Stocks › A › AKBA
AKBA · Earnings-call lab · 29 calls graded · 2016–2026

Akebia Therapeutics, Inc.

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
29calls analyzed
2016–2026coverage
NEWESTQ1 2026 call
2026-05-08 · 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
OPENQ4 2025 call
2026-02-26 · 4 analysts · 8 questions · 500 / 500 checks
Free · full reportThe quarter before the newest
D
Call grade · Bottom 26% of 177,437 calls
Weak call. Management gave no formal guidance against steady demand and expanding margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics.
Management toneResultTypical range · middle half of all callsFlag
Candor7 /9
—
Evasion3 /9
—
Specificity8 /9
—
Confidence8 /9
—
Uncertainty4 /9
—
Promotion5 /9
—
Stress2 /9
—
Complexity5 /9
—
Since the quarter before · Q1 2025 → Q4 2025
Demand acceleratingstableMargins expandingPricing under pressurestableHeadcount growing⚑ Critic ammunition⚑ Question left hangingHidden segmentDirection beats results
Notable checks detected
  • Is there a questioner from an investment bank other than the first three analysts who ask questions?
  • 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?
ScreenersHigh CandorCritic AmmunitionMargins ExpandingHidden SegmentQuestion Left HangingResults Worse Than Direction
Lab panel · Q4 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.

6 flags on this call
LanguageResultTypical range · middle half of all callsFlag
AI mentionsTimes management said AI, generative, LLM or agentic.0 mentions
typical 0–0
—
"Great question"Management praising a question before answering it.1 times
typical 0–1
—
Thank-yousEvery thanks on the call, in both directions.28 times
typical 13–31
—
BuzzwordsSynergies, headwinds, flywheels, best-in-class and friends.1.4 /1k words
typical 0.6–1.8
—
HedgesSort of, kind of, roughly, I think, probably.12.8 /1k words
typical 5.5–10.5
H
SuperlativesRecord, unprecedented, tremendous, incredible.0.0 /1k words
typical 0.3–1.2
—
Outside forcesMacro, weather, currency, tariffs, supply chain.0 mentions
typical 1–9
—
Stonewalls"Not going to comment", "we don't break that out".0 times
typical 0–0
—
NumbersFigures per thousand words of management speech. Low means vague.38.9 /1k words
typical 21.2–35.3
—
"Excited"Excited, exciting, thrilled.9 times
typical 0–3
H
Script shareShare of the call spent on prepared remarks rather than questions.39% % of call
typical 35%–55%
—
CEO shareHow much of the talking the CEO did.51% % of mgmt words
typical 29%–68%
—
Longest answerThe longest single management answer in the Q&A.575 words
typical 249–461
H
Reading levelFlesch–Kincaid grade level of management answers.8.0 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.39 of 49
typical 16–30
H
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.0 of 27
typical 3–12
—
HypeSuperlatives and excitement in management language.8 of 11
typical 2–8
—
Analyst pushbackHow hard the analysts pressed: follow-ups, two-part questions, challenges.11 of 22
typical 5–10
H
ConfessionAdmissions, apologies and self-corrections.3 of 11
typical 1–5
—
Call theaterStage management: operator mechanics, scripted cues, "color".11 of 33
typical 12–19
—
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

Q4 2025 · 500 checks

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

500checked
211detected
289not 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
NO 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 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 63.3% of calls 83% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use "historically" or "traditionally" while defending a current practice? Activist · 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 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
NO Does an analyst ask a question spanning more than five sentences? Air Traffic · seen in 75.4% 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 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
NO 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 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 35.1% of calls 90% repeat consistency
NO 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 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 75.4% of calls 80.6% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker use the word "obviously" at least twice? Air Traffic · seen in 55.8% 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 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
YES Does any analyst say "congrats" or "congratulations" to management? Air Traffic · seen in 35.8% 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 35.8% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
NO Is the word "scale" or "scaling" used as a verb? Air Traffic · seen in 22.7% 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 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
NO Does any analyst name two or more executives when asking their question? Air Traffic · seen in 35.1% 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 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
NO Does anyone say "the environment" when describing market conditions? Air Traffic · seen in 51.5% 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 51.5% of calls 83.9% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive use the word "momentum" at least twice? Air Traffic · seen in 29.5% 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 29.5% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive begin an answer with "Great question," "Thanks," or "Appreciate"? Air Traffic · 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 88.3% repeat consistency
NO 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 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 51.6% 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
NO Does any speaker say "operator" aloud during the call? Air Traffic · seen in 43.9% 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 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
NO Does anyone use the phrase "as you know" to introduce a claim? Anthropologist · seen in 49% 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% 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
YES Does anyone say "if I may" or "if you don't mind"? Clinical Trial · seen in 16.3% 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 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
NO Does any question contain the phrase "color on" or "some color"? Compliance · seen in 53.1% 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 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
YES Is there an apology offered to a specific analyst by name? Con Artist · seen in 11.2% 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 11.2% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the phrase "to be honest" or "frankly"? Couples · seen in 33.8% 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 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
YES Does management use the word "confident" or "confidence" 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 96.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the phrase "record" appear at least twice in the transcript? Courtroom · seen in 34.9% 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 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
YES Does anyone use the word "folks"? Courtroom · seen in 23.5% 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 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
NO Does any analyst mention a specific percentage figure in their question? Debate · seen in 66.3% 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 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
NO Does the CFO speak during the Q&A portion at least twice? Debate · seen in 80.6% 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 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
NO 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 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% 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
NO 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 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 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
NO 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 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 93.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the CFO answer at least one question without the CEO speaking first? Debate · seen in 77.5% 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 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
NO Does the word "guidance" appear at least five times in the transcript? Debate · seen in 47.3% 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 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
NO Does an executive begin an answer with "So" as the first word? Debate · seen in 68.4% 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 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
YES Does management use the word "momentum" at least twice? Debate · seen in 31.7% 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 31.7% of calls 96.6% repeat consistency
NO Does management mention "margin" or "margins" in prepared remarks? Debate · seen in 75.1% 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 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
NO Does anyone use the word "robust" to describe demand, growth, or the pipeline? Debate · seen in 33% 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% of calls 94% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone use the word "leverage" as a verb at least once? Debate · 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 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
YES Does an executive say "great question" at any point? Debate · seen in 20.2% 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 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
YES Does any executive say "thank you" immediately after finishing an answer? Debate · seen in 47.4% 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 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
YES Does an analyst reference a specific prior quarter by name (e.g., "last quarter")? Discovery · seen in 63% of calls
How to 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% of calls 82.5% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker say "obviously" two or more times? Discovery · seen in 61.8% 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 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
NO 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 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 82.5% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "margin" or "margins" appear at least five times? Discovery · 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 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
NO 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 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 37.3% of calls 86.5% repeat consistency
YES 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 YES

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

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
YES Does any executive use the word "momentum"? Discovery · seen in 51.2% 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 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
YES Does the phrase "take your question" or "take the question" appear? Discovery · seen in 23.7% 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 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
NO Does anyone say "including" at least three times? Discovery · seen in 68.3% 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 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
NO Does any executive reference "our team" or "the team" at least twice? Discovery · seen in 59.5% 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 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
NO Does any speaker say "with that, I'll turn it over"? Discovery · seen in 55.8% 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 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
NO Does anyone answer "yes" or "no" as the first word of a response? Editor · 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 90.3% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "thank you" at least ten times in the transcript? Editor · 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 81.8% repeat consistency
NO Does an executive use the phrase "if you look at" at least twice? Editor · seen in 36.2% 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 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
YES Does any speaker use the word "momentum"? Editor · seen in 52.8% 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 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
NO 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 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 72.2% 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
YES Does management thank analysts by name at any point after a question? Editor · seen in 58.8% 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 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
NO Does management use the word "committed" regarding a target? Editor · seen in 33.2% 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 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
YES Does anyone use the phrase "the vast majority"? Editor · seen in 16.3% 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 16.3% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "temporary" or "transitory" appear? Editor · seen in 18.6% 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 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
YES 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 YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 80.1% of calls 98% repeat consistency
NO 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 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 93.6% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "thank you" at least ten times across the call? Fact Checker · seen in 67.1% 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 67.1% of calls 81.1% repeat consistency
NO 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 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 94.9% repeat consistency
NO 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 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 81.3% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
NO 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 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 84.1% 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
NO 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 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 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
NO Does the word "guidance" appear in both prepared remarks and the Q&A section? Forensic · seen in 50% 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% of calls 93% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive defer a question to another executive by name? Forensic · 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 95.3% repeat consistency
NO Someone uses the word "honestly," "frankly," or "to be clear." Forensic · seen in 44.9% 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 44.9% of calls 96% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the word "ecosystem" or "platform" without a number attached? Forensic · seen in 60.6% 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 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
NO The transcript contains an apology unrelated to financial results. Forensic · 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 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
YES Does any speaker use the word "challenge" or "challenges" at least three times? Forensic · seen in 18.3% 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 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
YES Does an executive say "thank you" to the analyst before answering a question? Forensic · seen in 46.7% 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 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
NO The final question is answered noticeably shorter than the opening ones. Forensic · seen in 37.3% 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 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
NO Does any question mention a specific percentage or dollar figure? Hostage · 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 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
NO Does the operator say "our final question" or similar? Hostage · seen in 18.1% 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 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
YES 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 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 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
NO Are there more than ten analyst questions in total? Insurance · seen in 79.4% 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 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
NO Executive corrects an analyst's premise. Insurance · seen in 60% 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% 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
NO Does the word "guidance" appear at least three times? Insurance · seen in 58.2% 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 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
YES Does an analyst begin with a compliment, such as "great quarter" or "congrats"? Insurance · seen in 41.4% 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 41.4% of calls 93.9% repeat consistency
NO Does an executive say "we said" when recalling prior statements? Insurance · seen in 47.7% 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 47.7% of calls 89.7% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst begin their turn with "thanks" or "thank you"? Insurance · seen in 71.8% 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 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
NO Does any analyst address a question to two or more executives by name? Insurance · 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 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
NO Does any executive say "we feel" rather than "we believe" or "we think"? Insurance · seen in 58.2% 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 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
NO Does an executive use the phrase "over time" at least twice? Insurance · 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 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
NO 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 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 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
YES Does anyone use the word "leverage" (financial or metaphorical)? Insurance · seen in 72.8% 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 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
NO Is the word "automation" or "productivity" used at least once? Insurance · seen in 37.9% 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 37.9% of calls 99% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "uncertainty" or "uncertainties" appear at least twice? Insurance · 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 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
YES Is the phrase "a number of" used at least once? Insurance · seen in 67.1% 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 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
YES Does the word "momentum" appear at least twice in prepared remarks? Insurance · seen in 21.7% 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 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
NO Does the phrase "the team" appear at least twice in management remarks? Insurance · seen in 41.2% 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 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
NO Does the CFO use the word "quarter" at least ten times? Insurance · seen in 74.6% 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 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
NO 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 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 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
YES Speaker admits being surprised by anything. Insurance · seen in 28.1% 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 28.1% of calls 86% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker use the phrase "going forward"? Insurance · seen in 61.4% 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 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
NO Does anyone say "stability" or "stable" when describing demand? Insurance · 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 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
NO Does an executive say "stay tuned" or "more to come"? Insurance · seen in 11.7% 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 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
NO Does an executive say "great question" or "good question" at least twice? Insurance · 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 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
YES Does management thank analysts by name when responding? Insurance · 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 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
NO Does anyone say "takeaway," "take out," or "take rate"? Insurance · 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 95% repeat consistency
YES Analyst compliments the team before asking a question. Insurance · seen in 17.4% 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 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
NO Does any analyst reference the CEO or CFO by first name? Interrogator · seen in 79.6% 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 79.6% of calls 93.8% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone say "obviously" at least three times? Interrogator · seen in 43.3% 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 43.3% of calls 86.9% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone use the word "pipeline" at least twice? Interrogator · 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 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
YES 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 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 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
YES Does anyone mention a competitor by name without being prompted? Military · seen in 17% of calls
How to 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% 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
YES Does anyone use the phrase "underlying" to modify a business metric? Negotiation · seen in 38.3% 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 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
NO Does the word "guidance" appear in the prepared remarks (not just Q&A)? Negotiation · seen in 64% 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% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency
NO 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 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 66.7% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency
NO 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 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 40.6% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
NO Does an executive answer a question by citing a competitor's actions? Negotiation · 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 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
YES Does an executive name a specific competitor during the call? Negotiation · seen in 24.5% 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 24.5% of calls 90.7% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "challenges" appear at least three times in the transcript? Negotiation · seen in 12.3% 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 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
NO Does a speaker correct a figure they themselves just stated? Negotiation · 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 84% repeat consistency
YES 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 YES

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

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
NO Does anyone use the phrase "the team" when taking ownership would be natural? Poker · seen in 42.5% 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 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
NO Does anyone use the phrase "a little bit"? Private Credit · seen in 87.3% 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 87.3% of calls 96% repeat consistency
NO Is the CFO the speaker for at least one analyst question? Private Credit · seen in 87.8% 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 87.8% of calls 99% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "guidance" appear in the transcript? Private Credit · seen in 78.7% 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 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
NO Does anyone cite a percentage of revenue from a specific segment? Private Credit · seen in 40.3% 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 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
NO Is the word "capacity" mentioned? Private Credit · seen in 55.7% 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 55.7% of calls 100% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the phrase "our customers" rather than naming a customer? Private Credit · seen in 60.7% 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 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
YES Does an executive open their first answer by thanking the analyst? Private Credit · seen in 37.1% 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 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
YES Does an analyst's turn contain the word "congratulations"? Procurement · seen in 20.2% 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 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
NO Does any analyst's question include a percentage figure? Project · seen in 69.1% 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 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
NO Does any speaker say "if you look at"? Project · seen in 54.1% 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 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
NO 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 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 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
NO Does an analyst preface a question with "quick" or "quickly"? Screenwriter · seen in 56% 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% 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
NO Does the word "guidance" appear in the Q&A section? Screenwriter · seen in 66.6% 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 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
YES Does the phrase "thank you" appear more than ten times? Screenwriter · seen in 62.8% 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 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
NO Does management use the word "guidance" at least twice? Screenwriter · seen in 65.8% 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 65.8% of calls 95.5% repeat consistency
YES 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 YES

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

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
NO 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 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 86.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "challenging" appear? Screenwriter · seen in 41.6% 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 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
YES Does any analyst ask a personal, warm, or congratulatory question? Screenwriter · seen in 49.4% 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 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
NO Does an analyst ask a question the prepared remarks already answered? Screenwriter · seen in 86.1% 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 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
NO 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 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 60.1% 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
NO Does the word "margin" appear at least three times? Screenwriter · seen in 73.6% 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 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
YES 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 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 96.7% repeat consistency
YES Does the phrase "going forward" appear? Screenwriter · seen in 62.9% 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 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
YES Does management use the phrase "going forward"? Screenwriter · seen in 56.2% 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 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
YES Does anyone use the phrase "at the end of the day"? Screenwriter · seen in 12.5% 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 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
NO Does any executive use the phrase "our team"? Screenwriter · seen in 50.8% 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 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
YES 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 YES

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

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
NO Does the word "obviously" appear at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 57.9% 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 57.9% of calls 87.2% repeat consistency
NO 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 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 87.9% of calls 90% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the word "actually" at least three times? Semiotician · seen in 46.2% 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 46.2% of calls 85.5% repeat consistency
NO Does any executive begin an answer with "Look," or "So,"? Semiotician · seen in 85.7% 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 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
NO Does the operator run out of queued questions and close early? Semiotician · seen in 34.3% 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 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
NO 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 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 94% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "guidance" appear more than five times in the transcript? Semiotician · seen in 31.8% 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 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
YES Does any analyst's question begin with a compliment or congratulation? Semiotician · seen in 41.5% 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 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
NO 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 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 54.8% 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
YES Does any speaker say "going forward"? Semiotician · seen in 61.4% 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 61.4% of calls 85.6% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst begin their question with "congratulations"? Semiotician · 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 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
YES Is the word "momentum" used without a stated metric attached to it? Semiotician · seen in 41.4% 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 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
NO Does anyone say "we take that seriously" or "we're very focused on"? Semiotician · 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 92% repeat consistency
NO 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 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 83.5% repeat consistency
YES Does the operator say "thank you" more than three times? Semiotician · seen in 30% of calls
How to 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% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency
YES Does management mention a specific competitor by name? Semiotician · 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 93.1% repeat consistency
NO Does management say "the team" at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 31.9% 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 31.9% of calls 85.9% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "fundamentally" appear at least once? Semiotician · seen in 12.3% 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 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
NO Does management use the phrase "strategic" at least twice? Semiotician · 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 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
NO Does the word "resilient" or "resilience" appear? Semiotician · 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 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
NO Does anyone say "if you look at" before citing a number? Simultaneous · seen in 47.7% 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 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
YES Does the word "clearly" appear anywhere in the transcript? Simultaneous · seen in 50.9% 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 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
YES Does the phrase "going forward" appear at least once? Simultaneous · 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 86.5% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "team" appear at least three times? Simultaneous · seen in 59% 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 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
NO Does any speaker say "moving on" or "next question" themselves? Simultaneous · seen in 25.1% 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 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
NO Is the word "capacity" used more often about factories than about people? Supply Chain · seen in 26.2% 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 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
NO Is a supplier or vendor mentioned by name at any point? Supply Chain · 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 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 AKBA calls. Open a question to read the model's original reasoning.

229 saved explanations · 227 questions
NO Answers go deeper than the script: questioning keeps surfacing new concrete detail behind a positive development — compa Q1 2023 · 3 archived calls

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ1 2023 · 2023-05-08

The user wants me to evaluate the earnings call transcript against two gates and return only YES or NO. Let me analyze Gate 1 first: Is there a positive, current development that analysts probe in Q&A, where management's answers add more concrete operating detail than the prepared remarks? The main positive developments on this call: 1. European approval of Vafseo (vadadustat) - approved in 32 countries 2. FOCUS trial positive results - three times weekly dosing 3. FDRR process with FDA - awaiting response 4. Auryxia revenue Let me look at the Q&A to see if analysts probe any of these and if management adds new detail. Q1 from Allison Bratzel: About the FDRR process - John Butler says they've been in regular contact, had a formal type A meeting, expect an answer within 30 days. This is mostly restating what was in the prepared remarks. No new concrete detail. Q2 from Allison: About EU partnership - John Butler says it's an active process, typical transaction, dialysis is complicated, finding a partner who understands the market. This is fairly generic - no new specifics about who the partners are, what terms, etc. Q3 from Allison: About FOCUS trial data - John Butler explains the importance of three times weekly dosing for hemodialysis, mentions a manuscript being worked on, expects data at ASN meeting. This adds a small detail (manuscript, ASN meeting) but is mostly explanation of why the dosing matters. Q4 from Thomas Yip: About FDRR scenarios - John Butler describes best/worst case scenarios. This is somewhat new detail about the possible outcomes but it's about the process, not about a development going well. Q5 from Thomas Yip: About Auryxia beyond loss of exclusivity - John Butler explains the TDAPA period, CMS bundling, how dialysis providers would be incentivized to use branded products. This is about future prospects, not current operations. So looking at the Q&A, the analysts ask about: 1. FDRR process - management mostly restates, no new concrete detail 2. EU partnership - generic response, no specifics 3. FOCUS data - small new detail (manuscript, ASN) 4. FDRR scenarios - process explanation 5. Auryxia future - future prospects, not current The positive developments (European approval, FOCUS results) are mentioned in prepared remarks. In Q&A, management doesn't really add substantial new operating detail about these developments.

NOQ3 2021 · 2021-11-09

We need answer only YES or NO. Need evaluate both gates. We need analyze transcript. Need determine Gate1: positive current development with Q&A adding more concrete operating detail than prepared remarks. Gate2: engine is company's own actions vs external. Let's parse. Company Akebia, vadadustat under FDA review, PDUFA March. Launch prep. Auryxia revenue growth. Q&A topics: ASN feedback, competitor daprodustat data, Vifor collaboration, sales force, TDAPA, supply, Auryxia, Part D lawsuit, Europe. Positive current development? Maybe "preparing for launch" not current actual business? Auryxia revenue growth? Q&A about Auryxia? Let's see. Prepared remarks: John says developments increase confidence, FDA mid-cycle, Phase3 data, launch prep. Market opportunity. Dell: commercial prep, distribution with Vifor, TDAPA, Auryxia revenue grows. Dave: financials. Q&A: First question about ASN feedback and differentiation. John answers general, mentions Spherix presentation, 60% physicians likely prescribe, daprodustat data confirms. Steve adds. This is not concrete operating detail? It's about market feedback, not company's own development? Maybe. Second question: panel, dapa, Vifor. John answers about panel no indication, daprodustat data, Vifor. Dell adds access to FMC. Not much new. Third: sales force/MSL sizing, Otsuka support. John/Dell answer: existing team, leverage, Otsuka. Some detail but not concrete numbers? Dell says 140 commercial, 110 field, 13 MSLs in later question. That's in Q&A. But is that about a positive current development? Launch prep? It adds specifics about team size. But is that "operating detail" about development? Maybe. Fourth: supply readiness, TDAPA, Auryxia. John says two API and two drug product suppliers, comfortable supply. Dell explains TDAPA process, launch before TDAPA, revenue ramp linked. Auryxia market challenging, team resilience. This is additive? Supply chain detail. Fifth: SG&A, Medicare Part D. Dave says team largely in place. John discusses lawsuit dismissed, legislative efforts. Not positive current. Sixth: sales footprint, training, market size. Dell gives team numbers, readiness activities. John clarifies $2B market, first to market.

NOQ2 2018 · 2018-08-08

The transcript discusses the merger with Keryx, vadadustat clinical trials, and financial results. The main positive current development is the merger with Keryx and the progress of vadadustat trials. However, the Q&A does not produce more concrete operating detail than the prepared remarks. The questions about the FDA type-C meeting, merger integration, and trial timelines are answered with generalities and restatements. The answers do not add substantial new specifics beyond what was in the prepared remarks. The development is also largely dependent on external factors like MACE accrual rates, which are not fully controlled by the company. The merger is a plan, not yet closed. The trial progress is ongoing but the Q&A does not add new concrete details. Therefore, Gate 1 is not satisfied.

Open the full research page →
NO Quarter of firsts: the period's story is built from first-time events the company has never done before, now starting to Q3 2021 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2021 · 2021-11-09

The question asks whether management's account of the just-reported period is built substantially around first-time events — real things the company actually did or achieved in or around this period that, in management's own telling, the company had NEVER DONE BEFORE — with management treating these firsts not as curiosities but as the OPENING INSTANCES of activity that is now beginning to repeat or scale. Let me analyze the transcript carefully. Key events in the transcript: 1. Vadadustat is under FDA review with PDUFA date March 29, 2022 (not yet approved) 2. The MAA was submitted to EMA last month (October 2021) - this is a first-time event 3. Vadadustat was launched in Japan by partner MTPC just over a year ago 4. The company is preparing for a potential US launch Let me look for first-time events that management describes as genuine firsts: - The EMA submission: "we have worked closely with our collaboration partner Otsuka, on the European marketing authorization, which was submitted last month to the European Medicines Agency." This is a first-time event - first submission to EMA. - The Japan launch: "The product was launched by our partner MTPC just over a year ago in Japan." This is a first-time event but it happened over a year ago, not in the recent period. - The UT Health study expansion: "UT Health has decided to expand their study beyond the initial 400 patients, an enrollment targets they've now surpassed." This is a first-time event of sorts. - The PDUFA date is approaching but approval hasn't happened yet. Now, are these presented as "beginnings with repetition already forming"? The EMA submission is a first, but it's a submission, not a commercial activity. The company says "We will continue to support Otsuka as the EMA begins the review process." This is a first submission, but the repetition isn't really forming - it's a one-time submission event. The Japan launch happened over a year ago, so it's not in the recent period. The UT Health study expansion - this is a study, not a commercial activity. The company is preparing for a potential US launch, but that's contingent on FDA approval, which hasn't happened yet. The question says "NO if the 'firsts' are still plans, pipeline, pilots without real transactions, or contingent on approvals, financing, or decisions not yet made." The US launch is contingent on FDA approval - not yet approved.

Open the full research page →
NO Proven engine, fuel already in the tank: a working growth driver plus already-held means to multiply it Q3 2021 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2021 · 2021-11-09

We need to answer YES or NO based on the transcript. The question asks: Does management describe BOTH of the following about the SAME part of the business, as one connected present-tense story? (1) A PROVEN, ALREADY-PRODUCING GROWTH ENGINE THAT IS STILL SMALL RELATIVE TO ITS ROOM. Management identifies a specific driver of growth — a product, service, offering, location type, customer relationship, market, asset, or capability — that is ALREADY generating real business today (actual revenue, orders, customers, volumes, output, or usage in the recent period, described with concrete substance rather than as pipeline, plans, or market opportunity), and management conveys, directly or plainly in substance, that this driver has so far captured only a small part of what it can reach — because it is early in its rollout, present in only a fraction of the customers, sites, applications, or territory available to it, or recently started and still ramping — so that the reported results reflect only the beginning of what this engine is already doing. (2) THE MEANS TO MULTIPLY IT ARE ALREADY IN THE COMPANY'S HANDS. Management describes resources the company ALREADY possesses or has ALREADY secured that it is now using, or beginning to use, to scale that same driver up — in whatever form fits the business: cash or self-generated funds being deployed into it; capacity, facilities, inventory, or supply already built or secured that it can fill; an existing customer base, footprint, network, or channel through which it can be pushed; approvals, qualifications, or positions already held that permit its expansion; a repeatable formula, site type, or playbook already demonstrated that is now being replicated; or people and capability already in place being pointed at it. The multiplication must be presented as already underway or already resourced from what the company has — not dependent on raising outside money, winning approvals not yet obtained, or demand that has not yet appeared. We need to find if management describes such a growth engine. The transcript is about Akebia Therapeutics, which has Auryxia (a product) and vadadustat (not yet approved). The question is about a proven, already-producing growth engine that is still small relative to its room. Auryxia is a commercial product generating revenue. But is it described as still small relative to its room? Let's see.

Open the full research page →
NO Trajectory bent upward recently, and management says the change has only started showing Q3 2021 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2021 · 2021-11-09

We need answer YES/NO. Need analyze transcript. Need determine if management conveys recent real bend upward and still early. Need only transcript. We need parse. Company Akebia, vadadustat PDUFA upcoming, not approved yet. Auryxia revenue growing. They discuss launch prep. Is there a recent bend? They mention "Developments over past quarter continue to increase confidence" including FDA mid-cycle review, ASN data. "We are excited about vadadustat's potential to be first-in-class HIF-PHIs in US. This is a much larger market opportunity than we anticipated just a few months ago." That is about potential, not actual business performance. They have not launched vadadustat. Revenue: total revenue $40.8M vs $60M prior year due lower collaboration revenue. Auryxia net product revenue increased 7% to $36.8M vs $34.4M. They say "Revenue for Auryxia continues to grow. We are encouraged... continue to expect Auryxia to deliver annual revenue growth for 2021." Is that a recent bend? It's continuing growth, not necessarily after flat/declining. They mention challenging market, COVID mortality, team adapted. No clear contrast old path vs new direction. They mention "This is a much larger market opportunity than we anticipated just a few months ago" due being first to market instead of second. But that's future potential, not actual results. They say "We have a tremendous opportunity to bring potential first-in-class product to market" not yet approved. No actual recent orders/wins/volumes. The change is not in reported results. They are preparing for launch. The question asks "does management convey that company's trajectory has RECENTLY BENT UPWARD — within last few quarters something real changed in how business is performing, so current direction meaningfully better than path before — AND management indicates change still early?" Need answer NO because no actual bend in business performance; it's about anticipated approval/launch. Also "still early" maybe yes for launch prep, but no actual bend. Need be careful: They say "This is a much larger market opportunity than we anticipated just a few months ago" due being first to market. But that's not "business performing" yet. They also mention "Developments over past quarter continue to increase our confidence" not actual performance. Auryxia growth is continuing, not a bend. So answer NO. Need final only YES or NO.

Open the full research page →
NO Priced like the old business, running like a new one: management is redirecting the call away from the metric investors Q3 2021 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2021 · 2021-11-09

We need to answer YES or NO based on the transcript. The question asks: does management repeatedly redirect attention away from the measure or storyline by which the company is conventionally judged and toward a different part of the business that it says is already earning today — and does management indicate that this different part is not yet what the company's reported results or outside understanding reflect? We need to analyze the transcript. The company is Akebia Therapeutics, developing vadadustat for anemia due to CKD. They have a product Auryxia (for hyperphosphatemia) that is currently commercial. The call is about Q3 2021 results. The main focus is on vadadustat, which is not yet approved (PDUFA date March 2022). They discuss launch preparations, data, etc. They also discuss Auryxia revenue. The question is about management redirecting attention away from the conventional yardstick (likely the company's overall financials or vadadustat prospects?) and toward a different part of the business that is already earning. But what is the conventional yardstick? Possibly the company is judged on its pipeline (vadadustat) or its overall revenue. Management might be saying that the real value is in Auryxia? But Auryxia is already earning and is part of reported results. Actually, the transcript shows that Auryxia net product revenue increased 7% to $36.8M. The company also has collaboration revenue from Otsuka. The total revenue was $40.8M, down from $60M due to lower collaboration revenue. So the conventional measure might be total revenue or the vadadustat program. But management is not setting aside the conventional yardstick; they are discussing vadadustat extensively as the future. They are not saying that the thing outsiders watch (maybe vadadustat approval) is not the right thing. They are actually emphasizing vadadustat's potential. They are also discussing Auryxia as a foundation. But the question is about redirecting attention to a different part that is already earning and not yet reflected in reported results. Auryxia is already reflected in reported results. So that doesn't fit. Alternatively, maybe the conventional yardstick is the company's overall financial performance, and management is redirecting to the potential of vadadustat? But vadadustat is not yet earning; it's awaiting approval. So that fails the "already earning" condition.

Open the full research page →
NO Ground-level proof points accumulating: management narrates several small, named, recent wins and treats them as the lea Q3 2021 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2021 · 2021-11-09

We need to answer based on the transcript. The question asks: On this call, does management's account of the just-reported period rest on SEVERAL SMALL, CONCRETE, GROUND-LEVEL WINS THAT IT NAMES AND DESCRIBES INDIVIDUALLY — specific recent episodes from inside the business, each one identifiable on its own — AND does management explicitly treat these accumulating episodes as the LEADING EDGE of a broader improvement that is still early? We need to check both halves. The call is about Q3 2021 results. Management discusses vadadustat progress, Auryxia revenue, etc. Let's look for specific episodes. The call mentions: - FDA's completion of mid-cycle review and release of additional Phase 3 data at ASN Kidney Week. - Launch of vadadustat by partner MTPC in Japan over a year ago, and HIF-PHI share growing in Japan. - European marketing authorization submitted to EMA last month. - UT Health's investigator-sponsored study of vadadustat for ARDS, expanded beyond 400 patients. - Auryxia revenue growth, but that's aggregate. - Also mention of TDAPA, but that's future. Are these "small, concrete, ground-level wins"? The FDA mid-cycle review is a regulatory milestone, not a ground-level win like a customer signing. The ASN data presentation is a conference presentation. The EMA submission is a regulatory event. The UT Health study expansion is a clinical trial progress. These are not typical "wins" like specific customers or accounts. They are more like regulatory and clinical milestones. The question asks for "several small, concrete, ground-level wins" that are "individually identifiable" and "recent episodes from inside the business" like a particular customer, account, partner, site, product, etc. The examples given are operational-level facts. The call's positive story is mainly about vadadustat's regulatory progress and launch preparation. There is no mention of specific dialysis providers signing contracts, specific sales wins, etc. The Auryxia revenue growth is aggregate, not specific episodes. Also, management does not explicitly connect these episodes into a broader still-early pattern. They talk about preparing for launch, but they don't say "these wins are leading edge of a broader improvement." They mention that they are encouraged by developments, but they don't frame it as accumulating episodes leading to a larger trajectory. Thus, the answer is NO.

Open the full research page →
NO Running ahead of their own plan — and management has already acted on it Q3 2021 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2021 · 2021-11-09

We need to determine if management indicates that some real, operating part of the business performed ahead of management's own prior expectations, plan, or timeline in the period just reported, and has the company already taken at least one concrete action in response to that favorable surprise. Let's scan the transcript for any such statements. John Butler: "We have a tremendous opportunity to bring a potential first-in-class product to market... An approval has the potential to be a pivotal catalyst... Developments over the past quarter continue to increase our confidence and a path for approval and launch success for vadadustat, including the FDA's completion of our mid cycle review and release of additional global Phase 3 data for vadadustat during ASN Kidney Week... Our team has also made significant progress preparing for successful launch... We are excited about vadadustat's potential to be the first-in-class HIF-PHIs in the US. This is a much larger market opportunity than we anticipated just a few months ago." That phrase: "This is a much larger market opportunity than we anticipated just a few months ago." That is a favorable surprise relative to management's own prior expectation. But is it about real operating activity? It's about market opportunity, not necessarily current operating performance. However, the context is that they were expecting to be second, but now they are first because the competitor (roxadustat) got a CRL or something? Actually, they mention "We had been planning to be seconds of three and that was the rationale for the Vifor deal. Now we're planning to be first of two." So the market opportunity is larger because they are now first to market. That is a change in competitive landscape, not necessarily an operating surprise in terms of their own product performance. But it is a favorable surprise about the market opportunity. However, the question asks: "does management indicate that some REAL, OPERATING part of the business performed AHEAD of management's OWN prior expectations, plan, or timeline in the period just reported" - that is about the company's own operations, not about the competitive landscape. The market opportunity being larger is not about their own operating performance; it's about the market structure. Also, they haven't launched vadadustat yet, so there is no operating performance for that product.

Open the full research page →
NO Already spoken for downstream: customers are buying to fulfill business they have already secured Q3 2021 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2021 · 2021-11-09

We need to determine if management conveys that customers are buying from the company to serve business those customers have already secured on their own side. The company sells Auryxia (for hyperphosphatemia in dialysis patients) and is preparing to launch vadadustat (for anemia due to CKD). The transcript discusses the market opportunity, launch preparations, and Auryxia revenue growth. Management mentions that the dialysis market has ~560,000 patients, 90% treated with ESAs. They talk about the Vifor distribution relationship with Fresenius and other dialysis providers. They mention TDAPA reimbursement. They discuss Auryxia revenue growth despite COVID challenges. However, do they describe that the customers (dialysis providers) have already secured business on their own side? They talk about the number of dialysis patients and that they are being treated. But is that a commitment? The dialysis providers have existing patients and are treating them. That could be considered as customers having already secured their own business (i.e., they have patients to treat). But management does not explicitly say that the dialysis providers have contracts or commitments that drive their purchases. They talk about the market opportunity and the potential for vadadustat. They mention that Auryxia revenue is growing. But they don't describe that the customers' own order books or commitments are driving purchases. They mention that the market is challenging due to COVID mortality. They don't say that customers have already won projects or have funds earmarked. The closest might be that dialysis providers have patients and are treating them, but that's just the existing market. The question asks if management conveys that the demand behind what the company sells is already committed on the far side of its customers. For Auryxia, the customers are dialysis providers who treat patients with hyperphosphatemia. Those patients are already there. But is that a "commitment"? It's more like an ongoing need. The transcript doesn't describe any specific contracts or awards. For vadadustat, it's not yet approved, so no sales. They talk about launch preparation. They mention TDAPA which is a reimbursement mechanism, but that's not a customer commitment. They mention the Vifor deal giving access to Fresenius, but that's a distribution agreement, not a customer commitment.

Open the full research page →
NO Outside commitment landed before the results show it: a counterparty has put real weight on the company while reported n Q3 2021 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2021 · 2021-11-09

We need answer YES/NO. Need analyze transcript. Need determine if management describes outside counterparty recently made concrete committed decision to put real weight on company, and results not yet reflect. Need only transcript. Let's parse. Company Akebia, vadadustat under FDA review PDUFA March. Partner Otsuka launched in Japan, submitted MAA to EMA. Vifor distribution relationship facilitates access to Fresenius and other dialysis providers, treat up to 60% US dialysis patients. TDAPA reimbursement anticipated six months from regulatory approval. Milestones from Otsuka on approval, Vifor $25M upon US approval and inclusion in TDAPA. Auryxia revenue growth. Question asks: Does management describe that an outside counterparty has RECENTLY made a concrete, committed decision to put real weight on this company (e.g., awarding business, standardizing/designating product, signing major agreement, placing large order, committing resources), AND transcript clear reported results do NOT yet meaningfully reflect that commitment — contribution still ahead/beginning/ramping? Need identify if any outside counterparty decision "recently made" and committed. The transcript mentions existing agreements: Vifor distribution relationship already in place, Otsuka collaboration, MAA submitted. But are these "recently made" decisions? The Vifor deal was previously made, not recent? It says "our distribution relationship with Vifor Pharma will be critical. The agreement facilitates access to Fresenius Medical Care and certain other dialysis providers..." This is an existing agreement, not recently made on this call. Also TDAPA is not a decision by outside party yet; anticipated after approval. Otsuka MAA submission is a committed action by partner, but not necessarily "put real weight" on company? It is a regulatory submission, not awarding business. Milestones contingent on approval. Japan launch by MTPC? "product was launched by our partner MTPC just over a year ago in Japan." That is past, already reflected? Not in US results. Question specifically: "has RECENTLY made a concrete, committed decision to put real weight on this company" Could be Otsuka submitted MAA to EMA last month. That is a concrete committed decision by partner to advance vadadustat in Europe. But does it put real weight? It's a regulatory submission, not revenue. Also results not reflect.

Open the full research page →
NO Acted like it's already bigger: a recent, in-motion company decision that only makes sense if the step-up is real Q3 2021 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2021 · 2021-11-09

We need answer YES/NO. Need analyze transcript for specific recent decision enlarging capacity etc, and explained by real demand already present. Let's parse. Company Akebia, vadadustat pending FDA PDUFA March. They are preparing for launch. Did they describe a specific recent decision already acting on that enlarges? They mention "We are investing in pre-commercialization activities" and "Our team has also made significant progress preparing for successful launch, including our medical teams’ efforts to educate physicians, payers and dialysis organizations." But is there a concrete decision? They mention "We have prioritized our spend with expenses to build our supply chain and to invest in value creation initiatives, including work on our 3 times a week studies for vadadustat and continue to have Phase 3 research." That is spending. But is it recent and enlarging? They have supply chain built. They mention "we are working to ensure appropriate commercial drug supply at the time of launch subject to approval." But no specific decision like hiring, capacity. They say "Our commercial team is on the ready to support a second product" and "we have an experienced team" - no new hires. They mention "we are deep in commercial preparedness activities" but no concrete recent decision. Also demand: They cite market opportunity $2B, dialysis patients, but not actual orders. They mention Auryxia revenue growth but that's existing product. For vadadustat, no approval yet, so no real demand. The question asks "does management describe at least one SPECIFIC DECISION THE COMPANY ITSELF RECENTLY MADE AND IS ALREADY ACTING ON ... that visibly ENLARGES what the company is set up to do ... AND does management explain that decision by pointing to DEMAND OR BUSINESS THAT IS ALREADY REAL ... rather than hoped-for demand?" Here, no. They are preparing for launch contingent on approval. They mention "we are investing in pre-commercialization activities" but not specific. They mention "we have prioritized our spend with expenses to build our supply chain" but that's not a specific recent decision? It is ongoing. Also demand is future, not real. So answer NO. Need ensure no other decision: "UT Health has decided to expand their study beyond initial 400 patients" - that's investigator-sponsored study, not company's own decision? It is a decision by UT Health, not Akebia.

Open the full research page →
NO Analysts still asking about the old story while management keeps pointing to a new driver already producing Q3 2021 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2021 · 2021-11-09

We need answer YES/NO. Need analyze transcript. Need determine if clear mismatch between analysts' questions and management pointing to newer driver already producing real results. Let's parse. Company Akebia. Main product Auryxia (current commercial product) for phosphate binder, revenue. Vadadustat investigational HIF-PHI under FDA review, not approved yet. Analysts ask about vadadustat data, commercial prep, supply, TDAPA, Auryxia growth, SG&A, Part D, Europe. Management talks about vadadustat potential, launch prep, data, market opportunity. But vadadustat is not approved, no current revenue. Auryxia is current revenue. Is there mismatch? Analysts focus on vadadustat (newer driver) and Auryxia. Management redirects to vadadustat? Need identify "newer driver already producing real results today" — maybe Auryxia? Management says Auryxia revenue continues to grow, current commercial product, foundation. Analysts ask about Auryxia too. But question asks: analysts keep asking about older established concern (weak/declining legacy business, past losses, macro worry, core business) while management repeatedly redirects to different identifiable part of business that says already producing real results today. Hmm. Let's read transcript carefully. Analyst questions: 1 Alli Bratzel: coming off ASN, feedback from nephrology community on vadadustat profile, comparisons to vadadustat data? (Actually "vadadustat data set presented this weekend" maybe daprodustat? They ask about vadadustat profile and comparisons among "kids" maybe HIFs). Management answers about vadadustat data, daprodustat, confidence. 2 Alethia Young: competitor said panel; update; dapa non-dialysis; Vifor collaboration lock share. Management answers. 3 Eric Joseph: commercial activities, sales/MSL teams support vadadustat, Otsuka; non-dialysis sizing. Management answers. 4 Serge Belanger: commercial prep, product supply, TDAPA; Auryxia growth, generics settlement, outlook. Management answers. 5 Avatar Jones: SG&A expenses next 12 months; Medicare Part D reimbursement of Auryxia. Management answers. 6 Ed Arce: sales footprint size, training; "overall anemia market much larger than expected" comment. Management answers. 7 Bert Hazlett: Europe application timing, reimbursement, issues. Management answers. Analysts are largely asking about vadadustat (new drug, not approved) and Auryxia.

Open the full research page →
NO Bigger keys handed over: the work customers now entrust has outgrown the work the company historically received Q3 2021 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2021 · 2021-11-09

We need answer only YES or NO based on transcript. Need determine if management describes company now being entrusted with materially larger or more central class of work than historically, step-up visible in actual business being won/performed today. We need parse transcript. Company Akebia, vadadustat pending approval. They discuss potential launch, market opportunity, pre-commercialization. Are they saying they are now being entrusted with larger work? Hmm. They have Auryxia commercial product. Vadadustat not approved yet. They talk about "tremendous opportunity to bring potential first-in-class product to market" "if approved" "preparing for launch" "PDUFA date approaching." They mention "We have a tremendous opportunity" "potential" "if vadadustat is approved." They are not yet winning business? They have collaboration with Otsuka, Vifor distribution. But is that "now being entrusted with materially larger class of work"? The question asks "ON THIS CALL, does management describe that the company is NOW BEING ENTRUSTED WITH A MATERIALLY LARGER OR MORE CENTRAL CLASS OF WORK THAN IT HISTORICALLY RECEIVED — that is, does management convey that the engagements, projects, orders, mandates, or roles it is winning or performing have stepped up in scale or consequence relative to what this company used to be given — and that this step-up is already visible in actual business being won or performed today?" Need answer YES only if management's own words convey one coherent phenomenon as present-tense reality: new business company getting has outgrown historical norm. The transcript is mostly about potential launch, not actual current business. They have Auryxia revenue growth. They have collaboration revenue lower. They have "Vifor Pharma distribution agreement facilitates access to Fresenius... up to 60% US dialysis patients." But that's an agreement, not necessarily "being entrusted" with work? It is a role. But is it "now being entrusted" with larger class? They say "Our cross-functional team with support from Otsuka has developed a robust launch plan. We are investing in pre-commercialization activities..." This is future/contingent on approval. They say "if vadadustat is approved." They are not yet selling vadadustat. The question specifically says "already visible in actual business being won or performed today" not projected/hoped/pipeline.

Open the full research page →
NO Mid-period crossings: the quarter's story is things that started during it and are still completing Q3 2021 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2021 · 2021-11-09

The question asks whether management's account of the reported period is built around real business activity that crossed from not-happening to happening partway through the period, and whether management makes clear that this newly started activity is still completing its climb, so the period's reported numbers averaged the 'before' and 'after' and therefore sit below the level at which the business is already running. Let me analyze the transcript carefully. The company is Akebia Therapeutics, developing vadadustat for anemia due to CKD. The PDUFA date is March 29, 2022 (about five months away from the call date of November 9, 2021). The product is NOT yet approved. Key points from the call: - Vadadustat is not yet approved - it's under FDA review - The PDUFA target action date is in March (about 5 months away) - They are preparing for launch but the launch hasn't happened yet - Auryxia is their current commercial product, which has been on the market The question asks about "real business activity that crossed from not-happening to happening partway through the period." Let me look for any such activity. The call discusses: 1. Vadadustat - still under FDA review, not approved, launch is ahead 2. Auryxia - existing product, continuing to grow revenue 3. European MAA submission - was submitted last month (October 2021), which is around the edge of the period 4. UT Health study expansion - investigator-sponsored study The European MAA submission is a regulatory filing, not a revenue-generating business activity. It's a submission, not a launch. The UT Health study expansion - this is a clinical trial expansion, not a commercial activity. Auryxia revenue growth - this is an established product performing well, not a new start. Vadadustat launch - this is still ahead, not yet happened. The PDUFA date is March 2022, about 5 months after the call. So there's no real business activity that "crossed from not-happening to happening" during the period. The main product (vadadustat) is still pending approval. The launch hasn't occurred. The European MAA submission is a regulatory milestone, not a business activity generating revenue. It's a filing, not a start of commercial activity. The UT Health study expansion is a clinical trial, not a commercial activity. Auryxia is an established product - its growth is the normal rhythm of an existing product.

Open the full research page →
NO Insulated through the downturn: acknowledged industry weakness, but the company's own results are protected by commitmen Q3 2021 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2021 · 2021-11-09

We need to determine if management both acknowledges a weak environment and explains that their own results are shielded by existing protections. The transcript discusses the dialysis market, Auryxia, and vadadustat. There is mention of challenges: "It is worth noting explicitly here that our collaboration revenue is directly tied to work performed on the vadadustat program. Collaboration revenue is reduced because vadadustat related expenses have tapered." That's about collaboration revenue, not market weakness. For Auryxia: "The overall phosphate binder market is down and really significantly due to the disproportionate mortality in this space and so that's been really difficult. And then certainly access to healthcare providers continues to be a challenge." That is an acknowledgment of a weak market environment. Now, does management explain that their own results are shielded by existing protections? They mention that Auryxia net product revenue increased 7% despite the market. But is that due to protections? They say "The growth is reflective of a higher net revenue per pill than previously realized over the last three years and include some one-time true-ups that reflects what we believe is our current payer mix." That is not a structural protection; it's pricing and one-time items. They also mention the settlement with generics that pushes out entry, but that's about future competition, not current shielding from market weakness. They also mention the Vifor collaboration for vadadustat, but that's for a product not yet approved. The question is about the company's own results being shielded from the weakness. The weakness is in the phosphate binder market. Auryxia is a phosphate binder. They acknowledge the market is down, but their revenue grew due to pricing and one-time items, not due to contracts or commitments. They don't describe any take-or-pay, long-term contracts, or committed demand that shields them. They mention "we believe we can continue to grow Auryxia net revenue moving forward" but that's confidence, not a structural shield. Thus, the first half is present: they acknowledge the market is weak. The second half is not: they don't describe existing protections that keep business flowing. They mention the settlement that pushes out generics, but that's about future competition, not current shielding from market weakness.

Open the full research page →
NO Named counterparty roster suddenly upgraded in caliber Q3 2021 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2021 · 2021-11-09

We need answer only YES or NO. Need evaluate based on transcript. Question asks: Does management describe that caliber of counterparties now doing real business with company has recently stepped up — customers/partners/institutions of size/stature/sophistication not previously transacted with are NOW actually buying/deploying/contracting/committing — and management presents this upgraded roster as recent change grounded in current transactions, with business still early relative to relationships? Need answer YES if all three present. Let's parse transcript. Company Akebia, has Auryxia commercial product, vadadustat pending approval. Management discusses partnerships: Otsuka (partner for Japan/Europe), Vifor Pharma distribution relationship for Fresenius Medical Care and certain other dialysis providers, together treat up to 60% US dialysis patients. Also DaVita and other providers. They are preparing for launch of vadadustat if approved. But vadadustat not approved yet. So no current business from vadadustat. Auryxia is current commercial product. They mention Auryxia revenue growth. Are there new counterparties? The Vifor relationship was previously established? They say "our distribution relationship with Vifor Pharma will be critical. The agreement facilitates access to Fresenius Medical Care and certain other dialysis providers..." This is for future launch, not current transactions. Also Otsuka partnership for Europe MAA submitted. But these are collaborations, not necessarily "real business" with customers? The question asks "counterparties now doing real business with company" — customers, partners, institutions of size. Management describes partnerships with Otsuka and Vifor. But are these recently stepped up? Otsuka is partner for vadadustat, existing collaboration. Vifor agreement was previously announced? They mention "distribution relationship with Vifor Pharma" as critical for launch. But vadadustat not approved, so no current business. Also they mention "Our leadership position in kidney space established with Auryxia" and "experienced team knows payers, healthcare providers, patients." No mention of new high-caliber counterparties actually buying now. They discuss Auryxia net product revenue increased 7%, but no specific new customers. They mention "distribution relationship with Vifor Pharma will be critical" for future.

Open the full research page →
NO Reordering the pecking order: management describes the company winning on a stage where it used to be too small to play Q3 2021 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2021 · 2021-11-09

We need to answer YES or NO based on the transcript. The question asks: does management describe that the company is NOW COMPETING AND WINNING AT A LEVEL OF THE MARKET THAT USED TO BE ABOVE IT? That is, a change in tier, already real, early. Let's examine the transcript. The company is Akebia, with product vadadustat for anemia due to CKD. They are preparing for launch. They have a PDUFA date. They talk about being first to market. They mention that they were expecting to be second or third, but now they are first. For example, John Butler says: "We are excited about vadadustat's potential to be the first-in-class HIF-PHIs in the US. This is a much larger market opportunity than we anticipated just a few months ago." And later: "We had been planning to be seconds of three and that was the rationale for the Vifor deal. Now we're planning to be first of two and that rationale doesn't change." Also: "The $2 billion market opportunity is still the size of the market opportunity. But a few months ago, we were expecting to be the second product to the market, and the opportunity to be the first product to the market and have that opportunity to introduce the first-in-class HIF-PHI is an opportunity we're unexpected -- I haven't been expecting for the last 8 years. We've been expecting to be second. That's how we've been planning. First to market with, we think at least a year or so of a head start over a second entrant, is a really great opportunity for us and a much larger opportunity than we had been considering." So they are now first to market, which is a higher tier than being second. But is that "competing and winning at a level of the market that used to be above it"? They are not yet approved, so they haven't actually won business. They are preparing for launch. The question asks: "ALREADY REAL — the promotion is evidenced by things that have actually happened in the recent period: business won, customers signed, work performed, admission granted, or evaluations prevailed in — not by a pipeline, an ambition, or a marketing claim of leadership." Here, they have not yet launched, so no business won. They are still awaiting approval. They talk about being first to market, but that is a future prospect. They also mention that they have a distribution relationship with Vifor, which gives access to Fresenius, but that was already in place.

Open the full research page →
NO The open question just closed: management treats a doubt that used to hang over the business as now answered, and names Q3 2021 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2021 · 2021-11-09

We need to determine if management acknowledges a specific doubt or open question that has now been resolved in their favor, with concrete evidence. Looking at the transcript: John Butler discusses the market opportunity, data, and launch preparations. He mentions that they were previously expecting to be second to market, but now they are first. He says: "We have a tremendous opportunity to bring a potential first-in-class product to market... We are excited about vadadustat's potential to be the first-in-class HIF-PHIs in the US. This is a much larger market opportunity than we anticipated just a few months ago." Later, in response to an analyst question, he says: "But a few months ago, we were expecting to be the second product to the market, and the opportunity to be the first product to the market and have that opportunity to introduce the first-in-class HIF-PHI is an opportunity we're unexpected -- I haven't been expecting for the last 8 years. We've been expecting to be second. That's how we've been planning. First to market with, we think at least a year or so of a head start over a second entrant, is a really great opportunity for us and a much larger opportunity than we had been considering." This indicates that previously there was a doubt about whether they would be first or second, but now it's resolved in their favor because the competitor (roxadustat) is not approved? Actually, they mention that they are now first because the other product (roxadustat) had issues? They say "the concerns that were kind of felt around the roxadustat data are starting to -- people are seeing that there's differences between the products and there's a path forward." And they mention daprodustat data confirming safety. So the doubt was about whether they would be first to market, and now they are confident they will be first. But is that a "doubt" that was open? They say they were expecting to be second, but now they are first. That is a shift. They also mention that the FDA has not indicated a panel, which they were prepared for. But the key is: did they acknowledge a specific doubt that is now resolved? They say "This is a much larger market opportunity than we anticipated just a few months ago." That is about market size, not a doubt about the business. They also talk about data supporting approval. But they are still awaiting approval.

Open the full research page →
NO Management describes competitors unable to respond to what the company is now doing Q3 2021 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2021 · 2021-11-09

We need to answer YES or NO based on the transcript. The question asks: does management explain why competition cannot quickly match what the company is currently winning with, and does it ground both the winning and the inability in present-tense facts? Need to check all three conditions. Condition 1: CURRENT WINNING, REAL AND RECURRING: company is presently taking business, customers, orders, or share — actual wins in the recent period described with substance. In the transcript, management talks about Auryxia revenue growth, but that's for Auryxia, not vadadustat. For vadadustat, it's not approved yet. They talk about launch preparation, but no actual wins. They mention Japan launch by partner MTPC, but that's not US. They talk about "we are excited about vadadustat's potential" and "we believe" etc. No actual current wins for vadadustat. They mention "we have a tremendous opportunity" but not actual wins. So condition 1 fails. Condition 2: NAMED STRUCTURAL REASON RIVALS CANNOT FOLLOW SOON. They mention being first to market, and Vifor distribution relationship giving access to Fresenius and other providers up to 60% of US dialysis patients. That is a structural reason? They say "the agreement facilitates access to Fresenius Medical Care and certain other dialysis providers, which together treat up to 60% of US dialysis patients." That is a specific structural advantage. But is it about competitors not being able to match? They don't explicitly say competitors cannot quickly match. They say "we believe rapid adoption is also likely in the US due to a reimbursement model unique to the dialysis market referred to as TDAPA." That's about reimbursement, not a barrier to competitors. They also mention "being first to market" but that's not a structural barrier; it's just being first. They don't explain what competitors would need to do to match. They mention "we are the only HIF PHI that’s in front of the FDA" but that's about regulatory status, not a structural barrier that prevents competitors from catching up. They don't describe a barrier like years of qualification, capacity, etc. So condition 2 fails. Condition 3: RUNWAY ACKNOWLEDGED: management conveys that the protected winning continues from here. They talk about potential launch and future opportunity, but since they haven't won anything yet, it's not about continuing wins.

Open the full research page →

Showing the latest 18 of 227 archived research questions.

These archived questions are separate from the newer 500-check scan above.

Past calls

AKBA call history

Open a quarter only when you want its detailed evidence.

B+ Q1 2025 · Strong call · 2025-05-08Management held guidance steady against accelerating demand and expanding margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics, relaxed under questioning.
Guidance: maintainedDemand: acceleratingMargins: expandingPricing: under pressure⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts✓ Volume step-up ahead✓ Early product, fast growth
Candor 7/9
Specificity 8/9
Evasion 1/9
Confidence 8/9
Uncertainty 4/9
Promotion 6/9
Stress 1/9
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?
NO 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?
NO Is a founder still running the company?
NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?
NO 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?
B+ Q4 2024 · Strong call · 2025-03-13Management raised guidance against accelerating demand and contracting margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics, relaxed under questioning.
Guidance: raisedDemand: acceleratingMargins: contractingBacklog: shrinkingPricing: stable⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts✓ Volume step-up ahead✓ Early product, fast growth
Candor 7/9
Specificity 8/9
Evasion 2/9
Confidence 8/9
Uncertainty 3/9
Promotion 6/9
Stress 1/9
Complexity 5/9
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?
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?
C Q3 2024 · Caution · 2024-11-07Management held guidance steady against accelerating demand and contracting margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics, promotional in tone.
Guidance: maintainedDemand: acceleratingMargins: contractingBacklog: growingPricing: under pressure⚑ Critic ammunition⚑ Question left hanging✓ 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 5/9
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?
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?
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?
NO 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 2024 · Mixed call · 2024-08-10Management held guidance steady against accelerating demand. The delivery was rich in specifics, relaxed under questioning, promotional in tone.
Guidance: maintainedDemand: acceleratingMargins: stablePricing: stableHeadcount: growingCapex: flat⚑ Critic ammunition⚑ Question left hanging✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts✓ Volume step-up aheadDirection beats results
Candor 6/9
Specificity 7/9
Evasion 1/9
Confidence 8/9
Uncertainty 3/9
Promotion 7/9
Stress 1/9
Complexity 6/9
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?
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?
NO 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?
NO 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 Q1 2024 · Caution · 2024-05-09Management held guidance steady against steady demand. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics.
Guidance: maintainedDemand: stableMargins: stablePricing: raisingHeadcount: growing⚑ Critic ammunition⚑ Question left hanging✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts✓ Volume step-up ahead⚑ Reads rehearsed
Candor 7/9
Specificity 8/9
Evasion 3/9
Confidence 8/9
Uncertainty 4/9
Promotion 6/9
Stress 2/9
Complexity 6/9
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?
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?
NO 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?
NO 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?
NO Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?
NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?
YES Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?
C Q3 2023 · Caution · 2023-11-08Management held guidance steady against steady demand and expanding margins. The delivery was rich in specifics.
Guidance: maintainedDemand: stableMargins: expandingPricing: raisingHeadcount: cuttingCapex: increasing⚑ Critic ammunition⚑ Question left hanging✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts✓ Volume step-up ahead⚑ Reads rehearsed
Candor 6/9
Specificity 8/9
Evasion 2/9
Confidence 8/9
Uncertainty 4/9
Promotion 6/9
Stress 3/9
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?
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?
NO Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?
NO 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?
YES 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?
NO Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?
NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?
YES Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?
B+ Q2 2023 · Strong call · 2023-08-25Management held guidance steady against mixed demand signals. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics.
Guidance: maintainedDemand: mixedMargins: stablePricing: under pressureHeadcount: flat⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts✓ Volume step-up aheadDirection beats results
Candor 8/9
Specificity 8/9
Evasion 1/9
Confidence 8/9
Uncertainty 4/9
Promotion 6/9
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?
NO Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?
NO 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?
NO 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 20 earlier calls
CallDateGradeGuidanceDemandMarginsCandorEvasion
Q1 2023 2023-05-08 D maintainedslowingstable 8/9 2/9
Q4 2022 2023-03-09 D maintainedstableexpanding 6/9 4/9
Q3 2022 2022-11-03 D maintainedslowingcontracting 7/9 3/9
Q2 2022 2022-08-06 D raisedstableexpanding 6/9 4/9
Q1 2022 2022-05-09 F maintainedstableunclear 7/9 3/9
Q3 2021 2021-11-09 C+ nonestableunclear 7/9 2/9
Q2 2021 2021-08-05 D nonestableunclear 6/9 4/9
Q1 2021 2021-05-10 F nonestablecontracting 6/9 4/9
Q4 2020 2021-02-25 F maintainedslowingcontracting 6/9 3/9
Q3 2020 2020-11-06 C nonemixedcontracting 7/9 2/9
Q1 2020 2020-05-05 B+ maintainedunclearunclear 7/9 3/9
Q4 2019 2020-03-10 C noneunclearcontracting 6/9 3/9
Q3 2019 2019-11-12 F nonestablecontracting 6/9 4/9
Q2 2019 2019-08-10 C+ noneacceleratingstable 7/9 2/9
Q1 2019 2019-05-09 C maintainedacceleratingcontracting 7/9 3/9
Q4 2018 2019-03-18 C nonemixedcontracting 7/9 3/9
Q2 2018 2018-08-08 C maintainedstablecontracting 6/9 4/9
Q4 2017 2018-03-12 B noneunclearcontracting 7/9 2/9
Q4 2016 2017-03-06 B noneunclearcontracting 7/9 2/9
Q4 2015 2016-03-14 A maintainedunclearcontracting 7/9 1/9
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.

← AKAO All “A” companies AKBLF →