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

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

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

Illumina, Inc. (ILMN) — this company's answers

NO on the Q1 2018 call 2018-04-24 A
The model's full reasoning — Q1 2018 call → NOWe need to determine if management conveys a self-comparison showing improved conversion of opportunities into actual won business, with real evidence already banked, and that the improvement is still in force. Let's analyze the transcript. The question is about "converting its opportunities into actual won business at a clearly higher rate or scale than its own recent past." This could refer to orders, placements, approvals, etc. Key points from the call: - Revenue up 31% in Q1 2018. - Sequencing consumables growth, NovaSeq consumables up 60% sequentially excluding stocking order. - Microarray business had 48% growth, record $152 million. - They mention strong demand, but do they explicitly compare conversion rates to their own past? They talk about NovaSeq upgrade cycle spanning multiple years, with 25% of orders from new customers. They say "we continue to see good uptick from new to Illumina or straight from benchtop customers" and "NovaSeq interest from our current high throughput customers remained strong." They surveyed HiSeq customers and got responses reinforcing conviction in multiyear transition. But is there a statement that they are now converting at a higher rate than before? They mention that they are seeing "strong adoption" and "good feedback" but not a direct comparison of win rates or conversion rates. They also mention the iSeq beta testing and scaling shipments midyear. That's not about conversion. They talk about partnerships with Loxo and BMS, but those are new collaborations, not necessarily a higher conversion rate. They mention the CMS coverage decision and regulatory progress, but that's external. The question specifically asks: "does management convey that the company has RECENTLY BEGUN CONVERTING ITS OPPORTUNITIES INTO ACTUAL WON BUSINESS AT A CLEARLY HIGHER RATE OR SCALE THAN ITS OWN RECENT PAST" - meaning a self-comparison. I don't see any explicit statement like "our win rate has improved" or "we are now landing more deals than we used to." They talk about strong growth, but that could be due to market growth, not improved conversion. They don't contrast current conversion with past conversion. They mention that NovaSeq consumables grew 60% sequentially, but that's a growth rate, not a conversion rate. They also mention that they are seeing "strong demand" and "momentum" but not a specific improvement in conversion.

← Back to the full ILMN analysis

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

Companies that answered YES

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

How the model reasoned

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

More from the question bank

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