat consistency
YES Does the CEO answer the majority of analyst questions personally? Debate · seen in 66.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 66.9% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst ask a question phrased as "Can you talk about" or "Can you speak to"? Debate · seen in 60% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 60% of calls 89.6% repeat consistency
YES Does the CFO speak during the Q&A portion at least twice? Debate · seen in 80.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 80.6% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any question reference a specific quarter (e.g., "fourth quarter") by name? Debate · seen in 76.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 76.2% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the operator interrupt the Q&A to announce time is limited or that this will be the last question? Debate · seen in 24% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 24% of calls 91.2% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst ask a question beginning with "just" (e.g., "just curious")? Debate · seen in 77.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 77.8% of calls 82.8% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst ask about a specific dollar amount or number stated in the prepared remarks? Debate · seen in 86.4% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 86.4% of calls 84.9% repeat consistency
NO Does any question begin with the words "can you" or "could you"? Debate · seen in 83.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.3% of calls 86.2% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive use the phrase "if you look at" during the Q&A? Debate · seen in 52.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 52.9% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the CFO answer at least one question without the CEO speaking first? Debate · seen in 77.5% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 77.5% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst ask a question containing an explicit comparison to a competitor company? Debate · seen in 31.7% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 31.7% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency
YES Does the phrase "moving on" or "next question" come from the operator? Debate · seen in 88.4% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 88.4% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst ask about capital allocation (capex, buybacks, M&A, or dividends) in one question? Debate · seen in 60.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 60.4% of calls 92% repeat consistency
YES Does the phrase "color" appear (e.g., "add some color") in the transcript? Debate · seen in 75.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.2% of calls 98.6% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "guidance" appear at least five times in the transcript? Debate · seen in 47.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 47.3% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency
NO Does any question contain the word "why"? Debate · seen in 36.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 36.3% of calls 96.9% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "I think" at least three times within a single answer? Debate · seen in 65.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 65.8% of calls 93% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive begin an answer by restating the analyst's name? Debate · seen in 85.1% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 85.1% of calls 93.6% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive's answer exceed 300 words in the transcript? Debate · seen in 68% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 68% of calls 85.5% repeat consistency
YES Does the CEO answer the first analyst question personally? Debate · seen in 65.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 65.9% of calls 97% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "obviously" appear in the transcript? Debate · seen in 74.1% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 74.1% of calls 89.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the transcript contain the word "margin" more than ten times? Debate · seen in 44.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 44.3% of calls 91.3% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive begin an answer with "So" as the first word? Debate · seen in 68.4% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 68.4% of calls 83.6% repeat consistency
YES Does the phrase "if I may" or "if I could" appear? Debate · seen in 32% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 32% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive say "let me" at least once? Debate · seen in 66.1% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 66.1% of calls 94.5% repeat consistency
NO Does any question contain the word "specifically"? Debate · seen in 28.6% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 28.6% of calls 90% repeat consistency
NO Does management use the word "momentum" at least twice? Debate · seen in 31.7% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 31.7% of calls 96.6% repeat consistency
YES Does management mention "margin" or "margins" in prepared remarks? Debate · seen in 75.1% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.1% of calls 96.6% repeat consistency
YES Is the word "definitely" used by any speaker? Debate · seen in 41.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.6% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "seasonality" appear? Debate · seen in 27.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.1% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone use the word "robust" to describe demand, growth, or the pipeline? Debate · seen in 33% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 33% of calls 94% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the word "leverage" as a verb at least once? Debate · seen in 48.9% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 48.9% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive use the word "team" when referring to employees? Debate · seen in 80.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 80.8% of calls 95.2% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive say "that said" or "having said that" to introduce a caveat? Debate · seen in 29.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 29.3% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst's question include the phrase "going forward"? Debate · seen in 20.6% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 20.6% of calls 83.5% repeat consistency
NO Does an executive say "great question" at any point? Debate · seen in 20.2% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 20.2% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "we remain confident" or "we are confident"? Debate · seen in 42.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 42.2% of calls 93% repeat consistency
NO Does any executive say "thank you" immediately after finishing an answer? Debate · seen in 47.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 47.4% of calls 85.2% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive cite a specific dollar figure greater than one billion? Discovery · seen in 71% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 71% of calls 97.6% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst's question contain the word "curious"? Discovery · seen in 57.5% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 57.5% of calls 99% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst reference a specific prior quarter by name (e.g., "last quarter")? Discovery · seen in 63% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 63% of calls 82.5% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "obviously" two or more times? Discovery · seen in 61.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 61.8% of calls 88.7% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst ask a follow-up in the same turn after their first answer? Discovery · seen in 86.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 86.2% of calls 91.9% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst ask about a specific geographic region or market? Discovery · seen in 70.6% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 70.6% of calls 91.4% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst ask a question that includes the phrase "long term" or "long-term"? Discovery · seen in 34.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 34.7% of calls 82.5% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "margin" or "margins" appear at least five times? Discovery · seen in 63.4% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 63.4% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "opportunity" or "opportunities" appear at least three times? Discovery · seen in 76.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 76.7% of calls 95.2% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive say "we'll come back to that" or defer an answer to a follow-up? Discovery · seen in 37.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.3% of calls 86.5% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone say "thank you" three or more times in the Q&A section? Discovery · seen in 82.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 82.3% of calls 85.2% repeat consistency
NO Does the CFO use the phrase "free cash flow" at least once? Discovery · seen in 34.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 34.4% of calls 98% repeat consistency
NO Does any executive use the word "momentum"? Discovery · seen in 51.2% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 51.2% of calls 97.6% repeat consistency
YES Does the CEO mention at least one specific customer segment by name (e.g., "enterprise")? Discovery · seen in 70.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 70.6% of calls 86.2% repeat consistency
NO Does the phrase "take your question" or "take the question" appear? Discovery · seen in 23.7% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.7% of calls 81.5% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst introduce themselves by name before asking their first question? Discovery · seen in 27.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.2% of calls 95.5% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "including" at least three times? Discovery · seen in 68.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 68.3% of calls 85.6% repeat consistency
NO Does management reference "the macro environment" or "macroeconomic" at least once? Discovery · seen in 25.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 25.5% of calls 97.6% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive reference "our team" or "the team" at least twice? Discovery · seen in 59.5% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 59.5% of calls 88.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the operator announce more than one analyst from the same firm? Discovery · seen in 15% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 15% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency
NO Does any prepared remark mention "headwinds" or "tailwinds"? Discovery · seen in 33.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.1% of calls 94.8% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "with that, I'll turn it over"? Discovery · seen in 55.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 55.8% of calls 83.5% repeat consistency
NO Does the CFO use the phrase "capital allocation"? Discovery · seen in 15.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 15.3% of calls 99% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive decline to answer, citing that something will come later or is not disclosed? Editor · seen in 77.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 77.3% of calls 92.9% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst ask a two-part question containing the word "but"? Editor · seen in 74.2% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 74.2% of calls 83.3% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone ask a follow-up question in the same turn after their first question is answered? Editor · seen in 87.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 87.8% of calls 92.9% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone answer "yes" or "no" as the first word of a response? Editor · seen in 83.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.2% of calls 90.3% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone say "thank you" at least ten times in the transcript? Editor · seen in 73.2% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 73.2% of calls 81.8% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive use the phrase "if you look at" at least twice? Editor · seen in 36.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 36.2% of calls 89.9% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst begin their question with "Hi" or "Hello" as a greeting? Editor · seen in 60.1% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 60.1% of calls 95.6% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "we are excited about" without naming a number? Editor · seen in 38.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 38.7% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst reference a peer company's results or valuation? Editor · seen in 21.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 21.4% of calls 88% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker use the phrase "just to clarify" or "just to be clear"? Editor · seen in 20.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 20.3% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency
NO Does management use the word "headwind" or "headwinds"? Editor · seen in 42.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 42.1% of calls 97.6% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker use the word "tailwind" or "tailwinds"? Editor · seen in 27.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.3% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker use the word "momentum"? Editor · seen in 52.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 52.8% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "investments" appear in the context of margins or costs? Editor · seen in 40.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 40.8% of calls 88% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone mention "FX" or "foreign exchange"? Editor · seen in 27.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.4% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "efficiency" or "productivity" appear at least twice? Editor · seen in 47.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 47.4% of calls 96% repeat consistency
YES Does an analyst thank the executives or congratulate them before asking a question? Editor · seen in 74.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 74.7% of calls 91.9% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive say "great question" or "thanks for the question"? Editor · seen in 40.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 40.2% of calls 89.9% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive say "as we said last quarter" or reference a prior call? Editor · seen in 72.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 72.2% of calls 83.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the phrase "going forward" appear at least twice? Editor · seen in 30.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 30.1% of calls 88.2% repeat consistency
NO Does management use the word "levers" when discussing actions? Editor · seen in 13% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 13% of calls 95% repeat consistency
NO Does management thank analysts by name at any point after a question? Editor · seen in 58.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 58.8% of calls 87.5% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone say "we'll take that offline" or offer to follow up after the call? Editor · seen in 15.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 15.3% of calls 86.5% repeat consistency
YES Does management use the word "committed" regarding a target? Editor · seen in 33.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.2% of calls 91% repeat consistency
NO Does the CEO's prepared remarks mention "macro" or "macroeconomic"? Editor · seen in 19.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 19.5% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the phrase "the vast majority"? Editor · seen in 16.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 16.3% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "temporary" or "transitory" appear? Editor · seen in 18.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 18.6% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
YES Is an analyst's question answered with "great question" or similar? Editor · seen in 28.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 28.9% of calls 88.6% repeat consistency
NO Is there a questioner from an investment bank other than the first three analysts who ask questions? Fact Checker · seen in 80.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 80.1% of calls 98% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst ask a question that includes a reference to a specific dollar figure? Fact Checker · seen in 64.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 64.9% of calls 93.6% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone say "thank you" at least ten times across the call? Fact Checker · seen in 67.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 67.1% of calls 81.1% repeat consistency
YES Does the phrase "thank you for taking my question" or "thanks for taking my question" appear? Fact Checker · seen in 50.4% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 50.4% of calls 94.9% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst's first sentence contain a compliment or thanks before asking their question? Fact Checker · seen in 81.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 81.3% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the CFO present in both the prepared remarks and the Q&A portion of the call? Fact Checker · seen in 84.1% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 84.1% of calls 98% repeat consistency
YES Does the CEO personally deliver the closing remarks of the call? Fact Checker · seen in 68.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 68.9% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the CEO's prepared remarks contain the word "team" at least twice? Fact Checker · seen in 40.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 40.9% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker use the phrase "moving on" or "with that" to transition between topics? Fact Checker · seen in 80.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 80.9% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the phrase "in terms of" appear at least twice? Forensic · seen in 84.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 84.8% of calls 94% repeat consistency
NO First-person singular ("I believe," "I think") used more by the CFO than the CEO. Forensic · seen in 13.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.5% of calls 89% repeat consistency
YES A single question receives answers from two different executives. Forensic · seen in 83.4% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.4% of calls 97.7% repeat consistency
YES A hedge word ("maybe," "sort of") appears inside a direct quantitative claim. Forensic · seen in 78.4% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 78.4% of calls 81% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker use the word "obviously"? Forensic · seen in 81.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 81.7% of calls 95% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "guidance" appear in both prepared remarks and the Q&A section? Forensic · seen in 50% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 50% of calls 93% repeat consistency
NO Does any executive defer a question to another executive by name? Forensic · seen in 61.6% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 61.6% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency
YES Someone uses the word "honestly," "frankly," or "to be clear." Forensic · seen in 44.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 44.9% of calls 96% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone use the word "ecosystem" or "platform" without a number attached? Forensic · seen in 60.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 60.6% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency
YES Does the transcript contain the word "certainly" three or more times? Forensic · seen in 34.5% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 34.5% of calls 93% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone begin an answer by restating or paraphrasing the analyst's name? Forensic · seen in 76.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 76.6% of calls 89% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst reference a competitor by name during their question? Forensic · seen in 24.2% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.2% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
YES Does a speaker say "let me" at least twice in the transcript? Forensic · seen in 49.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 49.3% of calls 93.7% repeat consistency
YES The transcript contains an apology unrelated to financial results. Forensic · seen in 39.5% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 39.5% of calls 86% repeat consistency
NO The word "challenge" is spoken more often than "opportunity." Forensic · seen in 14.7% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 14.7% of calls 93% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "seasonality" or "seasonal" appear? Forensic · seen in 44.7% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 44.7% of calls 99.3% repeat consistency
NO The phrase "as you know" appears at least twice. Forensic · seen in 27.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.8% of calls 89% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker use the word "challenge" or "challenges" at least three times? Forensic · seen in 18.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 18.3% of calls 86% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone mention "weather" as a factor affecting results? Forensic · seen in 19.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 19.1% of calls 95.7% repeat consistency
NO Does an executive say "thank you" to the analyst before answering a question? Forensic · seen in 46.7% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 46.7% of calls 81.9% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "great question" or similar praise of a question? Forensic · seen in 37.4% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.4% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency
YES The final question is answered noticeably shorter than the opening ones. Forensic · seen in 37.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.3% of calls 81% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone say "we remain" followed by a verb (e.g., "we remain committed")? Forensic · seen in 36% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 36% of calls 82.6% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive cite a conversation with a customer that has no verifiable specificity (unnamed, undated, unquantified)? Historian · seen in 48.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 48.9% of calls 82% repeat consistency
NO Does the transcript contain a sentence that begins with "What I would say is"? Historian · seen in 10.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.3% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any question mention a specific percentage or dollar figure? Hostage · seen in 88.5% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 88.5% of calls 93.9% repeat consistency
YES Does the CEO personally answer more questions than any other executive? Hostage · seen in 72.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 72.7% of calls 93.9% repeat consistency
YES Does the operator say "our final question" or similar? Hostage · seen in 18.1% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 18.1% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "opportunity" or "opportunities" appear at least five times? Hostage · seen in 58.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 58.7% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "clearly" appear at least twice? Hostage · seen in 24.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.8% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "leverage" appear as a verb at least twice? Hostage · seen in 26.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 26.5% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst's first name get used by an executive when thanking them? Hostage · seen in 57.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 57.8% of calls 85.2% repeat consistency
NO Does the operator announce more than five questioners? Insurance · seen in 64.7% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 64.7% of calls 99% repeat consistency
YES Are there more than ten analyst questions in total? Insurance · seen in 79.4% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 79.4% of calls 92.9% repeat consistency
NO Does the operator use the phrase "our next question comes from" more than three times? Insurance · seen in 52.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 52.3% of calls 80.4% repeat consistency
YES Are the CEO's prepared remarks longer than the CFO's, judged by speaker turns on the transcript page? Insurance · seen in 68.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 68.2% of calls 84.5% repeat consistency
YES Does management say "we are not going to comment on" or equivalent refusal language? Insurance · seen in 40.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 40.6% of calls 83.3% repeat consistency
YES Executive corrects an analyst's premise. Insurance · seen in 60% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 60% of calls 80.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the CFO's prepared section exceed the CEO's in number of paragraphs? Insurance · seen in 38% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 38% of calls 86.5% repeat consistency
YES Does the CEO personally answer more than half of the analyst questions? Insurance · seen in 64.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 64.9% of calls 92.1% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst mention the word "margin" in their first question? Insurance · seen in 39.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 39.4% of calls 93.8% repeat consistency
YES Executive uses the word "excited" more than twice. Insurance · seen in 27.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.7% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst ask a multi-part question containing three or more distinct questions? Insurance · seen in 82% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 82% of calls 87.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "guidance" appear at least three times? Insurance · seen in 58.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 58.2% of calls 94% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst ask a two-part question signaled by "and also" or "and secondly"? Insurance · seen in 46.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 46.5% of calls 84.2% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst begin with a compliment, such as "great quarter" or "congrats"? Insurance · seen in 41.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.4% of calls 93.9% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive say "we said" when recalling prior statements? Insurance · seen in 47.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 47.7% of calls 89.7% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst begin their turn with "thanks" or "thank you"? Insurance · seen in 71.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 71.8% of calls 89.9% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "headwind" or "tailwind" appear at least twice? Insurance · seen in 36.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 36.1% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "synergies" appear? Insurance · seen in 19.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 19.8% of calls 99% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst address a question to two or more executives by name? Insurance · seen in 33.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.6% of calls 86.6% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "capital" appear at least five times? Insurance · seen in 53.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 53.8% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive say "we feel" rather than "we believe" or "we think"? Insurance · seen in 58.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 58.2% of calls 95.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "capital" appear in at least three different speakers' turns? Insurance · seen in 37.7% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.7% of calls 90.4% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive use the phrase "over time" at least twice? Insurance · seen in 24.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.7% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive say "as I mentioned" or "as we said" at least once? Insurance · seen in 75.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.9% of calls 87.2% repeat consistency
YES Does the CEO open the call before any analyst questions by mentioning the macro environment? Insurance · seen in 32% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 32% of calls 87% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "we are pleased" or "we're excited"? Insurance · seen in 75% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 75% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the word "leverage" (financial or metaphorical)? Insurance · seen in 72.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 72.8% of calls 95.7% repeat consistency
YES Does an analyst thank management before asking their question? Insurance · seen in 60.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 60.9% of calls 82.3% repeat consistency
YES Is the word "automation" or "productivity" used at least once? Insurance · seen in 37.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.9% of calls 99% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "uncertainty" or "uncertainties" appear at least twice? Insurance · seen in 37.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.8% of calls 95% repeat consistency
NO Does the phrase "year over year" appear at least three times? Insurance · seen in 46% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 46% of calls 90.6% repeat consistency
NO Does management use the word "leverage" or "leveraging" at least twice? Insurance · seen in 51.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 51.1% of calls 94.6% repeat consistency
NO Currency headwinds mentioned unprompted. Insurance · seen in 29.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 29.3% of calls 97% repeat consistency
NO Is the phrase "a number of" used at least once? Insurance · seen in 67.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 67.1% of calls 94.6% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone use the phrase "best-in-class" or "industry-leading"? Insurance · seen in 27.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.3% of calls 100% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "momentum" appear at least twice in prepared remarks? Insurance · seen in 21.7% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 21.7% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency
NO Is the phrase "on a constant currency basis" or similar currency adjustment used? Insurance · seen in 20.6% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 20.6% of calls 97% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst's question include the phrase "just to clarify"? Insurance · seen in 10.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.1% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the phrase "the team" appear at least twice in management remarks? Insurance · seen in 41.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.2% of calls 80.5% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker say "so clearly" or "quite frankly"? Insurance · seen in 18% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 18% of calls 90.2% repeat consistency
YES Does management use the phrase "we believe" at least three times? Insurance · seen in 54% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 54% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
YES Speaker says "we don't guide" on anything. Insurance · seen in 16.5% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 16.5% of calls 91.7% repeat consistency
YES Does the CFO use the word "quarter" at least ten times? Insurance · seen in 74.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 74.6% of calls 90.7% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "thank you" more than five times in total? Insurance · seen in 81.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 81.2% of calls 83.8% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "macro" or "macroeconomic" appear at least twice in the call? Insurance · seen in 23.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.1% of calls 99.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the transcript contain the word "typically" at least twice? Insurance · seen in 17.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 17.4% of calls 92.6% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive state they will "come back to" a question or follow up later? Insurance · seen in 13.4% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.4% of calls 89.7% repeat consistency
YES Does management thank analysts for their questions at any point during Q&A? Insurance · seen in 59.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 59.8% of calls 82.5% repeat consistency
NO Speaker admits being surprised by anything. Insurance · seen in 28.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 28.1% of calls 86% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker use the phrase "going forward"? Insurance · seen in 61.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 61.4% of calls 88% repeat consistency
NO Does management use the phrase "going forward" at least twice? Insurance · seen in 24.9% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.9% of calls 84.2% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "stability" or "stable" when describing demand? Insurance · seen in 23.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.6% of calls 89.6% repeat consistency
NO Word "normal" used about demand. Insurance · seen in 29.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 29.3% of calls 86.3% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive say "stay tuned" or "more to come"? Insurance · seen in 11.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 11.7% of calls 99% repeat consistency
NO Does management describe a cost program, restructuring, or efficiency initiative by a proper name? Insurance · seen in 16.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 16.8% of calls 94% repeat consistency
NO Does the CFO's prepared section mention interest expense by name or figure? Insurance · seen in 31.7% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 31.7% of calls 97.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "volatility" appear? Insurance · seen in 28.6% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 28.6% of calls 99.3% repeat consistency
YES Executive mentions a hobby or personal anecdote. Insurance · seen in 16.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 16.7% of calls 88% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "pipeline" appear without a dollar figure attached? Insurance · seen in 55.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 55.3% of calls 99% repeat consistency
NO Does the phrase "the macro" or "macro environment" appear? Insurance · seen in 19.7% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 19.7% of calls 93.6% repeat consistency
NO Does the phrase "our team" appear at least twice? Insurance · seen in 32.9% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.9% of calls 85.5% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive say "great question" or "good question" at least twice? Insurance · seen in 15% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 15% of calls 97% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker say "we remain" followed by an adjective? Insurance · seen in 53.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 53.5% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency
NO Does management thank analysts by name when responding? Insurance · seen in 52.9% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 52.9% of calls 83.5% repeat consistency
NO Is the word "flexibility" or "flexible" used at least once? Insurance · seen in 44.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 44.4% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "takeaway," "take out," or "take rate"? Insurance · seen in 17.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 17.8% of calls 95% repeat consistency
NO Analyst compliments the team before asking a question. Insurance · seen in 17.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 17.4% of calls 80.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker use "we're" where "we are" could substitute, more than twenty times overall? Interrogator · seen in 61.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 61.9% of calls 83.8% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst reference the CEO or CFO by first name? Interrogator · seen in 79.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 79.6% of calls 93.8% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "obviously" at least three times? Interrogator · seen in 43.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 43.3% of calls 86.9% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the word "pipeline" at least twice? Interrogator · seen in 37.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.8% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "moving on" or "let me turn it over" during prepared remarks? Interrogator · seen in 36% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 36% of calls 88.3% repeat consistency
YES Does an analyst ask a question starting with "just"? Linguist · seen in 72.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 72.9% of calls 81.8% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone say "headwind" or "headwinds" more than once? Linguist · seen in 27.7% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.7% of calls 97.6% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst use the phrase "to clarify"? Linguist · seen in 17.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 17.1% of calls 92.4% repeat consistency
NO Does any executive use the phrase "year over year" at least three times? Linguist · seen in 41.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.8% of calls 91.8% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive cite a conversation with a customer, partner, or employee as evidence? Military · seen in 53% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 53% of calls 84.3% repeat consistency
NO Does any question go to a named executive other than the CEO or CFO? Military · seen in 32.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.5% of calls 85.7% repeat consistency
NO Does an executive say "to be clear" or "let me be clear"? Military · seen in 13.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.8% of calls 96% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone mention a competitor by name without being prompted? Military · seen in 17% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 17% of calls 91.7% repeat consistency
YES Is there a question that management declines to answer directly, citing timing or disclosure constraints? Negotiation · seen in 71.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 71.2% of calls 88% repeat consistency
NO Does any question explicitly reference the company's prior guidance or outlook? Negotiation · seen in 80% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 80% of calls 91.7% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "next question" or does the operator use the word "final" before the last question? Negotiation · seen in 76.1% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 76.1% of calls 81.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "invest" or "investment" appear at least five times in the transcript? Negotiation · seen in 62% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 62% of calls 92% repeat consistency
NO Does the CFO handle a strategic question instead of a financial one? Negotiation · seen in 58.9% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 58.9% of calls 86.3% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst flatter management within their first sentence of speaking? Negotiation · seen in 46.6% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 46.6% of calls 90.7% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst ask two questions when told to ask only one? Negotiation · seen in 15.2% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 15.2% of calls 88.3% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the phrase "underlying" to modify a business metric? Negotiation · seen in 38.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 38.3% of calls 94.7% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "excited" or "pleased" at least twice in the transcript? Negotiation · seen in 70.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 70.6% of calls 97% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "guidance" appear in the prepared remarks (not just Q&A)? Negotiation · seen in 64% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 64% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency
YES Is the word "margin" used with a number attached (e.g., "400 basis points")? Negotiation · seen in 66.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 66.7% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the transcript contain the word "record" preceding a noun (e.g., "record margin")? Negotiation · seen in 40.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 40.6% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive answer a question by citing a competitor's actions? Negotiation · seen in 36.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 36.3% of calls 88% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "macro" or "macroeconomic" appear in the transcript? Negotiation · seen in 39.9% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 39.9% of calls 99.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "challenges" appear more than once? Negotiation · seen in 21.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 21.8% of calls 92.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the CEO begin an answer with "look" or "listen"? Negotiation · seen in 21.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 21.3% of calls 94.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "inflation" appear anywhere in the transcript? Negotiation · seen in 36.9% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 36.9% of calls 98% repeat consistency
NO Is there a pause or silence acknowledged on the call ("I think we lost you")? Negotiation · seen in 19.2% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 19.2% of calls 87.7% repeat consistency
NO Does an executive name a specific competitor during the call? Negotiation · seen in 24.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.5% of calls 90.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "challenges" appear at least three times in the transcript? Negotiation · seen in 12.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 12.3% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone say "we don't break that out" in response to a question? Negotiation · seen in 10.7% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.7% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone describe a metric as "noisy" or "lumpy"? Negotiation · seen in 15.6% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 15.6% of calls 95.7% repeat consistency
NO Does an executive mention a specific number of percentage points when discussing market share? Negotiation · seen in 14.7% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 14.7% of calls 96.7% repeat consistency
YES Does a speaker correct a figure they themselves just stated? Negotiation · seen in 23.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.8% of calls 84% repeat consistency
NO Does the CEO refer to a competitor by name rather than "competition" or "peers"? Negotiation · seen in 18.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 18.8% of calls 91.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the CEO mention their own tenure or years of experience unprompted? Negotiation · seen in 19.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 19.9% of calls 97% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone use the phrase "the team" when taking ownership would be natural? Poker · seen in 42.5% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 42.5% of calls 81% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone blame weather, holidays, or calendar quirks unprompted? Poker · seen in 35.6% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 35.6% of calls 83% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone cite a personal anecdote involving a customer conversation? Poker · seen in 16.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 16.6% of calls 81.7% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone use the phrase "a little bit"? Private Credit · seen in 87.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 87.3% of calls 96% repeat consistency
YES Is the CFO the speaker for at least one analyst question? Private Credit · seen in 87.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 87.8% of calls 99% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "guidance" appear in the transcript? Private Credit · seen in 78.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 78.7% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "we're excited" or "we are excited"? Private Credit · seen in 49.5% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 49.5% of calls 93.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "dividend" appear? Private Credit · seen in 45.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 45.5% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency
YES Is the word "invest" or "investment" used more than twice? Private Credit · seen in 75% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 75% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "invest" or "investment" appear at least twice? Private Credit · seen in 85.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 85.8% of calls 96.7% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone cite a percentage of revenue from a specific segment? Private Credit · seen in 40.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 40.3% of calls 92.6% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "challenge" or "challenging" appear at least once? Private Credit · seen in 68.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 68.6% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone describe cutting discretionary spending like travel or hiring? Private Credit · seen in 13.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.8% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the phrase "year over year" appear? Private Credit · seen in 72.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 72.9% of calls 96% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "liquidity" appear at least once? Private Credit · seen in 34.7% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 34.7% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the transcript mention refinancing, maturity dates, or debt coming due? Private Credit · seen in 32% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 32% of calls 95% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone mention selling assets, real estate, or equipment to raise cash? Private Credit · seen in 24.2% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.2% of calls 90.7% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone reference "the macro" or "macro environment"? Private Credit · seen in 26.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 26.5% of calls 91% repeat consistency
YES Is the word "capacity" mentioned? Private Credit · seen in 55.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 55.7% of calls 100% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone use the phrase "our customers" rather than naming a customer? Private Credit · seen in 60.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 60.7% of calls 95% repeat consistency
NO Does the transcript include a question about interest expense or debt service? Private Credit · seen in 10.7% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.7% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the phrase "working capital" appear in a context other than a seasonality excuse? Private Credit · seen in 25.7% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 25.7% of calls 98% repeat consistency
YES Does management thank analysts at any point? Private Credit · seen in 84.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 84.9% of calls 84.3% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone reference borrowing from a bank or drawing on a credit facility? Private Credit · seen in 32.6% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.6% of calls 87.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "cost" appear in the first ten sentences of prepared remarks? Private Credit · seen in 23.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.8% of calls 85.3% repeat consistency
NO Does an executive say "we remain confident" or similar? Private Credit · seen in 35.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 35.8% of calls 82.6% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone mention covenants, amendments to loan documents, or lender conversations? Private Credit · seen in 11.6% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 11.6% of calls 95.7% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "with that" or "that said" to pivot? Private Credit · seen in 81.4% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 81.4% of calls 96.7% repeat consistency
NO Does an executive open their first answer by thanking the analyst? Private Credit · seen in 37.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.1% of calls 94.6% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst's question include the word "capex" or "cash flow"? Procurement · seen in 38.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 38.5% of calls 94.5% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "headline" or "headwinds" appear at least once? Procurement · seen in 43.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 43.1% of calls 95.9% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "core" appear at least twice? Procurement · seen in 44% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 44% of calls 97.6% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst's turn contain the word "congratulations"? Procurement · seen in 20.2% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 20.2% of calls 97.6% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst ask a question containing "how" and also "why"? Procurement · seen in 11.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 11.3% of calls 94.5% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive say "as we mentioned" or "as I mentioned" at least once? Procurement · seen in 66.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 66.3% of calls 89.7% repeat consistency
NO Are there more than eight analyst questioners? Project · seen in 37.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.5% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst's question include a percentage figure? Project · seen in 69.1% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 69.1% of calls 91.1% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst's question contain the word "guidance"? Project · seen in 54.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 54.3% of calls 92.4% repeat consistency
NO Does the CFO's prepared remarks exceed 1,000 words? Project · seen in 40.9% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 40.9% of calls 89.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "if you look at"? Project · seen in 54.1% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 54.1% of calls 89.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the CEO personally answer the first question? Project · seen in 69.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 69.3% of calls 92.4% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker use the phrase "tailwind" or "tailwinds"? Project · seen in 27.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.3% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
NO Does management use the phrase "balance sheet" at least twice? Project · seen in 41.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.1% of calls 96.6% repeat consistency
YES Does the CEO make closing remarks after the Q&A ends? Project · seen in 64.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 64.8% of calls 96.2% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker say "structurally" or "secular"? Project · seen in 13% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 13% of calls 97.9% repeat consistency
YES Does the operator say "our next question" two or more times? Scientist · seen in 73.5% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 73.5% of calls 85.6% repeat consistency
YES Does the final questioner get an explicit closing acknowledgment from the operator ("last question" or similar)? Scientist · seen in 25.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 25.7% of calls 95.2% repeat consistency
NO Does management use the phrase "business as usual" or "as expected" at least once? Scientist · seen in 23.9% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.9% of calls 94.2% repeat consistency
YES Does an analyst preface a question with "quick" or "quickly"? Screenwriter · seen in 56% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 56% of calls 99% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive state a specific numeric percentage when answering a question? Screenwriter · seen in 86.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 86.7% of calls 97.9% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "in terms of" at least twice? Screenwriter · seen in 84.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 84.8% of calls 94% repeat consistency
NO Is there a question that clearly annoyed the executive, visible in the reply's abruptness? Screenwriter · seen in 27.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.1% of calls 85.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "guidance" appear in the Q&A section? Screenwriter · seen in 66.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 66.6% of calls 93.1% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "strong" appear more than five times? Screenwriter · seen in 64.9% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 64.9% of calls 91.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the phrase "thank you" appear more than ten times? Screenwriter · seen in 62.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 62.8% of calls 80.9% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst ask a question containing the word "margin"? Screenwriter · seen in 60.2% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 60.2% of calls 93.6% repeat consistency
YES Does management use the word "guidance" at least twice? Screenwriter · seen in 65.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 65.8% of calls 95.5% repeat consistency
NO Does the phrase "thank you" appear at least ten times anywhere in the transcript? Screenwriter · seen in 72.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 72.8% of calls 83.2% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive begin an answer by restating the analyst's name? Screenwriter · seen in 85.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 85.3% of calls 97% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst ask about capital allocation or share repurchases? Screenwriter · seen in 42.2% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 42.2% of calls 93.1% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "challenge" or "challenging" appear at least twice? Screenwriter · seen in 47.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 47.8% of calls 95.2% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "opportunity" or "opportunities" appear more than three times? Screenwriter · seen in 66.5% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 66.5% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency
YES Is there a villain—market conditions, regulation, currency—that behaves consistently across the call? Screenwriter · seen in 83.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.3% of calls 86.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "challenging" appear? Screenwriter · seen in 41.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.6% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "certainly" appear at least once in management's answers? Screenwriter · seen in 59.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 59.3% of calls 95.9% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst ask a personal, warm, or congratulatory question? Screenwriter · seen in 49.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 49.4% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the phrase "capital" appear at least five times? Screenwriter · seen in 50.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 50.3% of calls 92.1% repeat consistency
YES Does an analyst ask a question the prepared remarks already answered? Screenwriter · seen in 86.1% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 86.1% of calls 82.7% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "quarter" appear at least twenty times? Screenwriter · seen in 84.4% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 84.4% of calls 90.4% repeat consistency
YES Does any single analyst ask more than two questions during the whole call? Screenwriter · seen in 86.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 86.6% of calls 89.7% repeat consistency
YES Does the phrase "on a year-over-year basis" or "year over year" appear at least twice? Screenwriter · seen in 60.1% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 60.1% of calls 89.3% repeat consistency
NO Is the word "headwinds" or "tailwinds" used? Screenwriter · seen in 41.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.8% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "margin" appear at least three times? Screenwriter · seen in 73.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 73.6% of calls 98% repeat consistency
YES Is the word "confidence" or "confident" spoken by any executive? Screenwriter · seen in 73.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 73.2% of calls 97.7% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the phrase "call it" or "let's call it" before an estimate? Screenwriter · seen in 24.7% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.7% of calls 96.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the phrase "going forward" appear? Screenwriter · seen in 62.9% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 62.9% of calls 87.6% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "coming back" or "circling back" to take a follow-up? Screenwriter · seen in 11% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 11% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "inflation" appear at least twice? Screenwriter · seen in 25.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 25.3% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive say "we believe" at least twice? Screenwriter · seen in 65.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 65.8% of calls 92.8% repeat consistency
NO Does management use the phrase "going forward"? Screenwriter · seen in 56.2% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 56.2% of calls 85.6% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone use the word "robust"? Screenwriter · seen in 46% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 46% of calls 99% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker use the phrase "if you will" or "so to speak"? Screenwriter · seen in 23.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.2% of calls 97.7% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "appreciate" at least once? Screenwriter · seen in 63.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 63.9% of calls 94.2% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the phrase "at the end of the day"? Screenwriter · seen in 12.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 12.5% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone tell a self-contained anecdote with a beginning, middle, and end? Screenwriter · seen in 27.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.7% of calls 82% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive use the phrase "our team"? Screenwriter · seen in 50.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 50.8% of calls 88.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the transcript contain a silence, pause, or "we'll come back to that" that never resolves? Screenwriter · seen in 15.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 15.8% of calls 85.7% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone describe a customer, employee, or competitor as a named character with a motive? Screenwriter · seen in 11.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 11.4% of calls 87.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive say "we're pleased" or "I'm pleased"? Screenwriter · seen in 68.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 68.3% of calls 92.8% repeat consistency
NO Is there a moment of modesty—someone crediting luck or timing? Screenwriter · seen in 12.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 12.5% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the phrase "on a year-over-year basis"? Screenwriter · seen in 18.9% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 18.9% of calls 93.6% repeat consistency
YES Is the word "excited" or "exciting" used by management at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 45.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 45.8% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "just" five or more times? Semiotician · seen in 83.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.3% of calls 82.2% repeat consistency
NO Does any question begin with "Can you" or "Could you"? Semiotician · seen in 84.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 84.8% of calls 85.2% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "quick" or "quickly" appear in three or more analyst questions? Semiotician · seen in 13.2% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.2% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency
YES Does an analyst ask for guidance on a metric management did not offer unprompted? Semiotician · seen in 87.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 87.3% of calls 89.7% repeat consistency
NO Is there a question about capital allocation (buybacks, M&A, debt, or dividends)? Semiotician · seen in 67.7% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 67.7% of calls 91.7% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst use the word "clarify" or "clarification"? Semiotician · seen in 32.9% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.9% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "obviously" appear at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 57.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 57.9% of calls 87.2% repeat consistency
YES Does management refer to a prior call or prior quarter's commentary when answering? Semiotician · seen in 87.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 87.9% of calls 90% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone use the word "actually" at least three times? Semiotician · seen in 46.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 46.2% of calls 85.5% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive begin an answer with "Look," or "So,"? Semiotician · seen in 85.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 85.7% of calls 85% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "challenging" or "challenges" appear at least three times? Semiotician · seen in 32.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.2% of calls 90.6% repeat consistency
YES Does the operator run out of queued questions and close early? Semiotician · seen in 34.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 34.3% of calls 83.5% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst apologize or preface with "sorry" before asking? Semiotician · seen in 32.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.8% of calls 92.9% repeat consistency
YES Is the word "excited" used by the CEO more than the word "confident"? Semiotician · seen in 33.1% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.1% of calls 92% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker use the phrase "the right" before a noun ("the right team," "the right decisions")? Semiotician · seen in 57.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 57.8% of calls 94% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "guidance" appear more than five times in the transcript? Semiotician · seen in 31.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 31.8% of calls 93% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "tailwind" or "headwind" appear? Semiotician · seen in 52.2% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 52.2% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst's question begin with a compliment or congratulation? Semiotician · seen in 41.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.5% of calls 88.3% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst apologize before or during their question? Semiotician · seen in 32.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.8% of calls 96.6% repeat consistency
YES Are there more questions about revenue than about costs? Semiotician · seen in 69.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 69.8% of calls 85.2% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "challenging" appear at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 20.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 20.1% of calls 97% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker use the phrase "on a" four or more times total (e.g., "on a constant currency basis")? Semiotician · seen in 54.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 54.8% of calls 82.8% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive answer begin with "Sure" or "Yes" followed by a comma? Semiotician · seen in 71.4% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 71.4% of calls 83.2% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "from a ... perspective" (e.g., "from a margin perspective")? Semiotician · seen in 56.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 56.9% of calls 87.2% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive say "we're not going to" in response to a question? Semiotician · seen in 25% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 25% of calls 92% repeat consistency
YES Does management decline to answer by citing a future event ("we'll address that in..." or "at our upcoming...")? Semiotician · seen in 34.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 34.6% of calls 82% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "quarter" appear at least 20 times? Semiotician · seen in 87.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 87.7% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency
NO Is there a mention of "FX," "currency," or "foreign exchange"? Semiotician · seen in 39.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 39.5% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency
NO Does any executive say "that's right" or "that's correct" to an analyst? Semiotician · seen in 23.6% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.6% of calls 96.2% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "leverage" appear at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 52.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 52.1% of calls 94.5% repeat consistency
NO Is the word "leverage" used at least three times? Semiotician · seen in 37.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.8% of calls 90% repeat consistency
NO Does management use the word "headwinds" at least once? Semiotician · seen in 33.6% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.6% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "great question" or thank the analyst before answering? Semiotician · seen in 51.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 51.8% of calls 84% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone attribute results to "the team" rather than to strategy? Semiotician · seen in 61.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 61.6% of calls 90.7% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker say "going forward"? Semiotician · seen in 61.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 61.4% of calls 85.6% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst begin their question with "congratulations"? Semiotician · seen in 17.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 17.8% of calls 92.6% repeat consistency
YES Does an analyst thank management at the end of their turn? Semiotician · seen in 77.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 77.2% of calls 94.7% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone describe the future with "We believe" more than "We expect"? Semiotician · seen in 30.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 30.2% of calls 87.3% repeat consistency
NO Does a speaker say "normal" or "normalized" about conditions that predate any disruption mentioned? Semiotician · seen in 33.7% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.7% of calls 81% repeat consistency
NO Is the word "momentum" used without a stated metric attached to it? Semiotician · seen in 41.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.4% of calls 92.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "macro" appear at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 21.9% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 21.9% of calls 95.9% repeat consistency
YES Does management use the word "solid" at least once? Semiotician · seen in 57.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 57.7% of calls 97% repeat consistency
NO Is there an analogy to a machine, engine, or flywheel? Semiotician · seen in 29.2% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 29.2% of calls 88% repeat consistency
NO Is the word "visibility" used at least once? Semiotician · seen in 34.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 34.1% of calls 100% repeat consistency
NO Is the phrase "base case" or "scenario" used at least once? Semiotician · seen in 19.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 19.1% of calls 96.9% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "we take that seriously" or "we're very focused on"? Semiotician · seen in 18% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 18% of calls 92% repeat consistency
YES Is the phrase "to your point" or "as you mentioned" used at least once? Semiotician · seen in 32.8% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.8% of calls 83.5% repeat consistency
NO Does the operator say "thank you" more than three times? Semiotician · seen in 30% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 30% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency
NO Does management mention a specific competitor by name? Semiotician · seen in 20.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 20.8% of calls 93.1% repeat consistency
YES Does management say "the team" at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 31.9% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 31.9% of calls 85.9% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "fundamentally" appear at least once? Semiotician · seen in 12.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 12.3% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the phrase "ahead of" precede any mention of guidance or expectations? Semiotician · seen in 14.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 14.1% of calls 96.6% repeat consistency
NO Does management use the phrase "on a year-over-year basis"? Semiotician · seen in 16.9% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 16.9% of calls 96.6% repeat consistency
YES Does any single speaker say "right?" as a tag question at least once? Semiotician · seen in 34% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 34% of calls 87.5% repeat consistency
NO Does management use the phrase "on a consistent basis" or "consistently"? Semiotician · seen in 27.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.8% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency
NO Does a speaker begin a sentence with "To be honest" or "To be clear"? Semiotician · seen in 10.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.5% of calls 92.7% repeat consistency
YES Does management use the phrase "strategic" at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 46% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 46% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker describe a business unit as "healthy"? Semiotician · seen in 13.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.3% of calls 92.7% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker use the word "fundamentals"? Semiotician · seen in 17.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 17.8% of calls 100% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "resilient" or "resilience" appear? Semiotician · seen in 24.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.7% of calls 98% repeat consistency
NO Does the operator mention a queue or "next question" more than three times? Simultaneous · seen in 74.2% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 74.2% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst ask a follow-up after their initial answer ("follow-up", "second one", "just one more")? Simultaneous · seen in 88.5% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 88.5% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst ask a question containing the word "why"? Simultaneous · seen in 36.1% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 36.1% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "if you look at" before citing a number? Simultaneous · seen in 47.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 47.7% of calls 81.6% repeat consistency
NO Does the phrase "last question" or "final question" appear? Simultaneous · seen in 50.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 50.4% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "clearly" appear anywhere in the transcript? Simultaneous · seen in 50.9% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 50.9% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the CEO speak first among named executives in the Q&A? Simultaneous · seen in 68.3% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 68.3% of calls 94.6% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "headwind" or "headwinds" appear at least twice? Simultaneous · seen in 28.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 28.5% of calls 97% repeat consistency
YES Does the CFO mention a specific percentage greater than ten? Simultaneous · seen in 89.1% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 89.1% of calls 96.6% repeat consistency
NO Does the phrase "going forward" appear at least once? Simultaneous · seen in 63.4% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 63.4% of calls 86.5% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "team" appear at least three times? Simultaneous · seen in 59% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 59% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "confident" appear in any executive's remarks? Simultaneous · seen in 60.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 60.7% of calls 97.7% repeat consistency
YES Does an analyst thank management at the start or end of their turn? Simultaneous · seen in 81.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 81.6% of calls 95.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the CEO use the word "incredibly" at any point? Simultaneous · seen in 15% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 15% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive use the word "team" to refer to company personnel? Simultaneous · seen in 83.6% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.6% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone say "to your point" when answering a question? Simultaneous · seen in 10.3% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.3% of calls 98% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive say "with that" to transition between speakers or topics? Simultaneous · seen in 75% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 75% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "transformation" or "transformational" appear? Simultaneous · seen in 24.2% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.2% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "moving on" or "next question" themselves? Simultaneous · seen in 25.1% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 25.1% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker use the word "hedging" or say "to hedge"? Simultaneous · seen in 13.5% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.5% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst identify themselves with a two-part introduction (name and firm)? Simultaneous · seen in 10.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.2% of calls 85.9% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "talent" appear at least once? Simultaneous · seen in 20.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 20.8% of calls 98% repeat consistency
YES Is the word "capacity" used more often about factories than about people? Supply Chain · seen in 26.2% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 26.2% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
NO Does an executive confess to having too much of something physical somewhere? Supply Chain · seen in 12.2% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 12.2% of calls 89.3% repeat consistency
YES Is a supplier or vendor mentioned by name at any point? Supply Chain · seen in 33.7% of calls
How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.7% of calls 85.3% repeat consistency
NO Does any executive blame weather, season, or geography for a shipment or delivery issue? Supply Chain · seen in 10.8% of calls
How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.8% of calls 91% repeat consistency
No checks match those filters.
500 checks shown · YES means detected; it is not automatically positive or negative.
Real saved model output

Archived AI reasoning

Earlier Artul research experiments on AEHR calls. Open a question to read the model's original reasoning.

220 saved explanations · 217 questions
NO Answers go deeper than the script: questioning keeps surfacing new concrete detail behind a positive development — compa Q3 2024 · 4 archived calls

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2024 · 2024-04-09

The task is to evaluate two gates based on the provided earnings call transcript. **Gate 1 — Original Signal:** - Is there a positive, current development in the company's business that management presents as genuinely going well or stepping up right now? - Does the Q&A produce more concrete operating detail than the prepared remarks? - Across multiple exchanges, are management's answers additive with fresh specifics? Let me analyze the transcript. The call is about Aehr Test Systems' Q3 fiscal 2024 results. The company had a weak quarter (revenue down 56% year-over-year, net loss). Management discusses several markets: silicon carbide, gallium nitride, silicon photonics, memory, and AI. Positive developments mentioned: 1. New customer order for FOX-P solution for silicon carbide (announced last week). 2. First order for gallium nitride FOX system. 3. Shipped first order from a major silicon photonics customer for high-power FOX-XP system. 4. Progress in memory discussions. 5. Strong interest in Asia (China, Korea) for silicon carbide. The Q&A section: - Christian Schwab asks about silicon carbide EV opportunity, next fiscal year revenue, China market, direct sales vs. distribution. - Jed Dorsheimer asks about the new FOX-NP customer (is it Tier 1 automotive?), timing of conversion to XP, China market approach, memory/silicon photonics drivers. - Larry Chlebina asks about optical IO timing, memory fabs, silicon carbide customers, the long-lead customer holdup. Now, does the Q&A produce more concrete operating detail than the prepared remarks? Let me check each exchange: 1. Christian Schwab's questions: - About next year's revenue from largest customer: Gayn says "we do believe that next year we'll be getting material revenues from our -- actually I believe all of our customers are expected to be taking revenue next year, including our largest historical one." This is somewhat general, not very specific. - About China market: Gayn says "I think there's a very real chance of that and that would be our hope if not expectation." He talks about visiting companies, being knowledgeable. Not very specific. - About direct sales vs. distribution: Gayn says "a little both" and mentions having local Aehr employees, reps, etc. Somewhat specific but not deeply operational. 2. Jed Dorsheimer's questions: - About FOX-NP customer being Tier 1: Gayn says "it's not a Tier 1.

NOQ3 2023 · 2023-03-30

The user wants me to evaluate the earnings call transcript against two gates. Let me analyze carefully. GATE 1 — ORIGINAL SIGNAL The question asks: Is there a POSITIVE, CURRENT development in the company's business for which the Q&A discussion PRODUCES MORE CONCRETE OPERATING DETAIL THAN THE PREPARED REMARKS CONTAINED? The main positive development here is the silicon carbide wafer-level test and burn-in business, with record bookings, new customers, and the automated WaferPak Aligner. Let me check if the Q&A adds new concrete operating detail beyond the prepared remarks. In the prepared remarks, management discusses: - Record bookings of $33.3M - Silicon carbide customer orders - The automated WaferPak Aligner development - Gallium nitride engagements - Silicon photonics In the Q&A: - Christian Schwab asks about the third customer and production orders - Gayn says they expect production orders from all four silicon carbide customers next fiscal year. This is somewhat new but brief. - Jed Dorsheimer asks about the guidance range and revenue recognition - Gayn explains the revenue recognition policy details, that new products to new customers don't get revenue until accepted. This is about accounting mechanics somewhat. - Dylan Patel asks about the automated aligner - Gayn gives extensive detail about the aligner, how it works, standalone vs docked modes, the new fourth-generation aligner, how it can be shared or dedicated, etc. This is quite detailed and additive. - Dylan Patel asks about GaN - Gayn discusses GaN burn-in requirements, that customers are describing production burn-in needs, that GaN devices are being put into automotive applications, etc. Let me assess whether the Q&A adds substantially more detail than the prepared remarks. The aligner discussion in Q&A is quite detailed - Gayn explains the two types of aligners (manual and automated), the new fourth-generation automated aligner, how it works in standalone mode with carts, how it can dock to an XP system, the flexibility across wafer sizes, etc.

NOQ2 2019 · 2019-01-10

We need answer only YES or NO. Need evaluate both gates. We need parse transcript. Need determine if positive current development with Q&A adding concrete operating detail beyond prepared remarks. And improvement filter: development chiefly company-created vs external. Let's analyze. Call: Aehr Test Systems Q2 FY2019. Revenue lower, guidance cut. But positive developments: FOX-P platform for wafer level burn-in, silicon photonics. New customer commitment for FOX-NP, lead customer ramping, etc. Q&A probes. Need Gate 1: Is there positive current development where Q&A produces more concrete operating detail than prepared remarks? Need identify. Prepared remarks mention: - Lead customer for FOX-XP silicon photonics continues to drive increased business, strong forecast, expect orders for WaferPak Contactors by end fiscal year, additional systems. - Received order for another FOX-XP system and aligner, shipped during quarter. - New customer commitment to use FOX-P for silicon photonics, will use FOX-NP then FOX-XP, expect imminent order. - FOX-NP new product, lower cost, configurable up to 2 blades, etc. - Three key customers in silicon photonics. - Mobile sensor customer still expecting DiePak consumables this fiscal year, systems pushed out. - Traditional business soft. Q&A: Christian asks about pushouts, customers. Gayn responds with general, not naming. Then asks about OEM customer, etc. John asks about guidance, pushouts, evidence. Gayn gives more detail: "we have seen a couple of specific things. That particular customer also had a little softening... but we also had a couple of programs with other customers that we’ve already won that had planned ramps with our device with our – actually our FOX products. That was reflective of incremental capacity purchases, as well as a large quantity of WaferPak Contactors for them. Those customers we have specifically seen changes in their device plans that we have visibility of, because we’re actually designing all of the contactors for those devices. So we have pretty unique and specific visibility of exactly what their plans are for those devices. And we have seen push outs related to that..." This is about problems/pushouts, not positive current development. Larry asks about inventory, FOX-NP upgradability. Gayn explains FOX-NP applications, customer feedback, reliability qualifications.

Open the full research page →
NO Buyers widening their own doors: demand already secured, far-side receiving constraint now being cleared Q2 2017 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-01-05

We need to determine if the transcript supports a YES. The question asks: does management convey that the company already has business or demand that is secured or already arriving, but the thing standing between the company and meaningfully larger delivered business is the counterparties' own ability to receive, install, qualify, etc., and does management describe those counterparties as already working on that receiving-side preparation, with the associated business mostly still ahead of reported results? Let's examine the transcript. Management discusses FOX-XP systems. They have a lead customer for FOX-1P, and for FOX-XP they have an initial lead customer that purchased and accepted the first FOX-XP in engineering configuration. They are demonstrating burn-in of devices. They received information from this customer implying a slightly later ramp than originally understood, with capacity shipments needed in summer 2017 rather than end of calendar Q1. They are taking steps to shorten lead times and ensure capacity to meet a range of needs. They are building inventory and several systems in anticipation of shorter lead times. The question: Is the demand already in hand? Yes, they have a customer that has already purchased and accepted an engineering system, and they are demonstrating burn-in. The customer will need production systems. The delay is the customer's ramp timing. The constraint is on the receiving side? The customer's ramp is later than expected. The company is building inventory to meet shorter lead times. The customer is preparing? The transcript says "we've received information from this customer that implies a slightly later ramp than we were originally understood with capacity shipments needed in the upcoming summer of 2017 rather than at the end of calendar first quarter." That suggests the customer's own timeline is pushing out. The company is taking steps to shorten lead times. But does management describe the counterparties as already working on that receiving-side preparation? The transcript doesn't explicitly say the customer is working on their side. It says the customer's ramp is later. The company is building inventory. The constraint is the customer's timing, but is that a receiving-side constraint? The customer needs to be ready to receive the systems? Possibly, but the transcript doesn't describe the customer's own preparation.

Open the full research page →
NO Front, middle, and back of the business all improving at once, in management's own present-tense telling Q2 2017 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-01-05

We need answer only YES or NO. Need evaluate transcript. Need determine if management's own account describes real already-occurring improvement in all three zones simultaneously: front (new business arriving), middle (delivery/output), back (business staying/repeating/committed forward). Need concrete current activity, attributed mainly to company. Let's parse transcript. Company: Aehr Test Systems. Q2 FY2017. Revenue $4.2M, down from prior year. But management says "we continue to hold to our forecast for strong fiscal year-over-year growth in our revenue, bookings, and bottom line." That's forward-looking. Need identify zones. Front: new business coming in. Management mentions "strengthening in our base business after several quarters of soft bookings and revenue." "currently working on some projects that could increase this business considerably, so likely not before our next fiscal year." That's potential, not current. Also "We continue to see significant opportunities for FOX-1P" but "greater interest and considerably larger market opportunities" for Multi-Wafer. But these are opportunities, not actual new orders. They shipped FOX-1P systems to lead customer - that's delivery, not new orders. They mention "We also continue to engage with initial lead customer... believe they will need systems... received information implies slightly later ramp... capacity shipments needed in summer 2017." That's future. No concrete new bookings/wins in current period? They mention "multiple ABTS packaged parts system sales" in Q2 revenue - that's delivery. Bookings? Not explicitly. They say "we continue to hold to forecast for strong growth in bookings" but not actual. So front zone? Maybe "strengthening in base business" after soft bookings - but is that actual new business arriving? They say "we're encouraged to see a strengthening in our base business after several quarters of soft bookings and revenue." That could be front? But no specifics. They also "currently working on some projects that could increase this business considerably, so likely not before next fiscal year." That's future. So front not concrete. Middle: delivery/output. They shipped multiple FOX-1P systems, ABTS systems. Revenue $4.2M down from prior year but up? Actually Q2 $4.2M vs $4.6M prior year, down. Sequential from $5.3M down. So delivery not improving? They shipped systems but revenue down.

Open the full research page →
NO Priced for a smaller company: management is quietly telling investors the business has already outgrown what the numbers Q2 2017 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-01-05

We need to answer YES or NO based on the transcript. The question asks: does management convey that outsiders are currently underweighting something the company has already done, and does management answer that gap by pointing to at least one concrete, already-completed or already-operating piece of the business whose contribution is still largely ahead of the reported results? We need to find evidence in the transcript. Look for management's own words indicating a recognition gap, and a concrete already-in-place thing with payoff ahead. Let's scan the transcript. Gayn Erickson speaks. He mentions progress on FOX-XP, shipping FOX-1P systems, etc. He says: "We continue to hold to our forecast for strong fiscal year-over-year growth in our revenue, bookings, and bottom line." He talks about base business, etc. Key part: He discusses the FOX-XP system, shipping initial test cell in current fiscal third quarter. He mentions "This is a very exciting new market that Aehr Test’s new FOX-XP system is uniquely positioned to address..." He also mentions "We also continue to engage with our initial lead customer that purchased and accepted the first FOX-XP system in an engineering configuration earlier in 2016. We are successfully demonstrating burn-in of their devices on the FOX-XP system in our factory today and continue to believe they will need systems to support their production burn-in requirements." Then he says "Most recently, we’ve received information from this customer that implies a slightly later ramp than we were originally understood with capacity shipments needed in the upcoming summer of 2017 rather than at the end of calendar first quarter." So the customer's ramp is later. Does management convey that outsiders are underweighting something? Look for statements about how the company is perceived. There is no explicit statement like "investors don't appreciate" or "the market is modeling us wrong." However, the question allows for "plainly in substance" through how management repeatedly reframes the discussion. But we need to see if management raises a recognition gap. The transcript shows management talking about progress, but not explicitly about a gap in perception. They do say "we continue to hold to our forecast for strong fiscal year-over-year growth" but that's not a perception gap. Look for any mention of analysts or investors. There is a Q&A.

Open the full research page →
NO Promise already turning into fact: management shows the thing it told investors was coming is now measurably arriving, a Q2 2017 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-01-05

We need answer YES/NO based on transcript. Need analyze carefully. We need determine if management points to growth-bearing development previously told investors to expect, and demonstrates with real current-period activity that it is arriving at/ beyond pace, while conveying still early. Transcript: Gayn Erickson discusses FOX-XP, FOX-1P, ABTS. Key: "We continue to make significant progress completing the development of our new FOX-P platform... During the second quarter, we shipped multiple FOX-1P Single Wafer Level Test and Burn-in Systems to our lead customer for this product." That's a development previously expected? They had discussed FOX-1P product line in past calls. They shipped multiple systems. That is real current activity. Is it still early? They say "We continue to see significant opportunities for the FOX-1P product line, however... we've consistently seen greater interest and considerably larger market opportunities for our Multi-Wafer FOX-15 and new FOX-XP systems." So FOX-1P shipped, but they emphasize larger opportunities ahead. Also FOX-XP: "we expect to ship our initial FOX-XP test cell in the current fiscal third quarter." That's future, not current. But they mention "We also continue to engage with our initial lead customer that purchased and accepted the first FOX-XP system in an engineering configuration earlier in 2016. We are successfully demonstrating burn-in of their devices on the FOX-XP system in our factory today and continue to believe they will need systems to support their production burn-in requirements. Most recently, we’ve received information from this customer that implies a slightly later ramp than we were originally understood with capacity shipments needed in the upcoming summer of 2017 rather than at the end of calendar first quarter." This is a delay, not at pace. So not confirming at/ beyond pace. They are building inventory to meet range. But they say "slightly later ramp" - so not at pace. Question asks: "does management point to a growth-bearing development in its business that IT HAD PREVIOUSLY TOLD INVESTORS TO EXPECT — and demonstrate, with real current-period activity, that this development is NOW ACTUALLY ARRIVING at or beyond the pace management had indicated, while ALSO conveying that the development is still early, with most of its contribution ahead?" Need identify one coherent three-part pattern.

Open the full research page →
NO First tranche delivered, larger tranches en route: the same engine that just produced has visibly more already scheduled Q2 2017 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-01-05

We need answer YES/NO. Need analyze transcript. Need identify engine with first tranche landed and larger tranches in motion. Let's parse. Company Aehr Test. Products: ABTS packaged part burn-in, FOX wafer level test/burn-in including FOX-1P, FOX-15, FOX-XP. In Q2 fiscal 2017 (quarter ended Nov 30, 2016). Management says: "We had net revenues of $4.2 million... While revenue year-to-date down... continue to hold forecast for strong fiscal year-over-year growth in revenue, bookings, bottom line." They discuss ABTS base business, projects could increase but not before next fiscal year. FOX-1P: "During the second quarter, we shipped multiple FOX-1P Single Wafer Level Test and Burn-in Systems to our lead customer for this product." That is a landed first tranche? They shipped multiple FOX-1P systems to lead customer. Is there larger tranches in motion for same engine? They say "We continue to see significant opportunities for the FOX-1P product line, however... consistently seen greater interest and considerably larger market opportunities for our Multi-Wafer FOX-15 and new FOX-XP systems." That is not same engine? FOX-1P is single wafer; FOX-XP is multi-wafer. They shipped FOX-1P, but continuation? They don't mention committed orders for FOX-1P beyond shipped. They mention opportunities, not committed. So FOX-1P first tranche landed but continuation is hoped-for demand, not secured. So no. FOX-XP: They expect to ship initial FOX-XP test cell in current fiscal third quarter (Q3 fiscal 2017, i.e., Dec-Feb). That is not yet shipped in just-reported Q2. They have initial lead customer that purchased and accepted first FOX-XP in engineering configuration earlier in 2016. They are demonstrating burn-in. They received info implying slightly later ramp with capacity shipments needed in summer 2017 rather than end calendar Q1. They are taking steps to shorten lead times. So for FOX-XP, first tranche? The engineering system was accepted earlier in 2016, not in just-reported period? The question asks "in the just-reported period" - first tranche actually delivered in just-reported period. The engineering system was earlier. The initial production FOX-XP is expected to ship in current Q3, not yet. So no landed in just-reported period. Also continuation is delayed, not committed? They say "believe they will need systems" and "could change on short notice" - not secured.

Open the full research page →
NO New business is being written on visibly better terms than the company's own recent norm, and the mix shift has just beg Q2 2017 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-01-05

We need to answer YES or NO based on the transcript. The question asks: does management indicate that the economic terms of the company's newest business have stepped up meaningfully above the company's own recent norm, and that this improvement has only begun to flow into reported results because most of the business in reported numbers was still written at older, less favorable terms? We need to find evidence in the transcript. The company is Aehr Test Systems, which makes test and burn-in systems. The discussion focuses on new products like FOX-1P and FOX-XP. Management talks about progress, shipments, and future opportunities. They mention that they are shipping FOX-1P systems, and expect to ship initial FOX-XP test cell in current fiscal third quarter. They discuss a customer that will need systems for production burn-in, with a slightly later ramp (summer 2017 rather than end of calendar Q1). They are building inventory to meet lead times. But does management explicitly say that the terms of new business (prices, margins, contract sizes) have improved meaningfully above their own recent norm? They talk about revenue being down year-to-date, but they hold to forecast for strong growth. They mention gross margin was 35% in Q2, down from 41% in Q1, due to product mix. They don't mention improved pricing or terms. They talk about new products with higher ASPs (e.g., FOX-XP systems are $2M-$3M+), but that's not necessarily a step-up in terms compared to their own recent norm; they've had large systems before. They don't say that new contracts are being signed at better prices or margins than before. They don't discuss pricing improvements. They mention that they are building inventory and have down payments, but that's not about better terms. The question specifically asks about "economic terms" like prices, rates, fees, spreads, contract sizes, durations, or profitability. Management does not indicate that these have stepped up meaningfully. They talk about new products and market opportunities, but not about improved pricing or margins on new business. They also don't say that the reported results still reflect old terms. They do say that revenue recognition for new systems may be delayed, but that's about timing, not about better terms. Thus, the answer is NO. The transcript does not contain management's words conveying both halves of the phenomenon.

Open the full research page →
NO Reality beat their plan and they're leaning in: recent realized upside surprise, response underway, drivers still live Q2 2017 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-01-05

We need answer only YES or NO. Need analyze transcript for three parts. Need determine if management recounts real recent period turned out better than company expected, already responding, cause still in effect. Let's parse transcript. Management discusses business. Key potential: FOX-XP progress, shipments, customer interest. They say "we continue to make significant progress completing development of new FOX-P platform... shipped multiple FOX-1P systems to lead customer." "We continue to see significant opportunities for FOX-1P product line, however... consistently seen greater interest and considerably larger market opportunities for our Multi-Wafer FOX-15 and new FOX-XP systems." "I'm really pleased with our progress on FOX-XP... expect to ship initial FOX-XP test cell in current fiscal third quarter." "We also continue to engage with initial lead customer... successfully demonstrating burn-in of their devices on FOX-XP system in our factory today and continue to believe they will need systems... Most recently, we've received information from this customer that implies a slightly later ramp than we were originally understood with capacity shipments needed in upcoming summer of 2017 rather than at end of calendar first quarter. However, this could change on short notice and we're taking several steps to shorten our lead times and ensure we have capacity to meet range of capacity needs and forecasts." That is a delay, not favorable surprise. But maybe there is something else: "We continue to hold to our forecast for strong fiscal year-over-year growth in our revenue, bookings, and bottom line." Not surprise. "While our revenue year-to-date is down from last year, we continue to hold to our forecast..." No. "ABTS systems and services business still provides base business... I'm pleased to add that we're currently working on some projects that could increase this business considerably, so likely not before our next fiscal year... expect more info next quarter." That's future potential, not realized. "FOX-1P... shipped multiple systems to lead customer." Is that better than expected? Not stated. "FOX-XP... expect to ship initial FOX-XP test cell in current fiscal third quarter." Not realized yet. "Most recently, we've received information from this customer that implies a slightly later ramp than we were originally understood" - that's worse, not better.

Open the full research page →
NO Nobody is coming: management describes a market it must build itself, and the first buyers have started paying Q2 2017 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-01-05

We need to determine if management describes creating a market that does not yet exist, with conversion work succeeding. The transcript discusses new products like FOX-XP for optical devices, and mentions that they are showcasing at SPIE, engaging with customers, and that the market is new. They talk about "never before offered test capability" and that customers need to be educated. They also mention that they have shipped systems to lead customers, and that they are optimistic. However, the question asks if the main obstacle is not competition but that buyers must be taught/converted, and that this conversion has begun to succeed with real paying buyers. The transcript does mention that they are working with customers, demonstrating burn-in, and that they have shipped FOX-1P systems. But does management explicitly say that the market doesn't exist and they are creating it? They say "This is a very exciting new market that Aehr Test’s new FOX-XP system is uniquely positioned to address" and that they are "showcasing our solutions" at SPIE. They also mention that they are "engaging with our initial lead customer" and that they have "successfully demonstrating burn-in of their devices." However, the question requires that management conveys that the main obstacle is teaching/converting buyers, not competition. The transcript does not explicitly say that buyers need to be educated or that they are changing habits. It says they are "uniquely positioned" and that there is "significant opportunities." But there is no explicit statement about market creation vs market share. The closest is that they are introducing a new product for a new application, but they don't describe the barrier of habit or understanding. They also mention that they are "taking several steps to shorten our lead times" and that they have "received information from this customer that implies a slightly later ramp." That suggests adoption is slower than expected, but not necessarily that they are teaching. The question asks for a coherent situation with both halves: (1) market-creation work, (2) conversion working with money. The transcript does mention that they have shipped systems and have customers, but the emphasis is on product development and market opportunity, not on overcoming an adoption barrier. There is no mention of customers being reluctant or needing to change their ways.

Open the full research page →
NO Escape velocity out of a small base: management describes the business compounding at a rate its own size cannot absorb Q2 2017 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-01-05

We need answer only YES or NO. Need analyze transcript. Need determine if management describes company at point where rate of accumulating has become dominant fact, multiples/repeated doublings off small base. Need both conditions. Let's read transcript carefully. Company Aehr Test Systems, Q2 2017. Revenue down year-over-year. Management talks about new FOX-XP, FOX-1P, opportunities. Need see if management uses multiples of real already-banked activity? They mention "multiple FOX-1P systems" shipped, "multiple ABTS packaged parts system sales." But that's not multiples of past. They talk about "considerably larger market opportunities" not banked. They mention "18 wafers in parallel" etc. They mention "over 16,000 individual power supplies" capability. Not compounding. They say "we continue to hold to our forecast for strong fiscal year-over-year growth in our revenue, bookings, and bottom line." But not multiples. They mention "base business of approximately $2 million to $3 million per quarter" and projects could increase considerably. Not multiples. They mention "FOX-XP system uniquely positioned... extremely low-cost... We're very optimistic." Not multiples. They mention "plan to participate for first time in SPIE" etc. Question asks: Does management describe company as being at point where RATE at which business is accumulating has become dominant fact? That is, management conveys in own words that company keeps having to describe itself in terms of MULTIPLES OR REPEATED DOUBLINGS of own recent past rather than incremental progress, and compounding off base management treats as still small. Need answer YES only if both conditions. Let's search for multiples. Management says "multiple FOX-1P systems" - that's multiple units, not multiple of past. "multiple ABTS packaged parts system sales." "multiple programs and applications." "multiple FOX-XP systems" maybe. Not "doubled" etc. They say "we continue to see significant opportunities... considerably larger market opportunities" - market opportunity not banked. They say "This system is configured for testing 18 wafers in parallel" - 18 is multiple but not growth multiple. They say "over 16,000 individual power supplies" - capability. They say "capacity shipments needed in upcoming summer of 2017 rather than end of calendar first quarter" - delay. They say "we are building up some amount of inventory.

Open the full research page →
NO Questions aim low, answers land high: the dialogue keeps correcting expectations upward with facts already in hand Q2 2017 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-01-05

We need to determine if there is a recurring mismatch in level between what questioners assume and what management reports, with the mismatch running upward. The questioners' questions are more cautious/modest than management's account, and management corrects upward with concrete already-happening facts. Let's analyze the Q&A exchanges: 1. Christian Schwab: "solid quarter, guys. So, Gayn, just want to make sure I understood correctly. On the initial customer of the XP, we expect a slightly later ramp of that product. And so, can you tell me roughly when you would expect orders and shipments again?" This is about timing, not necessarily a lower assumption. Management answers with specifics about timeline and building inventory. Not a clear mismatch. 2. Christian Schwab: "So given kind of multi programs, multi products, if the orders came in and they're not pushed out or moved around would you expect the first-half of fiscal year 2018 revenue to be greater than that of the second-half of 2017 as a result of that?" Management says "that would be reasonable." Not a correction upward, just agreement. 3. Geoffrey Scott: "The ABTS systems that went out, you said last quarter that they were headed to the Philippines. Was that the case with the shipments in Q2 as well, or did they go to multiple destinations?" Management answers. No mismatch. 4. Geoffrey Scott: "Did I understand correctly that that you shipped a couple of FOX-1 systems?" Management confirms. No mismatch. 5. Geoffrey Scott: "Last quarter you said that or at the last call, you said that Q2 revenue would be down somewhat which turned out to be pretty accurate. Any comments on revenue for Q3, Q4, up, down sideways?" Management says "we are still going to be up" and gives some specifics. This is a correction upward? The analyst is asking about direction, not necessarily a lower assumption. Management says "we are still going to be up" and expects Q3 similar to Q2, with Q4 possibly having XP revenue. This is a modest correction but not a strong mismatch. 6. Tom Diffely: "So first, on the push-outs of some expected orders, are you doing anything on the cost side, any expense changes of note because of the couple quarter delay?" Management says they are holding steady, not cutting. This is a correction upward? The analyst assumes a delay might cause cost cutting, but management says they are investing.

Open the full research page →
NO The product is disappearing into reorder rhythm: revenue is shifting from won-each-time to arriving-on-its-own, and the Q2 2017 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-01-05

We need answer only YES or NO. Need analyze transcript. Question asks: Does management describe that a growing share of revenue now arrives without a new selling event through reorders, refills, renewals, repeat purchases, usage-driven billing, aftermarket or consumable pull-through, or customers' own standing routines AND that this self-arriving share has recently and visibly grown as proportion, with management grounding shift in observed current behavior and treating it as changing quality of revenue? Need use only transcript. Need determine if management says such. Let's parse. Company Aehr Test Systems. Business: burn-in and test systems, FOX wafer level test and burn-in, consumable WaferPak and DiePak contactors. They mention base business ABTS systems and services. They mention FOX-1P shipments, FOX-XP. They mention consumable WaferPak and DiePak contactors. But do they describe growing share of revenue from consumables/reorders? Need look for language about recurring revenue, consumable pull-through, installed base. Transcript: "Our ABTS systems and services business still provides us with a base business of approximately $2 million to $3 million in revenue per quarter. And I’m pleased to add that we’re currently working on some projects that could increase this business considerably, so likely not before our next fiscal year that begins on June 1." That's not self-arriving. They mention "consumable WaferPak and DiePak contactors" as part of FOX business. But no specific discussion of reorders or consumable revenue growth. They talk about "FOX-1P" systems, "FOX-XP" systems. They mention "WaferPak and DiePak contactors" in revenue mix: "In the second quarter, revenue from Burn-in systems and WaferPak contactors declined $1.4 million from Q1, which was partially offset by sequential increase of $400,000 in packaged parts system revenue..." That's not self-arriving. Question asks about "growing share of revenue now arrives without a new selling event" - maybe "consumable pull-through" from WaferPak contactors? But management doesn't describe that as growing share or recently shifted. They mention "base business" but not self-arriving. They mention "services" but no detail. Need answer NO. Because no such description. They talk about opportunities, but not recurring revenue shift. They mention "customers' own standing routines"? No. Thus answer NO.

Open the full research page →
NO Compounding evidence: management cites customer behavior, not just customer numbers, as proof the offering is winning Q2 2017 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-01-05

We need answer YES/NO. Need analyze transcript. Need determine if management grounds case in observed customer/counterparty behavior from recent period, concrete, current, and treats as core proof with more ahead. Need only transcript. Let's parse. Management discusses FOX-XP, FOX-1P, ABTS. Need find behavioral evidence: customers doing things. Examples: "we shipped multiple FOX-1P Single Wafer Level Test and Burn-in Systems to our lead customer" - that's company's own shipment, not necessarily customer behavior? It indicates customer ordered/received. But need concrete behavior revealing preference. "We continue to engage with our initial lead customer that purchased and accepted the first FOX-XP system in an engineering configuration earlier in 2016. We are successfully demonstrating burn-in of their devices on the FOX-XP system in our factory today and continue to believe they will need systems to support their production burn-in requirements. Most recently, we’ve received information from this customer that implies a slightly later ramp than we were originally understood with capacity shipments needed in the upcoming summer of 2017 rather than at the end of calendar first quarter. However, this could change on short notice and we’re taking several steps to shorten our lead times..." This is customer behavior? They purchased and accepted first system, they are working with company to demonstrate burn-in of their devices. But the recent info is a delay, not positive. However management says "continue to believe they will need systems" - not observed behavior? They received info implying later ramp. That's negative/weakening? It's a push-out. But management still optimistic. Need see if there is other evidence. "During the second quarter, we shipped multiple FOX-1P ... to our lead customer for this product." That's a sale, but not described as customer behavior beyond buying. "We continue to see significant opportunities" - not behavior. "We also continue to engage with our initial lead customer that purchased and accepted the first FOX-XP system in an engineering configuration earlier in 2016. We are successfully demonstrating burn-in of their devices on the FOX-XP system in our factory today" - This is observed behavior: customer provided devices, working with company, accepted system. But is it "recent period"? "earlier in 2016" and "today" - yes.

Open the full research page →
NO The economics improved before the volume arrived Q2 2017 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-01-05

We need to answer YES or NO based on the transcript. The question asks: does management convey that the company has recently achieved a structurally better profit-making setup — the business now earns meaningfully more per unit of activity than it recently did, because of changes already made and already visible in the recent period's results — AND that the volume which will flow across that improved setup is still mostly ahead, with real current evidence that it is coming? We need to check both halves. First half: per-unit economics have already stepped up. Management describes the company now keeping more from each sale, order, unit, customer, or transaction than it used to — through better mix, cost structure, delivery model, or pricing — presented as an observed fact of the recent period's actual business, attributed mainly to things the company did. Second half: volume is arriving but early. Management points to real current growth in activity — orders, customers, or volumes already building or already committed — while conveying that most of that activity has not yet flowed through the improved economics, so the reported period shows the better setup only lightly loaded. We need to see if the transcript supports both. Let's read the transcript. The call is about Q2 fiscal 2017 results. Management discusses revenue, product lines, FOX-XP, etc. Key points: Revenue is down year-over-year. They say "we continue to hold to our forecast for strong fiscal year-over-year growth in our revenue, bookings, and bottom line." So they expect growth. They talk about packaged part burn-in and test systems business, ABTS, base business of $2-3M per quarter. They are working on projects that could increase this business. They talk about FOX wafer level test and burn-in, FOX-1P, FOX-XP. They shipped multiple FOX-1P systems to lead customer. They expect to ship initial FOX-XP test cell in current fiscal third quarter. They discuss optical devices market. They mention that the initial FOX-XP customer has a slightly later ramp, with capacity shipments needed in summer 2017 rather than end of calendar Q1. They talk about gross margin: Q2 gross margin 35% vs Q1 41% and prior year 37%. They say sequential decrease reflects product mix, with lower margin packaged parts revenue up, and also increased warranty inventory reserve costs. So margins actually went down, not up.

Open the full research page →
NO The company is preparing for a much bigger version of itself: internal capacity being stood up ahead of the business tha Q2 2017 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-01-05

We need answer YES/NO based only transcript. Need determine if management describes currently putting in place internal capability to operate as much larger company before business arrives. Need parse transcript. We need be careful. The question asks: "On this call, does management describe that the company is CURRENTLY PUTTING IN PLACE THE INTERNAL CAPABILITY TO OPERATE AS A MUCH LARGER COMPANY THAN IT IS TODAY — building out the people, capacity, systems, facilities, or organizational structure sized for a substantially bigger business — BEFORE the business that would fill that capability has fully arrived, and does management convey that this build-out is being done deliberately in anticipation of business it expects to serve rather than in response to business it already cannot handle?" Need answer YES if management's own words convey one coherent posture: investing ahead of current size, constructing shell of bigger enterprise now because believes business coming. Need real and already in motion, ahead of business. Let's examine transcript. Management discusses FOX-XP development, shipping initial systems, building inventory in anticipation of need for shorter lead times. "we have been building up some amount of inventory. We’re actually building several systems in anticipation of the need for shorter lead times. And so, we have the ability to meet some small volumes with short lead times and then typically our lead times for volume, capacity are still going to be in the 12 to 16-week timeframe." This is capacity/inventory build ahead of orders? They are building systems (inventory) in anticipation of customer ramp. Is that "internal capability to operate as much larger company"? Maybe not exactly people/facilities/organizational structure. But "building several systems in anticipation" is capacity ahead of demand. Also "we are absolutely prioritizing. And that I think is a frugal appropriate thing to do, given where we are in our financials. But we do have the opportunity that as we grow in revenue, we can add resources, which we believe will allow us to address larger markets." That suggests not currently adding resources ahead? Actually says can add resources as revenue grows. Hmm. Need identify if management describes current build-out of people, capacity, systems, facilities, organizational structure sized for substantially bigger business.

Open the full research page →
NO Costly self-restriction to protect one part of the business Q2 2017 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-01-05

We need answer YES/NO based on transcript. Need determine if management describes currently refusing/turning away/rationing/deliberately withholding business it could have taken to protect/feed one part already producing well. Need all three elements. Let's parse transcript. Management discusses business, opportunities, prioritization. Key quote: "one of our challenges can even be our channel. Do we have enough feet on the street to be able to address all of the requirements? We are absolutely prioritizing. And that I think is a frugal appropriate thing to do, given where we are in our financials. But we do have the opportunity that as we grow in revenue, we can add resources, which we believe will allow us to address larger markets. We have a – we believe a significant IP in terms of patterns and in terms of domain knowledge and technology lead in this space. So, we’re trying to pick off the key top players first, and then we’ll expand to they’re not even second-tier players. I mean, you’re talking about most everyone we’re talking about are top ten semiconductor manufacturers, or in the photonics a big sort of space, the top few of those." This suggests they are prioritizing top players, not serving all demand due to limited sales resources. Is that "refusing, turning away, rationing, deliberately withholding business"? They are choosing not to address all requirements because limited feet on street. They are "absolutely prioritizing" and "picking off key top players first" and will expand later. This implies they are not taking all available business, deliberately focusing on top customers to protect/feed something? What is protected? The favored thing? They are prioritizing top players because of limited resources, not necessarily to protect a part already producing well. They are trying to grow revenue, add resources. They are not declining business to protect an existing successful segment; they are prioritizing potential customers. Also they say "given where we are in our financials" - frugal. This is more about resource allocation due to financial constraints, not protecting a working part. They would happily take all business if they had resources. They are not saying no to business to protect something already producing; they are choosing which opportunities to pursue first. That is routine prioritization, not refusing available business.

Open the full research page →
NO Everything is being bought forward: buyers, and the company, are both committing ahead of when they need to Q2 2017 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-01-05

We need to answer YES or NO based on the transcript. The question asks: does management describe that time itself has shifted forward in this business — that decisions, commitments, and preparations which used to happen close to the moment of need are now routinely being made well in advance of that need, on both sides of the company's dealings? We need to check if all three conditions are present. Condition (1): Buyers are committing earlier than they used to. Management describes customers locking in further ahead of need. In the transcript, Gayn Erickson talks about the FOX-XP system and the lead customer. He says: "Most recently, we’ve received information from this customer that implies a slightly later ramp than we were originally understood with capacity shipments needed in the upcoming summer of 2017 rather than at the end of calendar first quarter. However, this could change on short notice and we’re taking several steps to shorten our lead times and ensure we have the capacity to meet a range of capacity needs and forecasts." That is about a delay, not earlier commitment. Also he mentions "we continue to hold to our forecast for strong fiscal year-over-year growth in our revenue, bookings, and bottom line." But does he describe buyers committing earlier? He mentions "we’re currently working on some projects that could increase this business considerably" for ABTS, but that's not about earlier commitment. He also mentions "we’re taking several steps to shorten our lead times" which is about the company responding, but not about buyers committing earlier. There is no explicit statement that buyers are now committing earlier than they used to. He talks about "we continue to see significant opportunities" but not about timing of commitments. He mentions "we’re building up some amount of inventory" and "we’re actually building several systems in anticipation of the need for shorter lead times." That is the company provisioning ahead, but is that in response to earlier buyer commitment? He says "we have the ability to meet some small volumes with short lead times" but that's about the company's own preparation. The question requires that buyers are committing earlier. There is no mention of customers placing orders further out than normal, or deposits, or long-term agreements. The only forward-looking is about the ramp being later, not earlier.

Open the full research page →
NO Betting on a claim they haven't proven yet: management stakes the company on a specific quantitative outcome it says it Q2 2017 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-01-05

We need answer YES/NO based on transcript. Need identify specific performance claim unproven at scale, company committed, verdict near and matters. Let's parse. Management discusses FOX-XP system, FOX-1P, etc. They claim FOX-XP uniquely positioned for optical devices burn-in at wafer level. They shipped initial FOX-XP engineering system earlier 2016, demonstrating burn-in of devices in factory. They expect to ship initial FOX-XP test cell in current fiscal third quarter (Q3 FY2017). They have received info from lead customer implying slightly later ramp, capacity shipments needed summer 2017 rather than end calendar Q1. They are building several systems in anticipation, taking steps to shorten lead times, have inventory. They are spending on R&D, building systems. The performance claim? They assert FOX-XP provides unprecedented capability for high power wafers, 18 individual thermal chucks up to 125C, etc. But is there a specific measurable performance claim? They mention "over 16,000 individual power supplies or digital test signals" for FOX-1P. For FOX-XP, they say "unprecedented capability" but not a specific yield/rate. They talk about burn-in of optical devices at wafer level as low-cost high-quality alternative. But no specific number like "will achieve X% yield" or "throughput". They mention "18 wafers in parallel" and "temperatures up to 125 degrees Celsius" - that's a spec, but is it unproven at scale? They have shipped engineering system and are demonstrating burn-in. They are building production systems. The claim is that the system will perform burn-in of optical devices at wafer level with certain capabilities. But is there a specific performance claim that is measurable? The question asks: "management stake the company's near-term future on ONE SPECIFIC, MEASURABLE PERFORMANCE CLAIM THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN PROVEN AT SCALE — a concrete assertion about what its product, asset, process, operation, or offering WILL ACTUALLY ACHIEVE when it is run in the real world (a rate, a yield, a level, a cost, a speed, a duration, a success rate, an output, a capacity, an efficiency, a result)". Management says FOX-XP system is configured for testing 18 wafers in parallel, provides unprecedented capability for high power wafers, with 18 individual thermal chucks with temperatures up to 125 degrees Celsius or more. That is a capacity/performance spec.

Open the full research page →

Showing the latest 18 of 217 archived research questions.

These archived questions are separate from the newer 500-check scan above.

Past calls

AEHR call history

Open a quarter only when you want its detailed evidence.

B+ Q3 2026 · Strong call · 2026-04-08Management raised guidance against accelerating demand and contracting margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics, promotional in tone.
Guidance: raisedDemand: acceleratingMargins: contractingBacklog: growingPricing: stableHeadcount: growingCapex: increasing⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts✓ Volume step-up ahead✓ Early product, fast growth
Candor 7/9
Specificity 8/9
Evasion 3/9
Confidence 8/9
Uncertainty 4/9
Promotion 7/9
Stress 2/9
Complexity 6/9
View the 20 core call-quality checks
YES Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?
YES Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?
YES Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?
YES Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?
YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?
NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?
NO Does an obvious question remain unanswered?
YES Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?
YES Do they serve a small fraction of their addressable customers?
YES Is volume about to step up rather than grow gradually?
YES Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?
NO Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?
YES Do current results look bad while the direction looks better?
NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?
NO Is consolidation happening among their peers?
YES Is a founder still running the company?
NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?
YES Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?
NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?
NO Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?
F Q2 2025 · Very weak call · 2026-04-08Management held guidance steady against mixed demand signals and contracting margins. The delivery was rich in specifics.
Guidance: maintainedDemand: mixedMargins: contractingBacklog: growingPricing: under pressureCapex: increasing⚑ Critic ammunition⚑ Question left hanging✓ Volume step-up ahead✓ Early product, fast growthFounder-ledHidden segment
Candor 6/9
Specificity 7/9
Evasion 4/9
Confidence 6/9
Uncertainty 5/9
Promotion 6/9
Stress 4/9
Complexity 6/9
View the 20 core call-quality checks
NO Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?
NO Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?
NO Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?
NO Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?
YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?
NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?
YES Does an obvious question remain unanswered?
YES Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?
YES Do they serve a small fraction of their addressable customers?
YES Is volume about to step up rather than grow gradually?
YES Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?
NO Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?
YES Do current results look bad while the direction looks better?
NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?
NO Is consolidation happening among their peers?
YES Is a founder still running the company?
NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?
YES Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?
NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?
NO Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?
D Q1 2025 · Weak call · 2026-04-08Management held guidance steady against mixed demand signals and expanding margins. The delivery was rich in specifics, promotional in tone.
Guidance: maintainedDemand: mixedMargins: expandingPricing: stableCapex: increasing⚑ Critic ammunition⚑ Question left hanging✓ Volume step-up ahead✓ Early product, fast growthFounder-ledHidden segment
Candor 6/9
Specificity 7/9
Evasion 3/9
Confidence 8/9
Uncertainty 4/9
Promotion 8/9
Stress 2/9
Complexity 6/9
View the 20 core call-quality checks
NO Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?
NO Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?
NO Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?
NO Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?
YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?
NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?
YES Does an obvious question remain unanswered?
YES Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?
YES Do they serve a small fraction of their addressable customers?
YES Is volume about to step up rather than grow gradually?
YES Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?
NO Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?
YES Do current results look bad while the direction looks better?
NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?
NO Is consolidation happening among their peers?
YES Is a founder still running the company?
NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?
YES Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?
NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?
NO Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?
C Q2 2026 · Caution · 2026-01-15Management raised guidance against accelerating demand and contracting margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics, promotional in tone.
Guidance: raisedDemand: acceleratingMargins: contractingBacklog: growingHeadcount: cutting⚑ Critic ammunition⚑ Question left hanging✓ Volume step-up ahead✓ Early product, fast growthFounder-ledHidden segment
Candor 8/9
Specificity 8/9
Evasion 2/9
Confidence 7/9
Uncertainty 5/9
Promotion 7/9
Stress 3/9
Complexity 8/9
View the 20 core call-quality checks
NO Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?
NO Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?
NO Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?
NO Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?
YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?
NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?
YES Does an obvious question remain unanswered?
YES Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?
YES Do they serve a small fraction of their addressable customers?
YES Is volume about to step up rather than grow gradually?
YES Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?
NO Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?
YES Do current results look bad while the direction looks better?
NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?
NO Is consolidation happening among their peers?
YES Is a founder still running the company?
NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?
YES Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?
NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?
NO Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?
C Q4 2025 · Caution · 2025-07-08Management withdrew guidance against accelerating demand and contracting margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics, promotional in tone.
Guidance: withdrawnDemand: acceleratingMargins: contractingBacklog: growingPricing: stableHeadcount: growingCapex: increasing⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Resolves doubts✓ Volume step-up ahead✓ Early product, fast growthFounder-led
Candor 7/9
Specificity 8/9
Evasion 3/9
Confidence 8/9
Uncertainty 5/9
Promotion 7/9
Stress 2/9
Complexity 6/9
View the 20 core call-quality checks
YES Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?
NO Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?
YES Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?
YES Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?
YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?
NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?
NO Does an obvious question remain unanswered?
YES Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?
YES Do they serve a small fraction of their addressable customers?
YES Is volume about to step up rather than grow gradually?
YES Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?
NO Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?
YES Do current results look bad while the direction looks better?
NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?
NO Is consolidation happening among their peers?
YES Is a founder still running the company?
NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?
YES Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?
NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?
NO Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?
D Q3 2025 · Weak call · 2025-04-08Management withdrew guidance against mixed demand signals. The delivery was rich in specifics, promotional in tone.
Guidance: withdrawnDemand: mixedMargins: stableBacklog: growingPricing: stable⚑ Critic ammunition⚑ Question left hanging✓ Resolves doubts✓ Volume step-up ahead✓ Early product, fast growthFounder-led
Candor 6/9
Specificity 8/9
Evasion 5/9
Confidence 7/9
Uncertainty 6/9
Promotion 7/9
Stress 3/9
Complexity 8/9
View the 20 core call-quality checks
NO Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?
NO Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?
YES Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?
YES Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?
YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?
NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?
YES Does an obvious question remain unanswered?
YES Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?
YES Do they serve a small fraction of their addressable customers?
YES Is volume about to step up rather than grow gradually?
YES Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?
NO Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?
NO Do current results look bad while the direction looks better?
NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?
NO Is consolidation happening among their peers?
YES Is a founder still running the company?
NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?
YES Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?
NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?
NO Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?
F Q2 2025 · Very weak call · 2025-01-13Management held guidance steady against mixed demand signals and contracting margins. The delivery was unusually candid, promotional in tone.
Guidance: maintainedDemand: mixedMargins: contractingBacklog: growingPricing: under pressureCapex: increasing⚑ Critic ammunition⚑ Question left hanging✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Volume step-up ahead✓ Early product, fast growthHidden segment
Candor 7/9
Specificity 6/9
Evasion 5/9
Confidence 7/9
Uncertainty 6/9
Promotion 7/9
Stress 4/9
Complexity 8/9
View the 20 core call-quality checks
NO Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?
YES Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?
NO Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?
NO Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?
YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?
NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?
YES Does an obvious question remain unanswered?
YES Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?
YES Do they serve a small fraction of their addressable customers?
YES Is volume about to step up rather than grow gradually?
YES Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?
NO Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?
YES Do current results look bad while the direction looks better?
NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?
NO Is consolidation happening among their peers?
NO Is a founder still running the company?
NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?
YES Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?
NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?
NO Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?
View 36 earlier calls
CallDateGradeGuidanceDemandMarginsCandorEvasion
Q1 2025 2024-10-10 D maintainedmixedexpanding 7/9 3/9
Q4 2024 2024-07-16 D loweredmixedcontracting 7/9 4/9
Q3 2024 2024-04-09 F maintainedmixedcontracting 7/9 6/9
Q2 2024 2024-01-09 D loweredslowingcontracting 8/9 2/9
Q1 2024 2023-10-05 D maintainedacceleratingstable 6/9 4/9
Q4 2023 2023-07-13 B+ raisedacceleratingstable 7/9 3/9
Q3 2023 2023-03-30 B maintainedacceleratingstable 7/9 2/9
Q2 2023 2023-01-05 B maintainedacceleratingexpanding 7/9 2/9
Q1 2023 2022-10-07 C+ maintainedacceleratingcontracting 7/9 4/9
Q4 2022 2022-07-20 B+ raisedacceleratingexpanding 6/9 3/9
Q3 2022 2022-03-31 B+ maintainedacceleratingexpanding 8/9 2/9
Q2 2022 2022-01-07 C maintainedacceleratingexpanding 7/9 5/9
Q1 2022 2021-09-24 C+ raisedacceleratingexpanding 7/9 6/9
Q4 2021 2021-07-16 C+ raisedacceleratingexpanding 7/9 5/9
Q3 2021 2021-04-09 F loweredacceleratingexpanding 6/9 5/9
Q2 2021 2021-01-08 F loweredmixedcontracting 7/9 6/9
Q1 2021 2020-09-24 F maintainedmixedcontracting 7/9 4/9
Q4 2020 2020-07-17 F loweredmixedexpanding 6/9 4/9
Q3 2020 2020-04-02 F withdrawnmixedexpanding 7/9 3/9
Q2 2020 2020-01-09 C+ maintainedacceleratingexpanding 7/9 4/9
Q1 2020 2019-10-03 D maintainedacceleratingstable 6/9 3/9
Q4 2019 2019-07-18 B noneacceleratingexpanding 7/9 2/9
Q3 2019 2019-04-04 C raisedacceleratingcontracting 7/9 3/9
Q2 2019 2019-01-10 F loweredmixedstable 6/9 5/9
Q1 2019 2018-09-27 F loweredmixedcontracting 7/9 4/9
Q4 2018 2018-07-19 C+ raisedmixedstable 6/9 3/9
Q3 2018 2018-04-03 B+ maintainedacceleratingexpanding 7/9 3/9
Q2 2018 2018-01-04 C maintainedacceleratingstable 6/9 5/9
Q1 2018 2017-09-28 D maintainedacceleratingexpanding 5/9 6/9
Q4 2017 2017-07-19 B raisedacceleratingexpanding 6/9 6/9
Q3 2017 2017-03-31 D maintainedacceleratingcontracting 6/9 5/9
Q2 2017 2017-01-05 F maintainedmixedcontracting 6/9 5/9
Q1 2017 2016-09-29 D maintainedacceleratingexpanding 6/9 4/9
Q4 2016 2016-07-26 C+ raisedacceleratingcontracting 8/9 2/9
Q3 2016 2016-03-24 C nonemixedcontracting 8/9 2/9
Q2 2016 2016-01-12 D nonemixedcontracting 7/9 4/9
Keep exploring

Companies with similar call quality

CAYMAN
ZTO Express
ZTS
Zoetis
BGS
B&G Foods, Inc.
FLWS
1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc.
KPTI
Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.
AMBA
Ambarella, Inc.

← AEHL All “A” companies AEIS →