Stocks › D › DE

DE · Earnings-call lab · 48 calls graded · 2016–2026

Deere & Company

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

48calls analyzed

2016–2026coverage

NEWESTQ3 2026 call

2026-08-21 · 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

OPENQ2 2026 call

2026-05-21 · 11 analysts · 11 questions · 500 / 500 checks

Free · full reportThe quarter before the newest

Call grade · Better than 59% of 177,437 calls

Solid call. Management held guidance steady against mixed demand signals. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics.

Management toneResultTypical range · middle half of all callsFlag

Candor7 /9

—

Evasion2 /9

—

Specificity8 /9

—

Confidence7 /9

—

Uncertainty5 /9

—

Promotion5 /9

—

Stress2 /9

—

Complexity5 /9

—

Since the quarter before · Q1 2026 → Q2 2026

Guidance ~~raised~~maintainedDemand mixedMargins ~~expanding~~stablePricing stableBacklog growingCapex increasing⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts✓ Volume step-up ahead✓ Early product, fast growth

Notable checks detected

Are there more than eight analyst questioners?
Does the operator announce more than five questioners?
Does the operator announce more than ten questioners in the Q&A?
Is there a questioner from an investment bank other than the first three analysts who ask questions?

ScreenersHigh Candor Skeptic Reassured Critic Ammunition Volume Step-Up Early Product, Fast Growth Underused Fixed Costs Backlog Growing Capex Increasing

Lab panel · Q2 2026 call

29 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.

7 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.0 times

typical 0–1

—

Thank-yousEvery thanks on the call, in both directions.20 times

typical 13–31

—

BuzzwordsSynergies, headwinds, flywheels, best-in-class and friends.2.3 /1k words

typical 0.6–1.8

HedgesSort of, kind of, roughly, I think, probably.11.3 /1k words

typical 5.5–10.5

SuperlativesRecord, unprecedented, tremendous, incredible.0.6 /1k words

typical 0.3–1.2

—

Outside forcesMacro, weather, currency, tariffs, supply chain.73 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.25.9 /1k words

typical 21.2–35.3

—

"Excited"Excited, exciting, thrilled.8 times

typical 0–3

Script shareShare of the call spent on prepared remarks rather than questions.57% % of call

typical 35%–55%

Longest answerThe longest single management answer in the Q&A.335 words

typical 249–461

—

Reading levelFlesch–Kincaid grade level of management answers.7.2 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.30 of 49

typical 16–30

—

DodgingQuestions declined, deferred or answered with a different question.9 of 15

typical 5–9

—

BlameResults attributed to weather, macro, currency or other outside forces.16 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.7 of 22

typical 5–10

—

ConfessionAdmissions, apologies and self-corrections.3 of 11

typical 1–5

—

Call theaterStage management: operator mechanics, scripted cues, "color".21 of 33

typical 12–19

Capital returns talkAttention paid to buybacks, dividends, M&A and the balance sheet.2 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

Q2 2026 · 500 checks

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

Choose a past call

500checked

274detected

226not detected

YES Does an executive answer a question by describing a process rather than an outcome? Activist · seen in 86.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 86.8% of calls 85.3% repeat consistency

YES Is there a question the executive answers with a question back to the analyst? Activist · seen in 31.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 31.3% of calls 88.3% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone compare the company to an unnamed "competitor" or "peer" rather than naming it? Activist · seen in 63.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 63.3% of calls 83% repeat consistency

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

YES Does an analyst ask a question spanning more than five sentences? Air Traffic · seen in 75.4% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.4% of calls 88.6% repeat consistency

YES Does any analyst ask a question containing multiple sub-questions (three or more)? Air Traffic · seen in 89.5% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 89.5% of calls 94% repeat consistency

NO Does the CEO answer a question personally after another executive initially responds? Air Traffic · seen in 58% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not 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% 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

YES Does any analyst preface a question by summarizing the company's stated results? Air Traffic · seen in 75.4% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.4% of calls 80.6% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker use the word "obviously" at least twice? Air Traffic · seen in 55.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 55.8% of calls 83.8% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone say "guidance" in the same sentence as a specific number? Air Traffic · seen in 56.4% 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 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

YES Is the word "scale" or "scaling" used as a verb? Air Traffic · seen in 22.7% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 22.7% of calls 97.7% repeat consistency

NO Does an analyst ask a question beginning with a number ("two questions", "three quick ones")? Air Traffic · seen in 32.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.8% of calls 88.7% repeat consistency

NO Does any analyst say "thank you" before asking their question? Air Traffic · seen in 71.4% 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 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

YES Does anyone say "the environment" when describing market conditions? Air Traffic · seen in 51.5% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 51.5% of calls 83.9% repeat consistency

NO Does any executive use the word "momentum" at least twice? Air Traffic · seen in 29.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 29.5% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency

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

NO Does any speaker say "with that" as a transition phrase? Air Traffic · seen in 76.4% 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 76.4% of calls 99% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone use the phrase "on a comparable basis" or "adjusted for"? Air Traffic · seen in 17.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 17.6% of calls 92.6% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker say "moving to" or "turning to" when changing topics? Air Traffic · seen in 74.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 74.8% of calls 93.8% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker say "over to you" or "I'll turn it over"? Air Traffic · seen in 79.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 79.9% of calls 81.1% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker say "operator" aloud during the call? Air Traffic · seen in 43.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 43.9% of calls 87.6% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone repeat the same stock phrase three or more times? Anthropologist · seen in 85.4% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 85.4% of calls 82.7% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone use the phrase "as you know" to introduce a claim? Anthropologist · seen in 49% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 49% of calls 90.7% repeat consistency

NO Does any speaker apologize without attaching a fix to the apology? Anthropologist · seen in 21.2% 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 21.2% of calls 85.3% repeat consistency

YES Does the call end without any closing statement from the CEO? Anthropologist · seen in 24.4% 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 24.4% of calls 93% repeat consistency

YES Is there a request to move the call along or to the last question? Bankruptcy · seen in 20% of calls

How to 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% 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

YES Does the operator announce more than ten questioners in the Q&A? Clinical Trial · 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 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

NO Does any question include the word "color"? Clinical Trial · seen in 59.8% 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 59.8% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency

NO 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 NO

The model did not 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% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone say "if I may" or "if you don't mind"? Clinical Trial · seen in 16.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 16.3% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency

NO Does any executive's first sentence include the word "revenue"? Clinical Trial · seen in 11.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 11.4% of calls 84.8% repeat consistency

YES Does an analyst use the word "clarification" or "clarify" in a question? Compliance · 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

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

YES Does the operator use the phrase "our final question" before closing? Compliance · seen in 12.9% 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 12.9% of calls 92.8% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone say "let me" at least three times? Compliance · seen in 32.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.5% of calls 94.8% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "aggressive" or "aggressively" appear at least once? Compliance · seen in 35.4% 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 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

YES Does anyone use the phrase "to be clear"? Compliance · 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 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

NO Does any speaker say "with that" at least twice? Compliance · 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 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

YES 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 YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.1% of calls 84% repeat consistency

NO Is there an apology offered to a specific analyst by name? Con Artist · seen in 11.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 11.2% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency

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

YES Does management use the word "strong" at least three times? Courtroom · seen in 83.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.2% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency

NO Does an executive use the phrase "we're seeing" at least twice? Courtroom · seen in 53.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 53.4% of calls 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

YES Does the phrase "record" appear at least twice in the transcript? Courtroom · seen in 34.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 34.9% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "team" appear at least twice? Courtroom · seen in 72% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 72% of calls 93.9% repeat consistency

NO Does management promise to follow up or take a question offline? Courtroom · seen in 18.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 18.2% of calls 85.5% repeat consistency

NO Does any speaker say "we're excited about" or "we're pleased with"? Courtroom · 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 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

NO Does anyone use the phrase "moving forward" or "go forward"? Courtroom · seen in 40.7% 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 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

YES Does any analyst mention a specific percentage figure in their question? Debate · seen in 66.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 66.3% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "quarter" appear in at least ten questions or answers during the Q&A? Debate · seen in 75.7% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.7% of calls 91.2% repeat consistency

YES Does at least one analyst ask a question about margins or costs? Debate · 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 95.6% repeat consistency

NO Does the CEO answer the majority of analyst questions personally? Debate · seen in 66.9% 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 66.9% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency

YES Does any analyst ask a question phrased as "Can you talk about" or "Can you speak to"? Debate · seen in 60% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 60% of calls 89.6% repeat consistency

YES Does the CFO speak during the Q&A portion at least twice? Debate · seen in 80.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 80.6% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency

YES Does any question reference a specific quarter (e.g., "fourth quarter") by name? Debate · seen in 76.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 76.2% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency

YES Does the operator interrupt the Q&A to announce time is limited or that this will be the last question? Debate · seen in 24% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 24% of calls 91.2% repeat consistency

YES Does any analyst ask a question beginning with "just" (e.g., "just curious")? Debate · seen in 77.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 77.8% of calls 82.8% repeat consistency

YES Does any analyst ask about a specific dollar amount or number stated in the prepared remarks? Debate · seen in 86.4% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 86.4% of calls 84.9% repeat consistency

YES Does any question begin with the words "can you" or "could you"? Debate · seen in 83.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.3% of calls 86.2% 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

YES Does the CFO answer at least one question without the CEO speaking first? Debate · seen in 77.5% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 77.5% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency

NO Does any analyst ask a question containing an explicit comparison to a competitor company? Debate · seen in 31.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 31.7% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency

YES Does the phrase "moving on" or "next question" come from the operator? Debate · seen in 88.4% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 88.4% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency

NO Does an analyst ask about capital allocation (capex, buybacks, M&A, or dividends) in one question? Debate · seen in 60.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 60.4% of calls 92% repeat consistency

YES Does the phrase "color" appear (e.g., "add some color") in the transcript? Debate · seen in 75.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.2% of calls 98.6% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "guidance" appear at least five times in the transcript? Debate · seen in 47.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 47.3% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency

NO Does any question contain the word "why"? Debate · seen in 36.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 36.3% of calls 96.9% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker say "I think" at least three times within a single answer? Debate · seen in 65.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 65.8% of calls 93% repeat consistency

YES Does any executive begin an answer by restating the analyst's name? Debate · seen in 85.1% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 85.1% of calls 93.6% repeat consistency

YES Does any executive's answer exceed 300 words in the transcript? Debate · seen in 68% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 68% of calls 85.5% repeat consistency

NO Does the CEO answer the first analyst question personally? Debate · seen in 65.9% 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 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

YES Does the transcript contain the word "margin" more than ten times? Debate · seen in 44.3% 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 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

NO Does the phrase "if I may" or "if I could" appear? Debate · 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 95.3% repeat consistency

NO Does any executive say "let me" at least once? Debate · seen in 66.1% 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 66.1% of calls 94.5% repeat consistency

YES Does any question contain the word "specifically"? Debate · seen in 28.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 28.6% of calls 90% repeat consistency

NO Does management use the word "momentum" at least twice? Debate · seen in 31.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 31.7% of calls 96.6% repeat consistency

YES Does management mention "margin" or "margins" in prepared remarks? Debate · seen in 75.1% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.1% of calls 96.6% repeat consistency

YES Is the word "definitely" used by any speaker? Debate · seen in 41.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.6% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "seasonality" appear? Debate · seen in 27.1% 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 27.1% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone use the word "robust" to describe demand, growth, or the pipeline? Debate · seen in 33% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 33% of calls 94% repeat consistency

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

NO 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 NO

The model did not 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 95.3% repeat consistency

NO Does an analyst's question include the phrase "going forward"? Debate · seen in 20.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 20.6% of calls 83.5% repeat consistency

NO Does an executive say "great question" at any point? Debate · seen in 20.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 20.2% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone say "we remain confident" or "we are confident"? Debate · seen in 42.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 42.2% of calls 93% repeat consistency

NO Does any executive say "thank you" immediately after finishing an answer? Debate · seen in 47.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 47.4% of calls 85.2% repeat consistency

YES Does an executive cite a specific dollar figure greater than one billion? Discovery · seen in 71% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 71% of calls 97.6% repeat consistency

YES Does any analyst's question contain the word "curious"? Discovery · seen in 57.5% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 57.5% of calls 99% repeat consistency

NO Does an analyst reference a specific prior quarter by name (e.g., "last quarter")? Discovery · seen in 63% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 63% of calls 82.5% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker say "obviously" two or more times? Discovery · seen in 61.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 61.8% of calls 88.7% repeat consistency

NO 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 NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 86.2% of calls 91.9% repeat consistency

YES Does any analyst ask about a specific geographic region or market? 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 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

YES Does the word "margin" or "margins" appear at least five times? Discovery · seen in 63.4% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 63.4% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "opportunity" or "opportunities" appear at least three times? Discovery · seen in 76.7% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 76.7% of calls 95.2% repeat consistency

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

NO 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 NO

The model did not 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 86.2% repeat consistency

NO Does the phrase "take your question" or "take the question" appear? Discovery · seen in 23.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.7% of calls 81.5% repeat consistency

YES Does any analyst introduce themselves by name before asking their first question? Discovery · seen in 27.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.2% of calls 95.5% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone say "including" at least three times? Discovery · seen in 68.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 68.3% of calls 85.6% repeat consistency

YES Does management reference "the macro environment" or "macroeconomic" at least once? Discovery · seen in 25.5% 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 25.5% of calls 97.6% repeat consistency

YES Does any executive reference "our team" or "the team" at least twice? Discovery · seen in 59.5% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 59.5% of calls 88.7% repeat consistency

NO Does the operator announce more than one analyst from the same firm? Discovery · seen in 15% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 15% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency

YES Does any prepared remark mention "headwinds" or "tailwinds"? Discovery · 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 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

YES Does the CFO use the phrase "capital allocation"? Discovery · seen in 15.3% 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 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

YES Does an analyst ask a two-part question containing the word "but"? Editor · seen in 74.2% 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 74.2% of calls 83.3% repeat consistency

NO 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 NO

The model did not 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 92.9% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone answer "yes" or "no" as the first word of a response? Editor · seen in 83.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.2% of calls 90.3% repeat consistency

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

NO Does any analyst begin their question with "Hi" or "Hello" as a greeting? Editor · 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 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

YES Does management use the word "headwind" or "headwinds"? Editor · seen in 42.1% 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 42.1% of calls 97.6% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker use the word "tailwind" or "tailwinds"? Editor · 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 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

YES Does the word "efficiency" or "productivity" appear at least twice? Editor · 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 96% repeat consistency

YES Does an analyst thank the executives or congratulate them before asking a question? Editor · seen in 74.7% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 74.7% of calls 91.9% repeat consistency

YES Does an executive say "great question" or "thanks for the question"? Editor · seen in 40.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 40.2% of calls 89.9% repeat consistency

YES Does an executive say "as we said last quarter" or reference a prior call? Editor · seen in 72.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 72.2% of calls 83.3% repeat consistency

NO Does the phrase "going forward" appear at least twice? Editor · seen in 30.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 30.1% of calls 88.2% repeat consistency

NO Does management use the word "levers" when discussing actions? Editor · seen in 13% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 13% of calls 95% repeat consistency

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

YES Does management use the word "committed" regarding a target? Editor · seen in 33.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.2% of calls 91% repeat consistency

NO Does the CEO's prepared remarks mention "macro" or "macroeconomic"? Editor · seen in 19.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 19.5% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone use the phrase "the vast majority"? Editor · seen in 16.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 16.3% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency

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

NO Is an analyst's question answered with "great question" or similar? Editor · seen in 28.9% 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 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

YES Does any analyst ask a question that includes a reference to a specific dollar figure? Fact Checker · seen in 64.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 64.9% of calls 93.6% repeat consistency

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

YES Does any analyst's first sentence contain a compliment or thanks before asking their question? Fact Checker · seen in 81.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 81.3% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency

YES Does the CFO present in both the prepared remarks and the Q&A portion of the call? Fact Checker · seen in 84.1% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 84.1% of calls 98% repeat consistency

NO Does the CEO personally deliver the closing remarks of the call? Fact Checker · seen in 68.9% 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 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

NO 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 NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 80.9% 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

YES Someone uses the word "honestly," "frankly," or "to be clear." Forensic · seen in 44.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 44.9% of calls 96% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone use the word "ecosystem" or "platform" without a number attached? Forensic · seen in 60.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 60.6% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency

NO Does the transcript contain the word "certainly" three or more times? Forensic · seen in 34.5% 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 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

NO Does a speaker say "let me" at least twice in the transcript? Forensic · seen in 49.3% 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 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

YES Does the word "seasonality" or "seasonal" appear? Forensic · seen in 44.7% 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 44.7% of calls 99.3% repeat consistency

NO The phrase "as you know" appears at least twice. Forensic · seen in 27.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.8% of calls 89% repeat consistency

NO Does any speaker use the word "challenge" or "challenges" at least three times? Forensic · seen in 18.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 18.3% of calls 86% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone mention "weather" as a factor affecting results? Forensic · seen in 19.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 19.1% of calls 95.7% repeat consistency

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

YES Does any question mention a specific percentage or dollar figure? Hostage · seen in 88.5% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 88.5% of calls 93.9% repeat consistency

NO Does the CEO personally answer more questions than any other executive? Hostage · seen in 72.7% 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 72.7% of calls 93.9% repeat consistency

YES Does the operator say "our final question" or similar? Hostage · seen in 18.1% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 18.1% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "opportunity" or "opportunities" appear at least five times? Hostage · seen in 58.7% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 58.7% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "clearly" appear at least twice? Hostage · seen in 24.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.8% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "leverage" appear as a verb at least twice? Hostage · seen in 26.5% 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 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

YES Does the operator announce more than five questioners? Insurance · seen in 64.7% 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 64.7% of calls 99% repeat consistency

YES Are there more than ten analyst questions in total? Insurance · seen in 79.4% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 79.4% of calls 92.9% repeat consistency

YES 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 YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 52.3% of calls 80.4% repeat consistency

NO 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 NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 68.2% of calls 84.5% repeat consistency

NO 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 NO

The model did not 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 83.3% repeat consistency

YES Executive corrects an analyst's premise. Insurance · seen in 60% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 60% of calls 80.3% repeat consistency

NO Does the CFO's prepared section exceed the CEO's in number of paragraphs? Insurance · seen in 38% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 38% of calls 86.5% repeat consistency

NO Does the CEO personally answer more than half of the analyst questions? Insurance · 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 92.1% repeat consistency

NO Does any analyst mention the word "margin" in their first question? Insurance · seen in 39.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 39.4% of calls 93.8% repeat consistency

YES Executive uses the word "excited" more than twice. Insurance · seen in 27.7% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.7% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency

YES Does any analyst ask a multi-part question containing three or more distinct questions? Insurance · seen in 82% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 82% of calls 87.3% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "guidance" appear at least three times? Insurance · seen in 58.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 58.2% of calls 94% repeat consistency

YES 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 YES

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

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

YES Does an executive say "we said" when recalling prior statements? Insurance · seen in 47.7% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 47.7% of calls 89.7% repeat consistency

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

YES Does the word "headwind" or "tailwind" appear at least twice? Insurance · seen in 36.1% 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 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

YES Does the word "capital" appear at least five times? Insurance · seen in 53.8% 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 53.8% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency

YES Does any executive say "we feel" rather than "we believe" or "we think"? Insurance · seen in 58.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 58.2% of calls 95.7% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "capital" appear in at least three different speakers' turns? Insurance · seen in 37.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.7% of calls 90.4% repeat consistency

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

NO Does an analyst thank management before asking their question? Insurance · seen in 60.9% 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 60.9% of calls 82.3% repeat consistency

YES Is the word "automation" or "productivity" used at least once? Insurance · seen in 37.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.9% of calls 99% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "uncertainty" or "uncertainties" appear at least twice? Insurance · seen in 37.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.8% of calls 95% repeat consistency

YES Does the phrase "year over year" appear at least three times? Insurance · 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 90.6% repeat consistency

YES Does management use the word "leverage" or "leveraging" at least twice? Insurance · seen in 51.1% 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 51.1% of calls 94.6% repeat consistency

YES Currency headwinds mentioned unprompted. Insurance · 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 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

NO Does the word "momentum" appear at least twice in prepared remarks? Insurance · seen in 21.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 21.7% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency

NO Is the phrase "on a constant currency basis" or similar currency adjustment used? Insurance · seen in 20.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 20.6% of calls 97% repeat consistency

NO Does an analyst's question include the phrase "just to clarify"? Insurance · seen in 10.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.1% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency

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

NO Speaker says "we don't guide" on anything. Insurance · seen in 16.5% 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 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

NO Does any speaker use the phrase "going forward"? Insurance · seen in 61.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 61.4% of calls 88% repeat consistency

NO Does management use the phrase "going forward" at least twice? Insurance · seen in 24.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.9% of calls 84.2% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone say "stability" or "stable" when describing demand? Insurance · seen in 23.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.6% of calls 89.6% repeat consistency

YES Word "normal" used about demand. Insurance · 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 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

YES Does the word "volatility" appear? Insurance · seen in 28.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 28.6% of calls 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

NO Does the word "pipeline" appear without a dollar figure attached? Insurance · seen in 55.3% 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 55.3% of calls 99% repeat consistency

YES Does the phrase "the macro" or "macro environment" appear? Insurance · seen in 19.7% 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 19.7% of calls 93.6% repeat consistency

YES Does the phrase "our team" appear at least twice? Insurance · seen in 32.9% 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 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

YES Does any speaker say "we remain" followed by an adjective? Insurance · seen in 53.5% 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 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

YES Is the word "flexibility" or "flexible" used at least once? Insurance · seen in 44.4% 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 44.4% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone say "takeaway," "take out," or "take rate"? Insurance · seen in 17.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 17.8% of calls 95% repeat consistency

NO Analyst compliments the team before asking a question. Insurance · seen in 17.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 17.4% of calls 80.3% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker use "we're" where "we are" could substitute, more than twenty times overall? Interrogator · seen in 61.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 61.9% of calls 83.8% repeat consistency

YES Does any analyst reference the CEO or CFO by first name? Interrogator · seen in 79.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 79.6% of calls 93.8% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone say "obviously" at least three times? Interrogator · seen in 43.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 43.3% of calls 86.9% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone use the word "pipeline" at least twice? Interrogator · seen in 37.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.8% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone say "moving on" or "let me turn it over" during prepared remarks? Interrogator · 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 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

YES Does anyone say "headwind" or "headwinds" more than once? Linguist · 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 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

YES Does any executive use the phrase "year over year" at least three times? Linguist · seen in 41.8% 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 41.8% of calls 91.8% repeat consistency

YES Does an executive cite a conversation with a customer, partner, or employee as evidence? Military · seen in 53% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 53% of calls 84.3% repeat consistency

NO Does any question go to a named executive other than the CEO or CFO? Military · seen in 32.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.5% of calls 85.7% repeat consistency

YES Does an executive say "to be clear" or "let me be clear"? Military · seen in 13.8% 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 13.8% of calls 96% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone mention a competitor by name without being prompted? Military · seen in 17% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 17% of calls 91.7% repeat consistency

YES Is there a question that management declines to answer directly, citing timing or disclosure constraints? Negotiation · seen in 71.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 71.2% of calls 88% repeat consistency

YES Does any question explicitly reference the company's prior guidance or outlook? Negotiation · seen in 80% of calls

How to 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% 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

YES Does the word "invest" or "investment" appear at least five times in the transcript? Negotiation · 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 92% repeat consistency

YES Does the CFO handle a strategic question instead of a financial one? Negotiation · seen in 58.9% 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 58.9% of calls 86.3% repeat consistency

YES Does an analyst flatter management within their first sentence of speaking? Negotiation · seen in 46.6% 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 46.6% of calls 90.7% repeat consistency

YES Does an analyst ask two questions when told to ask only one? Negotiation · seen in 15.2% 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 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

YES Does the word "guidance" appear in the prepared remarks (not just Q&A)? Negotiation · seen in 64% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 64% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency

YES Is the word "margin" used with a number attached (e.g., "400 basis points")? Negotiation · seen in 66.7% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 66.7% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency

YES Does the transcript contain the word "record" preceding a noun (e.g., "record margin")? Negotiation · seen in 40.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 40.6% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency

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

YES Does the word "macro" or "macroeconomic" appear in the transcript? Negotiation · seen in 39.9% 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 39.9% of calls 99.3% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "challenges" appear more than once? Negotiation · 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 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

YES Does the word "inflation" appear anywhere in the transcript? Negotiation · seen in 36.9% 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 36.9% of calls 98% repeat consistency

NO Is there a pause or silence acknowledged on the call ("I think we lost you")? Negotiation · seen in 19.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 19.2% of calls 87.7% repeat consistency

NO Does an executive name a specific competitor during the call? Negotiation · seen in 24.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.5% of calls 90.7% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "challenges" appear at least three times in the transcript? Negotiation · seen in 12.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 12.3% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone say "we don't break that out" in response to a question? Negotiation · seen in 10.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.7% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone describe a metric as "noisy" or "lumpy"? Negotiation · seen in 15.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 15.6% of calls 95.7% repeat consistency

NO Does an executive mention a specific number of percentage points when discussing market share? Negotiation · seen in 14.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 14.7% of calls 96.7% repeat consistency

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

NO Does the CEO refer to a competitor by name rather than "competition" or "peers"? Negotiation · seen in 18.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 18.8% of calls 91.3% repeat consistency

NO Does the CEO mention their own tenure or years of experience unprompted? Negotiation · seen in 19.9% 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 19.9% of calls 97% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone use the phrase "the team" when taking ownership would be natural? Poker · seen in 42.5% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 42.5% of calls 81% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone blame weather, holidays, or calendar quirks unprompted? Poker · seen in 35.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 35.6% of calls 83% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone cite a personal anecdote involving a customer conversation? Poker · seen in 16.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 16.6% of calls 81.7% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone use the phrase "a little bit"? Private Credit · seen in 87.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 87.3% of calls 96% repeat consistency

YES Is the CFO the speaker for at least one analyst question? Private Credit · seen in 87.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 87.8% of calls 99% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "guidance" appear in the transcript? Private Credit · seen in 78.7% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 78.7% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone say "we're excited" or "we are excited"? Private Credit · seen in 49.5% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 49.5% of calls 93.7% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "dividend" appear? Private Credit · seen in 45.5% 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 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

YES Does the word "liquidity" appear at least once? Private Credit · seen in 34.7% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 34.7% of calls 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

YES Does anyone reference "the macro" or "macro environment"? Private Credit · seen in 26.5% 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 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

YES Does anyone use the phrase "our customers" rather than naming a customer? Private Credit · seen in 60.7% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 60.7% of calls 95% repeat consistency

NO Does the transcript include a question about interest expense or debt service? Private Credit · seen in 10.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.7% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency

NO Does the phrase "working capital" appear in a context other than a seasonality excuse? Private Credit · seen in 25.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 25.7% of calls 98% repeat consistency

YES Does management thank analysts at any point? Private Credit · seen in 84.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 84.9% of calls 84.3% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone reference borrowing from a bank or drawing on a credit facility? Private Credit · seen in 32.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.6% of calls 87.7% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "cost" appear in the first ten sentences of prepared remarks? Private Credit · seen in 23.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.8% of calls 85.3% repeat consistency

YES Does an executive say "we remain confident" or similar? Private Credit · 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 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

NO Does anyone say "with that" or "that said" to pivot? Private Credit · seen in 81.4% 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 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

YES Does any analyst's question include the word "capex" or "cash flow"? Procurement · seen in 38.5% 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 38.5% of calls 94.5% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "headline" or "headwinds" appear at least once? Procurement · seen in 43.1% 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 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

YES Are there more than eight analyst questioners? Project · seen in 37.5% 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 37.5% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency

YES Does any analyst's question include a percentage figure? Project · seen in 69.1% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 69.1% of calls 91.1% repeat consistency

NO Does any analyst's question contain the word "guidance"? Project · seen in 54.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 54.3% of calls 92.4% repeat consistency

NO Does the CFO's prepared remarks exceed 1,000 words? Project · seen in 40.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 40.9% of calls 89.3% repeat consistency

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

NO Does the CEO personally answer the first question? Project · seen in 69.3% 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 69.3% of calls 92.4% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker use the phrase "tailwind" or "tailwinds"? Project · 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 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

NO Does the CEO make closing remarks after the Q&A ends? Project · seen in 64.8% 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 64.8% of calls 96.2% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker say "structurally" or "secular"? Project · seen in 13% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 13% of calls 97.9% repeat consistency

YES Does the operator say "our next question" two or more times? Scientist · seen in 73.5% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 73.5% of calls 85.6% repeat consistency

YES Does the final questioner get an explicit closing acknowledgment from the operator ("last question" or similar)? Scientist · seen in 25.7% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 25.7% of calls 95.2% repeat consistency

YES 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 YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.9% of calls 94.2% repeat consistency

YES Does an analyst preface a question with "quick" or "quickly"? Screenwriter · seen in 56% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 56% of calls 99% repeat consistency

YES Does an executive state a specific numeric percentage when answering a question? Screenwriter · seen in 86.7% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 86.7% of calls 97.9% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone say "in terms of" at least twice? Screenwriter · seen in 84.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 84.8% of calls 94% repeat consistency

NO Is there a question that clearly annoyed the executive, visible in the reply's abruptness? Screenwriter · seen in 27.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.1% of calls 85.3% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "guidance" appear in the Q&A section? Screenwriter · seen in 66.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 66.6% of calls 93.1% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "strong" appear more than five times? Screenwriter · 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 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

YES Does an analyst ask a question containing the word "margin"? Screenwriter · seen in 60.2% 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 60.2% of calls 93.6% repeat consistency

YES Does management use the word "guidance" at least twice? Screenwriter · seen in 65.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 65.8% of calls 95.5% repeat consistency

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

YES Is there a villain—market conditions, regulation, currency—that behaves consistently across the call? Screenwriter · seen in 83.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.3% of calls 86.3% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "challenging" appear? Screenwriter · seen in 41.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.6% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "certainly" appear at least once in management's answers? Screenwriter · seen in 59.3% 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 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

YES Does the phrase "capital" appear at least five times? Screenwriter · seen in 50.3% 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 50.3% of calls 92.1% repeat consistency

YES Does an analyst ask a question the prepared remarks already answered? Screenwriter · seen in 86.1% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 86.1% of calls 82.7% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "quarter" appear at least twenty times? Screenwriter · seen in 84.4% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 84.4% of calls 90.4% repeat consistency

NO Does any single analyst ask more than two questions during the whole call? Screenwriter · seen in 86.6% 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 86.6% of calls 89.7% repeat consistency

YES Does the phrase "on a year-over-year basis" or "year over year" appear at least twice? Screenwriter · seen in 60.1% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 60.1% of calls 89.3% repeat consistency

YES Is the word "headwinds" or "tailwinds" used? Screenwriter · seen in 41.8% 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 41.8% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "margin" appear at least three times? Screenwriter · seen in 73.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 73.6% of calls 98% repeat consistency

YES Is the word "confidence" or "confident" spoken by any executive? Screenwriter · seen in 73.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 73.2% of calls 97.7% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone use the phrase "call it" or "let's call it" before an estimate? Screenwriter · seen in 24.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.7% of calls 96.7% repeat consistency

NO Does the phrase "going forward" appear? Screenwriter · seen in 62.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 62.9% of calls 87.6% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone say "coming back" or "circling back" to take a follow-up? Screenwriter · seen in 11% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not 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% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "inflation" appear at least twice? Screenwriter · seen in 25.3% 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 25.3% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency

YES Does any executive say "we believe" at least twice? Screenwriter · seen in 65.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 65.8% of calls 92.8% repeat consistency

NO Does management use the phrase "going forward"? Screenwriter · seen in 56.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 56.2% of calls 85.6% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone use the word "robust"? Screenwriter · seen in 46% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 46% of calls 99% repeat consistency

NO Does any speaker use the phrase "if you will" or "so to speak"? Screenwriter · seen in 23.2% 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 23.2% of calls 97.7% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker say "appreciate" at least once? Screenwriter · seen in 63.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 63.9% of calls 94.2% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone use the phrase "at the end of the day"? Screenwriter · seen in 12.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 12.5% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone tell a self-contained anecdote with a beginning, middle, and end? Screenwriter · 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 82% repeat consistency

YES Does any executive use the phrase "our team"? Screenwriter · seen in 50.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 50.8% of calls 88.7% repeat consistency

NO Does the transcript contain a silence, pause, or "we'll come back to that" that never resolves? Screenwriter · seen in 15.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 15.8% of calls 85.7% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone describe a customer, employee, or competitor as a named character with a motive? Screenwriter · seen in 11.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 11.4% of calls 87.3% repeat consistency

YES Does any executive say "we're pleased" or "I'm pleased"? Screenwriter · seen in 68.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 68.3% of calls 92.8% repeat consistency

NO Is there a moment of modesty—someone crediting luck or timing? Screenwriter · seen in 12.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 12.5% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone use the phrase "on a year-over-year basis"? Screenwriter · seen in 18.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 18.9% of calls 93.6% repeat consistency

YES Is the word "excited" or "exciting" used by management at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 45.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 45.8% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker say "just" five or more times? Semiotician · seen in 83.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.3% of calls 82.2% repeat consistency

YES Does any question begin with "Can you" or "Could you"? Semiotician · 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 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

YES Does any analyst use the word "clarify" or "clarification"? Semiotician · seen in 32.9% 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 32.9% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "obviously" appear at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 57.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 57.9% of calls 87.2% repeat consistency

YES Does management refer to a prior call or prior quarter's commentary when answering? Semiotician · seen in 87.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 87.9% of calls 90% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone use the word "actually" at least three times? Semiotician · seen in 46.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 46.2% of calls 85.5% repeat consistency

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

NO Is the word "excited" used by the CEO more than the word "confident"? Semiotician · 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 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

YES Does the word "tailwind" or "headwind" appear? Semiotician · seen in 52.2% 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 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

YES Does the word "challenging" appear at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 20.1% 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 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

NO Does anyone say "from a ... perspective" (e.g., "from a margin perspective")? Semiotician · seen in 56.9% 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 56.9% of calls 87.2% repeat consistency

NO Does an executive say "we're not going to" in response to a question? Semiotician · seen in 25% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not 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% 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

YES Is there a mention of "FX," "currency," or "foreign exchange"? Semiotician · seen in 39.5% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 39.5% of calls 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

YES Does the word "leverage" appear at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 52.1% 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 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

YES Does management use the word "headwinds" at least once? Semiotician · seen in 33.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.6% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker say "great question" or thank the analyst before answering? Semiotician · seen in 51.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 51.8% of calls 84% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone attribute results to "the team" rather than to strategy? Semiotician · seen in 61.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 61.6% of calls 90.7% repeat consistency

NO Does any speaker say "going forward"? Semiotician · seen in 61.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 61.4% of calls 85.6% repeat consistency

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

NO Does an analyst thank management at the end of their turn? Semiotician · seen in 77.2% 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 77.2% of calls 94.7% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone describe the future with "We believe" more than "We expect"? Semiotician · seen in 30.2% 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 30.2% of calls 87.3% repeat consistency

YES 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 YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.7% of calls 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

YES Is the word "visibility" used at least once? Semiotician · seen in 34.1% 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 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

YES Is the phrase "to your point" or "as you mentioned" used at least once? Semiotician · seen in 32.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.8% of calls 83.5% repeat consistency

NO Does the operator say "thank you" more than three times? Semiotician · seen in 30% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 30% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency

NO Does management mention a specific competitor by name? Semiotician · seen in 20.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 20.8% of calls 93.1% repeat consistency

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

NO Does the word "fundamentally" appear at least once? Semiotician · seen in 12.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 12.3% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency

NO Does the phrase "ahead of" precede any mention of guidance or expectations? Semiotician · seen in 14.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 14.1% of calls 96.6% repeat consistency

NO Does management use the phrase "on a year-over-year basis"? Semiotician · seen in 16.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 16.9% of calls 96.6% repeat consistency

NO Does any single speaker say "right?" as a tag question at least once? Semiotician · seen in 34% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not 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% 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

YES 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 YES

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

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

YES Does any speaker describe a business unit as "healthy"? Semiotician · seen in 13.3% 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 13.3% of calls 92.7% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker use the word "fundamentals"? 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 100% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "resilient" or "resilience" appear? Semiotician · seen in 24.7% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.7% of calls 98% repeat consistency

YES Does the operator mention a queue or "next question" more than three times? Simultaneous · seen in 74.2% 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 74.2% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency

NO 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 NO

The model did not 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 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

YES Does the phrase "last question" or "final question" appear? Simultaneous · seen in 50.4% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 50.4% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "clearly" appear anywhere in the transcript? Simultaneous · seen in 50.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 50.9% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency

NO Does the CEO speak first among named executives in the Q&A? Simultaneous · 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 94.6% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "headwind" or "headwinds" appear at least twice? Simultaneous · seen in 28.5% 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 28.5% of calls 97% repeat consistency

YES Does the CFO mention a specific percentage greater than ten? Simultaneous · seen in 89.1% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 89.1% of calls 96.6% repeat consistency

NO Does the phrase "going forward" appear at least once? Simultaneous · seen in 63.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 63.4% of calls 86.5% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "team" appear at least three times? Simultaneous · seen in 59% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 59% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "confident" appear in any executive's remarks? Simultaneous · seen in 60.7% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 60.7% of calls 97.7% repeat consistency

NO Does an analyst thank management at the start or end of their turn? Simultaneous · seen in 81.6% 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 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

NO Does any executive say "with that" to transition between speakers or topics? Simultaneous · seen in 75% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not 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% 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

NO Does any analyst identify themselves with a two-part introduction (name and firm)? Simultaneous · seen in 10.2% 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 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

YES Is a supplier or vendor mentioned by name at any point? Supply Chain · seen in 33.7% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.7% of calls 85.3% repeat consistency

NO Does any executive blame weather, season, or geography for a shipment or delivery issue? Supply Chain · seen in 10.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.8% of calls 91% repeat consistency

No checks match those filters.

500 checks shown · YES means detected; it is not automatically positive or negative.

Real saved model output

Archived AI reasoning

Earlier Artul research experiments on DE calls. Open a question to read the model's original reasoning.

244 saved explanations · 241 questions

NO Answers go deeper than the script: questioning keeps surfacing new concrete detail behind a positive development — compa Q3 2018 · 4 archived calls

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

NOQ3 2018 · 2018-08-17

The task is to evaluate two gates based on the provided earnings call transcript. **Gate 1: Original Signal** - Is there a positive, current development in the company's business that management presents as genuinely going well or stepping up right now? - Does the Q&A discussion produce more concrete operating detail than the prepared remarks contained? - Are management's answers additive, providing new, specific, present-tense substance? Let's analyze the transcript. The call discusses strong demand for agricultural and construction equipment. The prepared remarks mention replacement demand, strong order books, and technology adoption. In the Q&A, analysts ask about: 1. Take rates for advanced technology (Jerry Revich) - John May and Ryan Campbell provide specifics: AutoTrack sales in 2018 exceeded 2013 peak, ExactEmerge take rates up 50% from '18 to '19. 2. Construction order book (Jamie Cook) - Josh Jepsen says order book extends well into 2019, more visibility than traditionally. 3. Cost headwinds (Andy Casey, Steven Fisher) - Josh Jepsen discusses material costs, R&D, SA&G. 4. Receivables and inventories (Rob Wertheimer) - Josh Jepsen explains Wirtgen and small ag. 5. Wirtgen performance (Mike Shlisky) - Josh Jepsen says Wirtgen performing as expected, margins stepped up. 6. Warranty costs and technology (Ann Duignan) - John May explains expert alerts, 11,000 alerts predicting failures. 7. Construction pricing (Joe O'Dea) - Josh Jepsen says price actions took effect July 1, benefit in Q4. 8. Ag demand next year (Steve Volkmann) - Raj Kalathur provides detailed farm economics, cash receipts forecast. 9. Technology take rates and farm aid (Ross Gilardi) - Josh Jepsen and John May discuss take rates, payback periods. The Q&A does provide more specific details than the prepared remarks. For example, the prepared remarks mention "higher take rates of advanced precision features" but the Q&A gives specific numbers (ExactEmerge up 50%, AutoTrack sales exceeding 2013 peak, Combine Advisor nearly double expectations). The Q&A also provides details on the construction order book extending into 2019, and specific pricing actions. The development is real and current (replacement demand, technology adoption, strong order books). Management's answers are additive, providing new specifics.

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-05-19

The transcript shows a positive current development: stabilization and improvement in agricultural equipment markets, particularly in South America (Brazil) and Construction & Forestry. The Q&A does probe these areas, but let me check if management adds concrete new details beyond the prepared remarks. For Gate 1: The prepared remarks already cover the stabilization, South America recovery, C&F strength, order books, etc. In Q&A, management adds some details (e.g., used equipment down 36% from peak, order book strength for Waterloo tractors, Brazil specifics). However, much of the Q&A detail is about forecasts, guidance, margins, and financial modeling rather than deep operational specifics of a current development. The answers tend to repeat themes (stabilization, order books) with some incremental color but not substantial new operational detail across multiple exchanges. For Gate 2: The main positive development (South America recovery, C&F improvement) is largely driven by external factors — industry recovery, government support programs (Moderfrota), market stabilization. Management notes the recovery is tied to external conditions (political stability in Brazil, commodity prices, industry demand). The engine is chiefly external. Given the analysis, Gate 2 clearly fails because the development is externally driven. Therefore, the answer is NO.

NOQ1 2017 · 2017-02-17

The transcript shows a positive current development in Construction & Forestry (C&F) sales outlook raised to up 7%, with strong order book. In Q&A, Jamie Cook asks about C&F, and Raj gives specific detail: first 12-13 weeks of orders up over a third year-over-year for US and Canada. This is more concrete than prepared remarks. However, the prepared remarks already mentioned the C&F outlook raise and order book strength. The Q&A adds the specific order growth number (over a third), which is new detail. But is this across multiple exchanges? The C&F discussion is mainly one exchange. Other Q&A topics include inventory, Brazil, pricing, etc. The main positive development probed with additive detail seems limited. Gate 1: Is there a positive current development where Q&A produces more concrete operating detail than prepared remarks? The C&F order book detail (up over a third) is added in Q&A. But it's mostly in one exchange. Other exchanges about Ag, Brazil, etc., don't add much new operational substance. The C&F order book is real and current. But the additive detail across multiple exchanges is limited. The prepared remarks already said "very, very strong order book" and the Q&A quantifies it. That's one exchange. So Gate 1 might be NO because the extra substance appears in only a single exchange. Gate 2: The C&F improvement is driven by production moving closer to retail demand, dealer inventories low, and order book strength. Is this company-created or external? The prepared remarks say "largely driven by production moving closer to retail demand" - that's company action. But the order book strength reflects dealer sentiment and market improvement. The Q&A says orders up over a third due to sentiment. Is this external? It's somewhat mixed. The company is producing to retail, but the demand pickup is external. Management says "cautiously optimistic" and notes it's due to low inventories and sentiment. The engine seems to be a mix of company production decisions and external demand. Also, management conditions on market improvement. So Gate 2 likely NO. Given both gates need YES, and Gate 1 seems weak (single exchange), and Gate 2 is mixed/external, the answer is NO.

Open the full research page →

NO Quarter got stronger as it went: management narrates intra-period acceleration with company-specific drivers still in fo Q2 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2016 · 2016-05-20

We need answer only YES or NO. Need analyze transcript. Need determine if management conveys period strengthened as progressed and cause company-attached still in force. We need be careful. The question asks "On this call, does management convey that the just-reported period STRENGTHENED AS IT PROGRESSED — that business conditions, activity, or execution were meaningfully better in the later part of the period (or in the weeks right after it) than in the earlier part — AND does management attribute that building strength mainly to drivers attached to the company itself that are described as still in force now?" We need use only transcript. Let's examine. The call is Q2 2016 earnings. They discuss results. Did they convey intra-period improvement? They mention timing differences of shipments between quarters, pull forward from third quarter into second quarter. But that is not necessarily "strengthened as progressed" in terms of business conditions; it's shipment timing. They also mention Brazil FINAME rates announcement could result in short-term pull ahead before rates increase. That is pull-forward ahead of deadline, not company-attached. They mention Ag & Turf sales flat, C&F down. No clear progression from weaker to stronger. They mention "higher sales in the quarter were largely due to timing differences of shipments between quarters mainly attributable to agriculture and turf equipment in North America and Brazil." That is not a story of strengthening business conditions. They also mention "we actually also saw in addition to the first quarter shipments moving into second pulling forward a little bit of the production from third quarter" - that's just timing, not demand strength. They don't describe momentum building. They describe challenging conditions, lower demand. They mention "The improvement in our forecast is driven almost entirely by foreign currency exchange." Not company-attached. They mention "price realization" etc. No. Need answer NO. But let's ensure no hidden. The question asks "just-reported period" Q2. Did management say "second quarter results reflected continuing impact of downturn" etc. No improvement. They mention "all businesses remained profitable" but not progression. They mention "we’ve made changes in outlook" but not due to strength. They mention "higher sales in quarter were largely due to timing differences" not strength.

Open the full research page →

NO Insulated through the downturn: acknowledged industry weakness, but the company's own results are protected by commitmen Q2 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2016 · 2016-05-20

We need answer YES/NO. Need analyze transcript. Need determine both halves. First half: management openly acknowledges industry/end markets weak, declining, pressure. Yes clearly: "downturn in global farm economy", "weakness in markets for construction equipment", "low commodity prices", "industry sales down", etc. Second half: company's own results/cash generation/activity meaningfully shielded from weakness by protections already in place — commitments, structures, positions secured before/during downturn that keep business flowing while surrounding market suffers. Need see if management explains such insulation visible in current results or committed economics now. What protections? Need identify. They mention broad product portfolio, flexible cost structure, but that's not committed protection. They mention financial services? Maybe "all businesses remained profitable" due to execution, broad portfolio, flexible cost structure. That's not concrete committed. They mention "strong financial condition" but not shield. They mention "operating lease" issues, not shield. They mention "price realization" etc. They mention "backlog"? No. They mention "customer commitments"? No. They mention "recurring, non-deferrable demand"? No. They mention "diversification" maybe "broad product portfolio" but generic. They mention "financial services" maybe "excellent quality portfolios" but not shield from weakness? Actually financial services results down due to losses. They mention "all businesses remained profitable" but not shielded. They mention "we are continuing to perform at a much higher level than previous downturns" due to "more durable business model and broader range of revenue sources." That's resilience talk, not specific protections. They mention "cash flow from equipment operations about $2.1 billion" but not shield. They mention "strong financial condition" but not shield. They mention "we have taken actions to mitigate risk on operating lease portfolio" but that's future/planned, not already in place? They mention "lower residual values for future leases" etc. That's mitigation, not shield. They mention "risk sharing with dealers" already? "increasing risk sharing with dealers" maybe already? But that's about lease losses, not keeping business flowing. They mention "price realization" positive but not shield. They mention "currency translation" negative.

Open the full research page →

NO More where that came from: a concrete gain just landed, and the same engine that produced it is visibly loaded with the Q2 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2016 · 2016-05-20

We need answer only YES or NO. Need analyze transcript for both halves about same part business connected story. We need identify concrete gain just landed and same source loaded with more. Let's parse transcript. Management discusses various businesses. Need find a specific real step forward achieved in recent period, and management indicates same source has identifiable further business forming now. Possible candidates: - Brazil FINAME financing rates announced. Management says announcement positive, removes uncertainty, conveys confidence. But that's not a gain landed; it's a policy change. Also short-term pull ahead: farmers have until June 9 to apply under current rates before rates move up. So "in the short-term we would expect to see some nice activity." That's a future expectation, not concrete gain already landed. Not enough. - Ag & Turf sales flat in Q2 vs prior year, better than guidance due to timing. Not a gain. - Construction and forestry sales down, no. - Financial services? No. - Acquisitions? Not in forecast. - Maybe "Precision Planting, Monosem, Hagie" acquisitions? They are recent acquisitions but not described as concrete gain just landed with more forming. - Maybe "India" improved industry demand due to monsoon expected. Not concrete. - Maybe "Argentina" opening up? Management says positive changes but early, potential 2017 opportunity. Not concrete gain landed. - Maybe "operating lease" actions? No. - Maybe "price realization" positive? No. - Maybe "cash flow" strong? No. - Maybe "turf and utility" flat to up? No. - Maybe "used equipment" actions? No. - Maybe "Brazil" political changes? No. - Maybe "short-term leases" impairments? No. - Maybe "sales incentives" no. - Maybe "R&D" no. - Maybe "SA&G" no. - Maybe "pension" no. - Maybe "tax rate" no. - Maybe "third quarter outlook" no. - Maybe "full year outlook" no. - Maybe "Deere's performance" no. - Maybe "all businesses remained profitable" no. - Maybe "sound execution" no. - Maybe "broad product portfolio" no. - Maybe "flexible cost structure" no. - Maybe "changes in outlook" no. - Maybe "net sales and revenues down" no. - Maybe "price realization positive by one point" no. - Maybe "currency translation negative" no. - Maybe "Ag & Turf net sales flat" no. - Maybe "operating profit $614 million down" no. - Maybe "U.S. farm cash receipts" no. - Maybe "grain stocks" no. - Maybe "EU" no.

Open the full research page →

NO Crossed from claiming to demonstrating: management marks its own before/after line with repeated, recent proof Q2 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2016 · 2016-05-20

We need to determine if management conveys a recent crossing from claiming to demonstrating a capability, with repeated real events, and management drawing the before/after contrast. Scan the transcript for such a crossing. Key topics: operating leases, residual values, cost structure, acquisitions, etc. Management discusses actions taken to mitigate risk on operating leases, but that's not a capability crossing. They mention acquisitions (Precision Planting, Monosem, Hagie) but not as recently proven with repeated events. They discuss cost structure improvements but not a specific before/after capability. Look for phrases like "we used to talk about" vs "now we are doing". There is discussion about operating lease risk: "we've taken a number of actions to mitigate risk" - but that's not a capability demonstration. They talk about changes in residual values, restricting short-term leases, risk sharing. That's risk management, not a new capability. They mention "we have said if there is a change in our overall pieces in terms of long-term demand that would make us take some drastic changes" - not relevant. They discuss "we haven't done lot on R&D" - not a crossing. They discuss "we are continuing to look for ways to reduce cost" - not a crossing. They discuss "we have taken a number of actions" - but that's not a before/after capability. The question asks: "management convey that the company has RECENTLY CROSSED FROM CLAIMING SOMETHING TO DEMONSTRATING IT" - a capability, offering, or way of doing business that until recently existed mainly as a promise, plan, or early attempt, and now actually done more than once. Look for any such instance. Perhaps the "flexible cost structure" or "broader product portfolio" but no specific crossing. There is mention of "we've made changes in our outlook" - not a capability. The only possible candidate is the operating lease risk mitigation. But that is not a new capability; it's a change in policy. Also, management does not draw a before/after contrast of "we used to claim we could manage this, now we are actually doing it". They describe actions taken, but not as a crossing from promise to proof. Another candidate: "we have said we will do those only if it fits in the long-term interest" - not. The transcript is mostly about financial results and guidance. No clear instance of a capability crossing. Thus answer NO.

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 Q2 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2016 · 2016-05-20

We need answer YES or NO. Need analyze transcript. Need identify specific doubt/open question acknowledged by management, now resolved favorably with evidence. Let's scan. Transcript: Deere Q2 2016 earnings. Management discusses challenges, downturns, cost structure, etc. They mention "we’ve made changes in our outlook" etc. Need find if management acknowledges a prior doubt and says now answered favorably with evidence. Possible candidates: Brazil political changes? They say "though it’s too soon to draw conclusions" - not resolved. Operating lease residual values? They took actions, but risk remains, "has a risk of getting worse" - not resolved. Cost structure? They say performing at much higher level than previous downturns due to durable business model, but not a specific doubt. Maybe "all businesses remained profitable" despite downturn - but no prior doubt acknowledged. Question asks: "On this call, does management identify a SPECIFIC DOUBT OR OPEN QUESTION that until recently hung over the business — something genuinely uncertain or unproven about the company in the recent past — and convey that this question has NOW BEEN ANSWERED IN THE COMPANY'S FAVOR, pointing to real, recent evidence from the business itself as what settled it?" Need answer only YES or NO. Let's examine transcript for phrases like "we have taken actions", "we are confident", "we believe". There is no explicit "we were uncertain whether X, and now we know Y because of evidence." Management discusses "sound execution", "strength of broad product portfolio", "success establishing more flexible cost structure." But no specific doubt. Maybe "Brazil recently announced details of eligible rates... This announcement is a positive sign. It removes an element of uncertainty for farmers" - That is about uncertainty for farmers, not company's own doubt. And they say "it’s too soon to draw conclusions" - not resolved. Maybe "operating leases" - they had losses, took actions, but not resolved; they say "we’ll see as we move forward" and "has a risk of getting worse." So no. Maybe "all our businesses remained profitable" - but no prior doubt. Maybe "we believe Deere is well-positioned to capitalize on attractive growth opportunities" - that's confidence, not resolved doubt. Thus answer NO. Need be careful: The question asks "does management identify a SPECIFIC DOUBT OR OPEN QUESTION ...

Open the full research page →

NO After the books closed: the quarter's biggest news happened too late to be in the numbers Q2 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2016 · 2016-05-20

The question asks whether management reports that the most important positive developments happened so late in the period or shortly after it ended that the results contain little or none of their effect, with management marking the timing. Let me scan the transcript for any such framing. The key elements needed: 1. Late-breaking, concrete positive events near period end or after 2. Management treats them as the real story the numbers missed Looking through the transcript, I see discussion of: - Brazil FINAME financing rates being announced (for the upcoming budget year July 2016-June 2017) - The political changes in Brazil with the impeachment vote - Argentina market opening up On Brazil rates: "Brazil recently announced details of eligible rates for government-sponsored finance programs. They apply to the upcoming budget year which runs from July 2016 through June 2017." This is forward-looking, not a late-breaking positive that affected the reported period. On the FINAME rates, Tony says: "And actually in the short-term we point out could result in a little bit of a pull ahead. So farmers have until, I believe, its June 9th, to make their applications under the current rates before the rates move up those – a couple of points. So again in the short-term we would expect to see some nice activity." This is about expected future activity, not results that the reported period missed. On Argentina: "Again some very positive changes for farmer customers, their ability to export their product, those sorts of things but it is still early. So we could potentially I suppose later in the year, you could see some benefit but I would argue most of that we would view as a 2017 opportunity versus the 2016 opportunity." This is explicitly future opportunity, not late-breaking events that the numbers missed. The transcript does not contain any framing where management says "late in the quarter" or "since quarter-end" something concrete happened that the results don't reflect. The positive items mentioned (Brazil rates, Argentina opening) are forward-looking opportunities, not concrete events that occurred at period end with results missing their effect. There's no mention of a major contract won late, a facility opened, a product launched at the end, an acquisition completed that's now operating, etc., that management frames as the real story the numbers missed.

Open the full research page →

NO Fixed price, unfixed volume: the company is locked into a rate while the amount it can sell against it is climbing Q2 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2016 · 2016-05-20

We need answer YES/NO based on transcript. Need identify if management describes situation where price/rate/fee already fixed/contractually set, while volume currently rising/about to rise, and results reflect lower volume, so step-up meaningful. We need parse transcript. Management discusses many things: Ag, C&F, financial services, leases, etc. Need find one coherent situation with both halves. Possible candidates: operating leases? No, they are taking impairments, reducing risk, not volume rising. Financial services? No. Maybe "price realization" positive? No, price is being negotiated, competitive pressures. Maybe "FINAME financing rates" in Brazil? Government-sponsored finance programs rates announced for upcoming budget year. Rates for Moderfrota increase from 7.5% to 8.5% etc. This is a rate set by government for loans. But volume? Farmers have until June 9 to make applications under current rates before rates move up, so short-term expect some pull ahead. But that's about financing rates, not Deere's earnings per unit? Deere financial services earns spread? Not exactly. Maybe "operating leases" with residual values? No. Maybe "construction and forestry" sales incentives? No. Maybe "Ag & Turf" sales forecast down, no. Maybe "India" improved industry demand? No fixed price. Maybe "Brazil" farmer profitability? No. Maybe "price realization" is positive by one point, but that's price, not fixed. Question asks: "does management describe a situation in which THE PRICE, RATE, OR FEE THE COMPANY EARNS ON A MEANINGFUL PART OF ITS BUSINESS IS ALREADY FIXED OR CONTRACTUALLY SET, while THE QUANTITY OF BUSINESS THE COMPANY CAN EARN THAT RATE ON IS CURRENTLY RISING OR ABOUT TO RISE — so that the company's results scale with volume it is now adding rather than with a price it must go negotiate?" We need answer based on transcript. Likely NO. Need be sure. Let's examine transcript for any mention of fixed contracts, long-term agreements, tariffs, etc. There is mention of "government-sponsored finance programs" rates. But that's for customers' loans, not Deere's revenue per unit. Deere's financial services earns interest spread, but rates are set by government? Actually Deere Financial provides financing, rates are subsidized? Not clear. Maybe "operating leases" have residual values set, but volume? No. Maybe "price realization" is positive, but not fixed.

Open the full research page →

NO Answers go deeper than the script: questioning keeps surfacing new concrete detail behind a positive development Q2 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2016 · 2016-05-20

We need to determine if there is a positive, current development in the company's business that is discussed in the Q&A with more concrete operating detail than in the prepared remarks. The question asks for a specific dynamic: a positive development that is real and current, and across multiple exchanges, management's answers add new specifics. Let's review the call. The prepared remarks cover various topics: Ag & Turf, Construction & Forestry, Financial Services, etc. The overall tone is challenging conditions. However, there might be some positive developments. For example, in the Q&A, there is discussion about Brazil, Argentina, and also about operating leases, used equipment, etc. But we need to find a positive development that is currently happening and that analysts probe with additive detail. Look at the Q&A exchanges: 1. Andy Casey asks about guidance components. That's about financials, not a positive development. 2. Jamie Cook asks about residual values and risk sharing. That's about a problem (losses on leases) and mitigation. Not a positive development. 3. Adam Uhlman asks about raw material costs. That's about costs, not a positive development. 4. Jerry Revich asks about operating lease growth for used equipment. That's about a strategy, but not necessarily a positive current development. The answer talks about changes to reduce risk, not a positive ramp. 5. Ross Gilardi asks about revenue flat in Ag and second half decline. That's about guidance. 6. Ann Duignan asks about used equipment and inventories. That's about challenges. 7. Mircea Dobre asks about farm balance sheets. That's about risks. 8. Kwame Webb asks about South America, Brazil, Argentina. This could be a positive development? The answer mentions that FINAME rates have been announced, which is positive, and that there might be a pull-ahead. But is that a current positive development? The answer says "in the short-term we would expect to see some nice activity." That's a forecast, not necessarily current. Also, the answer is somewhat general. 9. David Raso asks about second half EPS and production pull-forward. That's about guidance. 10. Mike Shlisky asks about share buybacks. That's about capital allocation. 11. Robert Wertheimer asks about lease losses. That's about problems. 12. Steven Fisher asks about pricing in construction. That's about competitive pressures. 13.

Open the full research page →

NO The feared thing keeps not happening: management confronts a specific live worry with current evidence running against i Q2 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2016 · 2016-05-20

We need answer YES/NO. Need analyze transcript for specific negative outcome feared and management pushback with observed evidence. Let's parse. Company Deere. Concerns: downturn in ag, construction. Analysts ask about used equipment, lease losses, pricing, steel, buybacks, etc. Specific fear? Maybe about operating lease residual losses being first step more to come. Management responds with actions and current portfolio stats. But is that a "specific negative outcome that investors worried will happen" and management pushes back with current evidence? Let's examine. Question asks: "is there a SPECIFIC NEGATIVE OUTCOME that investors, analysts, or the market have plainly been worried will happen to THIS company — a worry that is live on this call, evident either because analysts keep probing it or because management itself names it as a concern others hold — AND does management push back on that worry by pointing to CURRENT, ALREADY-OBSERVED evidence from the business showing that the feared outcome is, so far, NOT materializing?" Need identify dynamic. Analysts probe: Jamie Cook asks about residual values, "you changed some assumptions... confidence level that this isn't the first step I guess more to come?" That is a fear: lease losses will continue/grow. Management responds: "we've taken actions... residual values, restricting short-term leases, risk sharing." But does management point to current observed evidence that feared outcome is NOT materializing? They say "we'll see as we move forward... has risk of getting worse. It also has opportunity to get better." That is not pushback with evidence; it's acknowledging uncertainty. So no. Another fear: used equipment inventories high, new inventory high. Analyst Ann Duignan asks about strategy. Management says inventory timing, expects year-end in line with 2015. That's forecast, not observed evidence. No. Another fear: pricing in construction competitive, incentives. Management says price realization down, competitive pressures. No pushback. Another fear: steel costs rising. Management says risk in Q4, minimal impact. Not really. Another fear: demand drop-off? Analysts ask about second half EPS, production pull-forward. Management says don't annualize, no evidence. Another fear: farm balance sheets deteriorating. Analyst asks, management says balance sheets strong, but acknowledges creeping up.

Open the full research page →

NO Fresh change already executed, benefit mostly still ahead Q2 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2016 · 2016-05-20

We need to determine if management points to a specific change that the company itself completed or put into effect only recently (within roughly the last one or two quarters) and conveys that most of the benefit of that change has not yet appeared in the results, with the benefit expected to show up over the coming quarters. Let's scan the transcript for any such change. The call discusses various topics: Ag & Turf, Construction & Forestry, Financial Services, cost structure, etc. There is mention of actions taken to mitigate risk on operating lease portfolio: "We’ve taken a number of actions to mitigate risk on our operating lease portfolio, a few examples include lowering residual values for future leases most heavily impacting short-term leases, significantly restricting our short-term lease offerings, and increasing risk sharing with dealers." This is a recent change (they took actions). But does management say the benefit is mostly still ahead? They say they've taken actions to mitigate risk, but they don't explicitly say that the benefit will show up in coming quarters. They talk about the losses in the quarter and that they've taken actions. However, they don't say that the reported results reflect little or none of the benefit. They might imply that the actions will reduce future losses, but they don't quantify or say that the benefit is mostly ahead. Also, they mention that they've already taken impairments and adjusted residuals. So it's not clear that they say the payoff is mostly still ahead. Another possible change: They mention "we’ve made changes in our outlook for sales and profits for the full year." That's not a change in business, just guidance. They mention "we’ve had some shifts in production" but that's not a completed change. They mention "we’ve taken a number of actions to mitigate risk" but again, not clearly stating that the benefit is mostly ahead. They also mention "we’ve made changes in our outlook" but that's not a business change. What about the acquisition? They mention "Precision Planting, Monosem, and more recently Heidi" but they say "we’ve also seen you announce some inorganic acquisitions." But they don't say that the benefit is mostly ahead. They say "in this type of an industry environment... some of these inorganic options become more actionable" but that's about future acquisitions, not a completed one.

Open the full research page →

NO Operator fluency on fresh ground: management answers probing questions about a new driver with unhesitating operational Q2 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2016 · 2016-05-20

We need to determine if the transcript shows the dynamic described: analysts probe a recently emerged positive element of the business, and management responds with unhesitating, granular operational command, answering follow-ups with specific present-tense working detail, conveying that the element's contribution is still early. The answer must be YES if all conditions met, else NO. Let's analyze the transcript. The call is Deere & Company Q2 2016 earnings call. The business is in a downturn. Analysts ask questions about various topics. We need to find a "recently emerged positive element" that is real and current, young (new to meaningful contribution within recent quarters), management adds specific operational substance across at least two exchanges, and conveys that most of the effect lies ahead. What positive elements are discussed? Possibly the acquisitions? Or maybe the operating lease changes? Or the Brazil FINAME rates? Or the Argentina market? Or the small Ag equipment? Or the construction equipment? But the question says "recently emerged positive element" - something whose meaningful contribution began only within roughly the last few quarters. The call is about Q2 2016, so recent quarters would be 2015-2016. Look at the Q&A. Analysts ask about: - Guidance reduction components (Andy Casey) - not a positive element. - Operating lease residual values and risk sharing (Jamie Cook) - that's about losses, not positive. - Raw material costs (Adam Uhlman) - not positive. - Operating lease growth for used equipment (Jerry Revich) - that's about leasing, but it's a financing tool, not necessarily a new positive element. - Factors for flat revenue in Ag (Ross Gilardi) - not positive. - Used equipment strategy (Ann Duignan) - not positive. - Farm balance sheets (Mircea Dobre) - not positive. - South America, Brazil, Argentina (Kwame Webb) - that could be a positive element? Brazil FINAME rates announced, Argentina opening up. But is that "recently emerged"? The transcript says "recently announced" and "early" for Argentina. But does management give granular operational detail? They talk about rates, applications, pull ahead, but it's more about market conditions than their own operations. - Share buybacks (Mike Shlisky) - not positive. - Lease losses (Robert Wertheimer) - not positive. - Pricing in construction (Steven Fisher) - not positive.

Open the full research page →

NO Lightning keeps striking the same spot: the same kind of win happened several times this period, and management says tha Q2 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2016 · 2016-05-20

We need answer only YES or NO. Need analyze transcript. Need determine if management recounts same kind of concrete win happened multiple times recently, distinct instances, and conveys frequency new/beyond prior norm, with more coming. We need parse transcript. It's Deere Q2 2016 earnings call. Topics: downturns, sales, forecasts, operating leases, impairments, acquisitions? Need identify any repeated concrete wins? Maybe acquisitions: Precision Planting, Monosem, and more recently Heidi? Let's see. Raj said "you’ve seen us announce some inorganic acquisitions. And you’ve seen us talk about Precision Planting, Monosem, and more recently Heidi [ph]." That's multiple acquisitions of same kind? But are they "wins" in recent period? Management mentions as strategic growth options, inorganic acquisitions. But not necessarily "concrete win happened multiple times" with new frequency? They are acquisitions announced. But question asks "same kind of concrete win happened multiple times in recent period — several distinct instances of one identifiable type of success (for example: multiple new contracts or customers of a kind the company rarely used to land, multiple sites, products, programs, or markets reaching same milestone, multiple orders or partnerships of same character from different counterparties)" and management conveys frequency repetition is NEW or BEYOND prior norm, with more instances expected. Could be "acquisitions" - they announced Precision Planting, Monosem, and more recently Heidi. That's three acquisitions. Is that a concrete win? Acquisitions are completed/announced? They are "inorganic acquisitions" and "strategic growth options." But does management convey this frequency is new? "In this type of industry environment where we have a very strong financial position, some of these inorganic options become more actionable for us. And if they are in the long-term interest..." Not necessarily new frequency. Also not "same kind of success" maybe acquisitions are different companies. But they are same kind: acquisitions. However, question asks "concrete win happened multiple times" - acquisitions are not wins? They are deals. But "announced" is concrete. Yet management doesn't frame as "we used to rarely do acquisitions, now multiple." It says "you've seen us announce some inorganic acquisitions" as part of cash priorities. Could be.

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 Q2 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2016 · 2016-05-20

We need answer YES/NO. Need analyze transcript. Need determine if management describes outside counterparty materially larger/more consequential than company has recently made concrete committed decision to put real weight on company, and results not yet reflect commitment, contribution ahead/starting ramp. We need use only transcript. Let's parse. Earnings call Deere Q2 2016. Topics: downturns, outlook. Potential outside counterparty decisions? Government finance programs in Brazil? "Brazil recently announced details of eligible rates for government-sponsored finance programs... Rates for Moderfrota will increase... This announcement is a positive sign. It removes uncertainty..." Is that a government committed decision? It is a government program, not necessarily awarding business to Deere. It supports farmers buying equipment. But is it "outside counterparty materially larger or more consequential than company" making committed decision to put weight on company? No, it's a government program setting rates, not a commitment to Deere specifically. Also results not yet reflect? Maybe. Other possible: acquisitions? "Precision Planting, Monosem, and more recently Heidi" but those are acquisitions by Deere, not outside counterparty committing to Deere. Not relevant. Argentina opening? "some positive changes for farmer customers, their ability to export... but early... most 2017 opportunity." Not committed decision by outside party to Deere. Brazil FINAME rates: farmers have until June 9 to apply under current rates before rates move up. Could result in pull ahead. But not a committed decision by outside party? It's government program announced. Not "awarding significant business" to Deere. It's a financing program available to farmers. Not enough. Question asks "OUTSIDE COUNTERPARTY — a customer, partner, distributor, payer, government body, or similar third party materially larger or more consequential than the company itself — has RECENTLY made a concrete, committed decision to put real weight on this company (for example, awarding it significant business, standardizing on or designating its product, signing a major agreement, placing a large order, or committing its own resources to work with the company)" Hmm. Maybe "Brazil recently announced details of eligible rates for government-sponsored finance programs" is a government body decision.

Open the full research page →

NO Proven engine, fuel already in the tank: a working growth driver plus already-held means to multiply it Q2 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2016 · 2016-05-20

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 that is ALREADY generating real business today, and management conveys that this driver has so far captured only a small part of what it can reach. (2) THE MEANS TO MULTIPLY IT ARE ALREADY IN THE COMPANY'S HANDS. Management describes resources the company ALREADY possesses that it is now using to scale that same driver up. We need to find if there is such a description in the transcript. The transcript is about Deere & Company's Q2 2016 earnings call. The company is facing downturns in agriculture and construction. They talk about cost structure, financial services, etc. They mention acquisitions like Precision Planting, Monosem, and Heidi (maybe a typo). But do they describe a growth engine that is already producing and still small? They talk about their broad product portfolio, but not specifically a growth engine with small penetration. They mention India improving demand, but that's a market condition, not a company-specific growth engine. They mention Brazil, but again market. They mention acquisitions, but those are not described as already producing and small relative to room. They talk about financial services, but that's a segment, not a growth engine with small capture. They talk about their cost structure and flexibility. They don't seem to describe a specific product or service that is already generating real business and has a small share of its potential, with means to multiply already in hand. The question is very specific. The answer is likely NO. We need to be careful: The transcript is about a downturn, not about a growth engine. They mention "broad product portfolio" and "success establishing a more flexible cost structure" but that's not a growth engine. They mention "Precision Planting, Monosem, and more recently Heidi" as acquisitions, but they don't say these are already producing and small relative to room. They say "we have a very strong financial position, some of these inorganic options become more actionable" but that's about acquisitions, not a specific growth engine already producing.

Open the full research page →

NO Earned edge, pressed harder: management credits current results to an advantage the company built itself, and is reinves Q2 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2016 · 2016-05-20

We need answer YES/NO based on transcript. Need determine if management attributes current results/business wins to specific self-built advantage and committing resources to widen/extend same advantage now. Let's parse transcript. Management discusses challenges, cost structure, broad product portfolio, flexible cost structure. They mention acquisitions? They mention "Precision Planting, Monosem, and more recently Heidi" in response to share buybacks question about strategic options. Raj says cash use priorities: single A, strategic options, organic R&D, inorganic acquisitions. "In this type of an industry environment where we have a very strong financial position, some of these inorganic options become more actionable for us. And if they are in the long-term interest of our shareholders for profitable growth in the long-term, we will act on some of those." This is about acquisitions, not necessarily current advantage producing now. They mention "sound execution of operating plans, strength of broad product portfolio, success establishing more flexible cost structure." That's generic. Question asks: Does management attribute company's CURRENT results or current business wins to a SPECIFIC ADVANTAGE THE COMPANY ITSELF BUILT — and describe that it is NOW committing additional resources to widen or extend that same advantage while it is working? Need find if they name a self-built advantage producing current results and reinvestment. They talk about "success establishing a more flexible cost structure" as reason all businesses profitable. But is that a specific advantage? They don't describe what they built, just "flexible cost structure." They mention "broad product portfolio" but not specific. They mention "strong financial position" enabling acquisitions. But acquisitions are not necessarily widening an existing advantage? They mention "Precision Planting, Monosem, and more recently Heidi" as acquisitions. Are these related to a specific advantage? They don't explain. They say "strategic growth options" and "inorganic acquisitions" but not that they are extending a current advantage. They don't attribute current results to these acquisitions. They say "we have seen you keep organic R&D spend at a pretty healthy rate and you’ve also seen us announce some inorganic acquisitions." That's about cash use priorities, not current business wins.

Open the full research page →

NO Answers go deeper than the script: questioning keeps surfacing new concrete detail behind a positive development — broad Q2 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2016 · 2016-05-20

We need to evaluate the transcript for two gates. Gate 1: Is there a positive current development that management presents as going well, and Q&A adds concrete operating detail beyond prepared remarks? Gate 2: Is that development broad and granular demand base? Let's analyze the call. The overall tone is challenging conditions, downturns in farm economy, construction weakness. However, there are some positive notes: Brazil finance rates announced, positive for agriculture? Also, India improving? But the call is mostly about weakness. The question asks for a POSITIVE, CURRENT development that management presents as genuinely going well or stepping up right now. In prepared remarks, they mention: "Brazil recently announced details of eligible rates for government-sponsored finance programs... While the rates are being increased, it’s important to note they remain below the level of inflation in Brazil. This announcement is a positive sign." Also, "In India, the economy is growing... These factors are resulting in improved industry demand in India." Also, "Turning to another product category, industry retail sales of turf and utility equipment in the U.S. and Canada are projected to be flat to up 5% in 2016." But these are outlooks, not necessarily current developments. The Q&A: Analysts ask about various things. One question about Brazil: "I just want to get a little bit of expanded commentary on South America. So as I think about the two big things going on there particularly in Brazil, not only was there uncertainty around the rates but also it seemed like there was a little bit of a bottleneck in terms of turnaround time on those applications. So if you’d kind of give some thoughts on that and then any early thoughts on your exposure to the Argentina market, as that seems to be opening up?" Management responds: "Certainly as you think about Brazil I think I would still claim obviously is our outlook for South America did decline a bit on tractors and in combines. Things are still -– the market’s still pretty tough there. But to your point there are -– have been a couple of signs recently of potential positives. Certainly the fact that FINAME financing rates have been announced while they’re higher than what we've been at, they’re still at very attractive levels for farmer customers’ that point out below – continue to be below inflation.

Open the full research page →

NO Scheduled future in administration: the call centers on managing committed near-term business, not winning it Q2 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2016 · 2016-05-20

We need to determine if the management's discussion centers on a body of near-term future business that is already committed or already beginning, and whether they engage with it as an operator administering a schedule rather than as a promoter arguing that demand exists. The transcript is from Deere & Company's Q2 2016 earnings call. The context is a downturn in agriculture and construction equipment markets. Management discusses guidance, cost structure, and market conditions. They talk about industry sales forecasts, their own sales forecasts, and various factors like currency, pricing, and costs. They also discuss financial services, lease residuals, and inventory. Key points: They are not talking about a specific committed project or a backlog of orders that is already secured. They are discussing their outlook for the full year, which is based on market forecasts and their own shipment plans. They mention timing of shipments between quarters, but that's about production scheduling, not about a specific committed business that is already in motion. They talk about cost reduction efforts, but not about delivering a specific committed volume. The question asks: "Is the center of gravity of management's discussion a BODY OF NEAR-TERM FUTURE BUSINESS THAT IS ALREADY COMMITTED OR ALREADY BEGINNING — and does management engage with it primarily as an OPERATOR ADMINISTERING A SCHEDULE ... rather than as a promoter arguing that demand exists?" In this call, management is not pointing to specific committed business. They are forecasting sales based on market conditions. They discuss industry demand, their own sales expectations, and factors like currency and pricing. They talk about production timing, but that's about aligning production with expected demand, not about a specific committed order book. They also discuss lease residuals and impairments, which are about past leases, not future committed business. The forward story is about market conditions and their response, not about a specific committed activity. They are not saying "we have secured X orders and are now ramping up to deliver them." Instead, they are saying "we expect sales to be down X% due to market conditions." So the center of gravity is not on committed business but on market outlook and cost management. Thus, the answer is NO. We need to answer only YES or NO.

Open the full research page →

Showing the latest 18 of 241 archived research questions.

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

Past calls

DE call history

Open a quarter only when you want its detailed evidence.

A Q1 2026 · Exceptional call · 2026-02-19Management raised guidance against mixed demand signals and expanding margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics.

Guidance: raisedDemand: mixedMargins: expandingBacklog: growingPricing: stable⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts✓ Volume step-up ahead⚑ Reads rehearsed

Candor 8/9

Specificity 9/9

Evasion 2/9

Confidence 7/9

Uncertainty 4/9

Promotion 5/9

Stress 2/9

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?

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?

C Q2 2025 · Caution · 2025-05-15Management lowered guidance against slowing demand and contracting margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics.

Guidance: loweredDemand: slowingMargins: contractingBacklog: stablePricing: raisingCapex: increasing⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts✓ Early product, fast growth⚑ Reads rehearsed

Candor 7/9

Specificity 8/9

Evasion 3/9

Confidence 6/9

Uncertainty 7/9

Promotion 5/9

Stress 4/9

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?

NO Do they serve a small fraction of their addressable customers?

NO 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?

YES Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?

YES Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?

B Q1 2025 · Solid call · 2025-02-13Management held guidance steady against mixed demand signals and contracting margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics.

Guidance: maintainedDemand: mixedMargins: contractingBacklog: stablePricing: under pressure⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts✓ Volume step-up ahead✓ Early product, fast growth

Candor 8/9

Specificity 9/9

Evasion 2/9

Confidence 7/9

Uncertainty 5/9

Promotion 4/9

Stress 3/9

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?

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?

C Q4 2024 · Caution · 2024-11-21Management lowered guidance against slowing demand and contracting margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics.

Guidance: loweredDemand: slowingMargins: contractingBacklog: shrinkingPricing: raisingCapex: flat⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts✓ Volume step-up ahead✓ Early product, fast growth

Candor 7/9

Specificity 8/9

Evasion 3/9

Confidence 7/9

Uncertainty 4/9

Promotion 5/9

Stress 2/9

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?

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 Q3 2024 · Solid call · 2024-08-15Management held guidance steady against slowing demand and contracting margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics.

Guidance: maintainedDemand: slowingMargins: contractingBacklog: shrinkingPricing: stableHeadcount: cutting⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured⚑ Question left hanging✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts⚑ Reads rehearsed

Candor 8/9

Specificity 9/9

Evasion 2/9

Confidence 7/9

Uncertainty 4/9

Promotion 4/9

Stress 3/9

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?

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?

NO Is volume about to step up rather than grow gradually?

YES Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?

NO Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?

NO Do current results look bad while the direction looks better?

NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?

NO Is consolidation happening among their peers?

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 Q2 2024 · Caution · 2024-05-16Management lowered guidance against slowing demand and contracting margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics.

Guidance: loweredDemand: slowingMargins: contractingBacklog: stablePricing: stable⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts⚑ Reads rehearsed

Candor 8/9

Specificity 8/9

Evasion 2/9

Confidence 7/9

Uncertainty 6/9

Promotion 4/9

Stress 3/9

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?

NO Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?

NO Do they serve a small fraction of their addressable customers?

NO Is volume about to step up rather than grow gradually?

YES Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?

NO Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?

NO Do current results look bad while the direction looks better?

NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?

NO Is consolidation happening among their peers?

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 Q1 2024 · Caution · 2024-02-15Management lowered guidance against slowing demand and contracting margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics.

Guidance: loweredDemand: slowingMargins: contractingBacklog: shrinkingPricing: raising⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts⚑ Reads rehearsed

Candor 8/9

Specificity 8/9

Evasion 2/9

Confidence 7/9

Uncertainty 4/9

Promotion 5/9

Stress 3/9

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?

NO Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?

NO Do they serve a small fraction of their addressable customers?

NO 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?

YES Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?

View 39 earlier calls

Call	Date	Grade	Guidance	Demand	Margins	Candor	Evasion
Q4 2023	2023-11-22	B	lowered	slowing	contracting	8/9	2/9
Q3 2023	2023-08-18	B+	raised	stable	expanding	7/9	2/9
Q2 2023	2023-05-19	B+	raised	stable	expanding	7/9	2/9
Q1 2023	2023-02-17	A	raised	stable	expanding	8/9	2/9
Q4 2022	2022-11-23	B+	raised	accelerating	expanding	7/9	2/9
Q3 2022	2022-08-19	C	lowered	accelerating	contracting	8/9	2/9
Q2 2022	2022-05-20	B+	raised	accelerating	stable	7/9	2/9
Q1 2022	2022-02-18	B+	raised	accelerating	contracting	7/9	2/9
Q4 2021	2021-11-24	B	maintained	accelerating	expanding	7/9	2/9
Q3 2021	2021-08-20	A	raised	accelerating	expanding	7/9	2/9
Q4 2021	2021-08-11	B	maintained	mixed	expanding	7/9	2/9
Q2 2021	2021-05-21	B+	raised	accelerating	expanding	8/9	2/9
Q3 2021	2021-05-05	B	maintained	accelerating	stable	6/9	2/9
Q1 2021	2021-02-19	A	raised	accelerating	expanding	8/9	2/9
Q2 2021	2021-02-02	C+	maintained	accelerating	stable	7/9	3/9
Q4 2020	2020-11-25	A	raised	accelerating	expanding	7/9	2/9
Q3 2020	2020-08-21	A	raised	mixed	expanding	7/9	3/9
Q4 2020	2020-08-09	C	maintained	accelerating	expanding	7/9	4/9
Q2 2020	2020-05-22	C	lowered	mixed	contracting	7/9	2/9
Q1 2020	2020-02-21	B	maintained	mixed	stable	7/9	2/9
Q2 2020	2020-01-30	B	raised	accelerating	expanding	6/9	3/9
Q4 2019	2019-11-27	D	lowered	slowing	contracting	7/9	4/9
Q1 2020	2019-11-08	C	maintained	accelerating	expanding	7/9	4/9
Q3 2019	2019-08-16	F	lowered	mixed	contracting	7/9	4/9
Q2 2019	2019-05-17	C	lowered	mixed	contracting	8/9	2/9
Q3 2019	2019-05-05	B	maintained	stable	stable	7/9	2/9
Q1 2019	2019-02-15	F	lowered	mixed	contracting	6/9	5/9
Q4 2018	2018-11-21	C	maintained	stable	stable	6/9	5/9
Q3 2018	2018-08-17	C+	raised	stable	stable	6/9	4/9
Q2 2018	2018-05-18	B+	raised	accelerating	expanding	7/9	2/9
Q1 2018	2018-02-16	B	raised	accelerating	expanding	7/9	3/9
Q4 2017	2017-11-22	C+	none	accelerating	expanding	7/9	3/9
Q3 2017	2017-08-18	B+	raised	accelerating	expanding	7/9	2/9
Q2 2017	2017-05-19	B+	raised	accelerating	expanding	7/9	3/9
Q1 2017	2017-02-17	A	raised	stable	expanding	7/9	3/9
Q4 2016	2016-11-23	C	lowered	mixed	stable	7/9	3/9
Q3 2016	2016-08-19	C	maintained	slowing	stable	7/9	3/9
Q2 2016	2016-05-20	F	lowered	slowing	contracting	7/9	5/9
Q1 2016	2016-02-19	D	lowered	slowing	contracting	7/9	4/9

Keep exploring

Companies with similar call quality

REGN

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

GEF

Greif, Inc.

IRDM

Iridium Communications Inc.

NEOG

Neogen Corporation

AGNC

AGNC Investment Corp.

ANGO

AngioDynamics, Inc.

← DDR All “D” companies DEA →