Stocks › C › CNS

CNS · Earnings-call lab · 41 calls graded · 2016–2026

Cohen & Steers, Inc.

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

500checks per call

41calls analyzed

2016–2026coverage

NEWESTQ4 2025 call

2026-04-21 · 500 / 500 checks · members only

LockedStarter · $1 first week

AI call read

Grade locked

Grade and plain-English verdict

Expected 45-day move

Locked

Move size estimate, not direction

AI checks completed

500/ 500

Every check answered YES or NO

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

Unlock the newest quarter for every company, plus this month's four picks. Already a member? Log in

OPENQ1 2026 call

2026-04-17 · 2 analysts · 7 questions · 500 / 500 checks

Free · full reportThe quarter before the newest

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

Solid call. Management held guidance steady against steady 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

—

Promotion5 /9

—

Stress2 /9

—

Complexity4 /9

—

Since the quarter before · Q2 2025 → Q1 2026

Guidance maintainedDemand ~~mixed~~stableMargins stablePricing stableBacklog growingHeadcount growing⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured⚑ Question left hanging✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts✓ Early product, fast growth

Notable checks detected

Are the CEO's prepared remarks longer than the CFO's, judged by speaker turns on the transcript page?
Does the CEO personally answer more questions than any other executive?
Does an executive state a specific numeric percentage when answering a question?
Does the CEO answer the majority of analyst questions personally?

ScreenersHigh Candor Skeptic Reassured Critic Ammunition Early Product, Fast Growth Backlog Growing Question Left Hanging

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.

4 flags on this call

LanguageResultTypical range · middle half of all callsFlag

AI mentionsTimes management said AI, generative, LLM or agentic.7 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.10 times

typical 13–31

—

BuzzwordsSynergies, headwinds, flywheels, best-in-class and friends.0.2 /1k words

typical 0.6–1.8

—

HedgesSort of, kind of, roughly, I think, probably.5.4 /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.28 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.22.6 /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.61% % of call

typical 35%–55%

CEO shareHow much of the talking the CEO did.54% % of mgmt words

typical 29%–68%

—

Longest answerThe longest single management answer in the Q&A.536 words

typical 249–461

Reading levelFlesch–Kincaid grade level of management answers.9.4 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.7 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.3 of 11

typical 2–8

—

Analyst pushbackHow hard the analysts pressed: follow-ups, two-part questions, challenges.8 of 22

typical 5–10

—

ConfessionAdmissions, apologies and self-corrections.0 of 11

typical 1–5

—

Call theaterStage management: operator mechanics, scripted cues, "color".10 of 33

typical 12–19

—

Capital returns talkAttention paid to buybacks, dividends, M&A and the balance sheet.1 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

135detected

365not 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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

YES 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 YES

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

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

NO Does the transcript contain the phrase "next question" at least twice? Air Traffic · seen in 83.8% 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 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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does anyone say "guidance" in the same sentence as a specific number? Air Traffic · seen in 56.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 56.4% of calls 90.3% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does any analyst name two or more executives when asking their question? Air Traffic · seen in 35.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does the word "outperform," "outperformance," or "beat" appear? Air Traffic · 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 95.7% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does the CFO use the phrase "adjusted" or "non-GAAP" at least three times? Air Traffic · seen in 51.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

NO Does any speaker say "operator" aloud during the call? Air Traffic · seen in 43.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

NO Does anyone use the phrase "as you know" to introduce a claim? Anthropologist · seen in 49% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO Is there a request to move the call along or to the last question? Bankruptcy · seen in 20% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 20% of calls 86.3% repeat consistency

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

NO Does an executive mention the weather? Bankruptcy · seen in 26.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 26.1% of calls 96% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO Does the CEO deliver the opening remarks rather than the CFO or IR head? Clinical Trial · seen in 87% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does anyone use the phrase "to be clear"? Compliance · seen in 16.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 16.3% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency

NO Does an analyst's question include a compliment followed by "but"? Compliance · seen in 14.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 14.1% of calls 85.6% repeat consistency

NO Does the CFO use the word "sequential" or "sequentially" at least once? Compliance · seen in 31.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 31.5% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency

NO Does any speaker say "with that" at least twice? Compliance · seen in 51.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does the speaker describe a strategy as "disciplined" without describing any trade-off? Con Artist · seen in 23.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

YES Does anyone use the phrase "a couple of"? Courtroom · seen in 81% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 81% of calls 93.6% repeat consistency

NO Does an analyst ask about capital allocation or buybacks? Courtroom · seen in 46.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 46.3% of calls 90.9% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

YES Does an executive use the phrase "we're seeing" at least twice? Courtroom · seen in 53.4% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 53.4% of calls 87.5% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "opportunity" appear at least three times? Courtroom · seen in 77.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 77.2% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency

NO Does management use the word "confident" or "confidence" at least twice? Courtroom · seen in 53.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 53.4% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does any speaker say "we're excited about" or "we're pleased with"? Courtroom · seen in 62% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 40.7% of calls 85.5% repeat consistency

YES Does management mention a specific number of stores, locations, or markets? Courtroom · seen in 48% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

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

NO Does the operator use the phrase "next question" at least three times? 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 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

YES Does the CEO answer the majority of analyst questions personally? Debate · seen in 66.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 66.9% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency

NO 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 NO

The model did not 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 89.6% repeat consistency

NO Does the CFO speak during the Q&A portion at least twice? Debate · seen in 80.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO Does the operator interrupt the Q&A to announce time is limited or that this will be the last question? Debate · seen in 24% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO Does any analyst ask about a specific dollar amount or number stated in the prepared remarks? Debate · seen in 86.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

YES Does any executive use the phrase "if you look at" during the Q&A? Debate · seen in 52.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 52.9% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency

NO Does the CFO answer at least one question without the CEO speaking first? Debate · seen in 77.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO Does the word "guidance" appear at least five times in the transcript? Debate · seen in 47.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does anyone use the word "leverage" as a verb at least once? Debate · seen in 48.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

NO Does anyone say "we remain confident" or "we are confident"? Debate · seen in 42.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

NO Does the word "opportunity" or "opportunities" appear at least three times? Discovery · seen in 76.7% 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 76.7% of calls 95.2% repeat consistency

NO Does an executive say "we'll come back to that" or defer an answer to a follow-up? Discovery · seen in 37.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does anyone say "thank you" three or more times in the Q&A section? Discovery · seen in 82.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 82.3% of calls 85.2% repeat consistency

NO Does the CFO use the phrase "free cash flow" at least once? Discovery · seen in 34.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 34.4% of calls 98% repeat consistency

YES Does any executive use the word "momentum"? Discovery · seen in 51.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 51.2% of calls 97.6% repeat consistency

YES Does the CEO mention at least one specific customer segment by name (e.g., "enterprise")? Discovery · seen in 70.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 70.6% of calls 86.2% repeat consistency

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

NO Does any executive reference "our team" or "the team" at least twice? Discovery · seen in 59.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO 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 NO

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

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

NO Does an analyst ask a two-part question containing the word "but"? Editor · seen in 74.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 74.2% of calls 83.3% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does anyone say "thank you" at least ten times in the transcript? Editor · seen in 73.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does any analyst begin their question with "Hi" or "Hello" as a greeting? Editor · seen in 60.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO Does any speaker use the phrase "just to clarify" or "just to be clear"? Editor · seen in 20.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does an analyst thank the executives or congratulate them before asking a question? Editor · seen in 74.7% 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 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

NO Does management thank analysts by name at any point after a question? Editor · seen in 58.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 58.8% of calls 87.5% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone say "we'll take that offline" or offer to follow up after the call? Editor · seen in 15.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 15.3% of calls 86.5% repeat consistency

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

NO Is there a questioner from an investment bank other than the first three analysts who ask questions? Fact Checker · seen in 80.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 80.1% of calls 98% repeat consistency

NO Does any analyst ask a question that includes a reference to a specific dollar figure? Fact Checker · seen in 64.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does anyone say "thank you" at least ten times across the call? Fact Checker · seen in 67.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 67.1% of calls 81.1% repeat consistency

NO Does the phrase "thank you for taking my question" or "thanks for taking my question" appear? Fact Checker · seen in 50.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does any analyst's first sentence contain a compliment or thanks before asking their question? Fact Checker · seen in 81.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does the CFO present in both the prepared remarks and the Q&A portion of the call? Fact Checker · seen in 84.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

YES Does the phrase "in terms of" appear at least twice? Forensic · seen in 84.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

NO First-person singular ("I believe," "I think") used more by the CFO than the CEO. Forensic · seen in 13.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.5% of calls 89% repeat consistency

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

NO Does the word "guidance" appear in both prepared remarks and the Q&A section? Forensic · seen in 50% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO Someone uses the word "honestly," "frankly," or "to be clear." Forensic · seen in 44.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 34.5% of calls 93% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone begin an answer by restating or paraphrasing the analyst's name? Forensic · seen in 76.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 76.6% of calls 89% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

YES The word "challenge" is spoken more often than "opportunity." Forensic · seen in 14.7% 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 14.7% of calls 93% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO Does anyone say "we remain" followed by a verb (e.g., "we remain committed")? Forensic · seen in 36% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does an executive cite a conversation with a customer that has no verifiable specificity (unnamed, undated, unquantified)? Historian · seen in 48.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 48.9% of calls 82% repeat consistency

NO Does the transcript contain a sentence that begins with "What I would say is"? Historian · seen in 10.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.3% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency

NO Does any question mention a specific percentage or dollar figure? Hostage · seen in 88.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does the CEO personally answer more questions than any other executive? Hostage · seen in 72.7% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 72.7% of calls 93.9% repeat consistency

NO Does the operator say "our final question" or similar? Hostage · seen in 18.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does the word "opportunity" or "opportunities" appear at least five times? Hostage · seen in 58.7% 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 58.7% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does any analyst's first name get used by an executive when thanking them? Hostage · seen in 57.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does the operator announce more than five questioners? Insurance · seen in 64.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 64.7% of calls 99% repeat consistency

NO Are there more than ten analyst questions in total? Insurance · seen in 79.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does the operator use the phrase "our next question comes from" more than three times? Insurance · seen in 52.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

YES Does the CEO personally answer more than half of the analyst questions? Insurance · seen in 64.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 64.9% of calls 92.1% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO Does any analyst ask a two-part question signaled by "and also" or "and secondly"? Insurance · seen in 46.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 46.5% of calls 84.2% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does an executive say "we said" when recalling prior statements? Insurance · seen in 47.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does any analyst begin their turn with "thanks" or "thank you"? Insurance · seen in 71.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does any analyst address a question to two or more executives by name? Insurance · seen in 33.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO Does any executive say "we feel" rather than "we believe" or "we think"? Insurance · seen in 58.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

YES Does the CEO open the call before any analyst questions by mentioning the macro environment? Insurance · seen in 32% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32% of calls 87% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone say "we are pleased" or "we're excited"? Insurance · seen in 75% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 75% of calls 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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does anyone use the phrase "best-in-class" or "industry-leading"? Insurance · seen in 27.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.3% of calls 100% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does the phrase "the team" appear at least twice in management remarks? Insurance · seen in 41.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.2% of calls 80.5% repeat consistency

NO Does any speaker say "so clearly" or "quite frankly"? Insurance · seen in 18% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 18% of calls 90.2% repeat consistency

YES Does management use the phrase "we believe" at least three times? Insurance · seen in 54% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 54% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 16.5% of calls 91.7% repeat consistency

NO Does the CFO use the word "quarter" at least ten times? Insurance · seen in 74.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 74.6% of calls 90.7% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker say "thank you" more than five times in total? Insurance · seen in 81.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 81.2% of calls 83.8% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "macro" or "macroeconomic" appear at least twice in the call? Insurance · seen in 23.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.1% of calls 99.3% repeat consistency

NO Does the transcript contain the word "typically" at least twice? Insurance · seen in 17.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 17.4% of calls 92.6% repeat consistency

NO Does an executive state they will "come back to" a question or follow up later? Insurance · seen in 13.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.4% of calls 89.7% repeat consistency

NO Does management thank analysts for their questions at any point during Q&A? Insurance · 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 82.5% repeat consistency

NO Speaker admits being surprised by anything. Insurance · seen in 28.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 28.1% of calls 86% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

YES Word "normal" used about demand. Insurance · seen in 29.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does the CFO's prepared section mention interest expense by name or figure? Insurance · seen in 31.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 31.7% of calls 97.7% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "volatility" appear? Insurance · seen in 28.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 28.6% of calls 99.3% repeat consistency

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

NO Does the phrase "our team" appear at least twice? Insurance · seen in 32.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.9% of calls 85.5% repeat consistency

NO Does an executive say "great question" or "good question" at least twice? Insurance · seen in 15% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 15% of calls 97% repeat consistency

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

NO Does management thank analysts by name when responding? Insurance · seen in 52.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 52.9% of calls 83.5% repeat consistency

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

YES Does anyone use the word "pipeline" at least twice? Interrogator · seen in 37.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does an executive say "to be clear" or "let me be clear"? Military · seen in 13.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.8% of calls 96% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO 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 NO

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

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

NO Does any question explicitly reference the company's prior guidance or outlook? Negotiation · seen in 80% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 80% of calls 91.7% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker say "next question" or does the operator use the word "final" before the last question? Negotiation · seen in 76.1% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 76.1% of calls 81.7% repeat consistency

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

NO Does the CFO handle a strategic question instead of a financial one? Negotiation · seen in 58.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 58.9% of calls 86.3% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does anyone say "excited" or "pleased" at least twice in the transcript? Negotiation · 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 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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does a speaker correct a figure they themselves just stated? Negotiation · seen in 23.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.8% of calls 84% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 19.9% of calls 97% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

NO Is the CFO the speaker for at least one analyst question? Private Credit · seen in 87.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does anyone mention selling assets, real estate, or equipment to raise cash? Private Credit · seen in 24.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.2% of calls 90.7% repeat consistency

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

NO Does anyone use the phrase "our customers" rather than naming a customer? Private Credit · seen in 60.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does management thank analysts at any point? Private Credit · seen in 84.9% 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 84.9% of calls 84.3% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does an executive say "we remain confident" or similar? Private Credit · seen in 35.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 35.8% of calls 82.6% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone mention covenants, amendments to loan documents, or lender conversations? Private Credit · seen in 11.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 11.6% of calls 95.7% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does any analyst's question include the word "capex" or "cash flow"? Procurement · seen in 38.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 38.5% of calls 94.5% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

YES Does the word "core" appear at least twice? Procurement · seen in 44% of calls

How to 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% 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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does any speaker say "if you look at"? Project · seen in 54.1% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does management use the phrase "balance sheet" at least twice? Project · seen in 41.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.1% of calls 96.6% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does the operator say "our next question" two or more times? Scientist · seen in 73.5% 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 73.5% of calls 85.6% repeat consistency

NO Does the final questioner get an explicit closing acknowledgment from the operator ("last question" or similar)? Scientist · seen in 25.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does the word "guidance" appear in the Q&A section? Screenwriter · seen in 66.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does the word "strong" appear more than five times? Screenwriter · seen in 64.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

NO Does the phrase "thank you" appear more than ten times? Screenwriter · seen in 62.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

NO Does the phrase "thank you" appear at least ten times anywhere in the transcript? Screenwriter · seen in 72.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 72.8% of calls 83.2% repeat consistency

YES Does an executive begin an answer by restating the analyst's name? Screenwriter · seen in 85.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 85.3% of calls 97% repeat consistency

NO Does any analyst ask about capital allocation or share repurchases? Screenwriter · seen in 42.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 42.2% of calls 93.1% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "challenge" or "challenging" appear at least twice? Screenwriter · seen in 47.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 47.8% of calls 95.2% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "opportunity" or "opportunities" appear more than three times? Screenwriter · seen in 66.5% 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 66.5% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 50.3% of calls 92.1% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

NO Is the word "confidence" or "confident" spoken by any executive? Screenwriter · seen in 73.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 11% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.2% of calls 97.7% repeat consistency

NO Does any speaker say "appreciate" at least once? Screenwriter · seen in 63.9% 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 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

NO Does any executive use the phrase "our team"? Screenwriter · seen in 50.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO Does any executive say "we're pleased" or "I'm pleased"? Screenwriter · seen in 68.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 68.3% of calls 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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

YES Does any question begin with "Can you" or "Could you"? Semiotician · seen in 84.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 84.8% of calls 85.2% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "quick" or "quickly" appear in three or more analyst questions? Semiotician · seen in 13.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.2% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency

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

NO Is there a question about capital allocation (buybacks, M&A, debt, or dividends)? Semiotician · seen in 67.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 67.7% of calls 91.7% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

YES Does the word "challenging" or "challenges" appear at least three times? Semiotician · seen in 32.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.2% of calls 90.6% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

YES Does any speaker use the phrase "the right" before a noun ("the right team," "the right decisions")? Semiotician · seen in 57.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 57.8% of calls 94% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "guidance" appear more than five times in the transcript? Semiotician · seen in 31.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Are there more questions about revenue than about costs? Semiotician · seen in 69.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 69.8% of calls 85.2% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

YES Does anyone say "from a ... perspective" (e.g., "from a margin perspective")? Semiotician · seen in 56.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 56.9% of calls 87.2% repeat consistency

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

NO 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 NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 34.6% of calls 82% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "quarter" appear at least 20 times? Semiotician · seen in 87.7% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 87.7% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO Does anyone attribute results to "the team" rather than to strategy? Semiotician · 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 90.7% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does any analyst begin their question with "congratulations"? Semiotician · seen in 17.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 17.8% of calls 92.6% repeat consistency

YES Does an analyst thank management at the end of their turn? Semiotician · seen in 77.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 77.2% of calls 94.7% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone describe the future with "We believe" more than "We expect"? Semiotician · seen in 30.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 30.2% of calls 87.3% repeat consistency

YES Does a speaker say "normal" or "normalized" about conditions that predate any disruption mentioned? Semiotician · seen in 33.7% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.7% of calls 81% repeat consistency

NO Is the word "momentum" used without a stated metric attached to it? Semiotician · seen in 41.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.4% of calls 92.7% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "macro" appear at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 21.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 21.9% of calls 95.9% repeat consistency

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

YES Does the operator say "thank you" more than three times? Semiotician · seen in 30% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

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

YES Does management use the phrase "on a consistent basis" or "consistently"? Semiotician · 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 95.3% repeat consistency

NO Does a speaker begin a sentence with "To be honest" or "To be clear"? Semiotician · seen in 10.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.5% of calls 92.7% repeat consistency

NO Does management use the phrase "strategic" at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 46% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 46% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency

NO Does any speaker describe a business unit as "healthy"? Semiotician · seen in 13.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.3% of calls 92.7% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker use the word "fundamentals"? Semiotician · seen in 17.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 17.8% of calls 100% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

NO Does the operator mention a queue or "next question" more than three times? Simultaneous · seen in 74.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 74.2% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency

YES Does any analyst ask a follow-up after their initial answer ("follow-up", "second one", "just one more")? Simultaneous · seen in 88.5% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 88.5% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency

NO Does any analyst ask a question containing the word "why"? Simultaneous · seen in 36.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 36.1% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone say "if you look at" before citing a number? Simultaneous · seen in 47.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 47.7% of calls 81.6% repeat consistency

NO Does the phrase "last question" or "final question" appear? Simultaneous · seen in 50.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does the word "clearly" appear anywhere in the transcript? Simultaneous · seen in 50.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

YES Does the CEO speak first among named executives in the Q&A? Simultaneous · seen in 68.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 68.3% of calls 94.6% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "headwind" or "headwinds" appear at least twice? Simultaneous · seen in 28.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 28.5% of calls 97% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

NO Does the word "team" appear at least three times? Simultaneous · seen in 59% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does the word "confident" appear in any executive's remarks? Simultaneous · seen in 60.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 81.6% of calls 95.7% repeat consistency

NO Does the CEO use the word "incredibly" at any point? Simultaneous · seen in 15% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 15% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency

YES Does any executive use the word "team" to refer to company personnel? Simultaneous · seen in 83.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.6% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone say "to your point" when answering a question? Simultaneous · seen in 10.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.3% of calls 98% repeat consistency

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

NO Does any speaker say "moving on" or "next question" themselves? Simultaneous · seen in 25.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 25.1% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency

NO Does any speaker use the word "hedging" or say "to hedge"? Simultaneous · seen in 13.5% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.5% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.2% of calls 85.9% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "talent" appear at least once? Simultaneous · seen in 20.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 20.8% of calls 98% repeat consistency

NO Is the word "capacity" used more often about factories than about people? Supply Chain · seen in 26.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 26.2% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency

NO Does an executive confess to having too much of something physical somewhere? Supply Chain · seen in 12.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 12.2% of calls 89.3% repeat consistency

NO Is a supplier or vendor mentioned by name at any point? Supply Chain · seen in 33.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

No checks match those filters.

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

Real saved model output

Archived AI reasoning

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

217 saved explanations · 215 questions

NO Answers go deeper than the script: questioning keeps surfacing new concrete detail behind a positive development — compa Q3 2023 · 3 archived calls

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

NOQ3 2023 · 2023-10-19

The task is to evaluate the earnings call transcript against two gates and return YES only if both are satisfied. Gate 1: Is there a positive, current development in the company's business that management presents as genuinely going well, and does the Q&A produce more concrete operating detail than the prepared remarks? Gate 2: Is the primary engine of that development something the company itself created and controls, rather than an external environment? Let me analyze the transcript. The call is from Cohen & Steers, an asset manager. The prepared remarks discuss: - Q3 2023 results, revenue down, operating income down - Net outflows of $47 million in Q3 (improvement from $512 million outflows in Q2) - Institutional advisory had net inflows of $190 million, first positive quarter since Q2 2021 - Sub-advisory ex-Japan net inflows driven by three new mandates totaling $234 million - Pipeline of $784 million - New private real estate vehicles (non-traded REIT, closed-end private equity opportunity fund) - Asia expansion (Singapore office) - Energy addition theme The Q&A focuses on: 1. Flow demand story as we potentially get to peak rates for real estate and preferreds 2. Private markets - how conversations are going, demand 3. Expenses (comp ratio, G&A) 4. Advisory inflows - what type of clients, regions 5. Non-Japan sub-advisory business 6. Infrastructure 7. Passive to active opportunities Let me check if there's a positive current development that analysts probe and get more detail on. The institutional advisory inflows of $190 million is mentioned in prepared remarks. In Q&A, when asked about what type of clients, regions drove that, Matt Stadler says "the fundings came primarily from real estate. The biggest one was from an existing client in global real estate, but we also had some smaller U.S. real estate fundings. It also includes sub-advisory, which might include OCIO providers here in the U.S., but clients in other regions. So interestingly, we had a couple of fundings from our multi-strategy real assets portfolios." This is somewhat additive but not hugely detailed. The sub-advisory question: Joe Harvey says "we had a couple of new mandates and fundings from existing mandates. The two multi-strategy real assets portfolio as I referenced, were sub-advisory situations from different financial services firms, one in Canada and one in Taiwan.

NOQ4 2017 · 2018-01-25

The task is to evaluate two gates based on the earnings call transcript and return YES only if both are YES, otherwise NO. YES The transcript shows a clear positive current development in the wealth channel with strong inflows, broadening asset flows, and institutional pipeline. Management presents it as genuinely going well, and the Q&A adds substantial new details: specifics on new products like CITs and infrastructure debt, retirement growth rates, doubled finals, Japan institutional traction with competitor impacts, Europe pipeline encouraging, and pivot to inflation-sensitive strategies. These exchanges are multiple and additive, providing operational substance beyond the prepared remarks.

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-07-20

We need to evaluate both gates based solely on the transcript. Gate 1: Is there a positive current development that management presents as genuinely going well, and does the Q&A produce more concrete operating detail than the prepared remarks? The positive development highlighted is the strong net inflows, particularly in preferred securities and real estate, and the surge in institutional demand for preferred securities. In the prepared remarks, Bob Steers mentions "for the first time we're seeing significant demand for preferred securities strategies from a variety of domestic and international institutions" and that they expect this to continue. He also mentions the unfunded pipeline of $903 million, up from $317 million. In the Q&A, analysts ask about the preferred securities demand. Joe Harvey explains that preferreds have high yields, are a hybrid asset class, and that two consultants have embraced the asset class, leading to more activity. He says "we've been expecting it for three years, it's just finally starting to happen." That adds some detail about the drivers (consultants) and the timing. Also, Bob adds that demand is diverse, including domestic and international pension plans, insurance companies, and the low-duration strategy. That is more specific than the prepared remarks. So the Q&A does add concrete details about the nature of the demand (types of institutions, consultants, low-duration product). That seems to satisfy Gate 1: the development is real and current (institutional demand for preferreds), and the Q&A adds specifics about who is buying and why. The prepared remarks only said "significant demand" and "we expect this to continue." The Q&A gives more specifics. So Gate 1 likely YES. Gate 2: Is the development chiefly something the company itself created and controls? The development is institutional demand for preferred securities. Is that driven by the company's own actions or by external environment? The demand is driven by the asset class characteristics (high yields, hybrid nature) and the fact that consultants are now embracing it. That seems like an external market development—investors are seeking yield due to low rates, and preferreds are becoming more accepted. The company has a dominant brand and has been preparing, but the momentum is from external demand.

Open the full research page →

NO Numbers reset the ceiling: management says the business has already blown past the size it was designed for, and the com Q2 2017 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-07-20

The question asks whether management conveys that the company's real working level of business has already moved to a higher plateau than the level the company was set up to run at — that is, whether the company is handling, holding, or committed to a level of activity that its existing setup was not built for, and management is re-basing the company's internal assumptions, resourcing, or operating norms around the new higher level. Let me examine the transcript for evidence of this phenomenon. Key elements to look for: 1. A new working level, already reached — real, banked activity at a level management treats as a new baseline. 2. The old setup was not built for it, and management says so — strain, needing to enlarge or rebuild while running. 3. The company is being re-based around the new level now — real, already-underway action to make the company fit the higher level. Let me scan the transcript for these elements. The transcript discusses: - Net inflows of $1.3 billion, 11th consecutive quarter of net inflows - Open-end funds net inflows of $887 million, 17% annualized organic growth - Advisory channel pipeline of $903 million, up from $317 million - New product launches (low duration preferred fund, SICAV) - Investments in DCIO channel, Europe, Japan institutional - Expense task force projecting annual savings of $2.8 million - G&A expected to increase 3-4% from 2016, lower than prior range - Investments in infrastructure space, building investment capabilities Now, does management describe the company as handling a level of activity that its existing setup was not built for? Does management describe strain or the need to enlarge/rebase? Looking at the transcript: - Robert Steers talks about "strategic investments in new product launches, new vehicles, new markets" and "being competitive on fees and expenses as investments" - He mentions "we continue to make strategic investments" in DCIO, Europe, Japan - He says "we will be spending more going forward in building our investment capabilities, investment talent in the infrastructure space" - The expense task force is finding efficiencies to "contribute to funding of our strategic growth initiatives" But is there a description of the company being overwhelmed by a higher level of business than its setup was built for? Is there strain described? Is there a re-basing of the company around a new higher lev

Open the full research page →

NO Racing a clock somebody else set: management describes an outside deadline already driving the company's current work Q2 2017 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-07-20

We need to determine if the company is currently working against an externally-set dated deadline, with visible work organized around it, and the payoff ahead. Let's review the transcript for any mention of a fixed external date, deadline, or schedule that the company must hit. Key points: - The call is about Q2 2017 earnings. - They discuss various business activities, flows, etc. - There is mention of a Japanese distribution partner cutting distribution rate on a fund. That is a change, not a deadline. - They mention regulatory approval for a SICAV, but that's already obtained. - They mention MiFID II in response to a question. The analyst asks about MiFID II changes at the end of the year. Management responds about reporting and commission unbundling. They say they have a plan to be compliant by the end of the year. That is an external regulatory deadline (MiFID II effective January 2018? Actually MiFID II came into effect January 3, 2018. The call is July 2017, so end of year 2017 is the deadline for compliance. They say "by the end of the year" - that is a fixed external date set by regulation. They are working to it: they have a project started two years ago, and they have a plan in place. The payoff? The payoff is compliance, avoiding penalties, but does it unlock business? It's more of a regulatory requirement. The question asks if the business unlocked is ahead of reported results. MiFID II is about compliance, not necessarily new business. It might be a cost, not a revenue opportunity. Also, the analyst asked about it, and management answered. But is it a central theme? The question asks for ONE coherent situation. The main discussion is about flows, Japan, etc. The MiFID II is a minor point in response to a question. Also, the deadline is "end of the year" which is a fixed date, but is it externally set? Yes, by regulation. But is the company visibly organizing operations around it? They mention a project started two years ago, and they have a plan. But they don't describe intense current work or that the payoff is ahead. It's more of a compliance matter. Another possible deadline: The Japanese distribution cut is not a deadline. The SICAV approval is done. What about the DOL fiduciary rule? They mention it in response to a question. They say they are having conversations, and they put on hold new share classes. But no specific date mentioned.

Open the full research page →

NO Cornered by one hard problem: management describes the company organized around solving a specific difficulty most other Q2 2017 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-07-20

We need answer YES/NO. Need evaluate transcript. Need determine if management describes company as organized around solving one particularly difficult problem that others haven't solved, routinely fail at, or avoid, and currently succeeding. Need use only transcript. Let's parse. Cohen & Steers asset manager specializing real assets, preferred securities, infrastructure. Management discusses flows, performance, distribution, Japan, DCIO, Europe, preferred institutional demand, infrastructure opportunities. Do they describe a hard problem at center? Maybe "moment of truth" theme: active managers must deliver more for less; small number of managers emerge as beneficiaries of consolidation; unique in-demand scalable active strategies, industry-leading performance. But is that a named hard problem? Not really. They mention "unique and in-demand strategies, leading investment performance, new product launches, expanded distribution." They mention "dominant preferred securities brand." They mention "preferreds are hybrid asset class, complex market, active management proven successful." They mention "infrastructure: investors eager to allocate, private opportunities few, listed opportunities significant." They mention "we are working hard to improve productivity and manage costs." But no coherent picture of a hard problem others can't solve. They do say "preferred securities" is complex market and active management proven successful; but not framed as company solving a hard problem others fail at. They mention "we are one of very few" maybe? Let's inspect. Question asks: "Using ONLY supplied earnings call transcript... Does management describe the company as being organized around SOLVING ONE PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT PROBLEM THAT OTHERS IN ITS MARKET HAVE NOT SOLVED, ROUTINELY FAIL AT, OR AVOID ALTOGETHER — and convey that the company is currently succeeding at that hard thing in real, live operations?" Need answer YES only if both halves present. Likely NO. Need be careful: There is "moment of truth" and "deliver more for less" but not a specific hard problem. They mention "preferred securities" as complex, but not "others fail." They mention "infrastructure" opportunities but not hard. They mention "Japan distribution cut" as challenge, not capability. They mention "expense task force" savings, not hard problem. They mention "DCIO" green shoots, not yet. No.

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 Q2 2017 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-07-20

We need answer YES/NO based on transcript. Need evaluate criteria. We need determine if management conveys near-term growth no longer depends on persuading anyone because decisions already made by others, and activity just begun. Look for evidence: (1) decision behind them, not ahead. (2) preparing to deliver. (3) company small relative to committed, numbers don't show yet. Transcript: Cohen & Steers asset manager. They discuss net inflows, pipeline, mandates. Key points: "unfunded pipeline of mandates is now $903 million up from $317 million in first quarter." "Of the 11 pending finals I referred to last quarter, we had 13 lost one and seven remained pending." Wait "we had 13 lost one" maybe typo. They have pending finals, RFP activity. That sounds pipeline, bids outstanding, not yet won. But they also have "unfunded pipeline of mandates" - mandates already awarded but not funded? Need parse. They say "advisory channel had exceptionally strong quarter as well, which is not fully reflected in the $122 million of net inflows. Our one but unfunded pipeline of mandates is now $903 million up from $317 million in the first quarter." So these are mandates awarded but not yet funded? "unfunded pipeline of mandates" means commitments already made, money not yet invested. That is decision behind them. They also mention "Of the 11 pending finals I referred to last quarter, we had 13 lost one and seven remained pending." Hmm "pending finals" are finalist positions, not yet won. But "unfunded pipeline" is won but not funded. Need distinguish. They also mention "we gained regulatory approval for our global preferred SICAV, which also received funding of $45 million from a Japanese institutional investor to go along with our initial seed capital." That's a commitment. They discuss Japan distribution cut: "our largest Japanese distribution partner announced a rate cut... future flows into this fund are likely to decline or go negative for a period of time." That's negative. Question asks: "does management convey that THE COMPANY'S NEAR-TERM GROWTH NO LONGER DEPENDS ON PERSUADING ANYONE, BECAUSE THE DECISIONS THAT GOVERN IT HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE BY OTHERS — and that the resulting activity has only just begun to reach the company?" Need see if management says growth depends on already-made decisions. They have unfunded pipeline of $903 million, up from $317 million.

Open the full research page →

NO Fresh problems of growth: the call's frictions are about handling more business, not finding it Q2 2017 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-07-20

We need answer YES/NO. Need evaluate transcript. Need determine if difficulties discussed are predominantly problems of growth vs weakness/decline/demand. Need use only transcript. Let's parse call. Company Cohen & Steers asset manager. Q2 2017 results. Net inflows $1.3B, 11th consecutive quarter positive organic growth. AUM record near. They discuss Japan distribution partner cut distribution rate on one U.S. REIT fund, expect outflows short term. That's a challenge/decline? Also expense task force savings, investments in distribution, DCIO, Europe, Japan institutional. They mention "moment of truth" need deliver more for less, competitive fees. They discuss operational tensions? Let's identify difficulties/pains/challenges. Management discusses: - Japan distribution rate cut: largest Japanese distribution partner reduced distribution rate on one sub-advised fund by 30%. Payouts second half decline ~$250M. Expect net outflows short term. This is a challenge due to product distribution cut, not growth. They have plan seminars. This is a problem of weakness/decline in flows? It's a headwind. - They mention "as has been the case, preferred securities and U.S. REIT sales accounted for majority net flows." "Only two out of 10 core strategies seeing outflows." "surge in institutional demand for preferred." "unfunded pipeline $903M up from $317M." "RFP activity diverse and running substantially ahead." "new product launches boost growth." "expense task force savings $2.8M run rate G&A from identified reductions." "working hard to improve productivity and manage costs." "must deliver more for less." "competitive fees and expenses over time." This is more about cost discipline, not growth pains. - They discuss investments in DCIO, Europe, Japan institutional. "DCIO results modest; green shoots not material." "Europe real traction." "Japan institutional initial success." These are strategic growth investments, but not described as causing operational strain. - They discuss technology spend: "another area where we have been and expect to continue to spend... upgrading CRM, purchasing data, digital marketing... sales people more productive." Not a pain, an investment. - MiFID II: "cost of doing business... matter of putting right systems and process... plan in place." Not growth pain. - Capacity constraints: Joe discusses capacity in real estate and preferred.

Open the full research page →

NO Committed step-up ahead: secured business will make the company meaningfully bigger within the coming year Q2 2017 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-07-20

We need answer YES/NO. Need evaluate transcript. Need determine if management describes specific body of future business already committed, material, near-term conversion. Let's parse. Question asks using only transcript. Need answer only YES or NO. We need identify if management describes "specific body of future business that counterparties have ALREADY COMMITTED" such as signed contracts, awarded programs, firm orders, swelling order book, won customer relationship now ramping, new facility/product/capacity entering service with committed demand attached. Conditions: (a) already secured or beginning rather than merely hoped/pipeline/negotiation, (b) large enough relative to current size that management treats delivering it as making company meaningfully bigger than recent results show, (c) expected convert into revenue/activity within roughly next year, management discussing preparing/starting to deliver. Transcript includes: "unfunded pipeline of mandates is now $903 million up from $317 million in first quarter. Of the 11 pending finals I referred to last quarter, we had 13 lost one and seven remained pending." Wait "we had 13 lost one and seven remained pending" maybe typo. This is pipeline, not committed? "unfunded pipeline" means mandates awarded but not yet funded? Need understand. They say "advisory channel had exceptionally strong quarter, which is not fully reflected in $122 million net inflows. Our one but unfunded pipeline of mandates is now $903 million up from $317 million in first quarter. Of the 11 pending finals I referred to last quarter, we had 13 lost one and seven remained pending." Hmm "unfunded pipeline of mandates" likely mandates won but not yet funded? In asset management, "unfunded pipeline" could be awarded mandates not yet funded. They are committed? Need assess. Also "two new model delivery sub advisory mandates ... have begun to fund, these assets are not included in our AUM. The Taiwanese preferred securities fund is $203 million of AUA and the Korean midstream energy fund is currently $30 million of AUA, both represent strategically important entrees into their respective growth markets." This is already beginning, but size? $233 million AUA not AUM, small relative to $60B AUM, not material. Not "meaningfully bigger." "Japan sub advisory flows ... solid, however distribution partner reducing distribution rate...

Open the full research page →

NO Compounding order flow: the same customers keep coming back bigger, and the company is quietly widening the funnel behin Q2 2017 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-07-20

We need to determine if management describes that the company's own commercial effort has shifted from persuading buyers to provisioning them. That is, does management convey that the practical work of the business right now is figuring out how to get more of its offering into the hands of buyers who have already decided, rather than convincing buyers to decide in the first place? We need to look for evidence in the transcript. The key is whether management's problem-solving energy is spent on logistics, throughput, access, fulfillment, capacity, etc., rather than on winning demand. Let's review the transcript. The call covers Q2 2017 results. Management discusses net inflows, organic growth, product launches, distribution, etc. Key points: - They have 11 consecutive quarters of net inflows. - They have strong performance. - They are investing in new product launches, new vehicles, new markets. - They mention DCIO, Europe, Japan institutional as initiatives. - They mention infrastructure as a big opportunity. - They mention expense task force to manage costs. But does management describe that buyers have already decided and the work is provisioning? Let's look for specific statements. Matt Stadler discusses flows, distributions, etc. Bob Steers discusses inflows, product launches, and mentions "we are for the first time enjoying a surge in institutional demand for preferred securities strategies." That suggests demand is strong. But is the work about provisioning? They talk about launching new products, expanding distribution, but that's more about creating new offerings to capture demand. They also talk about capacity constraints? They mention that some strategies have capacity limits, but they are not there yet. They mention "we have a plenty of capacity" for core real estate, but for focus strategy there are limitations. But they are not at capacity. They also mention "we are working hard every day to improve productivity and to manage costs." That's more about efficiency. The question is whether the company's commercial effort has shifted from persuading to provisioning. That would mean that the main challenge is getting the product to buyers who already want it, not convincing them. In the transcript, management talks about strong demand, but they also talk about expanding distribution, launching new products, and investing in capabilities.

Open the full research page →

NO Inheritance being cashed in: management is converting a long-held position into current business on purpose Q2 2017 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-07-20

We need to determine if management describes converting something long-held into current business, with real present-tense results, and most yield still ahead. Key candidates: The company has built distribution capabilities, product lineup, brand, etc. But the question is about a specific holding being converted. Look for phrases like "we are now beginning to benefit from our recent investments" - that's about recent investments, not long-held. Consider the Japanese institutional market: "we are also now beginning to benefit from our recent investments in new usage launches in Europe, as well as our multiyear effort to penetrate the Japanese institutional market." That's about recent investments and multiyear effort, but is it a holding? It's more about building capabilities. Another: "we are for the first time enjoying a surge in institutional demand for preferred securities strategies." That's about demand, not a holding. What about the brand and reputation? "our dominant preferred securities brand" - that's a long-held position. But is it being converted? They are launching new funds, but that's not exactly converting a holding. Consider the "expense task force" - that's about cost savings, not conversion. The question asks: "the company is NOW DELIBERATELY CONVERTING SOMETHING IT HAS LONG HELD OR LONG BUILT INTO CURRENT BUSINESS" - something accumulated over time, not previously producing meaningful results, now being actively drawn on. Look at the infrastructure space: "we are also now beginning to benefit from our recent investments in new usage launches in Europe" - that's recent. What about the "global listed infrastructure" strategy? They have been building capabilities? But they mention "we see a number of similarly exciting prospective opportunities in the listed infrastructure space." That's forward-looking. Maybe the "preferred securities" expertise? They have long been dominant in preferreds. Now they are seeing institutional demand. But is that a conversion? They are using their expertise to win mandates. But that's more like leveraging existing capabilities, which is normal. The key is: something that was built up over time and is now being deliberately turned into business, with real current results, and most yield ahead. Consider the "sub-advised portfolios in Japan" - they have a long relationship with a distribution partner.

Open the full research page →

NO Cost of being wrong just collapsed: the company can now try things it previously could not afford to attempt Q2 2017 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-07-20

We need to determine if the transcript conveys that the cost of attempting something new has dramatically fallen, leading to multiple new attempts with at least one showing real results. Let's analyze. The transcript discusses various initiatives: new product launches, expansion into new markets (Japan institutional, Europe, DCIO), new vehicles (SICAV), etc. But does management explicitly state that the cost or difficulty of attempting something new has materially fallen compared to the past? They mention investments in distribution, technology, etc. However, they don't contrast past vs. present cost of attempts. They talk about "strategic investments" and "expense task force" but not a step-change in cost of trying. They mention "new product launches" but not that it's now cheaper to do so. They mention "we are for the first time enjoying a surge in institutional demand for preferred securities strategies" but that's demand, not cost. They mention "we gained regulatory approval for our global preferred SICAV" - that's a specific event, not a general capability. The question asks: "does management convey that IT HAS BECOME DRAMATICALLY CHEAPER, FASTER, OR EASIER FOR THE COMPANY TO ATTEMPT A NEW THING THAN IT USED TO BE" - I don't see that. They talk about investments, but not a reduction in cost of attempts. They talk about "expense task force" saving $2.8 million, but that's cost reduction in G&A, not specifically for new attempts. They talk about "we are also now beginning to benefit from our recent investments in new usage launches in Europe" - but that's just saying investments are paying off, not that cost of attempts has fallen. They mention "we have been and expect to continue to spend" on technology, but that's increasing spend, not cheaper attempts. They mention "we are seeing returns on those investments" - but again, not a cost drop. The essence is a step-change in cost of trying. Not present. Also, they mention "we are for the first time enjoying a surge in institutional demand for preferred securities strategies" - that's demand, not cost. They mention "we are also now beginning to benefit from our recent investments in new usage launches in Europe" - that's just new launches, not cheaper. They mention "we have a number of similarly exciting prospective opportunities" - but not that they are cheaper to pursue. Thus, no. Answer NO.

Open the full research page →

NO Locus of control flip: management says the outcome is in its own hands, and names what it controls Q2 2017 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-07-20

We need to determine if management conveys that future results are mainly determined by things the company controls, and backs it with a specific, nameable driver already real today. Look for statements: "we control our own destiny", "we don't need the market", "our growth is self-determined", etc. Also specific drivers: new products launched, distribution expansion, cost savings, etc. In the transcript, management discusses many things: net inflows, product launches, distribution, expense task force, etc. They mention "we are working hard every day to improve productivity and to manage costs." They mention "expense task force" with savings. They mention new product launches like low duration preferred fund. They mention "we are beginning to see green shoots" in DCIO. They mention "we have high expectations" for DCIO and Europe. But are they saying future results are mainly determined by their own actions? They also discuss market conditions, like "solid global growth and a stable yield regime" as contributing to performance. They discuss Japan distribution cut as an external event. They discuss "we don't control the process" regarding RFP pipeline. They say "we don't control distribution policy" in Japan. The question: Does management convey that results will be determined mainly by things the company controls? They do emphasize their own efforts, but they also acknowledge external factors. They say "we are working hard" and "we have a plan" but they also say "we don't control" some things. They mention "we are seeing a real traction" in Europe, but that's external? Actually, they are investing in Europe. Look for a specific named driver already real: They mention "our low duration preferred fund" with $193 million inflows, total assets $500 million. That's a product already launched and scaling. They mention "expense task force" with $2.8 million savings. They mention "we gained regulatory approval for our global preferred SICAV" and received funding. That's a new vehicle. They mention "we are beginning to benefit from our recent investments in new usage launches in Europe" and "multiyear effort to penetrate Japanese institutional market." They mention "we have scheduled over 40 seminars" for Japan. But do they frame the future as mainly self-determined? They say "we expect that this will continue" about preferred demand, but that's demand.

Open the full research page →

NO Answers go deeper than the script: questioning keeps surfacing new concrete detail behind a positive development Q2 2017 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-07-20

We need to determine if there is a positive current development discussed in the Q&A that yields more concrete operating detail than the prepared remarks. The prepared remarks mention several positive things: net inflows, strong performance, new products, institutional demand for preferreds, etc. The Q&A probes several areas: Japan distribution cut, institutional pipeline, DCIO, Europe, infrastructure, preferreds, technology, MiFID II. The question asks: is there a development where the Q&A produces more concrete operating detail than the prepared remarks? We need to see if management's answers add new specifics across multiple exchanges. Let's examine the Q&A. The first question about Japan distribution cut: management gives details about seminars, being last to cut, etc. That's about a problem (distribution cut) but also about mitigating actions. However, the development is a negative (cut) but they are managing it. The question asks for a positive current development. The Japan cut is not positive. The second question about institutional pipeline: management gives specifics about strategies in the pipeline, amounts, etc. But that's already in prepared remarks? Prepared remarks mention pipeline of $903 million, seven pending finals, etc. In Q&A, they add that strategies include global real estate, listed infrastructure, natural resource equities, U.S. real estate, preferred. That's some addition but not much. The third question about DCIO and Europe: management says DCIO results modest but green shoots, Europe traction. That's vague. The fourth question about preferreds institutional demand: management explains why demand is growing, mentions consultants, etc. That's somewhat additive but not very concrete. The fifth question about real asset institutes: management says it's helped evolve thinking, but no specifics. The sixth question about ETFs competing: management discusses concerns about ETF liquidity, modified benchmark. That's about risk, not a positive development. The seventh question about DOL rule: management says they are beneficiaries of consolidation, but no specifics. The eighth question about technology: management lists investments in CRM, data, digital marketing. That's somewhat additive but not a specific development with numbers. The ninth question about MiFID II: management says they have a plan, but that's compliance.

Open the full research page →

NO Earned recurrence: demand arriving from first-hand-proven buyers, still early Q2 2017 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-07-20

We need to determine if management describes that a meaningful share of current business growth is arriving without the company having to persuade the buyer, i.e., demand from parties with direct prior experience, and that this pattern is still early with most contribution ahead. Scan the transcript for relevant statements. Management discusses net inflows, organic growth, distribution channels, institutional pipeline, etc. They mention "unfunded pipeline of mandates" and "RFP activity" which suggests new mandates, but that's not necessarily from prior experience. They talk about "sub-advised portfolios in Japan" and "distribution partner" cutting rates, but that's about existing relationships. They mention "new product launches" and "expanded distribution" as drivers. They also mention "we are for the first time enjoying a surge in institutional demand for preferred securities strategies" - that could be new demand, but not necessarily from prior experience. They talk about "our dominant preferred securities brand" and "interest rate concerns" driving flows. They mention "recent investments in new usage launches in Europe" and "multiyear effort to penetrate the Japanese institutional market" - that's about new markets. The question is about earned recurrence: parties with first-hand experience generating business on their own initiative. Is there any mention of existing clients expanding, renewing, or referring? The transcript mentions "sub-advised portfolios in Japan had net inflows" but that's from existing relationships. However, the key is whether management conveys that this is a meaningful pattern and still early. They talk about "institutional pipeline" and "RFP activity" which is about new mandates, not necessarily from existing clients. They also mention "we are also now beginning to benefit from our recent investments in new usage launches in Europe" - that's about new launches. I don't see a clear statement that existing clients are driving growth without persuasion. The growth seems driven by new product launches, distribution expansion, and strong performance. The only mention of "return" is about distribution cuts and flows, but that's not about earned recurrence. There is no mention of clients coming back for more based on prior experience. The company's own selling and marketing efforts are emphasized. So the answer is NO.

Open the full research page →

NO Skeptical premise dismantled with receipts: the call's central doubt is answered by named, checkable current facts Q2 2017 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-07-20

We need to determine if there is a specific doubt about the company that is live in the conversation, and if management answers it with named, checkable facts from the recent period that run directly against it. The doubt should be company-specific, not generic. The rebuttal should be concrete, already realized, and continuing. Looking at the transcript, there is a discussion about the Japanese distribution partner cutting distribution rate on a U.S. REIT fund. This is a potential concern: outflows from Japan. Management addresses it. They mention that this is the last major fund to cut, that they have prepared with seminars, and that they expect outflows but also note that the reduction in distributions will offset. However, is that a rebuttal with checkable facts? They mention that the fund is second largest, about $5 billion, and that the distribution cut will reduce payouts by $250 million in second half. But that is not a fact that runs against the doubt; it's acknowledging the cut. They also mention that they have seen flows affected already. But the doubt is about future outflows. They don't provide evidence that demand held or grew despite the cut. They say "we have seen our flows up and through the second quarter I think already were affected" - that seems to confirm the doubt. So that is not a rebuttal. Another possible doubt: the DOL fiduciary rule impact. Management says they are beneficiaries of consolidation, but that's not a specific fact. They mention they put new share classes on hold. That's not a rebuttal. Another doubt: capacity constraints? They say they have plenty of capacity. Not a doubt. Another doubt: competition from ETFs in preferreds. They mention they modified benchmark to down weight exchange traded market. That's a response but not a checkable fact that runs against the doubt. The question asks: is there ONE IDENTIFIABLE DOUBT that is live, and does management answer with named, checkable facts from recent period that run directly against it? The Japan distribution cut is a doubt, but management's answer is not a rebuttal with facts that contradict the doubt; they acknowledge the cut and expect outflows. They try to mitigate but not with evidence of contrary behavior. Another possible doubt: the company's organic growth sustainability? They have 11 consecutive quarters of inflows, but that's not a doubt.

Open the full research page →

NO Paid-in full, payoff just starting: the hard part of a major undertaking is behind the company, and the benefit is only Q2 2017 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-07-20

We need answer only YES or NO. Need analyze transcript. Need determine if management conveys that hardest/costliest/most uncertain phase of major undertaking is substantially behind and crossing from paying to getting paid, with reported results still mostly reflecting paying phase. Let's parse transcript. Company Cohen & Steers asset manager. Management discusses investments in strategic initiatives: DCIO channel, Europe, Japan institutional, new product launches, infrastructure capabilities. Expense task force savings. Need see if they say heavy lifting done and payoff beginning but not in numbers. Key quotes: Robert Steers: "we continue to make strategic investments in new product launches, new vehicles, new markets, and also we view being competitive on fees and expenses as investments as well. So, I think the Japan institutional market which we’ve been talking about for a couple years and typically we find these strategic initiatives take two years before they start really generating material results. I think Japan institutional has entered that phase and we’re hopeful that the initial success will actually build and gain momentum. The other two areas where we have been and continue to make meaningful investments for us are in the DCIO channel and in Europe for both the institutional, but also the FIG marketplace. The results in DCIO have been, at least based on asset flows, have been modest thus far. On the other hand, we have achieved many of our goals with respect to positioning our product, getting them on platforms, getting them on recommended lists and we are beginning to see what I would say green shoots that are not material enough to jump up and down about quite yet. In Europe we’re saying a real traction particularly in the wealth marketplace and also sub-advisory and in institutional and so I would say Europe will ought to see a tick up in activity from here on in that we’ll be reporting to you. So, really DCIO and Europe are I think the two big initiatives that we’ve been investing in that have not yet made a meaningful contribution to our organic growth rate but we have high expectations for both along with Japanese institutional." This sounds like they are still investing, have achieved positioning but results modest, green shoots not material. Japan institutional has entered phase where initial success will build.

Open the full research page →

NO Deliberately different by design: management explains how the company operates unlike its industry's standard playbook, Q2 2017 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-07-20

We need to determine if management describes a deliberate operational difference from industry norm and credits it with current results. The transcript has several points: they mention "moment of truth" theme, consolidation, delivering more for less, expense task force, investments in distribution, etc. But do they explicitly contrast with industry normal practice? They say "Distribution prowess along will no longer be able to overcome poor performance or products that have become commoditized." That's a general statement. They talk about being a beneficiary of consolidation. They mention unique in-demand strategies, leading performance, new products, expanded distribution. But is there a specific chosen difference in how they operate? They mention "we must deliver more for less" - that's a goal. They have an expense task force to reduce costs. But is that a departure from industry? Not clearly. They also talk about investing in technology, data, digital marketing. But again, not a contrast with industry norm. They mention that they are seeing demand for preferred securities from institutions, which is new. But that's a market opportunity, not a chosen operational difference. They also mention that they are creating targeted global portfolios in infrastructure, but that's a product strategy. The question asks: does management describe the company as deliberately operating differently from the standard way its industry works? I don't see a clear statement like "the industry does X, we do Y" with a deliberate choice. They talk about being a niche player, but that's not a specific operational difference. They also mention that they are not dropping funds from platforms, but that's not a contrast. They mention that they are investing in DCIO, Europe, Japan, but that's just expansion. The closest might be their approach to preferred securities, but they don't contrast with industry. They also mention that they are modifying benchmark to down weight exchange traded preferred market due to ETF concerns, but that's a specific investment decision, not a company-wide operational difference. The question requires a coherent posture with both halves. I think the answer is NO. They don't explicitly draw a contrast with industry normal practice. They claim to be unique and in-demand, but that's not a specific chosen difference in how they operate.

Open the full research page →

NO Priced like the old business, running like a new one: management is redirecting the call away from the metric investors Q2 2017 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-07-20

We need to determine if management repeatedly redirects attention away from the conventional yardstick and toward a different part of the business that is already earning, and indicates the record hasn't caught up. Let's analyze the transcript. The company is Cohen & Steers, an asset manager. Conventional yardstick: AUM, net inflows, organic growth, revenue, operating margin, etc. Management discusses these. But is there a redirection? Let's see. Management talks about various strategies, but the main discussion is about AUM, inflows, etc. They do mention new products like low duration preferred fund, infrastructure, etc. But do they set aside the conventional yardstick? Look for phrases like "the thing outsiders habitually watch is no longer the right thing to watch." I don't see that. They talk about "moment of truth" and consolidation, but that's about industry. They mention "we are for the first time enjoying a surge in institutional demand for preferred securities strategies." That's a part of business. But they don't say that the conventional yardstick (like AUM growth) is not the right measure. They do discuss that the Japanese distribution cut will affect flows, but they don't say that the conventional measure is wrong. They talk about "unfunded pipeline" and "AUA" (assets under administration) which are not in AUM. For example, they mention Taiwanese preferred securities fund and Korean midstream energy fund as AUA. They say "these assets are not included in our AUM." That could be a redirection: they are pointing to AUA as a different part that is already earning? But they don't say that the conventional yardstick (AUM) is not the right thing to watch. They just mention it as additional. They also talk about new product launches and infrastructure opportunities. But they don't set aside the conventional measure. The question asks: "Does management REPEATEDLY REDIRECT ATTENTION AWAY FROM THE MEASURE OR STORYLINE BY WHICH THE COMPANY IS CONVENTIONALLY JUDGED and toward a DIFFERENT PART OF THE BUSINESS that it says is ALREADY EARNING TODAY — and does management indicate that this different part is not yet what the company's reported results or outside understanding reflect?" I need to see if management explicitly says something like "the AUM numbers don't tell the whole story" or "we are now more than just real estate" etc.

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 Q2 2017 · archived research check

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

NOQ2 2017 · 2017-07-20

We need answer YES/NO. Need evaluate 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. Need only transcript. Let's parse. The call is Cohen & Steers asset manager. Topics: net inflows, strategies, Japan distribution cut, infrastructure opportunities, preferred securities, DCIO, Europe, etc. Need see if any "retirement wave" of installed base? Maybe infrastructure: "logistics companies and companies positioned to benefit from spending on roads, bridges, railways and tunnels are mainly public and were busy creating targeted global portfolios and strategies both equity and debt to capitalize on these opportunities." This is about infrastructure investment opportunities, not necessarily retiring stock. They mention "private infrastructure investment opportunities will be few difficult and far between. Conversely, opportunities in the listed space are significant, easily accessible, and are already performing very well." No mention of aging infrastructure needing replacement at scale. They mention "tens of billions of dollars of institutional capital that is already committing to infrastructure without even knowing what the investments are or what the investment opportunities are." That's demand, not retirement wave. Other possible: "Japan distribution rate cut" - not installed stock. "Preferred securities" - regulatory environment increased capital levels for financial institutions, not retirement. "DOL fiduciary rule" - regulatory changes, not installed base. "MiFID II" - compliance, not retirement. "Expense task force" - no. Question asks "LARGE INSTALLED STOCK of something the company's customers or end-markets depend on — equipment, machinery, vehicles, fleets, infrastructure, buildings, facilities, systems, software, devices, or some other durable asset or legacy generation — is now reaching END of useful life AT SCALE, so must be replaced... AND replacement has ALREADY STARTED PRODUCING REAL BUSINESS FOR THIS COMPANY, while most of retiring stock still out there." Transcript does not describe such. It describes investment opportunities in listed infrastructure due to investor demand, not physical infrastructure retirement. No mention of aging, end-of-life, forced replacement. So answer NO.

Open the full research page →

Showing the latest 18 of 215 archived research questions.

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

Past calls

CNS call history

Open a quarter only when you want its detailed evidence.

B Q2 2025 · Solid call · 2025-07-18Management held guidance steady against mixed demand signals. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics.

Guidance: maintainedDemand: mixedMargins: stableBacklog: growingPricing: stableHeadcount: growingCapex: increasing⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts⚑ Reads rehearsed

Candor 7/9

Specificity 8/9

Evasion 2/9

Confidence 8/9

Uncertainty 3/9

Promotion 6/9

Stress 2/9

Complexity 4/9

View the 20 core call-quality checks

YES Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?

YES Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?

YES Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?

YES Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?

YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?

NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?

NO Does an obvious question remain unanswered?

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

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

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

NO Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?

NO Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?

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

NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?

NO Is consolidation happening among their peers?

NO Is a founder still running the company?

NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?

NO Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?

NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?

YES Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?

B+ Q1 2025 · Strong call · 2025-04-17Management held guidance steady against mixed demand signals. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics.

Guidance: maintainedDemand: mixedMargins: stableBacklog: shrinkingPricing: stableHeadcount: growingCapex: increasing⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts⚑ Reads rehearsed

Candor 8/9

Specificity 9/9

Evasion 2/9

Confidence 7/9

Uncertainty 6/9

Promotion 5/9

Stress 2/9

Complexity 4/9

View the 20 core call-quality checks

YES Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?

YES Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?

YES Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?

YES Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?

YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?

NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?

NO Does an obvious question remain unanswered?

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

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

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

NO Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?

NO Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?

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

NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?

NO Is consolidation happening among their peers?

NO Is a founder still running the company?

NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?

NO Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?

NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?

YES Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?

C+ Q4 2024 · Mixed call · 2025-01-23Management held guidance steady against mixed demand signals. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics.

Guidance: maintainedDemand: mixedMargins: stableBacklog: shrinkingPricing: stableHeadcount: growing⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts⚑ Reads rehearsedDirection beats results

Candor 7/9

Specificity 8/9

Evasion 2/9

Confidence 7/9

Uncertainty 4/9

Promotion 6/9

Stress 3/9

Complexity 4/9

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?

YES Is consolidation happening among their peers?

NO Is a founder still running the company?

NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?

NO Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?

NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?

YES Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?

B Q3 2024 · Solid call · 2024-10-17Management held guidance steady against accelerating demand and expanding margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics, relaxed under questioning.

Guidance: maintainedDemand: acceleratingMargins: expandingBacklog: shrinkingPricing: stableHeadcount: growing⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts✓ Early product, fast growth

Candor 7/9

Specificity 8/9

Evasion 2/9

Confidence 8/9

Uncertainty 3/9

Promotion 6/9

Stress 1/9

Complexity 4/9

View the 20 core call-quality checks

YES Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?

YES Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?

YES Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?

YES Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?

YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?

NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?

NO Does an obvious question remain unanswered?

YES Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?

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

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

YES Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?

NO Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?

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

NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?

NO Is consolidation happening among their peers?

NO Is a founder still running the company?

NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?

NO Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?

NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?

NO Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?

B Q2 2024 · Solid call · 2024-07-18Management held guidance steady against mixed demand signals and contracting margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics.

Guidance: maintainedDemand: mixedMargins: contractingBacklog: stablePricing: stableHeadcount: growingCapex: increasing⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts✓ Early product, fast growthDirection beats results

Candor 7/9

Specificity 8/9

Evasion 2/9

Confidence 7/9

Uncertainty 4/9

Promotion 6/9

Stress 2/9

Complexity 5/9

View the 20 core call-quality checks

YES Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?

YES Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?

YES Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?

YES Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?

YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?

NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?

NO Does an obvious question remain unanswered?

YES Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?

YES 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?

NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?

NO Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?

B Q1 2024 · Solid call · 2024-04-18Management held guidance steady against mixed demand signals and expanding margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics.

Guidance: maintainedDemand: mixedMargins: expandingBacklog: shrinkingPricing: raisingHeadcount: flat⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts⚑ Reads rehearsedDirection beats results

Candor 7/9

Specificity 8/9

Evasion 2/9

Confidence 7/9

Uncertainty 3/9

Promotion 6/9

Stress 2/9

Complexity 5/9

View the 20 core call-quality checks

YES Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?

YES Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?

YES Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?

YES Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?

YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?

NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?

NO Does an obvious question remain unanswered?

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

YES 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?

YES Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?

B+ Q4 2023 · Strong call · 2024-01-25Management held guidance steady against mixed demand signals and contracting margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics, relaxed under questioning.

Guidance: maintainedDemand: mixedMargins: contractingBacklog: growingPricing: stableHeadcount: flat⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts⚑ Reads rehearsedDirection beats results

Candor 8/9

Specificity 9/9

Evasion 2/9

Confidence 7/9

Uncertainty 4/9

Promotion 5/9

Stress 1/9

Complexity 5/9

View the 20 core call-quality checks

YES Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?

YES Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?

YES Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?

YES Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?

YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?

NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?

NO Does an obvious question remain unanswered?

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?

NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?

YES Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?

View 32 earlier calls

Call	Date	Grade	Guidance	Demand	Margins	Candor	Evasion
Q3 2023	2023-10-19	C	lowered	mixed	contracting	7/9	2/9
Q2 2023	2023-07-20	B	maintained	mixed	contracting	8/9	2/9
Q1 2023	2023-04-20	C	maintained	slowing	contracting	8/9	2/9
Q4 2022	2023-01-26	C	lowered	mixed	contracting	7/9	2/9
Q3 2022	2022-10-20	B	maintained	slowing	contracting	8/9	1/9
Q2 2022	2022-07-21	B	maintained	mixed	contracting	8/9	2/9
Q1 2022	2022-04-21	C+	maintained	mixed	contracting	7/9	2/9
Q4 2021	2022-01-27	A	raised	accelerating	expanding	7/9	2/9
Q3 2021	2021-10-21	A	raised	mixed	expanding	7/9	2/9
Q2 2021	2021-07-22	B+	maintained	accelerating	expanding	8/9	1/9
Q1 2021	2021-04-22	B	maintained	accelerating	stable	7/9	2/9
Q4 2020	2021-01-28	A	maintained	accelerating	expanding	8/9	2/9
Q3 2020	2020-10-22	B	maintained	accelerating	expanding	7/9	3/9
Q2 2020	2020-07-23	B	maintained	accelerating	stable	8/9	2/9
Q1 2020	2020-04-23	A	maintained	mixed	contracting	8/9	1/9
Q4 2019	2020-01-23	A	maintained	accelerating	expanding	7/9	2/9
Q3 2019	2019-10-17	A	maintained	accelerating	expanding	7/9	2/9
Q2 2019	2019-07-18	B	maintained	mixed	stable	7/9	2/9
Q1 2019	2019-04-18	B+	maintained	accelerating	expanding	8/9	1/9
Q4 2018	2019-01-24	C+	lowered	mixed	contracting	8/9	1/9
Q3 2018	2018-10-18	B	maintained	mixed	expanding	8/9	2/9
Q2 2018	2018-07-19	B	raised	mixed	contracting	7/9	4/9
Q1 2018	2018-04-19	B	maintained	mixed	contracting	8/9	1/9
Q4 2017	2018-01-25	C+	maintained	mixed	stable	7/9	3/9
Q3 2017	2017-10-19	B+	maintained	accelerating	expanding	7/9	2/9
Q2 2017	2017-07-20	B	maintained	accelerating	expanding	7/9	2/9
Q1 2017	2017-04-20	B	maintained	accelerating	stable	7/9	2/9
Q4 2016	2017-01-19	C+	maintained	mixed	expanding	7/9	3/9
Q3 2016	2016-10-20	B	maintained	accelerating	stable	7/9	2/9
Q2 2016	2016-07-21	B	maintained	accelerating	expanding	7/9	2/9
Q1 2016	2016-04-21	C+	maintained	accelerating	stable	7/9	2/9
Q4 2015	2016-01-21	B+	maintained	accelerating	contracting	8/9	1/9

Keep exploring

Companies with similar call quality

REGN

Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

GEF

Greif, Inc.

IRDM

Iridium Communications Inc.

NEOG

Neogen Corporation

AGNC

AGNC Investment Corp.

ANGO

AngioDynamics, Inc.

← CNR All “C” companies CNSL →