Stocks › E › ES

ES · Earnings-call lab · 42 calls graded · 2016–2026

Eversource Energy

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

42calls analyzed

2016–2026coverage

NEWESTQ2 2026 call

2026-08-07 · 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

OPENQ1 2026 call

2026-05-07 · 7 analysts · 13 questions · 500 / 500 checks

Free · full reportThe quarter before the newest

Call grade · Bottom 26% of 177,437 calls

Weak call. Management lowered guidance against accelerating demand. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics.

Management toneResultTypical range · middle half of all callsFlag

Candor7 /9

—

Evasion2 /9

—

Specificity8 /9

—

Confidence7 /9

—

Uncertainty4 /9

—

Promotion4 /9

—

Stress4 /9

Complexity6 /9

—

Since the quarter before · Q4 2025 → Q1 2026

Guidance ~~maintained~~loweredDemand ~~stable~~acceleratingMargins stablePricing raisingBacklog growingCapex increasing⚑ Critic ammunition⚑ Question left hanging✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts⚑ Reads rehearsedCFO dominates

Notable checks detected

Does the operator announce more than five questioners?
Is there a questioner from an investment bank other than the first three analysts who ask questions?
Are there more than ten analyst questions in total?
Does the operator mention a queue or "next question" more than three times?

ScreenersGuidance Lowered High Candor Critic Ammunition Raising Prices Demand Accelerating Backlog Growing Capex Increasing CFO Dominates

Lab panel · Q1 2026 call

30 markers, measured against 177,437 calls

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

3 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.29 times

typical 13–31

—

BuzzwordsSynergies, headwinds, flywheels, best-in-class and friends.0.0 /1k words

typical 0.6–1.8

—

HedgesSort of, kind of, roughly, I think, probably.2.9 /1k words

typical 5.5–10.5

—

SuperlativesRecord, unprecedented, tremendous, incredible.1.2 /1k words

typical 0.3–1.2

Outside forcesMacro, weather, currency, tariffs, supply chain.11 mentions

typical 1–9

Stonewalls"Not going to comment", "we don't break that out".0 times

typical 0–0

—

NumbersFigures per thousand words of management speech. Low means vague.38.2 /1k words

typical 21.2–35.3

—

"Excited"Excited, exciting, thrilled.0 times

typical 0–3

—

Script shareShare of the call spent on prepared remarks rather than questions.53% % of call

typical 35%–55%

—

CEO shareHow much of the talking the CEO did.44% % of mgmt words

typical 29%–68%

—

Longest answerThe longest single management answer in the Q&A.286 words

typical 249–461

—

Reading levelFlesch–Kincaid grade level of management answers.8.3 US grade

typical 7.6–9.6

—

Behaviour · from the 500 checksDetectedTypical range · middle half of all callsFlag

FlatteryCompliments, thank-yous and first names between analysts and management.21 of 49

typical 16–30

—

DodgingQuestions declined, deferred or answered with a different question.4 of 15

typical 5–9

—

BlameResults attributed to weather, macro, currency or other outside forces.4 of 27

typical 3–12

—

HypeSuperlatives and excitement in management language.4 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.2 of 11

typical 1–5

—

Call theaterStage management: operator mechanics, scripted cues, "color".24 of 33

typical 12–19

Capital returns talkAttention paid to buybacks, dividends, M&A and the balance sheet.5 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

Q1 2026 · 500 checks

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

Choose a past call

500checked

187detected

313not 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

NO 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 NO

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

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

NO Does anyone compare the company to an unnamed "competitor" or "peer" rather than naming it? Activist · seen in 63.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does anyone use "historically" or "traditionally" while defending a current practice? Activist · seen in 28.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 28.6% of calls 83.7% repeat consistency

NO Is a departure, transition, or role change mentioned only in passing without a thank-you or tribute? Activist · seen in 10% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 10% of calls 91% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone reference a private conversation ("as I told...", "as we discussed offline")? Activist · seen in 18% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 18% of calls 85% repeat consistency

YES Does the transcript contain the phrase "next question" at least twice? Air Traffic · seen in 83.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.8% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency

NO Does an analyst ask a question spanning more than five sentences? Air Traffic · seen in 75.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

NO Does any analyst preface a question by summarizing the company's stated results? Air Traffic · seen in 75.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does any speaker use the word "obviously" at least twice? Air Traffic · seen in 55.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO Does any analyst say "congrats" or "congratulations" to management? Air Traffic · seen in 35.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 35.8% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency

NO Is the word "scale" or "scaling" used as a verb? Air Traffic · seen in 22.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does any analyst say "thank you" before asking their question? Air Traffic · seen in 71.4% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 71.4% of calls 90.4% repeat consistency

YES Does any analyst name two or more executives when asking their question? Air Traffic · seen in 35.1% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 35.1% of calls 86.9% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "outperform," "outperformance," or "beat" appear? Air Traffic · seen in 31.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 31.7% of calls 95.7% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone say "the environment" when describing market conditions? Air Traffic · seen in 51.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does an executive begin an answer with "Great question," "Thanks," or "Appreciate"? Air Traffic · seen in 46% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 46% of calls 88.3% repeat consistency

YES Does the CFO use the phrase "adjusted" or "non-GAAP" at least three times? Air Traffic · seen in 51.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 51.6% of calls 96.9% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker say "thank you" more than three times? Air Traffic · seen in 78.4% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 78.4% of calls 80.1% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker say "with that" as a transition phrase? Air Traffic · seen in 76.4% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 76.4% of calls 99% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

NO Does the call end without any closing statement from the CEO? Anthropologist · seen in 24.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.4% of calls 93% repeat consistency

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

NO Does an executive answer a question with another question? Bankruptcy · 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 84.3% repeat consistency

YES Does an executive mention the weather? Bankruptcy · seen in 26.1% 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 26.1% of calls 96% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone describe a negotiation currently in progress? Bankruptcy · seen in 31.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 31.5% of calls 90% repeat consistency

NO Does an executive describe a competitor with anything resembling respect? Bankruptcy · seen in 13.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.2% of calls 90% repeat consistency

NO Does the operator announce more than ten questioners in the Q&A? Clinical Trial · seen in 21.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 21.8% of calls 98% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone use the phrase "kind of" at least twice? Clinical Trial · seen in 75.9% 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 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

YES Does the CEO deliver the opening remarks rather than the CFO or IR head? Clinical Trial · seen in 87% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 87% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does an analyst use the word "clarification" or "clarify" in a question? Compliance · seen in 29.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does any question contain the phrase "color on" or "some color"? Compliance · seen in 53.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 53.1% of calls 86.6% repeat consistency

NO Does the operator use the phrase "our final question" before closing? Compliance · seen in 12.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 12.9% of calls 92.8% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone say "let me" at least three times? Compliance · seen in 32.5% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

NO Does the word "aggressive" or "aggressively" appear at least once? Compliance · seen in 35.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 35.4% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency

NO Does an analyst ask a question referencing "the puts and takes"? Compliance · seen in 10.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.7% of calls 97.6% repeat consistency

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

YES Does any speaker say "with that" at least twice? Compliance · seen in 51.5% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 51.5% of calls 91.8% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone say "for the benefit of" or "just to remind" when restating context? Compliance · seen in 10.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.7% of calls 91.8% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone use the phrase "early days"? Con Artist · seen in 12.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 12.8% of calls 96.7% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "journey" appear? Con Artist · seen in 19.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 19.8% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency

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

NO Does someone use a personal anecdote rather than a metric to justify confidence? Couples · 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 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

NO Does the word "growth" appear at least ten times? Courtroom · seen in 69.4% 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 69.4% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone use the phrase "a couple of"? Courtroom · seen in 81% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not 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% of calls 93.6% repeat consistency

YES Does an analyst ask about capital allocation or buybacks? Courtroom · seen in 46.3% 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 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

NO Does the phrase "record" appear at least twice in the transcript? Courtroom · seen in 34.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does any speaker say "we're excited about" or "we're pleased with"? Courtroom · seen in 62% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 62% of calls 82.3% repeat consistency

NO Do two or more analysts from the same firm ask questions? Courtroom · seen in 11.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 11.5% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency

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

NO Does management mention a specific number of stores, locations, or markets? Courtroom · seen in 48% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 48% of calls 88.9% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone use the word "folks"? Courtroom · seen in 23.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.5% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone say "thank you" more than five times in total? Courtroom · seen in 87.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 87.2% of calls 88.2% repeat consistency

YES Does an executive use the phrase "we believe"? Courtroom · seen in 83.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.6% of calls 94.9% repeat consistency

YES Does the operator use the phrase "next question" at least three times? Debate · seen in 75.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.2% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency

NO Does any analyst mention a specific percentage figure in their question? Debate · seen in 66.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

NO 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 NO

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

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

NO Does at least one analyst ask a question about margins or costs? Debate · seen in 88.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 88.5% of calls 95.6% repeat consistency

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

NO Does any question reference a specific quarter (e.g., "fourth quarter") by name? Debate · seen in 76.2% 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 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

NO Does any analyst ask a question beginning with "just" (e.g., "just curious")? Debate · seen in 77.8% 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 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

YES 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 YES

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

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

NO Does the phrase "color" appear (e.g., "add some color") in the transcript? Debate · seen in 75.2% 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 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

NO 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 NO

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

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

NO Does any executive begin an answer by restating the analyst's name? Debate · seen in 85.1% 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 85.1% of calls 93.6% repeat consistency

NO Does any executive's answer exceed 300 words in the transcript? Debate · seen in 68% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not 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% of calls 85.5% repeat consistency

YES Does the CEO answer the first analyst question personally? Debate · seen in 65.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 65.9% of calls 97% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "obviously" appear in the transcript? Debate · seen in 74.1% 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 74.1% of calls 89.7% repeat consistency

NO Does the transcript contain the word "margin" more than ten times? Debate · seen in 44.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 44.3% of calls 91.3% repeat consistency

NO Does an executive begin an answer with "So" as the first word? Debate · seen in 68.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 68.4% of calls 83.6% repeat consistency

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

YES Does any executive say "let me" at least once? Debate · seen in 66.1% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 66.1% of calls 94.5% repeat consistency

NO Does any question contain the word "specifically"? Debate · seen in 28.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does management mention "margin" or "margins" in prepared remarks? Debate · seen in 75.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Is the word "definitely" used by any speaker? Debate · seen in 41.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does the word "seasonality" appear? Debate · seen in 27.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.1% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone use the word "robust" to describe demand, growth, or the pipeline? Debate · seen in 33% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does anyone use the word "leverage" as a verb at least once? Debate · seen in 48.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 48.9% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency

YES Does any executive use the word "team" when referring to employees? Debate · seen in 80.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 80.8% of calls 95.2% repeat consistency

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

YES Does any executive say "thank you" immediately after finishing an answer? Debate · seen in 47.4% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

NO Does any analyst's question contain the word "curious"? Discovery · seen in 57.5% 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 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

NO Does any speaker say "obviously" two or more times? Discovery · seen in 61.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does any analyst ask a follow-up in the same turn after their first answer? Discovery · seen in 86.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

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

NO Does the word "margin" or "margins" appear at least five times? Discovery · seen in 63.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

YES Does an executive say "we'll come back to that" or defer an answer to a follow-up? Discovery · seen in 37.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.3% of calls 86.5% repeat consistency

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

NO Does any analyst introduce themselves by name before asking their first question? Discovery · seen in 27.2% 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 27.2% of calls 95.5% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

NO Does management reference "the macro environment" or "macroeconomic" at least once? Discovery · seen in 25.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 25.5% of calls 97.6% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does any prepared remark mention "headwinds" or "tailwinds"? Discovery · seen in 33.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.1% of calls 94.8% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker say "with that, I'll turn it over"? Discovery · seen in 55.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 55.8% of calls 83.5% repeat consistency

NO Does the CFO use the phrase "capital allocation"? Discovery · seen in 15.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 15.3% of calls 99% repeat consistency

YES Does an executive decline to answer, citing that something will come later or is not disclosed? Editor · seen in 77.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 77.3% of calls 92.9% repeat consistency

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

YES Does anyone ask a follow-up question in the same turn after their first question is answered? Editor · seen in 87.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 87.8% of calls 92.9% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

YES Does anyone say "thank you" at least ten times in the transcript? Editor · seen in 73.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 73.2% of calls 81.8% repeat consistency

NO Does an executive use the phrase "if you look at" at least twice? Editor · seen in 36.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 36.2% of calls 89.9% repeat consistency

YES Does any analyst begin their question with "Hi" or "Hello" as a greeting? Editor · seen in 60.1% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 60.1% of calls 95.6% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone say "we are excited about" without naming a number? Editor · seen in 38.7% 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 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

YES 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 YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 20.3% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency

NO Does management use the word "headwind" or "headwinds"? Editor · seen in 42.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 42.1% of calls 97.6% repeat consistency

NO Does any speaker use the word "tailwind" or "tailwinds"? Editor · seen in 27.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.3% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker use the word "momentum"? Editor · seen in 52.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 52.8% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "investments" appear in the context of margins or costs? Editor · seen in 40.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 40.8% of calls 88% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone mention "FX" or "foreign exchange"? Editor · seen in 27.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.4% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "efficiency" or "productivity" appear at least twice? Editor · seen in 47.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 47.4% of calls 96% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

NO Does an executive say "great question" or "thanks for the question"? Editor · seen in 40.2% 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 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

NO Does management use the word "committed" regarding a target? Editor · seen in 33.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

YES Does the phrase "thank you for taking my question" or "thanks for taking my question" appear? Fact Checker · seen in 50.4% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 50.4% of calls 94.9% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

YES Does the CEO personally deliver the closing remarks of the call? Fact Checker · seen in 68.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 68.9% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency

YES Does the CEO's prepared remarks contain the word "team" at least twice? Fact Checker · seen in 40.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 40.9% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker use the phrase "moving on" or "with that" to transition between topics? Fact Checker · seen in 80.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 80.9% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency

NO Does the phrase "in terms of" appear at least twice? Forensic · seen in 84.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 84.8% of calls 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

NO A single question receives answers from two different executives. Forensic · seen in 83.4% 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 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

NO Does any speaker use the word "obviously"? Forensic · seen in 81.7% 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 81.7% of calls 95% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "guidance" appear in both prepared remarks and the Q&A section? Forensic · seen in 50% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 50% of calls 93% repeat consistency

NO Does any executive defer a question to another executive by name? Forensic · seen in 61.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 61.6% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

NO Does anyone use the word "ecosystem" or "platform" without a number attached? Forensic · seen in 60.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO Does anyone begin an answer by restating or paraphrasing the analyst's name? Forensic · seen in 76.6% 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 76.6% of calls 89% repeat consistency

NO Does an analyst reference a competitor by name during their question? Forensic · seen in 24.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.2% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency

YES Does a speaker say "let me" at least twice in the transcript? Forensic · seen in 49.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 49.3% of calls 93.7% repeat consistency

NO The transcript contains an apology unrelated to financial results. Forensic · seen in 39.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 39.5% of calls 86% repeat consistency

NO The word "challenge" is spoken more often than "opportunity." Forensic · seen in 14.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 14.7% of calls 93% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "seasonality" or "seasonal" appear? Forensic · seen in 44.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 44.7% of calls 99.3% repeat consistency

YES The phrase "as you know" appears at least twice. Forensic · seen in 27.8% 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 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

YES Does anyone mention "weather" as a factor affecting results? Forensic · seen in 19.1% 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 19.1% of calls 95.7% repeat consistency

NO Does an executive say "thank you" to the analyst before answering a question? Forensic · seen in 46.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 46.7% of calls 81.9% repeat consistency

NO Does any speaker say "great question" or similar praise of a question? Forensic · seen in 37.4% 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 37.4% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency

YES The final question is answered noticeably shorter than the opening ones. Forensic · seen in 37.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.3% of calls 81% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone say "we remain" followed by a verb (e.g., "we remain committed")? Forensic · seen in 36% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 36% of calls 82.6% repeat consistency

NO 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 NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 48.9% of calls 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

NO Does the word "leverage" appear as a verb at least twice? Hostage · seen in 26.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 26.5% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency

YES Does any analyst's first name get used by an executive when thanking them? Hostage · seen in 57.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 57.8% of calls 85.2% repeat consistency

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

YES Are the CEO's prepared remarks longer than the CFO's, judged by speaker turns on the transcript page? Insurance · seen in 68.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

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

NO Executive corrects an analyst's premise. Insurance · seen in 60% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO Executive uses the word "excited" more than twice. Insurance · 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 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

NO Does an analyst begin with a compliment, such as "great quarter" or "congrats"? Insurance · seen in 41.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.4% of calls 93.9% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

YES Does any analyst begin their turn with "thanks" or "thank you"? Insurance · seen in 71.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 71.8% of calls 89.9% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "headwind" or "tailwind" appear at least twice? Insurance · seen in 36.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 36.1% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "synergies" appear? Insurance · seen in 19.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 19.8% of calls 99% repeat consistency

YES Does any analyst address a question to two or more executives by name? Insurance · seen in 33.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.6% of calls 86.6% repeat consistency

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

YES Does the word "capital" appear in at least three different speakers' turns? Insurance · seen in 37.7% 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 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

NO Does anyone use the word "leverage" (financial or metaphorical)? Insurance · seen in 72.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 72.8% of calls 95.7% repeat consistency

YES Does an analyst thank management before asking their question? Insurance · seen in 60.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 60.9% of calls 82.3% repeat consistency

NO Is the word "automation" or "productivity" used at least once? Insurance · seen in 37.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

NO Does the phrase "year over year" appear at least three times? Insurance · seen in 46% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 46% of calls 90.6% repeat consistency

NO Does management use the word "leverage" or "leveraging" at least twice? Insurance · seen in 51.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 51.1% of calls 94.6% repeat consistency

NO Currency headwinds mentioned unprompted. Insurance · seen in 29.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 29.3% of calls 97% repeat consistency

NO Is the phrase "a number of" used at least once? Insurance · seen in 67.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 67.1% of calls 94.6% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone use the phrase "best-in-class" or "industry-leading"? Insurance · seen in 27.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.3% of calls 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

NO Does management use the phrase "we believe" at least three times? Insurance · seen in 54% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not 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% 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

NO Does anyone say "stability" or "stable" when describing demand? Insurance · seen in 23.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Word "normal" used about demand. Insurance · seen in 29.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 29.3% of calls 86.3% repeat consistency

NO Does an executive say "stay tuned" or "more to come"? Insurance · seen in 11.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 11.7% of calls 99% repeat consistency

NO Does management describe a cost program, restructuring, or efficiency initiative by a proper name? Insurance · seen in 16.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 16.8% of calls 94% repeat consistency

YES Does the CFO's prepared section mention interest expense by name or figure? Insurance · seen in 31.7% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 31.7% of calls 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

NO Executive mentions a hobby or personal anecdote. Insurance · seen in 16.7% 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 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

NO Does the phrase "the macro" or "macro environment" appear? Insurance · seen in 19.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 19.7% of calls 93.6% repeat consistency

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

NO Does anyone say "takeaway," "take out," or "take rate"? Insurance · seen in 17.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO 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 NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 61.9% 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

NO Does anyone say "obviously" at least three times? Interrogator · seen in 43.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does anyone say "moving on" or "let me turn it over" during prepared remarks? Interrogator · seen in 36% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 36% of calls 88.3% repeat consistency

NO Does an analyst ask a question starting with "just"? Linguist · seen in 72.9% 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 72.9% of calls 81.8% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone say "headwind" or "headwinds" more than once? Linguist · seen in 27.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.7% of calls 97.6% repeat consistency

NO Does an analyst use the phrase "to clarify"? Linguist · seen in 17.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 17.1% of calls 92.4% repeat consistency

NO Does any executive use the phrase "year over year" at least three times? Linguist · seen in 41.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.8% of calls 91.8% repeat consistency

NO Does an executive cite a conversation with a customer, partner, or employee as evidence? Military · seen in 53% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not 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% 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

NO Does an analyst flatter management within their first sentence of speaking? Negotiation · seen in 46.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 46.6% of calls 90.7% repeat consistency

NO Does an analyst ask two questions when told to ask only one? Negotiation · seen in 15.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 15.2% of calls 88.3% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone use the phrase "underlying" to modify a business metric? Negotiation · seen in 38.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 38.3% of calls 94.7% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone say "excited" or "pleased" at least twice in the transcript? Negotiation · seen in 70.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 70.6% of calls 97% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

NO Is the word "margin" used with a number attached (e.g., "400 basis points")? Negotiation · seen in 66.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does the transcript contain the word "record" preceding a noun (e.g., "record margin")? Negotiation · seen in 40.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does an executive answer a question by citing a competitor's actions? Negotiation · seen in 36.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 36.3% of calls 88% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "macro" or "macroeconomic" appear in the transcript? Negotiation · seen in 39.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 39.9% of calls 99.3% repeat consistency

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

NO Does the word "inflation" appear anywhere in the transcript? Negotiation · seen in 36.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 36.9% of calls 98% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO Does anyone use the phrase "the team" when taking ownership would be natural? Poker · seen in 42.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does anyone cite a personal anecdote involving a customer conversation? Poker · seen in 16.6% 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 16.6% of calls 81.7% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone use the phrase "a little bit"? Private Credit · seen in 87.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO Does anyone say "we're excited" or "we are excited"? Private Credit · seen in 49.5% 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 49.5% of calls 93.7% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "dividend" appear? Private Credit · seen in 45.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 45.5% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency

YES Is the word "invest" or "investment" used more than twice? Private Credit · seen in 75% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 75% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "invest" or "investment" appear at least twice? Private Credit · seen in 85.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 85.8% of calls 96.7% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone cite a percentage of revenue from a specific segment? Private Credit · seen in 40.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 40.3% of calls 92.6% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "challenge" or "challenging" appear at least once? Private Credit · seen in 68.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 68.6% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone describe cutting discretionary spending like travel or hiring? Private Credit · seen in 13.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.8% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency

NO Does the phrase "year over year" appear? Private Credit · seen in 72.9% 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 72.9% of calls 96% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "liquidity" appear at least once? Private Credit · seen in 34.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 34.7% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency

NO Does the transcript mention refinancing, maturity dates, or debt coming due? Private Credit · seen in 32% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32% of calls 95% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone mention selling assets, real estate, or equipment to raise cash? Private Credit · seen in 24.2% 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 24.2% of calls 90.7% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone reference "the macro" or "macro environment"? Private Credit · seen in 26.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 26.5% of calls 91% repeat consistency

YES Is the word "capacity" mentioned? Private Credit · seen in 55.7% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 55.7% of calls 100% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

YES Does anyone say "with that" or "that said" to pivot? Private Credit · seen in 81.4% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 81.4% of calls 96.7% repeat consistency

NO Does an executive open their first answer by thanking the analyst? Private Credit · seen in 37.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.1% of calls 94.6% repeat consistency

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

NO Does the word "headline" or "headwinds" appear at least once? Procurement · seen in 43.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 43.1% of calls 95.9% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "core" appear at least twice? Procurement · seen in 44% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 44% of calls 97.6% repeat consistency

NO Does an analyst's turn contain the word "congratulations"? Procurement · seen in 20.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 20.2% of calls 97.6% repeat consistency

NO Does any analyst ask a question containing "how" and also "why"? Procurement · seen in 11.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 11.3% of calls 94.5% repeat consistency

YES Does any executive say "as we mentioned" or "as I mentioned" at least once? Procurement · seen in 66.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 66.3% of calls 89.7% repeat consistency

NO Are there more than eight analyst questioners? Project · seen in 37.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.5% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency

NO Does any analyst's question include a percentage figure? Project · seen in 69.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does any analyst's question contain the word "guidance"? Project · seen in 54.3% 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 54.3% of calls 92.4% repeat consistency

YES Does the CFO's prepared remarks exceed 1,000 words? Project · seen in 40.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

NO Does any speaker say "if you look at"? Project · seen in 54.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 54.1% of calls 89.3% repeat consistency

YES Does the CEO personally answer the first question? Project · seen in 69.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 69.3% of calls 92.4% repeat consistency

NO Does any speaker use the phrase "tailwind" or "tailwinds"? Project · seen in 27.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.3% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency

YES Does management use the phrase "balance sheet" at least twice? Project · seen in 41.1% 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 41.1% of calls 96.6% repeat consistency

YES Does the CEO make closing remarks after the Q&A ends? Project · seen in 64.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 64.8% of calls 96.2% repeat consistency

NO Does any speaker say "structurally" or "secular"? Project · seen in 13% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

NO Does management use the phrase "business as usual" or "as expected" at least once? Scientist · seen in 23.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does an analyst preface a question with "quick" or "quickly"? Screenwriter · seen in 56% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

NO Does anyone say "in terms of" at least twice? Screenwriter · seen in 84.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

NO Does the word "strong" appear more than five times? Screenwriter · seen in 64.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 64.9% of calls 91.3% repeat consistency

YES Does the phrase "thank you" appear more than ten times? Screenwriter · seen in 62.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 62.8% of calls 80.9% repeat consistency

NO Does an analyst ask a question containing the word "margin"? Screenwriter · seen in 60.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 60.2% of calls 93.6% repeat consistency

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

NO Does an executive begin an answer by restating the analyst's name? Screenwriter · seen in 85.3% 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 85.3% of calls 97% repeat consistency

YES Does any analyst ask about capital allocation or share repurchases? Screenwriter · 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 93.1% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "challenge" or "challenging" appear at least twice? Screenwriter · seen in 47.8% 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 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

NO Does the word "challenging" appear? Screenwriter · seen in 41.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does the word "certainly" appear at least once in management's answers? Screenwriter · seen in 59.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 59.3% of calls 95.9% repeat consistency

NO Does any analyst ask a personal, warm, or congratulatory question? Screenwriter · seen in 49.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 49.4% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency

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

NO Does the word "quarter" appear at least twenty times? Screenwriter · seen in 84.4% 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 84.4% of calls 90.4% repeat consistency

YES Does any single analyst ask more than two questions during the whole call? Screenwriter · seen in 86.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 86.6% of calls 89.7% repeat consistency

NO Does the phrase "on a year-over-year basis" or "year over year" appear at least twice? Screenwriter · seen in 60.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Is the word "headwinds" or "tailwinds" used? Screenwriter · seen in 41.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.8% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "margin" appear at least three times? Screenwriter · seen in 73.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

NO Does the word "inflation" appear at least twice? Screenwriter · seen in 25.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 25.3% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does anyone use the word "robust"? Screenwriter · 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 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

NO Is the word "excited" or "exciting" used by management at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 45.8% 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 45.8% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency

NO Does any speaker say "just" five or more times? Semiotician · seen in 83.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.3% of calls 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

NO 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 NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 87.3% of calls 89.7% repeat consistency

YES Is there a question about capital allocation (buybacks, M&A, debt, or dividends)? Semiotician · seen in 67.7% 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 67.7% of calls 91.7% repeat consistency

NO Does any analyst use the word "clarify" or "clarification"? Semiotician · seen in 32.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.9% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "obviously" appear at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 57.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO Does anyone use the word "actually" at least three times? Semiotician · seen in 46.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does any executive begin an answer with "Look," or "So,"? Semiotician · seen in 85.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 85.7% of calls 85% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "challenging" or "challenges" appear at least three times? Semiotician · seen in 32.2% 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 32.2% of calls 90.6% repeat consistency

YES Does the operator run out of queued questions and close early? Semiotician · seen in 34.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 34.3% of calls 83.5% repeat consistency

NO Does any analyst apologize or preface with "sorry" before asking? Semiotician · seen in 32.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.8% of calls 92.9% repeat consistency

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

YES Does the word "guidance" appear more than five times in the transcript? Semiotician · seen in 31.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 31.8% of calls 93% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "tailwind" or "headwind" appear? Semiotician · seen in 52.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 52.2% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency

NO Does any analyst's question begin with a compliment or congratulation? Semiotician · seen in 41.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.5% of calls 88.3% repeat consistency

NO Does an analyst apologize before or during their question? Semiotician · seen in 32.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.8% of calls 96.6% repeat consistency

NO Are there more questions about revenue than about costs? Semiotician · seen in 69.8% 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 69.8% of calls 85.2% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "challenging" appear at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 20.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 20.1% of calls 97% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker use the phrase "on a" four or more times total (e.g., "on a constant currency basis")? Semiotician · seen in 54.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 54.8% of calls 82.8% repeat consistency

NO Does any executive answer begin with "Sure" or "Yes" followed by a comma? Semiotician · 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 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

NO Does the word "quarter" appear at least 20 times? Semiotician · seen in 87.7% 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 87.7% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency

NO Is there a mention of "FX," "currency," or "foreign exchange"? Semiotician · seen in 39.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 39.5% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency

NO Does any executive say "that's right" or "that's correct" to an analyst? Semiotician · seen in 23.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.6% of calls 96.2% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "leverage" appear at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 52.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 52.1% of calls 94.5% repeat consistency

NO Is the word "leverage" used at least three times? Semiotician · seen in 37.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.8% of calls 90% repeat consistency

NO Does management use the word "headwinds" at least once? Semiotician · seen in 33.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does any speaker say "great question" or thank the analyst before answering? Semiotician · seen in 51.8% 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 51.8% of calls 84% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does any analyst begin their question with "congratulations"? Semiotician · seen in 17.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 17.8% of calls 92.6% repeat consistency

YES Does an analyst thank management at the end of their turn? Semiotician · seen in 77.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 77.2% of calls 94.7% repeat consistency

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

NO Does a speaker say "normal" or "normalized" about conditions that predate any disruption mentioned? Semiotician · seen in 33.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.7% of calls 81% repeat consistency

YES Is the word "momentum" used without a stated metric attached to it? Semiotician · seen in 41.4% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.4% of calls 92.7% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "macro" appear at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 21.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 21.9% of calls 95.9% repeat consistency

NO Does management use the word "solid" at least once? Semiotician · seen in 57.7% 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 57.7% of calls 97% repeat consistency

NO Is there an analogy to a machine, engine, or flywheel? Semiotician · seen in 29.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 29.2% of calls 88% repeat consistency

NO Is the word "visibility" used at least once? Semiotician · seen in 34.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 34.1% of calls 100% repeat consistency

NO Is the phrase "base case" or "scenario" used at least once? Semiotician · seen in 19.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 19.1% of calls 96.9% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone say "we take that seriously" or "we're very focused on"? Semiotician · seen in 18% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 18% of calls 92% repeat consistency

NO Is the phrase "to your point" or "as you mentioned" used at least once? Semiotician · seen in 32.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO Does any speaker describe a business unit as "healthy"? Semiotician · seen in 13.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.3% of calls 92.7% repeat consistency

NO Does any speaker use the word "fundamentals"? Semiotician · seen in 17.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 17.8% of calls 100% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

YES Does any analyst ask a follow-up after their initial answer ("follow-up", "second one", "just one more")? Simultaneous · seen in 88.5% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 88.5% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency

NO Does any analyst ask a question containing the word "why"? Simultaneous · seen in 36.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 36.1% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone say "if you look at" before citing a number? Simultaneous · seen in 47.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 47.7% of calls 81.6% repeat consistency

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

YES Does the CEO speak first among named executives in the Q&A? Simultaneous · seen in 68.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 68.3% of calls 94.6% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "headwind" or "headwinds" appear at least twice? Simultaneous · seen in 28.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 28.5% of calls 97% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

YES Does an analyst thank management at the start or end of their turn? Simultaneous · seen in 81.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 81.6% of calls 95.7% repeat consistency

NO Does the CEO use the word "incredibly" at any point? Simultaneous · seen in 15% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 15% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency

YES Does any executive use the word "team" to refer to company personnel? Simultaneous · seen in 83.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.6% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone say "to your point" when answering a question? Simultaneous · seen in 10.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.3% of calls 98% repeat consistency

YES Does any executive say "with that" to transition between speakers or topics? Simultaneous · seen in 75% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 75% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "transformation" or "transformational" appear? Simultaneous · seen in 24.2% 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 24.2% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker say "moving on" or "next question" themselves? Simultaneous · seen in 25.1% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 25.1% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency

NO Does any speaker use the word "hedging" or say "to hedge"? Simultaneous · seen in 13.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.5% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency

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

YES Is the word "capacity" used more often about factories than about people? Supply Chain · seen in 26.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 26.2% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency

NO Does an executive confess to having too much of something physical somewhere? Supply Chain · seen in 12.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 12.2% of calls 89.3% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

No checks match those filters.

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

Real saved model output

Archived AI reasoning

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

241 saved explanations · 240 questions

NO Paid-in full, payoff just starting: the hard part of a major undertaking is behind the company, and the benefit is only Q1 2024 · archived research check

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

NOQ1 2024 · 2024-05-02

我们根据提供的财报电话会议记录来判断。管理层是否传达了重大事业的最困难、最昂贵或最不确定的阶段已基本完成，并且公司正处于从支付阶段转向获得回报的阶段，而报告的结果仍主要反映支付阶段。在记录中，管理层提到了出售海上风电业务。具体来说，Joseph Nolan说：“I am pleased to report that we are on track to close the sale of the three projects over the coming months.” 以及“Now that our offshore wind risk is largely behind us, we are very excited about the future of Eversource”。这表明海上风电的风险已基本过去，出售即将完成。但这是出售，不是建设。然而，他们提到了South Fork Wind已经投入运营，并且他们正在建设Revolution Wind和Sunrise Wind。但出售是主要事件。另外，John Moreira提到：“we are reiterating our 2024 EPS guidance of $4.50 to $4.67 per share, as well as our longer term 5% to 7% EPS growth rate.” 以及关于FFO to debt的改善，包括出售所得现金等。但问题问的是“the HARDEST, COSTLIEST, OR MOST UNCERTAIN PHASE OF A MAJOR UNDERTAKING IS NOW SUBSTANTIALLY BEHIND THE COMPANY”。这里的主要事业可能是海上风电建设。管理层说“our offshore wind risk is largely behind us”，这暗示了最困难的部分已经过去。但出售尚未完成，不过他们说“on track to close”。另外，他们提到South Fork已经运营，Revolution和Sunrise正在建设中，但风险已降低。关于“payoff phase”，他们提到出售将带来现金，但尚未完成。然而，他们提到“we anticipate receiving approximately $1.1 billion of cash proceeds from this transaction”以及“utilizing our tax equity investment in South Fork Wind, which we expect will bring around $500 million of cash over the next 24 months”。这些是未来的收益，但尚未实现。此外，他们提到“the reported results still mostly reflecting the paying phase”？第一季度业绩是每股1.49美元，与去年相比有所增长，但主要是由于运营改善，而不是出售收益。管理层是否明确表示“the heavy lifting is done”和“the payoff is beginning but early in the numbers”？他们确实说风险已基本过去，但出售尚未完成，所以收益尚未开始。然而，他们提到“we are on track to close”，所以可能即将完成。但问题要求“the company has recently crossed, or is right now crossing, from the phase where it PAYS for that undertaking into the phase where it gets PAID for it”。这里，他们正在出售资产，所以是获得支付，但尚未完成。不过，他们提到“we are on track”，所以可能正在跨越。但更关键的是，他们是否说“the reported results still mostly reflecting the paying phase”？他们没有明确说，但暗示了未来会有改善。另外，他们提到“we are reducing our capital expenditures by nearly $100 million”在康涅狄格州，但那是另一个问题。总体来看，管理层确实表示海上风电风险已基本过去，但出售尚未完成，所以收益尚未开始。然而，他们提到“we are on track to close”，所以可能正在跨越。但问题要求“the payoff phase has visibly begun but is only early in the numbers”。这里，出售尚未完成，所以收益尚未开始。他们提到“we anticipate receiving”，但那是未来。因此，可能不符合“payoff phase has visibly begun”。他们只是预期，而不是已经发生。另外，他们提到“we are reiterating our 2024 EPS guidance”，所以没有改变。所以，我认为答案可能是NO，因为收益尚未开始，只是预期。但让我们再仔细看：他们说“our offshore wind risk is largely behind us”，这表示最困难的部分已经完成。但出售尚未完成，所以“getting paid”尚未开始。然而，他们提到“we are on track to close”，所以可能很快。但问题要求“t

Open the full research page →

NO Bought the seat, waiting for the ride: management describes a position already secured inside someone else's decision, w Q1 2024 · archived research check

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

NOQ1 2024 · 2024-05-02

The question asks whether management conveys that the company's near-term growth no longer depends on persuading anyone, because decisions governing it have already been made by others, and the resulting activity has only just begun to reach the company. Let me analyze the transcript for the three conditions: (1) THE DECISION IS BEHIND THEM, NOT AHEAD OF THEM. Management describes the company's forward business as resting on choices outside parties have ALREADY made in its favor, so what remains is delivery rather than winning. Looking at the transcript: - The sale of offshore wind business is on track to close - approvals filed, purchase and sale agreement executed for Sunrise Wind with Ørsted. - The Massachusetts ESMP filing - this is a plan filed, awaiting decision in August. This is still ahead of them. - The Connecticut situation - they are cutting investment because of regulatory misalignment. This is not a settled decision in their favor. - The New Hampshire solar - they are "in the first inning" and evaluating ways to advance. The offshore wind sales are committed - the decisions have been made. But the core utility business growth - the ESMP in Massachusetts is still awaiting decision. The Connecticut situation is adversarial. The New Hampshire solar is early stage. (2) THE COMPANY IS BEHAVING LIKE SOMEONE PREPARING TO DELIVER. Management's account of what the organization is actually doing now is dominated by getting ready and getting it out the door. The transcript discusses: - Construction on Revolution Wind and Sunrise Wind is underway. - The ESMP filing was made, hearings concluded, awaiting decision. - They are preparing materials for the water business sale. But the main forward business - the ESMP investments - are still awaiting regulatory decision. The company is not yet in delivery mode for the main growth driver. (3) THE COMPANY IS SMALL RELATIVE TO WHAT HAS BEEN COMMITTED, AND THE NUMBERS DON'T SHOW IT YET. The offshore wind sales are one-time divestitures, not growth. The ESMP is $600 million incremental - but this is still pending approval. The $23.1 billion capital plan is confirmed but much of it is routine. The key issue: The main forward growth story (ESMP, Connecticut investments) is still contingent on regulatory approvals that have not been obtained. The Connecticut situation is actually negative - they are cutting investment.

Open the full research page →

NO Winning is getting easier: management describes the effort needed to land each new piece of business visibly falling, wi Q1 2024 · archived research check

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

NOQ1 2024 · 2024-05-02

We need to determine if management conveys that winning business has become easier than in the past, with real recent proof and still in effect. The transcript is about Eversource Energy, a utility. The business is regulated utilities, so "winning business" might refer to regulatory approvals, rate cases, or perhaps winning contracts for projects. But the question is about landing customers, orders, contracts, expansions. For a utility, it might be about getting regulatory approvals for capital investments, or perhaps winning bids for projects. However, the transcript focuses on regulatory environment, especially in Connecticut, where they are cutting capital investments due to unfavorable regulatory decisions. They mention that in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, they have good relations, but in Connecticut, they are facing challenges. They talk about the sale of offshore wind business, but that's divestiture. They talk about regulatory approvals for the sale, but that's not winning business. The question asks: "does management convey that IT HAS RECENTLY BECOME EASIER FOR THE COMPANY TO WIN BUSINESS THAN IT USED TO BE" — meaning winning new customers, orders, contracts, expansions. For a utility, that could be winning rate cases, getting approvals for capital projects, or perhaps winning bids for renewable projects. But the transcript doesn't really talk about winning business in that sense. They talk about regulatory environment being challenging in Connecticut, and they are cutting investments there. They talk about opportunities in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, but they don't explicitly say that winning business has become easier than in the past. They mention that they have a good relationship with Massachusetts and New Hampshire, but they don't contrast it with a past difficulty. They also talk about the sale of offshore wind, but that's not winning business. The key is: is there any statement that indicates that the company now finds it easier to win business (e.g., get regulatory approvals, secure contracts) than before? The transcript has a lot about Connecticut being difficult, and they are reducing capital there. They also mention that they are cutting $500 million in Connecticut over five years. That suggests it's harder, not easier. They also mention that they are pursuing opportunities elsewhere, but they don't say it's easier than before.

Open the full research page →

NO Deprived of a working part of itself: management describes an already-proven piece of the business it is currently unabl Q1 2024 · archived research check

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

NOQ1 2024 · 2024-05-02

We need to determine if the transcript describes a situation where a proven part of the business is being held back by the company itself, and management is actively working to feed it, with numbers not yet showing its potential. Key elements: (1) proven piece already working, (2) company itself is holding it back (internal shortfall), (3) management actively working to close the shortfall and says results understate potential. Look for such a narrative in the transcript. The transcript discusses offshore wind sale, Connecticut regulatory issues, capital cuts, etc. There is mention of Connecticut regulatory environment discouraging investment, and they are cutting capital there. That is more about cutting back, not feeding a proven piece. What about the New Hampshire solar? They are evaluating, not yet proven. What about the ESMP in Massachusetts? That's a plan, not yet proven. What about the water business? They are reviewing for sale, not feeding. What about the offshore wind? They are selling it, not feeding. What about the core utility business? They are investing, but is there a specific proven piece being held back? Possibly the resiliency program in Connecticut? They have a $300 million program that has been effective, but they are cutting back due to regulatory issues. That is the opposite. The question asks: "does management describe that ONE IDENTIFIABLE PART OF THE COMPANY'S BUSINESS HAS ALREADY PROVEN ITSELF IN REAL USE, and that the company is CURRENTLY UNABLE TO GIVE IT WHAT IT NEEDS — so that management's own account of the period is about a working thing being held back by something inside the company, together with the concrete steps now being taken to release it?" Look for a part that is working well but is underfunded or under-resourced due to internal decisions, and management is taking steps to fix that. In the transcript, there is discussion about Connecticut regulatory environment discouraging investment. They are cutting capital there. That is not feeding a proven piece; it's cutting. What about the natural gas distribution? They had higher earnings. No mention of being held back. What about the electric transmission? They are investing, but no mention of being held back. What about the storm response? They restored customers quickly, but that's not a business piece. What about the offshore wind? They are selling it, so not feeding.

Open the full research page →

NO The replacement wave is already arriving: a compelled, large-scale retirement of the installed world is feeding this com Q1 2024 · archived research check

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

NOQ1 2024 · 2024-05-02

We need answer YES/NO. Need analyze transcript. Need determine if management describes large installed stock reaching end of useful life at scale, replacement compelled, already started producing real business, most ahead. The transcript is Eversource Q1 2024. Topics: offshore wind sale, regulated utility, clean energy transition, electrification, ESMP in Massachusetts, grid investments, Connecticut regulatory issues, capital cuts, FFO. Need see if any mention of installed base/fleet aging out, replacement wave. They discuss "aging infrastructure"? Let's search mentally. Transcript mentions "resiliency investments", "smart switches", "reliability innovations", "storm costs", "electric sector modernization plans", "increase electrification capacity by 180%, allow adoption of 2.5 million EVs, 1 million heat pumps, 5.8 GW solar", "distribution grid into platform for clean energy transition". They mention "projected demand growth from electric vehicles and electric heating", "average household electric demand will double in summer and more than triple in winter." This is about need for grid investments due to electrification, not necessarily retiring old stock. They mention "capital investments for interconnection of solar resources". No explicit "old infrastructure at end of life" or "replacement wave". There is mention of "legacy generation"? No. "retiring stock" maybe "offshore wind risk largely behind us" no. "pure play regulated pipes and wires" no. "water distribution business" review. No. Question asks: Does management describe that a LARGE INSTALLED STOCK of something customers depend on is now reaching end of useful life at scale, must be replaced, and replacement already started producing real business, most ahead? The transcript does not describe that. It describes future clean energy transition and grid investments to accommodate EVs/heat pumps/solar. That's demand growth, not retirement of old stock. There is mention of "system planning process" and "investments in technology" but not aging-out. So answer NO. Need be careful: "installed stock" could be "distribution grid" itself? They say "convert our distribution grid into the platform for clean energy transition" and "increase electrification capacity by 180%" - that's upgrading infrastructure, but not because old grid at end of life; because demand growth. No mention of old equipment retiring.

Open the full research page →

NO Playing offense from strength: management is choosing the harder, bigger path from a position of current momentum Q1 2024 · archived research check

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

NOQ1 2024 · 2024-05-02

We need answer YES/NO based on transcript. Need evaluate both halves. Need be careful. We need determine if management conveys genuine operating momentum/strength now AND using it as springboard to materially bigger already acted on. Let's parse transcript. Company: Eversource Energy Q1 2024. They are selling offshore wind, becoming pure-play regulated utility. They discuss results: Q1 recurring EPS $1.49 vs $1.41. Electric transmission improved, distribution improved, gas improved, water flat. They reiterate guidance. Regulatory items. They are cutting Connecticut capex due to regulatory issues. They have $23.1B capex forecast. They are undertaking review of water distribution business. They mention clean energy future, ESMP in Massachusetts, New Hampshire solar, Connecticut issues. Question asks: "On this call, does management convey that the business currently has genuine operating momentum — results, demand, or execution that management itself treats as strong right now — AND, rather than protecting or merely continuing that success, is management visibly using the current strength as a springboard to go after something materially bigger, in a way that is already being acted on now?" Need answer YES only if both halves. Let's examine management's own words. Joe: "I am pleased to report that we are on track to close the sale of the three projects over the coming months." "Now that our offshore wind risk is largely behind us, we are very excited about the future of Eversource, delivering safe and reliable electric, natural gas and water service to our 4.4 million customers." "Eversource is moving forward as a pure play regulated pipes and wires utility business, doing what we do best..." "A good example... early April storm... restore 85,000 customers in New Hampshire within five minutes... received numerous accolades... We take tremendous pride in our emergency response organization..." "Turning to clean energy future... states have aggressive greenhouse gas reduction goals... To meet these targets, we project average household electric demand will double in summer and more than triple in winter. That's why it's critical that we all work collaboratively and get started today..." "Massachusetts decarbonization goals... ESMP... most comprehensive clean energy plan in nation... Eversource ESMP... analyzed expected electric growth down to circuit level...

Open the full research page →

NO Compounding evidence: management cites customer behavior, not just customer numbers, as proof the offering is winning Q1 2024 · archived research check

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

NOQ1 2024 · 2024-05-02

The question asks whether management grounds its case for the business in observed customer or counterparty behavior from the recent period, rather than only in the company's own results, effort, or plans. Let me analyze the transcript for evidence of counterparty behavior: 1. The company is selling its offshore wind business - the sale process involves counterparties (GIP, Ørsted) but these are asset sales, not customer behavior. 2. The company discusses regulatory proceedings - these are with regulators, not customers. 3. The company mentions storm restoration - "we were able to restore 85,000 customers in New Hampshire within five minutes" - this is about the company's own performance, not customer behavior. 4. The company discusses its ESMP plan in Massachusetts - this is a regulatory filing, not customer behavior. 5. The company discusses Connecticut regulatory issues - again, regulatory, not customer behavior. 6. The company mentions "We enjoy a very productive working relationship in our other two jurisdictions" - this is about regulators, not customers. 7. The company discusses New Hampshire solar opportunities - "New Hampshire state legislators are working on a bill" - this is legislative, not customer behavior. 8. The company mentions "Governor Sununu" acknowledgment - this is political, not customer behavior. 9. The company discusses the Aquarion water business sale - again, an asset sale, not customer behavior. 10. The company mentions "we are on track to close the sale of the three projects" - asset sales, not customer behavior. Looking for any concrete customer or counterparty behavior that demonstrates genuine preference or commitment: - The company doesn't describe customers reordering, renewing, expanding usage, or any other concrete behavioral evidence. - The company doesn't describe buyers adopting faster or committing bigger. - The company doesn't describe new buyers arriving because of existing users' achievements. The company's case for growth rests on: - Its capital expenditure plans - Regulatory filings and approvals - Its own operational performance (storm restoration) - Its own financial results - State policy initiatives There is no observed customer or counterparty behavior described that demonstrates genuine preference or commitment. The company's case is built on its own plans, regulatory processes, and operational claims.

Open the full research page →

NO Position doing the winning: current wins credited to a standing already held, with more arriving over it Q1 2024 · archived research check

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

NOQ1 2024 · 2024-05-02

We need answer YES/NO. Need analyze transcript. Question asks: On this call, when management explains why company is CURRENTLY winning business, does it credit a STANDING THE COMPANY ALREADY HOLDS — something durable built/secured/became BEFORE this period — as operative cause of wins actually happening now, AND convey further business already arriving over same standing without proportional new push? Need parse. Company is Eversource, utility. "Winning business" maybe regulatory approvals, offshore wind sale, capital investments? Need identify if management credits standing already held for current wins and continuation. Transcript: Joe talks about offshore wind sale on track. "We are on track to close sale of three projects over coming months." Approvals filed. South Fork Wind energized. "We will certainly capitalize on lessons learned from South Fork, a first of its kind project here in the United States. The same construction processes will be used for Revolution Wind Project, where onshore and offshore construction is underway." This is about construction, not winning business. Then pure play regulated pipes and wires. "When we are doing what we do best, our customers are direct beneficiaries." Example storm restoration. "Through our investments in technology, including smart switches and other reliability innovations, we were able to restore 85,000 customers in New Hampshire within five minutes..." This is not winning business. Clean energy future. States goals. Massachusetts ESMP. "The Eversource ESMP is a product of our system planning process, incorporating state's assumptions..." "These infrastructure investments will convert our distribution grid into platform for clean energy transition..." Not current wins. New Hampshire regulatory initiatives. "state legislators working on bill..." "we are evaluating ways to advance clean energy initiatives such as large-scale utility owned solar development." Not current. Connecticut. "We have serious concerns with lack of alignment..." "regulatory policies discourage investment..." "We are encouraged by PURA's decision last month to provide timely reimbursement of deferred public policy costs..." This is cost recovery, not winning business. Financial results. John Moreira. "Our first quarter earnings were in line with expectations..." Regulatory updates. Massachusetts ESMP filed, decision expected.

Open the full research page →

NO The company is outgrowing its own explanations: management keeps telling investors the reported numbers are not the busi Q1 2024 · archived research check

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

NOQ1 2024 · 2024-05-02

The question asks whether management conveys that the reported results for the period do not represent the business the company is actually running today — that is, whether management indicates the just-reported numbers describe a company that has already been left behind by what is now actually happening inside the business. Let me analyze the transcript carefully. The call is about Q1 2024 earnings. Management discusses: 1. Sale of offshore wind business - on track to close 2. Regulatory updates in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Connecticut 3. Capital expenditure reductions in Connecticut 4. FFO to debt ratio improvements Key points to consider: - The company is selling its offshore wind business (South Fork, Revolution, Sunrise). This is a major transformation - moving from a company with offshore wind to a pure-play regulated utility. - Joe Nolan says: "Now that our offshore wind risk is largely behind us, we are very excited about the future of Eversource, delivering safe and reliable electric, natural gas and water service to our 4.4 million customers." - "Eversource is moving forward as a pure play regulated pipes and wires utility business" However, the question is specifically about whether the REPORTED RESULTS (Q1 2024 earnings) do not represent the business being run today. The reported results are $1.49 per share, which is in line with expectations. Management reiterates guidance. The key question: Does management convey that the reported period's results are stale relative to what's happening now? Looking at the content: - The offshore wind sale is in progress but not yet closed. The Q1 results still include offshore wind impacts. - The Connecticut capital cuts are being implemented - reducing $500 million over five years. - The FFO to debt improvements are expected in 2024-2025. But does management say the Q1 results don't represent the current business? Let me look more carefully. Management says Q1 earnings were "in line with our expectations" and reiterates guidance. This is a conventional results discussion. The transformation (offshore wind sale) is ongoing - the sales haven't closed yet. The company is still in transition. The Connecticut capital cuts are being implemented now, but these are forward-looking changes. The reported period (Q1 2024) - management doesn't say the business has moved to a different level than the print.

Open the full research page →

NO Cash pulled forward: buyers are funding the company's next stage in advance, and the money keeps arriving Q1 2024 · archived research check

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

NOQ1 2024 · 2024-05-02

We need to answer YES or NO based on the transcript. The question asks: does management describe that money or binding financial commitment is arriving at the company ahead of the work it will pay for, and does management treat this advance funding as something that is currently growing and that finances or de-risks the company's next stage of growth? We need to look for evidence in the transcript. The company is Eversource Energy, a utility. They are selling offshore wind projects. They mention proceeds from sales, tax equity, etc. But that's not advance funding from customers for future work. They also mention regulatory cost recovery mechanisms, like the annual rate adjustment mechanism in Connecticut that recovers deferred costs. That is recovering past costs, not advance funding. They also mention storm cost recovery, but that's for past storms. The question is about counterparties paying in advance for something they will receive later. For a utility, that might be customers prepaying for service, but that's not typical. They mention "under collection" and "deferred state policy costs" - that's the opposite: they are owed money, not receiving it in advance. They also mention "equity issuances" and "ATM program" - that's raising capital from investors, not from customers. They mention "sale of offshore wind business" - that's selling assets, not advance payments for future work. They mention "tax equity investment" - that's a financing arrangement, not customer prepayment. They mention "proceeds from a potential sale of our water business" - again, asset sale. None of these are customers paying in advance for future delivery. The company is a regulated utility; they earn revenue through rates, which are typically collected after service is provided, or through mechanisms that recover costs. There is no mention of customers placing deposits, prepaying, or signing take-or-pay commitments. The transcript does mention "annual rate adjustment mechanism" which recovers costs, but that's for past costs, not advance funding. Thus, the answer is NO. We need to be careful: the question asks if management describes that money is arriving ahead of work, and that it is growing and finances next stage. There is no such description. The company is actually cutting capital in Connecticut due to regulatory issues, and they are selling assets to raise cash.

Open the full research page →

NO New chapter with early proof: a decisive recent break in what the company is or does, already producing, oversized versu Q1 2024 · archived research check

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

NOQ1 2024 · 2024-05-02

We need to determine if management describes a decisive recent break in the company's own story, with early proof and proportionality. The transcript discusses sale of offshore wind business, becoming pure-play regulated utility. That is a significant shift: they are divesting offshore wind (which was a major venture) and focusing on regulated pipes and wires. They have closed or are closing sales. They mention South Fork Wind energized in March, and sale proceeds expected. They also mention reducing Connecticut capital due to regulatory issues. But is this a "break" that is recent and management treats as hinge? They say "our offshore wind risk is largely behind us" and "moving forward as a pure play regulated pipes and wires utility". That sounds like a decisive break. However, is it recently completed? The sale of three projects: they are on track to close over coming months. South Fork sale is pending approvals. So not fully closed yet. But they have construction done for South Fork and it is operating? They flipped the switch to energize South Fork Wind in March. That is a real achievement. But the sale is not closed yet. They have executed purchase and sale agreement for Sunrise. So it's in process. The company's future is as a pure play regulated utility. They are also reviewing water business sale. But the break is more about divesting offshore wind. Is there early real results? Yes, South Fork Wind is generating electricity? They energized it. But they are selling it. So the new chapter is the pure play regulated utility. That is not new; they have always been that, except they added offshore wind. So removing offshore wind is a return to core. But management frames it as a break: "our offshore wind risk is largely behind us" and "very excited about the future" as pure play. However, the sale is not complete. The approval process is ongoing. They anticipate approvals in about 90 days. So the break is still contingent on closing. Also, the water business sale is not done. They have not launched Phase 1 yet. So the decisive break is not fully realized. Also, proportionality: the offshore wind was a large investment but they are selling it. The company is large, and the sale proceeds are $1.1 billion plus $500 million tax equity, which is significant. But the company's earnings power is from regulated utilities. The sale removes a burden.

Open the full research page →

NO Answers go deeper than the script: questioning keeps surfacing new concrete detail behind a positive development Q1 2024 · archived research check

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

NOQ1 2024 · 2024-05-02

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 prepared remarks mention several things: offshore wind sale progress, ESMP in Massachusetts, New Hampshire regulatory initiatives, Connecticut concerns, and financial results. The Q&A focuses heavily on Connecticut regulatory environment, capital cuts, FFO to debt, Aquarion sale, and some on Massachusetts ESMP and New Hampshire solar. The question asks: is there a positive, current development that management presents as genuinely going well or stepping up right now, and the Q&A produces more concrete operating detail than the prepared remarks? The development must be real and current, with multiple exchanges adding fresh specifics. Looking at the transcript: The prepared remarks mention the offshore wind sale progress, ESMP filing, New Hampshire initiatives, and Connecticut concerns. The Q&A probes Connecticut capital cuts, Aquarion appeal, FFO to debt, and some on Massachusetts and New Hampshire. Is there a positive development that is probed with additive detail? Possibly the Massachusetts ESMP? In the Q&A, Carly Davenport asks about the Massachusetts CL&P process, and John Moreira gives details about hearings concluded, briefs, and the $600 million incremental capital. But that is more about the regulatory process, not necessarily a current operational development. The ESMP is a plan, not yet approved. So it's not a current development that is going well; it's a filing. New Hampshire solar: Joe Nolan mentions it's in the first inning, no sizing yet. That's not concrete. Connecticut capital cuts: That's a negative development (cutting investment). Not positive. Offshore wind sale: The prepared remarks already gave details about approvals and construction. In Q&A, there is a question about Revolution and Sunrise construction, but Joe Nolan says it's too early, and they are in the ground. That's not much added detail. Aquarion sale: The Q&A discusses the appeal process and timing, but that's about a potential sale, not a current positive development. The FFO to debt walk: That's financial housekeeping. So, is there any positive current development that analysts probe and get more detail? Possibly the Massachusetts ESMP? But that's a plan, not yet approved.

Open the full research page →

NO Richer on arrival: the business now flowing in carries better economics than the blend the numbers show Q1 2024 · archived research check

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

NOQ1 2024 · 2024-05-02

We need answer YES or NO. Need analyze transcript. Question: Does management convey that business NOW ARRIVING OR RAMPING carries BETTER ECONOMICS than blended results, and reported numbers understate because mix with older lower-economics base or temporary costs of scaling? Need both halves. Transcript: Eversource Q1 2024. They are selling offshore wind, becoming pure play regulated pipes and wires. They discuss regulatory issues, capital cuts in Connecticut, reaffirm guidance. They mention ESMP in Massachusetts incremental $600M capital investments for interconnection of solar resources through 2028. But that's future investments, not necessarily better economics. They mention New Hampshire utility owned solar potential. No indication of better economics. They discuss FFO to debt improvements from sales, under recoveries, etc. No mention of incoming business with better margins. They are cutting Connecticut capex due to regulatory environment. They reaffirm $23.1B capital forecast. No statement that new business is economically richer than existing blend. They mention offshore wind sale, not incoming. They mention water business sale. No. Question asks if management conveys that business now arriving/ramping carries better economics than blended results. No. They talk about regulatory recovery, capital deployment, but not better economics. They mention "substantial consistently emerging infrastructure needs across our system provide ample opportunity for capital deployment in lieu of using those valuable resources in Connecticut." But no economics comparison. They mention "we have ample opportunities for capital deployment... And yes, it would be accretive." That's about redeploying from Connecticut to other states? Actually Joe said "we have ample opportunities for capital deployment on our system. So, we feel very, very good about that. And yes, it would be accretive." That is in response to "is that redeployment actually accretive just given cost of capital differences?" So they say redeploying capital from Connecticut to other opportunities is accretive. But is that "incoming business now arriving/ramping"? Not really. It's about shifting capital allocation, not new business arriving. Also no mention of reported numbers lagging due to mix. They discuss FFO to debt improvements from sales and collections, not earnings mix. So answer NO.

Open the full research page →

NO Money already collected for work not yet done: the company is sitting on customer-funded obligations that dwarf what it Q1 2024 · archived research check

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

NOQ1 2024 · 2024-05-02

We need to determine if the transcript describes a situation where customers or counterparties have already put money or irreversible commitment into the company for things not yet delivered, and that this unearned obligation is large relative to the company's current business, with the work of discharging it now the central task. Let's analyze the transcript. The company is Eversource Energy, a utility. They discuss various regulatory matters, capital expenditures, and the sale of offshore wind assets. The key question is about customers or counterparties paying ahead of delivery. The transcript mentions: - Sale of offshore wind business to GIP and Ørsted. These are asset sales, not customers paying for future services. The proceeds are from selling assets, not from customers prepaying for services. - Regulatory cost recoveries, like storm costs, deferred costs, etc. These are regulatory mechanisms where the company recovers costs from ratepayers. But are these "customers putting money ahead of delivery"? Typically, utilities recover costs after incurring them, and rate adjustments are for past costs. The transcript discusses under-recoveries and deferred costs, but these are not customers paying for future services; they are recovering past costs. - The company mentions "deferred state policy costs" and "under recoveries" that will be recovered. This is about recovering costs already incurred, not about customers prepaying for future services. - There is no mention of customers making deposits, prepayments, or commitments for future delivery of energy or services. The business is regulated utilities, where customers pay for usage, and rates are set to recover costs. There is no description of a large unearned obligation from customers. The question asks specifically about "customers or counterparties have already put money or irreversible commitment into the company for things the company has not yet delivered." In the transcript, the company discusses capital investments, regulatory filings, and cost recoveries. There is no mention of customers prepaying for future services. The only "commitments" are from regulators approving cost recovery, but that is not a customer paying ahead. Also, the company discusses the sale of assets, which is not a customer obligation. Thus, the answer is NO. The transcript does not describe such a situation.

Open the full research page →

NO Fresh order-of-magnitude reference change: management has started describing the business in units it did not use to nee Q1 2024 · archived research check

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

NOQ1 2024 · 2024-05-02

We need to determine if the company's own unit of account has visibly changed—i.e., management now routinely describes its business in a larger denomination than before, and this change is recent and driven by real business already happening. The transcript is about Eversource Energy's Q1 2024 earnings call. The company is a utility. They discuss selling offshore wind business, focusing on regulated pipes and wires. They talk about capital expenditures, regulatory matters, etc. Key points: They mention "pure play regulated pipes and wires utility business" serving 4.4 million customers. They discuss capital investment forecast of $23.1 billion over five years. They talk about reducing capital in Connecticut by $500 million over five years. They mention equity needs up to $1.3 billion. They discuss FFO to debt ratio improvements. Is there a shift in the unit of account? The company is a large utility, so talking in billions is normal. They mention "4.4 million customers" – that's a large number but typical for a utility. They talk about "megawatts" or "gigawatts"? They mention "5.8 gigawatts of solar generation" in Massachusetts ESMP. They talk about "2.5 million electric vehicles, 1 million heat pumps" – these are projections for the state. But these are projections, not current activity. The question asks: Has the company's own unit of account visibly changed? That is, does management now routinely describe its business in a larger denomination than it used to? For example, if they used to talk about individual projects but now talk about portfolios, or if they used to count customers in thousands but now in millions, etc. In the transcript, they talk about "South Fork Wind" and "Revolution Wind" and "Sunrise Wind" – these are specific projects. They talk about selling them. They talk about "offshore wind business" as a whole. They talk about "capital expenditure forecast of $23.1 billion" – that's a large number but likely consistent with their history. They mention "equity needs up to $1.3 billion" – again, large but typical. Is there any indication that they used to talk about smaller units? For example, they mention "we are reducing our capital expenditures by nearly $100 million" in Connecticut for 2024. That's a reduction, not an increase. They talk about "the sale of our offshore wind business" – that's a divestiture, not a growth.

Open the full research page →

NO Costly self-restriction to protect one part of the business Q1 2024 · archived research check

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

NOQ1 2024 · 2024-05-02

We need to answer YES or NO based on the transcript. The question asks: does management describe that the company is CURRENTLY REFUSING, TURNING AWAY, RATIONING, OR DELIBERATELY WITHHOLDING BUSINESS IT COULD HAVE TAKEN — giving up revenue, customers, orders, volume, or work that was genuinely available to it — IN ORDER TO PROTECT OR FEED ONE PART OF ITS BUSINESS THAT IS ALREADY PRODUCING WELL? We need to find if management says they are deliberately withholding business to protect something that is already working. The transcript discusses cutting capital expenditures in Connecticut, reducing capital investment by $500 million over five years, and not putting capital at risk for AMI and EV programs. They are reducing capital in Connecticut due to regulatory environment. They are redeploying capital elsewhere. Is that "refusing business"? They are not taking on certain investments (like AMI, EV programs) in Connecticut because of regulatory uncertainty. They are also cutting capital expenditures in Connecticut by $100 million in 2024. They say they have ample opportunities elsewhere. But is this "refusing business" that was available? They are choosing not to invest in Connecticut projects because of regulatory issues. They are not taking on that work. But is that to protect or feed something that is already producing well? They are redeploying capital to other states where regulatory environment is better. They say "we have ample opportunities for capital deployment on our system" and "it would be accretive." So they are shifting capital away from Connecticut to other investments. But is that "protecting or feeding something that is already working"? The other investments are presumably in their other states (Massachusetts, New Hampshire) which are described as having good regulatory environments. But are those already producing well? They are existing utilities. The question is about "business it could have taken" - i.e., they are declining to take on certain projects (AMI, EV) in Connecticut. They are deliberately withholding investment. But is that "giving up revenue, customers, orders, volume, or work"? They are not taking on capital projects that would generate returns. They are also cutting capital expenditures. They are not taking on new business in Connecticut. The reason is to protect their balance sheet and avoid regulatory risk.

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 Q1 2024 · archived research check

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

NOQ1 2024 · 2024-05-02

We need answer YES/NO. Need analyze transcript. Need determine if management recounts same kind of concrete win happened multiple times recent period, distinct instances, and conveys frequency new/beyond prior norm, with more expected. We need parse. The call is Eversource Q1 2024. Topics: sale of offshore wind business, regulatory approvals, construction. "I am pleased to report that we are on track to close the sale of the three projects over the coming months. We are progressing well on the approvals necessary to close these transactions as shown on Slide 3. We have filed all regulatory approvals with the New York Public Service Commission and FERC for the sale of South Fork Wind and Revolution Wind to global infrastructure partners. And we recently executed the purchase and sale agreement for Sunrise Wind with Ørsted. For Sunrise Wind, we have also filed applications for regulatory approvals the New York Public Service Commission and FERC. We anticipate these approvals will take about 90 days." This is multiple instances of same kind? Sales of offshore wind projects. Three projects: South Fork, Revolution, Sunrise. But are they "concrete wins" completed? South Fork and Revolution sale to GIP approvals filed, not closed yet. Sunrise PSA executed, approvals filed. Are these "completed or now-happening events"? The sale of offshore wind business is in progress, not closed. But "recently executed the purchase and sale agreement" is a completed event. "We have filed all regulatory approvals" is completed. "on track to close over coming months" not yet. The question asks "concrete win happened multiple times in recent period — several distinct instances of one identifiable type of success (for example: multiple new contracts or customers...)" Could be "sale of three projects" as multiple instances? But management doesn't frame as new frequency? They are divesting offshore wind, not a repeated success category that used to come rarely. It's one strategic exit with three projects. Also "South Fork Wind energized in March" is a concrete win. "Revolution Wind construction underway" not completed. "Sunrise Wind PSA" signed. But are these same kind? Offshore wind projects reaching milestones? Hmm. Need identify if management conveys "same kind of concrete win happened multiple times" and "frequency is new/beyond prior norm." Let's read carefully.

Open the full research page →

NO Answers go deeper than the script: questioning keeps surfacing new concrete detail behind a positive development — broad Q1 2024 · archived research check

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

NOQ1 2024 · 2024-05-02

We need to evaluate the transcript for two gates. Gate 1: Is there a positive current development that management presents as going well, and in Q&A, analysts probe it and management adds concrete operating detail beyond prepared remarks? Gate 2: Is that development broad and granular (many independent customers) rather than concentrated? Let's identify the main positive current developments. The call discusses: offshore wind sale progress, but that's a sale, not operating. The main positive current development seems to be the Massachusetts ESMP (Electric Sector Modernization Plan) and the $600 million incremental capital for solar interconnection. Also New Hampshire solar opportunity. Also the Connecticut rate adjustment mechanism decision that provides timely reimbursement. But which one is probed in Q&A with added detail? Looking at Q&A: Analysts ask about Connecticut capital cuts, FFO to debt, Aquarion sale, etc. The positive development that management highlights is the Massachusetts ESMP, the $600 million incremental capital. In Q&A, when asked about Massachusetts, John Moreira says: "So, I'll start with Massachusetts. So, hearings on that docket just basically concluded. So now we get into the briefs and reply briefs. But one thing I want to point out to, based on the legislation that was passed a couple of years ago, the clean energy legislation, the DPU does have to render a decision by that August timeframe that I stated in my formal remarks. So, as we move forward, the $600 million that I highlighted in my formal remarks is really what will materialize if we do get a favorable approval from the DPU that will materialize within our forecast period. But there's further investments that will be needed beyond our current forecast period that we've also have highlighted in our filing. So obviously, Massachusetts continues to be very proactive in identifying opportunities to really make sure that the goals that the state has established is realistically and proactively accomplished." That is not really adding much new concrete operating detail beyond what was in prepared remarks. It's more about regulatory process. Another positive: New Hampshire solar opportunity. In Q&A, Joe Nolan says: "I got to tell you, one of challenges first of all, we don't really have a sizing at this point. We're really in the first inning of this game.

Open the full research page →

Showing the latest 18 of 240 archived research questions.

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

Past calls

ES call history

Open a quarter only when you want its detailed evidence.

B Q4 2025 · Solid call · 2026-02-13Management held guidance steady against steady demand. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics.

Guidance: maintainedDemand: stableMargins: stableBacklog: growingPricing: raisingCapex: increasing⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts⚑ Reads rehearsedCFO dominates

Candor 7/9

Specificity 8/9

Evasion 2/9

Confidence 7/9

Uncertainty 4/9

Promotion 4/9

Stress 2/9

Complexity 6/9

View the 20 core call-quality checks

YES Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?

YES Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?

YES Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?

YES Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?

YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?

NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?

NO Does an obvious question remain unanswered?

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

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

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?

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 Q2 2025 · Solid call · 2025-08-04Management held guidance steady against accelerating demand. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics.

Guidance: maintainedDemand: acceleratingMargins: stableBacklog: growingPricing: raisingCapex: increasing⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubtsCFO dominates

Candor 7/9

Specificity 8/9

Evasion 2/9

Confidence 8/9

Uncertainty 3/9

Promotion 3/9

Stress 2/9

Complexity 6/9

View the 20 core call-quality checks

YES Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?

YES Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?

YES Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?

YES Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?

YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?

NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?

NO Does an obvious question remain unanswered?

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

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

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

NO Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?

YES 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?

YES Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?

NO Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?

F Q1 2025 · Very weak call · 2025-05-02Management gave no formal guidance. The delivery was guarded, light on specifics.

⚑ Critic ammunition⚑ Question left hanging⚑ Reads rehearsed

Candor 3/9

Specificity 2/9

Evasion 4/9

Confidence 5/9

Uncertainty 4/9

Promotion 2/9

Stress 3/9

Complexity 6/9

View the 20 core call-quality checks

NO Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?

NO Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?

NO Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?

NO Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?

YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?

NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?

YES Does an obvious question remain unanswered?

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?

C Q4 2024 · Caution · 2025-02-12Management held guidance steady against accelerating demand. The delivery was rich in specifics.

Guidance: maintainedDemand: acceleratingMargins: stableBacklog: growingPricing: raisingCapex: increasing⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured⚑ Question left hanging✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts⚑ Reads rehearsed

Candor 6/9

Specificity 8/9

Evasion 4/9

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?

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?

NO Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?

NO Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?

YES Do current results look bad while the direction looks better?

NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?

NO Is consolidation happening among their peers?

NO Is a founder still running the company?

NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?

NO Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?

YES Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?

YES Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?

D Q3 2024 · Weak call · 2024-11-05Management lowered guidance against accelerating demand. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics.

Guidance: loweredDemand: acceleratingMargins: stableBacklog: growingPricing: raisingCapex: increasing⚑ Critic ammunition⚑ Question left hanging✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubtsDirection beats results

Candor 7/9

Specificity 8/9

Evasion 3/9

Confidence 7/9

Uncertainty 4/9

Promotion 5/9

Stress 4/9

Complexity 6/9

View the 20 core call-quality checks

NO Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?

YES Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?

YES Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?

YES Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?

YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?

NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?

YES Does an obvious question remain unanswered?

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

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?

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?

NO Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?

C+ Q2 2024 · Mixed call · 2024-08-01Management held guidance steady against accelerating demand. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics.

Guidance: maintainedDemand: acceleratingMargins: stableBacklog: growingPricing: raisingCapex: increasing⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured⚑ Question left hanging✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts⚑ Reads rehearsed

Candor 7/9

Specificity 8/9

Evasion 3/9

Confidence 7/9

Uncertainty 4/9

Promotion 4/9

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?

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?

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?

YES Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?

YES Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?

D Q1 2024 · Weak call · 2024-05-02Management held guidance steady against accelerating demand. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics, visibly under pressure.

Guidance: maintainedDemand: acceleratingMargins: stableBacklog: growingPricing: under pressureCapex: increasing⚑ Critic ammunition⚑ Question left hangingCFO dominatesDirection beats results

Candor 7/9

Specificity 8/9

Evasion 3/9

Confidence 6/9

Uncertainty 4/9

Promotion 5/9

Stress 6/9

Complexity 6/9

View the 20 core call-quality checks

NO Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?

NO Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?

YES Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?

NO Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?

YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?

NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?

YES Does an obvious question remain unanswered?

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?

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?

YES Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?

NO Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?

View 33 earlier calls

Call	Date	Grade	Guidance	Demand	Margins	Candor	Evasion
Q4 2023	2024-02-14	C	maintained	stable	stable	7/9	3/9
Q3 2023	2023-11-06	D	raised	accelerating	stable	6/9	5/9
Q2 2023	2023-08-01	F	maintained	stable	stable	6/9	5/9
Q1 2023	2023-05-04	C	maintained	stable	stable	6/9	3/9
Q4 2022	2023-02-14	C	maintained	stable	unclear	7/9	3/9
Q3 2022	2022-11-03	C+	maintained	stable	stable	7/9	3/9
Q2 2022	2022-07-29	B	maintained	accelerating	stable	7/9	2/9
Q1 2022	2022-05-05	F	maintained	stable	expanding	6/9	5/9
Q4 2021	2022-02-17	B	maintained	stable	stable	7/9	2/9
Q3 2021	2021-11-03	C	maintained	stable	contracting	7/9	4/9
Q2 2021	2021-07-30	C	maintained	stable	stable	7/9	2/9
Q1 2021	2021-05-10	D	lowered	stable	contracting	7/9	4/9
Q4 2020	2021-02-17	B+	raised	accelerating	stable	7/9	3/9
Q3 2020	2020-11-04	C	maintained	stable	stable	6/9	4/9
Q2 2020	2020-07-31	C+	maintained	mixed	stable	7/9	3/9
Q1 2020	2020-05-07	A	maintained	mixed	stable	7/9	1/9
Q4 2019	2020-02-20	C+	maintained	stable	stable	7/9	3/9
Q3 2019	2019-11-06	B	maintained	stable	stable	7/9	1/9
Q2 2019	2019-08-01	C	maintained	accelerating	stable	7/9	3/9
Q1 2019	2019-05-02	B	maintained	stable	expanding	7/9	3/9
Q4 2018	2019-02-21	B	raised	accelerating	stable	7/9	5/9
Q3 2018	2018-11-02	B	maintained	stable	stable	7/9	2/9
Q2 2018	2018-08-01	B+	maintained	stable	stable	7/9	2/9
Q1 2018	2018-05-05	C+	maintained	stable	stable	7/9	3/9
Q4 2017	2018-02-23	B	maintained	stable	stable	8/9	2/9
Q3 2017	2017-11-02	B	maintained	stable	contracting	7/9	2/9
Q2 2017	2017-07-28	C	maintained	stable	stable	6/9	3/9
Q1 2017	2017-05-04	B	maintained	stable	stable	7/9	2/9
Q4 2016	2017-02-22	B	maintained	stable	expanding	7/9	2/9
Q3 2016	2016-11-02	B	maintained	stable	stable	7/9	2/9
Q2 2016	2016-07-29	C+	maintained	stable	stable	7/9	3/9
Q1 2016	2016-05-05	B+	maintained	stable	unclear	8/9	1/9
Q4 2015	2016-02-05	C	lowered	stable	stable	7/9	3/9

Keep exploring

Companies with similar call quality

1-800-FLOWERS.COM, Inc.

KPTI

Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.

AMBA

Ambarella, Inc.

← ERYP All “E” companies ESAB →