Stocks › G › GPOR
GPOR · Earnings-call lab · 38 calls graded · 2016–2026

Gulfport Energy Corporation

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
38calls analyzed
2016–2026coverage
NEWESTQ2 2026 call
2026-08-10 · 500 / 500 checks · members only
LockedStarter · $1 first week
AI call read
Grade locked
Grade and plain-English verdict
Expected 45-day move
Locked
Move size estimate, not direction
AI checks completed
500/ 500
Every check answered YES or NO

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

Unlock the newest quarter for every company, plus this month's four picks. Already a member? Log in
OPENQ1 2026 call
2026-05-06 · 8 analysts · 14 questions · 500 / 500 checks
Free · full reportThe quarter before the newest
B
Call grade · Better than 59% of 177,437 calls
Solid call. Management held guidance steady against accelerating demand. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics, relaxed under questioning.
Management toneResultTypical range · middle half of all callsFlag
Candor7 /9
—
Evasion2 /9
—
Specificity8 /9
—
Confidence8 /9
—
Uncertainty3 /9
—
Promotion4 /9
—
Stress1 /9
—
Complexity4 /9
—
Since the quarter before · Q4 2025 → Q1 2026
Guidance maintainedDemand acceleratingMargins expandingstablePricing raisingstableCapex flat⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts
Notable checks detected
  • Does the operator announce more than five questioners?
  • Is there a questioner from an investment bank other than the first three analysts who ask questions?
  • Are there more than ten analyst questions in total?
  • Does the operator mention a queue or "next question" more than three times?
ScreenersHigh CandorSkeptic ReassuredCritic AmmunitionDemand Accelerating
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.

8 flags on this call
LanguageResultTypical range · middle half of all callsFlag
AI mentionsTimes management said AI, generative, LLM or agentic.0 mentions
typical 0–0
—
"Great question"Management praising a question before answering it.3 times
typical 0–1
H
Thank-yousEvery thanks on the call, in both directions.26 times
typical 13–31
—
BuzzwordsSynergies, headwinds, flywheels, best-in-class and friends.1.6 /1k words
typical 0.6–1.8
—
HedgesSort of, kind of, roughly, I think, probably.11.8 /1k words
typical 5.5–10.5
H
SuperlativesRecord, unprecedented, tremendous, incredible.2.0 /1k words
typical 0.3–1.2
H
Outside forcesMacro, weather, currency, tariffs, supply chain.1 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.15.7 /1k words
typical 21.2–35.3
L
"Excited"Excited, exciting, thrilled.5 times
typical 0–3
H
Script shareShare of the call spent on prepared remarks rather than questions.30% % of call
typical 35%–55%
—
CEO shareHow much of the talking the CEO did.68% % of mgmt words
typical 29%–68%
—
Longest answerThe longest single management answer in the Q&A.325 words
typical 249–461
—
Reading levelFlesch–Kincaid grade level of management answers.8.8 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.35 of 49
typical 16–30
H
DodgingQuestions declined, deferred or answered with a different question.7 of 15
typical 5–9
—
BlameResults attributed to weather, macro, currency or other outside forces.2 of 27
typical 3–12
—
HypeSuperlatives and excitement in management language.9 of 11
typical 2–8
H
Analyst pushbackHow hard the analysts pressed: follow-ups, two-part questions, challenges.9 of 22
typical 5–10
—
ConfessionAdmissions, apologies and self-corrections.1 of 11
typical 1–5
—
Call theaterStage management: operator mechanics, scripted cues, "color".17 of 33
typical 12–19
—
Capital returns talkAttention paid to buybacks, dividends, M&A and the balance sheet.6 of 7
typical 1–5
H
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.

500checked
250detected
250not 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
NO Is a departure, transition, or role change mentioned only in passing without a thank-you or tribute? Activist · seen in 10% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 10% of calls 91% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone reference a private conversation ("as I told...", "as we discussed offline")? Activist · seen in 18% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 18% of calls 85% repeat consistency
YES Does the transcript contain the phrase "next question" at least twice? Air Traffic · seen in 83.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.8% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
YES Does an analyst ask a question spanning more than five sentences? Air Traffic · seen in 75.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.4% of calls 88.6% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst ask a question containing multiple sub-questions (three or more)? Air Traffic · seen in 89.5% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 89.5% of calls 94% repeat consistency
NO Does the CEO answer a question personally after another executive initially responds? Air Traffic · seen in 58% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 58% of calls 90% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker use the phrase "if you look at" at least twice? Air Traffic · seen in 35.1% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 35.1% of calls 90% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst preface a question by summarizing the company's stated results? Air Traffic · seen in 75.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.4% of calls 80.6% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker use the word "obviously" at least twice? Air Traffic · seen in 55.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 55.8% of calls 83.8% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "guidance" in the same sentence as a specific number? Air Traffic · seen in 56.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 56.4% of calls 90.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst say "congrats" or "congratulations" to management? Air Traffic · seen in 35.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 35.8% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
NO Is the word "scale" or "scaling" used as a verb? Air Traffic · seen in 22.7% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 22.7% of calls 97.7% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst ask a question beginning with a number ("two questions", "three quick ones")? Air Traffic · seen in 32.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.8% of calls 88.7% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst say "thank you" before asking their question? Air Traffic · seen in 71.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 71.4% of calls 90.4% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst name two or more executives when asking their question? Air Traffic · seen in 35.1% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 35.1% of calls 86.9% repeat consistency
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
YES Does an executive begin an answer with "Great question," "Thanks," or "Appreciate"? Air Traffic · seen in 46% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 46% of calls 88.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the CFO use the phrase "adjusted" or "non-GAAP" at least three times? Air Traffic · seen in 51.6% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 51.6% of calls 96.9% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "thank you" more than three times? Air Traffic · seen in 78.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 78.4% of calls 80.1% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "with that" as a transition phrase? Air Traffic · seen in 76.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 76.4% of calls 99% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the phrase "on a comparable basis" or "adjusted for"? Air Traffic · seen in 17.6% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 17.6% of calls 92.6% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "moving to" or "turning to" when changing topics? Air Traffic · seen in 74.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 74.8% of calls 93.8% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "over to you" or "I'll turn it over"? Air Traffic · seen in 79.9% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 79.9% of calls 81.1% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "operator" aloud during the call? Air Traffic · seen in 43.9% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 43.9% of calls 87.6% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone repeat the same stock phrase three or more times? Anthropologist · seen in 85.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 85.4% of calls 82.7% repeat consistency
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
YES Does anyone use the phrase "kind of" at least twice? Clinical Trial · seen in 75.9% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.9% of calls 87.5% repeat consistency
YES Does any question include the word "color"? Clinical Trial · seen in 59.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 59.8% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the CEO deliver the opening remarks rather than the CFO or IR head? Clinical Trial · seen in 87% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 87% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency
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
YES Does any question contain the phrase "color on" or "some color"? Compliance · seen in 53.1% 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 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
YES Does any speaker say "with that" at least twice? Compliance · seen in 51.5% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 51.5% of calls 91.8% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone say "for the benefit of" or "just to remind" when restating context? Compliance · seen in 10.7% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.7% of calls 91.8% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the phrase "early days"? Con Artist · seen in 12.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 12.8% of calls 96.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "journey" appear? Con Artist · seen in 19.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 19.8% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
YES Does the speaker describe a strategy as "disciplined" without describing any trade-off? Con Artist · seen in 23.1% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.1% of calls 84% repeat consistency
NO Is there an apology offered to a specific analyst by name? Con Artist · seen in 11.2% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 11.2% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the phrase "to be honest" or "frankly"? Couples · seen in 33.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.8% of calls 97% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone promise to "follow up" or "take that offline" and fail to commit to when? Couples · seen in 15.6% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 15.6% of calls 85.3% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone on the call interrupt a colleague mid-sentence? Couples · seen in 13.4% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.4% of calls 91% repeat consistency
NO Does someone use a personal anecdote rather than a metric to justify confidence? Couples · seen in 20.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 20.8% of calls 81.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "question" appear in the operator's speech more than three times? Courtroom · seen in 88.1% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 88.1% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "growth" appear at least ten times? Courtroom · seen in 69.4% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 69.4% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency
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
YES Does an analyst ask about capital allocation or buybacks? Courtroom · seen in 46.3% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 46.3% of calls 90.9% repeat consistency
YES Does management use the word "strong" at least three times? Courtroom · seen in 83.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.2% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency
NO Does an executive use the phrase "we're seeing" at least twice? Courtroom · seen in 53.4% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 53.4% of calls 87.5% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "opportunity" appear at least three times? Courtroom · seen in 77.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 77.2% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency
YES Does management use the word "confident" or "confidence" at least twice? Courtroom · seen in 53.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 53.4% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency
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
YES Does any speaker say "we're excited about" or "we're pleased with"? Courtroom · seen in 62% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 62% of calls 82.3% repeat consistency
NO Do two or more analysts from the same firm ask questions? Courtroom · seen in 11.5% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 11.5% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the phrase "moving forward" or "go forward"? Courtroom · seen in 40.7% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 40.7% of calls 85.5% repeat consistency
NO Does management mention a specific number of stores, locations, or markets? Courtroom · seen in 48% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 48% of calls 88.9% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone use the word "folks"? Courtroom · seen in 23.5% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.5% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "thank you" more than five times in total? Courtroom · seen in 87.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 87.2% of calls 88.2% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive use the phrase "we believe"? Courtroom · seen in 83.6% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.6% of calls 94.9% repeat consistency
YES Does the operator use the phrase "next question" at least three times? Debate · seen in 75.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.2% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst mention a specific percentage figure in their question? Debate · seen in 66.3% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 66.3% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "quarter" appear in at least ten questions or answers during the Q&A? Debate · seen in 75.7% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.7% of calls 91.2% repeat consistency
YES Does at least one analyst ask a question about margins or costs? Debate · seen in 88.5% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 88.5% of calls 95.6% repeat consistency
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
YES Does the CFO speak during the Q&A portion at least twice? Debate · seen in 80.6% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 80.6% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any question reference a specific quarter (e.g., "fourth quarter") by name? Debate · seen in 76.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 76.2% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the operator interrupt the Q&A to announce time is limited or that this will be the last question? Debate · seen in 24% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 24% of calls 91.2% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst ask a question beginning with "just" (e.g., "just curious")? Debate · seen in 77.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 77.8% of calls 82.8% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst ask about a specific dollar amount or number stated in the prepared remarks? Debate · seen in 86.4% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 86.4% of calls 84.9% repeat consistency
YES Does any question begin with the words "can you" or "could you"? Debate · seen in 83.3% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.3% of calls 86.2% repeat consistency
NO Does any executive use the phrase "if you look at" during the Q&A? Debate · seen in 52.9% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 52.9% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the CFO answer at least one question without the CEO speaking first? Debate · seen in 77.5% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 77.5% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency
YES 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 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 91.6% repeat consistency
YES Does the phrase "moving on" or "next question" come from the operator? Debate · seen in 88.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 88.4% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency
YES Does an analyst ask about capital allocation (capex, buybacks, M&A, or dividends) in one question? Debate · seen in 60.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 60.4% of calls 92% repeat consistency
YES Does the phrase "color" appear (e.g., "add some color") in the transcript? Debate · seen in 75.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.2% of calls 98.6% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "guidance" appear at least five times in the transcript? Debate · seen in 47.3% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 47.3% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any question contain the word "why"? Debate · seen in 36.3% 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 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
NO Does any executive's answer exceed 300 words in the transcript? Debate · seen in 68% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 68% of calls 85.5% repeat consistency
YES Does the CEO answer the first analyst question personally? Debate · seen in 65.9% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 65.9% of calls 97% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "obviously" appear in the transcript? Debate · seen in 74.1% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 74.1% of calls 89.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the transcript contain the word "margin" more than ten times? Debate · seen in 44.3% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 44.3% of calls 91.3% repeat consistency
NO Does an executive begin an answer with "So" as the first word? Debate · seen in 68.4% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 68.4% of calls 83.6% repeat consistency
NO Does the phrase "if I may" or "if I could" appear? Debate · seen in 32% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency
NO Does any executive say "let me" at least once? Debate · seen in 66.1% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 66.1% of calls 94.5% repeat consistency
YES Does any question contain the word "specifically"? Debate · seen in 28.6% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 28.6% of calls 90% repeat consistency
NO Does management use the word "momentum" at least twice? Debate · seen in 31.7% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 31.7% of calls 96.6% repeat consistency
NO Does management mention "margin" or "margins" in prepared remarks? Debate · seen in 75.1% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.1% of calls 96.6% repeat consistency
NO Is the word "definitely" used by any speaker? Debate · seen in 41.6% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.6% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "seasonality" appear? Debate · seen in 27.1% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.1% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the word "robust" to describe demand, growth, or the pipeline? Debate · seen in 33% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 33% of calls 94% repeat consistency
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
YES Does anyone say "we remain confident" or "we are confident"? Debate · seen in 42.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 42.2% of calls 93% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive say "thank you" immediately after finishing an answer? Debate · seen in 47.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 47.4% of calls 85.2% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive cite a specific dollar figure greater than one billion? Discovery · seen in 71% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 71% of calls 97.6% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst's question contain the word "curious"? Discovery · seen in 57.5% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 57.5% of calls 99% repeat consistency
YES Does an analyst reference a specific prior quarter by name (e.g., "last quarter")? Discovery · seen in 63% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 63% of calls 82.5% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker say "obviously" two or more times? Discovery · seen in 61.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 61.8% of calls 88.7% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst ask a follow-up in the same turn after their first answer? Discovery · seen in 86.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 86.2% of calls 91.9% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst ask about a specific geographic region or market? Discovery · seen in 70.6% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 70.6% of calls 91.4% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst ask a question that includes the phrase "long term" or "long-term"? Discovery · seen in 34.7% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 34.7% of calls 82.5% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "margin" or "margins" appear at least five times? Discovery · seen in 63.4% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 63.4% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "opportunity" or "opportunities" appear at least three times? Discovery · seen in 76.7% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 76.7% of calls 95.2% repeat consistency
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
YES Does the CFO use the phrase "free cash flow" at least once? Discovery · seen in 34.4% 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 34.4% of calls 98% repeat consistency
NO Does any executive use the word "momentum"? Discovery · seen in 51.2% 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 51.2% of calls 97.6% repeat consistency
YES Does the CEO mention at least one specific customer segment by name (e.g., "enterprise")? Discovery · seen in 70.6% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 70.6% of calls 86.2% repeat consistency
YES Does the phrase "take your question" or "take the question" appear? Discovery · seen in 23.7% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.7% of calls 81.5% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst introduce themselves by name before asking their first question? Discovery · seen in 27.2% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.2% of calls 95.5% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "including" at least three times? Discovery · seen in 68.3% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 68.3% of calls 85.6% repeat consistency
NO Does management reference "the macro environment" or "macroeconomic" at least once? Discovery · seen in 25.5% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 25.5% of calls 97.6% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive reference "our team" or "the team" at least twice? Discovery · seen in 59.5% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 59.5% of calls 88.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the operator announce more than one analyst from the same firm? Discovery · seen in 15% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 15% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency
NO Does any prepared remark mention "headwinds" or "tailwinds"? Discovery · seen in 33.1% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.1% of calls 94.8% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "with that, I'll turn it over"? Discovery · seen in 55.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 55.8% of calls 83.5% repeat consistency
YES Does the CFO use the phrase "capital allocation"? Discovery · seen in 15.3% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 15.3% of calls 99% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive decline to answer, citing that something will come later or is not disclosed? Editor · seen in 77.3% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 77.3% of calls 92.9% repeat consistency
YES Does an analyst ask a two-part question containing the word "but"? Editor · seen in 74.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 74.2% of calls 83.3% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone ask a follow-up question in the same turn after their first question is answered? Editor · seen in 87.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 87.8% of calls 92.9% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone answer "yes" or "no" as the first word of a response? Editor · seen in 83.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.2% of calls 90.3% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "thank you" at least ten times in the transcript? Editor · seen in 73.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 73.2% of calls 81.8% repeat consistency
NO Does an executive use the phrase "if you look at" at least twice? Editor · seen in 36.2% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 36.2% of calls 89.9% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst begin their question with "Hi" or "Hello" as a greeting? Editor · seen in 60.1% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 60.1% of calls 95.6% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "we are excited about" without naming a number? Editor · seen in 38.7% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 38.7% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
YES Does an analyst reference a peer company's results or valuation? Editor · seen in 21.4% 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 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
YES Does any speaker use the word "tailwind" or "tailwinds"? Editor · seen in 27.3% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.3% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker use the word "momentum"? Editor · seen in 52.8% 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 52.8% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "investments" appear in the context of margins or costs? Editor · seen in 40.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 40.8% of calls 88% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone mention "FX" or "foreign exchange"? Editor · seen in 27.4% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.4% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "efficiency" or "productivity" appear at least twice? Editor · seen in 47.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 47.4% of calls 96% repeat consistency
YES Does an analyst thank the executives or congratulate them before asking a question? Editor · seen in 74.7% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 74.7% of calls 91.9% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive say "great question" or "thanks for the question"? Editor · seen in 40.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 40.2% of calls 89.9% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive say "as we said last quarter" or reference a prior call? Editor · seen in 72.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 72.2% of calls 83.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the phrase "going forward" appear at least twice? Editor · seen in 30.1% 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 30.1% of calls 88.2% repeat consistency
NO Does management use the word "levers" when discussing actions? Editor · seen in 13% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 13% of calls 95% repeat consistency
YES Does management thank analysts by name at any point after a question? Editor · seen in 58.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 58.8% of calls 87.5% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone say "we'll take that offline" or offer to follow up after the call? Editor · seen in 15.3% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 15.3% of calls 86.5% repeat consistency
NO Does management use the word "committed" regarding a target? Editor · seen in 33.2% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.2% of calls 91% repeat consistency
NO Does the CEO's prepared remarks mention "macro" or "macroeconomic"? Editor · seen in 19.5% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 19.5% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the phrase "the vast majority"? Editor · seen in 16.3% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 16.3% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "temporary" or "transitory" appear? Editor · seen in 18.6% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 18.6% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
YES Is an analyst's question answered with "great question" or similar? Editor · seen in 28.9% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 28.9% of calls 88.6% repeat consistency
YES Is there a questioner from an investment bank other than the first three analysts who ask questions? Fact Checker · seen in 80.1% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 80.1% of calls 98% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst ask a question that includes a reference to a specific dollar figure? Fact Checker · seen in 64.9% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 64.9% of calls 93.6% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "thank you" at least ten times across the call? Fact Checker · seen in 67.1% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 67.1% of calls 81.1% repeat consistency
NO Does the phrase "thank you for taking my question" or "thanks for taking my question" appear? Fact Checker · seen in 50.4% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 50.4% of calls 94.9% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst's first sentence contain a compliment or thanks before asking their question? Fact Checker · seen in 81.3% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 81.3% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the CFO present in both the prepared remarks and the Q&A portion of the call? Fact Checker · seen in 84.1% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 84.1% of calls 98% repeat consistency
YES Does the CEO personally deliver the closing remarks of the call? Fact Checker · seen in 68.9% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 68.9% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the CEO's prepared remarks contain the word "team" at least twice? Fact Checker · seen in 40.9% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 40.9% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker use the phrase "moving on" or "with that" to transition between topics? Fact Checker · seen in 80.9% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 80.9% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the phrase "in terms of" appear at least twice? Forensic · seen in 84.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 84.8% of calls 94% repeat consistency
NO First-person singular ("I believe," "I think") used more by the CFO than the CEO. Forensic · seen in 13.5% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.5% of calls 89% repeat consistency
NO A single question receives answers from two different executives. Forensic · seen in 83.4% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.4% of calls 97.7% repeat consistency
YES A hedge word ("maybe," "sort of") appears inside a direct quantitative claim. Forensic · seen in 78.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 78.4% of calls 81% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker use the word "obviously"? Forensic · seen in 81.7% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 81.7% of calls 95% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "guidance" appear in both prepared remarks and the Q&A section? Forensic · seen in 50% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 50% of calls 93% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive defer a question to another executive by name? Forensic · seen in 61.6% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 61.6% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency
NO Someone uses the word "honestly," "frankly," or "to be clear." Forensic · seen in 44.9% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 44.9% of calls 96% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the word "ecosystem" or "platform" without a number attached? Forensic · seen in 60.6% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 60.6% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the transcript contain the word "certainly" three or more times? Forensic · seen in 34.5% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 34.5% of calls 93% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone begin an answer by restating or paraphrasing the analyst's name? Forensic · seen in 76.6% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 76.6% of calls 89% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst reference a competitor by name during their question? Forensic · seen in 24.2% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.2% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
NO Does a speaker say "let me" at least twice in the transcript? Forensic · seen in 49.3% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 49.3% of calls 93.7% repeat consistency
NO The transcript contains an apology unrelated to financial results. Forensic · seen in 39.5% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 39.5% of calls 86% repeat consistency
NO The word "challenge" is spoken more often than "opportunity." Forensic · seen in 14.7% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 14.7% of calls 93% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "seasonality" or "seasonal" appear? Forensic · seen in 44.7% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 44.7% of calls 99.3% repeat consistency
NO The phrase "as you know" appears at least twice. Forensic · seen in 27.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.8% of calls 89% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker use the word "challenge" or "challenges" at least three times? Forensic · seen in 18.3% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 18.3% of calls 86% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone mention "weather" as a factor affecting results? Forensic · seen in 19.1% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 19.1% of calls 95.7% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive say "thank you" to the analyst before answering a question? Forensic · seen in 46.7% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 46.7% of calls 81.9% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "great question" or similar praise of a question? Forensic · seen in 37.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.4% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency
NO The final question is answered noticeably shorter than the opening ones. Forensic · seen in 37.3% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.3% of calls 81% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone say "we remain" followed by a verb (e.g., "we remain committed")? Forensic · seen in 36% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 36% of calls 82.6% repeat consistency
NO Does an executive cite a conversation with a customer that has no verifiable specificity (unnamed, undated, unquantified)? Historian · seen in 48.9% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 48.9% of calls 82% repeat consistency
NO Does the transcript contain a sentence that begins with "What I would say is"? Historian · seen in 10.3% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.3% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any question mention a specific percentage or dollar figure? Hostage · seen in 88.5% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 88.5% of calls 93.9% repeat consistency
YES Does the CEO personally answer more questions than any other executive? Hostage · seen in 72.7% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 72.7% of calls 93.9% repeat consistency
NO Does the operator say "our final question" or similar? Hostage · seen in 18.1% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 18.1% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "opportunity" or "opportunities" appear at least five times? Hostage · seen in 58.7% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 58.7% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "clearly" appear at least twice? Hostage · seen in 24.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.8% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "leverage" appear as a verb at least twice? Hostage · seen in 26.5% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 26.5% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst's first name get used by an executive when thanking them? Hostage · seen in 57.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 57.8% of calls 85.2% repeat consistency
YES Does the operator announce more than five questioners? Insurance · seen in 64.7% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 64.7% of calls 99% repeat consistency
YES Are there more than ten analyst questions in total? Insurance · seen in 79.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 79.4% of calls 92.9% repeat consistency
YES Does the operator use the phrase "our next question comes from" more than three times? Insurance · seen in 52.3% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 52.3% of calls 80.4% repeat consistency
YES Are the CEO's prepared remarks longer than the CFO's, judged by speaker turns on the transcript page? Insurance · seen in 68.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 68.2% of calls 84.5% repeat consistency
NO Does management say "we are not going to comment on" or equivalent refusal language? Insurance · seen in 40.6% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 40.6% of calls 83.3% repeat consistency
YES Executive corrects an analyst's premise. Insurance · seen in 60% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 60% of calls 80.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the CFO's prepared section exceed the CEO's in number of paragraphs? Insurance · seen in 38% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 38% of calls 86.5% repeat consistency
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
YES Does any analyst mention the word "margin" in their first question? Insurance · seen in 39.4% 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 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
YES Does an analyst begin with a compliment, such as "great quarter" or "congrats"? Insurance · seen in 41.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.4% of calls 93.9% repeat consistency
NO Does an executive say "we said" when recalling prior statements? Insurance · seen in 47.7% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 47.7% of calls 89.7% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst begin their turn with "thanks" or "thank you"? Insurance · seen in 71.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 71.8% of calls 89.9% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "headwind" or "tailwind" appear at least twice? Insurance · seen in 36.1% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 36.1% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "synergies" appear? Insurance · seen in 19.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 19.8% of calls 99% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst address a question to two or more executives by name? Insurance · seen in 33.6% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.6% of calls 86.6% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "capital" appear at least five times? Insurance · seen in 53.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 53.8% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive say "we feel" rather than "we believe" or "we think"? Insurance · seen in 58.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 58.2% of calls 95.7% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "capital" appear in at least three different speakers' turns? Insurance · seen in 37.7% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.7% of calls 90.4% repeat consistency
NO Does an executive use the phrase "over time" at least twice? Insurance · seen in 24.7% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.7% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive say "as I mentioned" or "as we said" at least once? Insurance · seen in 75.9% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.9% of calls 87.2% repeat consistency
NO Does the CEO open the call before any analyst questions by mentioning the macro environment? Insurance · seen in 32% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32% of calls 87% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "we are pleased" or "we're excited"? Insurance · seen in 75% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 75% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone use the word "leverage" (financial or metaphorical)? Insurance · seen in 72.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 72.8% of calls 95.7% repeat consistency
YES Does an analyst thank management before asking their question? Insurance · seen in 60.9% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 60.9% of calls 82.3% repeat consistency
NO Is the word "automation" or "productivity" used at least once? Insurance · seen in 37.9% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.9% of calls 99% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "uncertainty" or "uncertainties" appear at least twice? Insurance · seen in 37.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.8% of calls 95% repeat consistency
NO Does the phrase "year over year" appear at least three times? Insurance · seen in 46% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 46% of calls 90.6% repeat consistency
YES Does management use the word "leverage" or "leveraging" at least twice? Insurance · seen in 51.1% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 51.1% of calls 94.6% repeat consistency
NO Currency headwinds mentioned unprompted. Insurance · seen in 29.3% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 29.3% of calls 97% repeat consistency
YES Is the phrase "a number of" used at least once? Insurance · seen in 67.1% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 67.1% of calls 94.6% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone use the phrase "best-in-class" or "industry-leading"? Insurance · seen in 27.3% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.3% of calls 100% repeat consistency
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
YES Does the phrase "the team" appear at least twice in management remarks? Insurance · seen in 41.2% 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 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
YES Does the transcript contain the word "typically" at least twice? Insurance · seen in 17.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 17.4% of calls 92.6% repeat consistency
NO Does an executive state they will "come back to" a question or follow up later? Insurance · seen in 13.4% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.4% of calls 89.7% repeat consistency
YES Does management thank analysts for their questions at any point during Q&A? Insurance · seen in 59.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 59.8% of calls 82.5% repeat consistency
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
YES Does any speaker use the phrase "going forward"? Insurance · seen in 61.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 61.4% of calls 88% repeat consistency
YES Does management use the phrase "going forward" at least twice? Insurance · seen in 24.9% 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 24.9% of calls 84.2% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone say "stability" or "stable" when describing demand? Insurance · seen in 23.6% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.6% of calls 89.6% repeat consistency
NO Word "normal" used about demand. Insurance · seen in 29.3% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 29.3% of calls 86.3% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive say "stay tuned" or "more to come"? Insurance · seen in 11.7% 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 11.7% of calls 99% repeat consistency
NO Does management describe a cost program, restructuring, or efficiency initiative by a proper name? Insurance · seen in 16.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 16.8% of calls 94% repeat consistency
NO Does the CFO's prepared section mention interest expense by name or figure? Insurance · seen in 31.7% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 31.7% of calls 97.7% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "volatility" appear? Insurance · seen in 28.6% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 28.6% of calls 99.3% repeat consistency
NO Executive mentions a hobby or personal anecdote. Insurance · seen in 16.7% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 16.7% of calls 88% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "pipeline" appear without a dollar figure attached? Insurance · seen in 55.3% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 55.3% of calls 99% repeat consistency
NO Does the phrase "the macro" or "macro environment" appear? Insurance · seen in 19.7% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 19.7% of calls 93.6% repeat consistency
YES Does the phrase "our team" appear at least twice? Insurance · seen in 32.9% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.9% of calls 85.5% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive say "great question" or "good question" at least twice? Insurance · seen in 15% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 15% of calls 97% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker say "we remain" followed by an adjective? Insurance · seen in 53.5% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 53.5% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency
YES Does management thank analysts by name when responding? Insurance · seen in 52.9% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 52.9% of calls 83.5% repeat consistency
YES Is the word "flexibility" or "flexible" used at least once? Insurance · seen in 44.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 44.4% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "takeaway," "take out," or "take rate"? Insurance · seen in 17.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 17.8% of calls 95% repeat consistency
YES Analyst compliments the team before asking a question. Insurance · seen in 17.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 17.4% of calls 80.3% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker use "we're" where "we are" could substitute, more than twenty times overall? Interrogator · seen in 61.9% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 61.9% of calls 83.8% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst reference the CEO or CFO by first name? Interrogator · seen in 79.6% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 79.6% of calls 93.8% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone say "obviously" at least three times? Interrogator · seen in 43.3% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 43.3% of calls 86.9% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the word "pipeline" at least twice? Interrogator · seen in 37.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.8% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "moving on" or "let me turn it over" during prepared remarks? Interrogator · seen in 36% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 36% of calls 88.3% repeat consistency
YES Does an analyst ask a question starting with "just"? Linguist · seen in 72.9% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 72.9% of calls 81.8% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone say "headwind" or "headwinds" more than once? Linguist · seen in 27.7% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.7% of calls 97.6% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst use the phrase "to clarify"? Linguist · seen in 17.1% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 17.1% of calls 92.4% repeat consistency
NO Does any executive use the phrase "year over year" at least three times? Linguist · seen in 41.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.8% of calls 91.8% repeat consistency
NO Does an executive cite a conversation with a customer, partner, or employee as evidence? Military · seen in 53% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 53% of calls 84.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any question go to a named executive other than the CEO or CFO? Military · seen in 32.5% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.5% of calls 85.7% repeat consistency
NO Does an executive say "to be clear" or "let me be clear"? Military · seen in 13.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.8% of calls 96% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone mention a competitor by name without being prompted? Military · seen in 17% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 17% of calls 91.7% repeat consistency
YES Is there a question that management declines to answer directly, citing timing or disclosure constraints? Negotiation · seen in 71.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 71.2% of calls 88% repeat consistency
YES Does any question explicitly reference the company's prior guidance or outlook? Negotiation · seen in 80% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 80% of calls 91.7% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "next question" or does the operator use the word "final" before the last question? Negotiation · seen in 76.1% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 76.1% of calls 81.7% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "invest" or "investment" appear at least five times in the transcript? Negotiation · seen in 62% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 62% of calls 92% repeat consistency
YES Does the CFO handle a strategic question instead of a financial one? Negotiation · seen in 58.9% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 58.9% of calls 86.3% repeat consistency
YES Does an analyst flatter management within their first sentence of speaking? Negotiation · seen in 46.6% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 46.6% of calls 90.7% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst ask two questions when told to ask only one? Negotiation · seen in 15.2% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 15.2% of calls 88.3% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone use the phrase "underlying" to modify a business metric? Negotiation · seen in 38.3% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 38.3% of calls 94.7% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "excited" or "pleased" at least twice in the transcript? Negotiation · seen in 70.6% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 70.6% of calls 97% repeat consistency
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
YES Does an executive answer a question by citing a competitor's actions? Negotiation · seen in 36.3% 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 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
YES Does anyone use the phrase "the team" when taking ownership would be natural? Poker · seen in 42.5% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 42.5% of calls 81% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone blame weather, holidays, or calendar quirks unprompted? Poker · seen in 35.6% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 35.6% of calls 83% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone cite a personal anecdote involving a customer conversation? Poker · seen in 16.6% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 16.6% of calls 81.7% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone use the phrase "a little bit"? Private Credit · seen in 87.3% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 87.3% of calls 96% repeat consistency
YES Is the CFO the speaker for at least one analyst question? Private Credit · seen in 87.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 87.8% of calls 99% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "guidance" appear in the transcript? Private Credit · seen in 78.7% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 78.7% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "we're excited" or "we are excited"? Private Credit · seen in 49.5% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 49.5% of calls 93.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "dividend" appear? Private Credit · seen in 45.5% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 45.5% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency
YES Is the word "invest" or "investment" used more than twice? Private Credit · seen in 75% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 75% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "invest" or "investment" appear at least twice? Private Credit · seen in 85.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 85.8% of calls 96.7% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone cite a percentage of revenue from a specific segment? Private Credit · seen in 40.3% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 40.3% of calls 92.6% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "challenge" or "challenging" appear at least once? Private Credit · seen in 68.6% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 68.6% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone describe cutting discretionary spending like travel or hiring? Private Credit · seen in 13.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.8% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the phrase "year over year" appear? Private Credit · seen in 72.9% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 72.9% of calls 96% repeat consistency
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
YES Does management thank analysts at any point? Private Credit · seen in 84.9% of calls
How to read this YES

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

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

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.6% of calls 87.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "cost" appear in the first ten sentences of prepared remarks? Private Credit · seen in 23.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.8% of calls 85.3% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive say "we remain confident" or similar? Private Credit · seen in 35.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 35.8% of calls 82.6% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone mention covenants, amendments to loan documents, or lender conversations? Private Credit · seen in 11.6% 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 11.6% of calls 95.7% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "with that" or "that said" to pivot? Private Credit · seen in 81.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 81.4% of calls 96.7% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive open their first answer by thanking the analyst? Private Credit · seen in 37.1% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.1% of calls 94.6% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst's question include the word "capex" or "cash flow"? Procurement · seen in 38.5% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 38.5% of calls 94.5% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "headline" or "headwinds" appear at least once? Procurement · seen in 43.1% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 43.1% of calls 95.9% repeat consistency
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
YES Does any analyst's question include a percentage figure? Project · seen in 69.1% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 69.1% of calls 91.1% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst's question contain the word "guidance"? Project · seen in 54.3% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 54.3% of calls 92.4% repeat consistency
NO Does the CFO's prepared remarks exceed 1,000 words? Project · seen in 40.9% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 40.9% of calls 89.3% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker say "if you look at"? Project · seen in 54.1% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 54.1% of calls 89.3% repeat consistency
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
YES Does any speaker use the phrase "tailwind" or "tailwinds"? Project · seen in 27.3% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.3% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
YES Does management use the phrase "balance sheet" at least twice? Project · seen in 41.1% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.1% of calls 96.6% repeat consistency
YES Does the CEO make closing remarks after the Q&A ends? Project · seen in 64.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 64.8% of calls 96.2% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker say "structurally" or "secular"? Project · seen in 13% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 13% of calls 97.9% repeat consistency
YES Does the operator say "our next question" two or more times? Scientist · seen in 73.5% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 73.5% of calls 85.6% repeat consistency
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
YES Does an analyst preface a question with "quick" or "quickly"? Screenwriter · seen in 56% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 56% of calls 99% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive state a specific numeric percentage when answering a question? Screenwriter · seen in 86.7% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 86.7% of calls 97.9% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone say "in terms of" at least twice? Screenwriter · seen in 84.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 84.8% of calls 94% repeat consistency
NO Is there a question that clearly annoyed the executive, visible in the reply's abruptness? Screenwriter · seen in 27.1% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.1% of calls 85.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "guidance" appear in the Q&A section? Screenwriter · seen in 66.6% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 66.6% of calls 93.1% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "strong" appear more than five times? Screenwriter · seen in 64.9% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 64.9% of calls 91.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the phrase "thank you" appear more than ten times? Screenwriter · seen in 62.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 62.8% of calls 80.9% repeat consistency
YES Does an analyst ask a question containing the word "margin"? Screenwriter · seen in 60.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 60.2% of calls 93.6% repeat consistency
YES Does management use the word "guidance" at least twice? Screenwriter · seen in 65.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 65.8% of calls 95.5% repeat consistency
YES Does the phrase "thank you" appear at least ten times anywhere in the transcript? Screenwriter · seen in 72.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 72.8% of calls 83.2% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive begin an answer by restating the analyst's name? Screenwriter · seen in 85.3% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 85.3% of calls 97% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst ask about capital allocation or share repurchases? Screenwriter · seen in 42.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 42.2% of calls 93.1% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "challenge" or "challenging" appear at least twice? Screenwriter · seen in 47.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 47.8% of calls 95.2% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "opportunity" or "opportunities" appear more than three times? Screenwriter · seen in 66.5% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 66.5% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency
NO Is there a villain—market conditions, regulation, currency—that behaves consistently across the call? Screenwriter · seen in 83.3% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.3% of calls 86.3% repeat consistency
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
YES Does any analyst ask a personal, warm, or congratulatory question? Screenwriter · seen in 49.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 49.4% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the phrase "capital" appear at least five times? Screenwriter · seen in 50.3% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 50.3% of calls 92.1% repeat consistency
YES Does an analyst ask a question the prepared remarks already answered? Screenwriter · seen in 86.1% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 86.1% of calls 82.7% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "quarter" appear at least twenty times? Screenwriter · seen in 84.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 84.4% of calls 90.4% repeat consistency
NO Does any single analyst ask more than two questions during the whole call? Screenwriter · seen in 86.6% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 86.6% of calls 89.7% repeat consistency
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
YES Is the word "headwinds" or "tailwinds" used? Screenwriter · seen in 41.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.8% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "margin" appear at least three times? Screenwriter · seen in 73.6% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 73.6% of calls 98% repeat consistency
YES Is the word "confidence" or "confident" spoken by any executive? Screenwriter · seen in 73.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 73.2% of calls 97.7% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone use the phrase "call it" or "let's call it" before an estimate? Screenwriter · seen in 24.7% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.7% of calls 96.7% repeat consistency
YES Does the phrase "going forward" appear? Screenwriter · seen in 62.9% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 62.9% of calls 87.6% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone say "coming back" or "circling back" to take a follow-up? Screenwriter · seen in 11% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 11% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "inflation" appear at least twice? Screenwriter · seen in 25.3% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 25.3% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive say "we believe" at least twice? Screenwriter · seen in 65.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 65.8% of calls 92.8% repeat consistency
YES Does management use the phrase "going forward"? Screenwriter · seen in 56.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 56.2% of calls 85.6% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the word "robust"? Screenwriter · seen in 46% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 46% of calls 99% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker use the phrase "if you will" or "so to speak"? Screenwriter · seen in 23.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.2% of calls 97.7% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "appreciate" at least once? Screenwriter · seen in 63.9% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 63.9% of calls 94.2% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the phrase "at the end of the day"? Screenwriter · seen in 12.5% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 12.5% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone tell a self-contained anecdote with a beginning, middle, and end? Screenwriter · seen in 27.7% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.7% of calls 82% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive use the phrase "our team"? Screenwriter · seen in 50.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 50.8% of calls 88.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the transcript contain a silence, pause, or "we'll come back to that" that never resolves? Screenwriter · seen in 15.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 15.8% of calls 85.7% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone describe a customer, employee, or competitor as a named character with a motive? Screenwriter · seen in 11.4% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 11.4% of calls 87.3% repeat consistency
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
YES Is the word "excited" or "exciting" used by management at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 45.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 45.8% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "just" five or more times? Semiotician · seen in 83.3% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.3% of calls 82.2% repeat consistency
YES Does any question begin with "Can you" or "Could you"? Semiotician · seen in 84.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 84.8% of calls 85.2% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "quick" or "quickly" appear in three or more analyst questions? Semiotician · seen in 13.2% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.2% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency
YES Does an analyst ask for guidance on a metric management did not offer unprompted? Semiotician · seen in 87.3% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 87.3% of calls 89.7% repeat consistency
YES Is there a question about capital allocation (buybacks, M&A, debt, or dividends)? Semiotician · seen in 67.7% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 67.7% of calls 91.7% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst use the word "clarify" or "clarification"? Semiotician · seen in 32.9% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.9% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "obviously" appear at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 57.9% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 57.9% of calls 87.2% repeat consistency
YES Does management refer to a prior call or prior quarter's commentary when answering? Semiotician · seen in 87.9% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 87.9% of calls 90% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone use the word "actually" at least three times? Semiotician · seen in 46.2% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 46.2% of calls 85.5% repeat consistency
NO Does any executive begin an answer with "Look," or "So,"? Semiotician · seen in 85.7% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 85.7% of calls 85% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "challenging" or "challenges" appear at least three times? Semiotician · seen in 32.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.2% of calls 90.6% repeat consistency
NO Does the operator run out of queued questions and close early? Semiotician · seen in 34.3% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 34.3% of calls 83.5% repeat consistency
NO Does any analyst apologize or preface with "sorry" before asking? Semiotician · seen in 32.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.8% of calls 92.9% repeat consistency
YES Is the word "excited" used by the CEO more than the word "confident"? Semiotician · seen in 33.1% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.1% of calls 92% repeat consistency
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
YES Does the word "tailwind" or "headwind" appear? Semiotician · seen in 52.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 52.2% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst's question begin with a compliment or congratulation? Semiotician · seen in 41.5% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 41.5% of calls 88.3% repeat consistency
NO Does an analyst apologize before or during their question? Semiotician · seen in 32.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.8% of calls 96.6% repeat consistency
NO Are there more questions about revenue than about costs? Semiotician · seen in 69.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 69.8% of calls 85.2% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "challenging" appear at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 20.1% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 20.1% of calls 97% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker use the phrase "on a" four or more times total (e.g., "on a constant currency basis")? Semiotician · seen in 54.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 54.8% of calls 82.8% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive answer begin with "Sure" or "Yes" followed by a comma? Semiotician · seen in 71.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 71.4% of calls 83.2% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone say "from a ... perspective" (e.g., "from a margin perspective")? Semiotician · seen in 56.9% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 56.9% of calls 87.2% repeat consistency
YES Does an executive say "we're not going to" in response to a question? Semiotician · seen in 25% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 25% of calls 92% repeat consistency
YES Does management decline to answer by citing a future event ("we'll address that in..." or "at our upcoming...")? Semiotician · seen in 34.6% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 34.6% of calls 82% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "quarter" appear at least 20 times? Semiotician · seen in 87.7% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 87.7% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency
NO Is there a mention of "FX," "currency," or "foreign exchange"? Semiotician · seen in 39.5% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 39.5% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency
NO Does any executive say "that's right" or "that's correct" to an analyst? Semiotician · seen in 23.6% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.6% of calls 96.2% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "leverage" appear at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 52.1% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 52.1% of calls 94.5% repeat consistency
YES Is the word "leverage" used at least three times? Semiotician · 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 90% repeat consistency
NO Does management use the word "headwinds" at least once? Semiotician · seen in 33.6% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.6% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "great question" or thank the analyst before answering? Semiotician · seen in 51.8% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 51.8% of calls 84% repeat consistency
YES Does anyone attribute results to "the team" rather than to strategy? Semiotician · seen in 61.6% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 61.6% of calls 90.7% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker say "going forward"? Semiotician · seen in 61.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 61.4% of calls 85.6% repeat consistency
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
NO Does a speaker say "normal" or "normalized" about conditions that predate any disruption mentioned? Semiotician · seen in 33.7% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.7% of calls 81% repeat consistency
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
YES Is the phrase "base case" or "scenario" used at least once? Semiotician · seen in 19.1% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 19.1% of calls 96.9% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone say "we take that seriously" or "we're very focused on"? Semiotician · seen in 18% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 18% of calls 92% repeat consistency
NO Is the phrase "to your point" or "as you mentioned" used at least once? Semiotician · seen in 32.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.8% of calls 83.5% repeat consistency
NO Does the operator say "thank you" more than three times? Semiotician · seen in 30% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 30% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency
NO Does management mention a specific competitor by name? Semiotician · seen in 20.8% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 20.8% of calls 93.1% repeat consistency
YES Does management say "the team" at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 31.9% 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 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
YES Does the phrase "ahead of" precede any mention of guidance or expectations? Semiotician · seen in 14.1% 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 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
NO Does the word "resilient" or "resilience" appear? Semiotician · seen in 24.7% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.7% of calls 98% repeat consistency
YES Does the operator mention a queue or "next question" more than three times? Simultaneous · seen in 74.2% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 74.2% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst ask a follow-up after their initial answer ("follow-up", "second one", "just one more")? Simultaneous · seen in 88.5% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 88.5% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any analyst ask a question containing the word "why"? Simultaneous · seen in 36.1% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 36.1% of calls 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
NO Does the word "clearly" appear anywhere in the transcript? Simultaneous · seen in 50.9% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 50.9% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency
YES Does the CEO speak first among named executives in the Q&A? Simultaneous · seen in 68.3% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 68.3% of calls 94.6% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "headwind" or "headwinds" appear at least twice? Simultaneous · seen in 28.5% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 28.5% of calls 97% repeat consistency
YES Does the CFO mention a specific percentage greater than ten? Simultaneous · seen in 89.1% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 89.1% of calls 96.6% repeat consistency
YES Does the phrase "going forward" appear at least once? Simultaneous · seen in 63.4% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 63.4% of calls 86.5% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "team" appear at least three times? Simultaneous · seen in 59% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 59% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency
YES Does the word "confident" appear in any executive's remarks? Simultaneous · seen in 60.7% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 60.7% of calls 97.7% repeat consistency
YES Does an analyst thank management at the start or end of their turn? Simultaneous · seen in 81.6% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 81.6% of calls 95.7% repeat consistency
NO Does the CEO use the word "incredibly" at any point? Simultaneous · seen in 15% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 15% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive use the word "team" to refer to company personnel? Simultaneous · seen in 83.6% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.6% of calls 98.7% repeat consistency
NO Does anyone say "to your point" when answering a question? Simultaneous · seen in 10.3% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.3% of calls 98% repeat consistency
YES Does any executive say "with that" to transition between speakers or topics? Simultaneous · seen in 75% of calls
How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 75% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency
NO Does the word "transformation" or "transformational" appear? Simultaneous · seen in 24.2% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.2% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency
NO Does any speaker say "moving on" or "next question" themselves? Simultaneous · seen in 25.1% of calls
How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 25.1% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency
YES Does any speaker use the word "hedging" or say "to hedge"? Simultaneous · seen in 13.5% 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 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 GPOR calls. Open a question to read the model's original reasoning.

222 saved explanations · 222 questions
NO Free option on their own operations: management describes a real capability it already owns that could serve a second, m Q4 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ4 2016 · 2017-02-14

我们根据提供的财报电话会议记录，判断管理层是否描述了公司已有的某种能力或资产，被用于第二个更大的用途，并且已经开始产生实际业务。关键词：现有能力、更大用途、正在转化。 浏览记录中，管理层提到： - 在Utica页岩的业务中，他们开发了钻井和完井技术，提高了效率。 - 他们收购了SCOOP资产，并表示将把在Utica学到的技术应用到SCOOP。 - 具体来说，Rob Jones提到“我们将实施一些在俄亥俄运营中的最佳实践”，Stuart Maier提到“应用我们在Utica使用的分析方法”。 - Mark Malone提到“我们计划在SCOOP中实施我们的基础Utica设计”，并说“我们期望能将同样的效率带入SCOOP”。 这些表明，公司已有的钻井和完井能力（在Utica开发的技术）现在被应用到SCOOP资产上，而SCOOP是一个新的、更大的资产基础（但注意，SCOOP是收购来的，不是公司原本拥有的）。问题中要求“公司已经拥有并运营的现有能力”，这里的能力是技术和方法，而不是物理资产。公司已经拥有这些技术，并用于Utica业务。现在发现这些技术也适用于更大的SCOOP资产。 但SCOOP本身是收购来的，不是公司原有资产。但问题问的是“something the company already owns and already operates for its existing business”，即已有能力，而该能力被用于第二个更大用途。这里的能力是技术、流程、知识，公司已经拥有并用于Utica。现在应用于SCOOP，SCOOP是更大的机会。 管理层明确说：“我们期待将我们在盆地学到的知识应用到SCOOP。”并且提到“我们计划在2017年立即增加砂量，并在整个区域实施我们的基础Utica设计。”这是实际的行动，不是计划。他们已经在SCOOP钻井，计划2017年钻19-21口井。所以有实际活动。 第二个用途是否更大？SCOOP有14年的钻井库存，而Utica是现有的。但Utica本身也是大的。管理层说SCOOP提供了“multi-year high return drilling inventory”和“significant upside”。但需要确认是否“materially bigger”。从描述看，SCOOP是新的资产，但公司现有业务主要是Utica，SCOOP是新增的。但问题问的是“同一能力的第二个用途”是否更大。这里，技术用于SCOOP，而SCOOP的潜力被认为很大，但不确定是否比Utica更大。管理层没有明确说SCOOP比Utica大，只是说互补。但“larger”可能指更有利可图或更长期。实际上，SCOOP有14年钻井库存，而公司正在增加rigs。但Utica也是核心。可能符合“materially bigger”因为SCOOP有多个层位，潜力更大。 第三点：已经转化，但数字中很少体现。管理层说2017年计划在SCOOP钻19-21口井，但2016年Q4财报中尚未包含SCOOP贡献（因为收购在12月宣布但可能未完成）。实际上SCOOP收购在2016年12月宣布，但可能2017年才完成。从电话会议看，他们计划2017年活动，但“已经转换”了吗？他们在SCOOP有现有生产（因为收购包括生产），但那是收购的，不是用现有能力转化的。现有能力是技术，技术应用是新的。他们计划在2017年实施，但电话会议是Q4 2016，所以实际上他们刚开始？管理层说“我们计划在2017年立即开始应用”，并且“我们已经在SCOOP有钻机计划”。但具体数字尚未体现。他们提到2017年生产指导包括SCOOP，但当前财报是2016 Q4，不含。 但问题要求“has recently begun turning that second use into real business”和“actual first customers, orders, shipments, volumes, contracts, usage, or revenue in the recent period” — 在财报电话会议上，他们提到什么实际交易吗？他们说“we plan to turn to sales 17 to 19 gross wells during 2017”，但那是未来。没有提到已经完成的SCOOP井或收入。他们提到“we are having conversations with service providers”，但那是计划。他们提到“we are getting non-operated information”，但那是数据。 所以，可能第二用途尚未开始实际转化，只是计划。而且SCOOP是收购来的，不是已有能力的新用途。技术是已有能力，但应用于SCOOP是新的，但尚未产生实际收入。因为电话会议是Q4 2016，SCOOP收购可能未完成，所以没有实际数字。 另外，问题中“something the company already owns and already operates for its existing business” — 公司拥有技术，并运营Utica业务。该技术用于SCOOP是第二用途。但第二用途是否更大？可能，但不确定。第三点要求“already converting”和“the numbers barely show it”。管理层没有说SCOOP已有收入，只说计划。他们提到“we have been active on the hedging front … expanding the book to include the acquired SCOOP production”，但那是收购的生产，不是技术应用产

Open the full research page →
NO Caught under-prepared by good news: the recent period outran what management had set up for, and they are visibly adjust Q4 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ4 2016 · 2017-02-14

We need to determine if the transcript conveys that the recent period's business came in stronger, faster, or bigger than what the company had set itself up for, and if management is adjusting in response. Let's analyze the transcript. The company is Gulfport Energy. They discuss 2016 results and 2017 plans. They mention record production growth, cost reductions, and the acquisition of SCOOP assets. They talk about efficiencies and cost savings. They mention that they have locked in costs and are increasing activity. Key points: They say "2016 proved to be a defining year" and "record production growth, an increase of 32% over 2015". They also mention that they ended the year with a significant acquisition. They talk about cost trends lower. They mention that they are increasing activity in 2017 with more rigs. But does the transcript indicate that the business outran the company's own preparations? For example, did they see demand or volumes beyond what they planned? They mention that they are increasing rig count in the Utica from 3 to 6? Actually they say "We doubled our rig count in the Utica" for 2017. But that might be a planned increase, not a response to surprise. They also mention that they have locked in 85% of costs for 2017. They talk about efficiencies. Look for language like "stronger than anticipated" or "faster than we planned". I see "we exceeded many of our previous drilling records" and "we had an exceptional year". But that's about their own performance, not necessarily about demand outpacing their plans. They also mention that they are adding two senior drilling engineers for the SCOOP. That could be a response to the acquisition, but not necessarily to a surprise. The question is about the recent period (likely 2016) and whether the business came in stronger than what they had set up for. They might have had a plan for 2016, and they exceeded it? But they don't explicitly say that they were surprised by the level of activity. They talk about record production, but that was planned? They had a capital budget for 2016, and they executed it. They might have had guidance, and they beat it? But the question is about operating activity outrunning preparations, not just financial results. They mention that they are increasing activity in 2017, but that could be a planned increase based on their strategy, not a reaction to an unexpected surge.

Open the full research page →
NO Answers go deeper than the script: questioning keeps surfacing new concrete detail behind a positive development — broad Q4 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ4 2016 · 2017-02-14

We need answer only YES or NO. Need evaluate both gates using transcript. Gate 1: Is there positive current development where Q&A produces more concrete operating detail than prepared remarks? Main positive development likely SCOOP acquisition and integration, Utica efficiencies, completions. Need see Q&A adds specifics. Prepared remarks already detailed. Q&A: Neal asks about future growth, Mike says 2018 status quo, 30% growth. Not much new. Ron asks about SCOOP completions, type curves, Gen 1 vs Gen 4. Mike clarifies type curves include Gen 3/4. Mark says plan enhance. Some detail but not much new. Jason asks service costs locked in. Rob says 85% locked, Mark says vertical integration. Mike adds Mammoth purchase equipment, leverage. Some new. Marshall asks Sycamore. Stuart says IPs comparable, characteristics. Mike says private operator northwest developing, possible location later year. New detail. David asks well cost savings targets. Mike says no built in, Utica improvements, stages per day. Mark says anticipate five-stage range. Mike says 70-day drill assumption, Rob drilled original wells. New specifics. Steve asks Springer sand vs shale. Stuart explains. Jeff asks Woodford thickness, landing zones. Stuart explains three intervals, 3D seismic, wine racking. Ty gathering processing. Gordon asks Utica leasehold, SCOOP working interest. Mike says work in progress, land budget. Does Q&A produce more concrete operating detail than prepared remarks? Yes, multiple exchanges add specifics: Sycamore private operator, possible test later year; completion stage efficiency target 5 stages/day; drilling 70-day assumption; Woodford three intervals; Mammoth equipment; 85% locked. This is positive current development (SCOOP integration, Utica efficiencies). Need Gate 1 likely YES. Gate 2: Improvement filter: main positive development rests on broad and granular demand base? The development is company's own operational execution, not demand from customers. It's about drilling/completion efficiencies and SCOOP asset. Demand base? No, this is not about customer adoption. The question asks "development rests on a BROAD and GRANULAR demand base — many independent customers..." This is about business development with customers. Here positive development is operational efficiency and asset acquisition, not demand. So Gate 2 NO. Need answer NO because both gates must YES.

Open the full research page →
NO Geographic or market replication just started working outside the home base Q4 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ4 2016 · 2017-02-14

We need answer YES/NO based on transcript. Need identify pattern: home-proven base, away results real recent, early expanding small share. Company Gulfport Energy originally? Founded in Oklahoma, but recent? Actually company has Utica Shale in Appalachia as main asset, and recently acquired SCOOP in Oklahoma. Management describes SCOOP acquisition as new territory? They say "Since our entrance into Appalachia five years ago..." and "We have entered the Mid-Continent to do the same in the SCOOP play." So home-proven base is Utica (Appalachia) proven. New territory is SCOOP (Oklahoma) recently acquired. Are away results real and recent? The acquisition is recent, closing shortly? They have production from acquisition? They mention "existing strong production base" and "acquired SCOOP production" in hedging. They plan 2017 activity. But is it "recently begun producing real results in new territory"? The acquisition includes existing production, but management hasn't operated it yet? They are about to close. They describe plans, not results from their own operations. They mention "we have recently added two senior drilling engineers" and "plan to focus" etc. They have not yet turned wells to sales in SCOOP. The away results are not yet real from their own model; it's acquired asset with existing production. The question asks: "does management describe that a business already proven in the company's ORIGINAL market, territory, or setting has RECENTLY begun producing REAL RESULTS IN NEW TERRITORY — additional regions, countries, markets, or settings the company has recently entered — with management presenting the away-from-home results as early evidence that the proven model travels, while the new territories remain a small share of the company today?" Need answer YES if all three. Here, home-proven base: Utica. Away results now real and recent: The SCOOP acquisition has existing production, but management hasn't operated it yet. They are planning to apply their techniques. They say "we plan to immediately walk up the sand volumes" etc. No actual results from their own operations in SCOOP yet. They mention "existing strong production base" but that's acquired, not their model replicating. Also expansion is chiefly by acquisition just consolidated rather than company's own model replicating? The acquisition is a major acquisition, not organic replication.

Open the full research page →
NO Repeat pull from proven relationships plus room left: the installed base is expanding on its own initiative and is still Q4 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ4 2016 · 2017-02-14

We need to determine if the transcript describes existing counterparties (customers, partners, etc.) that have already been served and proven themselves, and are currently, on their own initiative, taking or committing to meaningfully more than before, while also conveying that these relationships remain lightly penetrated with substantial room for further expansion. Let's analyze the transcript. The company is Gulfport Energy, an oil and gas producer. The "counterparties" could be customers, midstream partners, service providers, etc. The question asks about existing relationships deepening. Key points from the transcript: - The company discusses its operations in Utica and SCOOP. - They talk about marketing arrangements, differentials, and hedging. - They mention "strategic vision of our marketing team" and "arrangements they have put in place over the past few years to ensure our products access to premium markets." This suggests existing marketing relationships. - They discuss the SCOOP acquisition and its proximity to demand centers, but that's new assets. - They talk about midstream build out, but that's for new assets. - They mention "we have a solid base load of hedges in place" and "expanding the book to include the acquired SCOOP production." That's hedging, not customer expansion. - They discuss "increased optionality and diversification with regards to Gulfport's access to regional end markets" from combining marketing arrangements. That's about new opportunities, not necessarily existing customers taking more. - They mention "we are encouraged by recent FERC progress and improving pipeline projects beneficial to all Appalachia producers" and "have good visibility to the majority of our incremental firm targeting the Gulf Coast demand coming on in 2017." That's about pipeline capacity, not existing customers expanding. - They talk about "less than 5% of our 2017 forecasted production" exposed to basin, but that's about risk. The question specifically asks about existing counterparties that have already been served and proven themselves, and are currently taking more on their own initiative. The transcript does not describe any specific customers or partners increasing their orders or commitments. The discussion is about marketing arrangements, hedging, and pipeline projects, but no mention of existing customers expanding their purchases.

Open the full research page →
NO Someone else already paid for the growth: management describes an outside party bearing the cost, risk, or work that exp Q4 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ4 2016 · 2017-02-14

We need to determine if management describes an outside party bearing the cost, risk, or work of expanding the company's business. The transcript is about Gulfport Energy's Q4 2016 earnings call. They discuss their Utica and SCOOP operations. They mention that they have locked in costs, have contracts, and are vertically integrated. They talk about their own drilling and completion activities. They mention that they have a robust hedging program. They also mention that they have a midstream build out associated with Strike Force, which is their own midstream. They mention that they have a land budget. They talk about their own capital expenditures. There is no mention of an outside party funding or executing expansion. They mention that they have contracts with service providers, but those are suppliers. They mention that they have a vertically integrated company, meaning they own their own services. They mention that they have a strong balance sheet and fund their activities through cash flow and liquidity. There is no indication that an outside party is bearing the cost, risk, or work of expanding the business. The growth is funded by their own capital. They also mention that they have a joint venture? No, they don't. They mention that they have non-operated interests in some wells, but that is them being a non-operator, not an outside party bearing cost for them. Actually, they mention that they are getting non-operated information from offset operators, but that is not about expanding their business. They also mention that they have a partnership with Mammoth, but that is about their own midstream. They mention that they have locked in costs, but that is about their own spending. So the answer is NO. The question asks: "On this call, does management describe that AN OUTSIDE PARTY IS ALREADY BEARING THE COST, RISK, OR WORK OF EXPANDING THIS COMPANY'S BUSINESS — that is, someone other than the company is spending its own money, committing its own assets, or doing its own labor in a way that directly enlarges what this company sells, serves, or earns — and does management convey that this outside effort is real and underway now while the resulting business is still mostly ahead of the company?" Looking at the transcript, management talks about their own capital expenditures, their own drilling, their own completions, their own midstream build out.

Open the full research page →
NO New audience on the call: management says a different kind of buyer has recently arrived and is now paying real money Q4 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ4 2016 · 2017-02-14

We need answer YES/NO. Need analyze transcript. Need determine if management describes a NEW KIND of paying counterparty recently begun doing real business, meaningful. Let's parse. Company Gulfport Energy, oil/gas. Historical business: Utica Shale natural gas, now acquired SCOOP in Oklahoma. They discuss marketing arrangements, access to premium markets, end markets. Need identify "new kind of paying counterparty" recently begun doing real business. Could be "SCOOP acquisition provides flexibility with respect to marketing, providing end market diversification" "proximity to end markets and growing demand centers" "Gulf Coast LNG, Mexican demand and growing power generation and utility loads in southeast" Hmm. Question asks: "does management describe that a NEW KIND of paying counterparty has RECENTLY begun doing real business with the company — a type of customer, market, or buyer that was not part of how this company historically earned its money — and does management treat this arrival as a meaningful new leg of the business rather than a curiosity?" Need answer YES only if management's own words convey one coherent development: composition of who pays company has recently broadened in kind, and new kind already transacting. In transcript, management talks about "strategic vision of marketing team and arrangements they have put in place over past few years to ensure our products access to premium markets." "For 2016, natural gas differential came in at tight end... oil differential narrowed... increased total value of NGL barrel." "As we look towards 2017, opportunities and synergies ... combining marketing arrangements from Mid-Continent with current portfolio in Appalachia creates increased optionality and diversification with regards to Gulfport's access to regional end markets and demand centers." "In Utica, encouraged by recent FERC progress and improving pipeline projects beneficial to all Appalachia producers and have good visibility to majority of incremental firm targeting Gulf Coast demand coming on in 2017. Including some risking for most recently approved projects, continue to forecast Gulfport's in-basin exposure less than 5% of 2017 forecasted production." "As for SCOOP, centrally located and in close proximity to multiple pricing hubs, including Henry Hub, Mont Belvieu and Cushing, reducing transport cost and increasing margins.

Open the full research page →
NO Secure base, several live doors: core not in question, multiple distinct expansion avenues already producing Q4 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ4 2016 · 2017-02-14

We need answer YES/NO based on transcript. Need evaluate both halves. Core business: Gulfport Energy, Utica Shale natural gas. Management discusses 2016 results, production growth, cost reductions, reserves. They are not defending or fixing core; it's performing. They also acquired SCOOP asset. They describe SCOOP as new asset, with multiple zones: Woodford, Springer, Sycamore. Are these distinct avenues? They are all within SCOOP, but they are different formations/zones. However, question asks "more than one distinct avenue of additional growth beyond that core" - each avenue already real and producing early results. The SCOOP acquisition itself is one avenue? But they describe multiple zones within SCOOP: Woodford, Springer, Sycamore. Are these distinct avenues? They are different resource plays, but all part of same acquisition/geography. Also they mention Utica activity, SCOOP. But the core is Utica. Additional growth: SCOOP is one major avenue. Within SCOOP, they have multiple targets: Woodford, Springer, Sycamore. Are these "genuinely different avenues"? They are different formations, but same asset, same geography, same operators. The question says "such as a newer product or service line, a new customer type or market, a new geography or channel, added capacity or capability being loaded, a new way of monetizing what it already has, or an expansion of scope with existing customers." The SCOOP is a new geography. But within that, multiple zones are not necessarily distinct avenues; they are stacked pay in same play. However, management describes them as separate targets with separate potential. But are they "already in motion with something real to show now"? For Woodford, they are drilling. For Springer, they plan to test by end of year. For Sycamore, they are monitoring offset operators, plan to test later. So Springer and Sycamore are not yet producing for Gulfport; they are plans. The only real avenue beyond core is SCOOP Woodford development. That is one avenue. Also they mention Utica wet gas? But that's part of core. They also mention midstream build out? That's supporting. They mention marketing diversification? That's not growth avenue. Thus answer NO because only one additional avenue (SCOOP) with real results, and within that, other zones are aspirational/plans. Also the core is solid. But need both halves. The second half fails.

Open the full research page →
NO Sold before it exists: the company is already taking committed orders or reservations for output it cannot yet produce Q4 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ4 2016 · 2017-02-14

We need answer only YES or NO. Need analyze transcript. Need determine if management describes counterparties already committed to take output/product/capacity/service that company not yet able to deliver. Need both halves: commitments real and already made; ability to supply not yet fully exists and gap being closed now. Also commitments large relative to current level. Let's parse transcript. Company Gulfport Energy, oil/gas. Discusses 2016 results, 2017 capital budget, Utica and SCOOP acquisition. Need look for offtake, firm transportation, hedging? Hedging is not counterparty taking output? Hedges are financial contracts, not physical offtake. Need see if management mentions commitments to take output from future production. They mention marketing arrangements, firm transportation, pipeline projects. "we have good visibility to the majority of our incremental firm targeting the Gulf Coast demand coming on in 2017. Including some risking for the most recently approved projects, we continue to forecast that Gulfport's and basin exposure will be less than 5% of our 2017 forecasted production." That's about pipeline capacity, not necessarily counterparties committed to take output. They mention "firm" transportation? "incremental firm targeting the Gulf Coast demand coming on in 2017" - likely firm transportation contracts. But is that counterparties committed to take output? No, it's transportation capacity they have contracted? Actually "firm" means firm transportation agreements with pipelines, not buyers. They have secured pipeline capacity to move gas. That is a service they buy, not output sold. Not relevant. Need look for "marketing arrangements" "strategic vision" "premium markets" "differentials" "hedging" - no. SCOOP acquisition: They bought acreage, plan to drill. No mention of pre-sold production. They mention "existing strong production base advantaged by proximity to end markets and growing demand centers commanding strong pricing" - not commitments. Maybe "we have a solid base load of hedges in place" - hedging is financial, not physical offtake. Not counterparties taking output. Question asks: "counterparties have already committed to take output, product, capacity, or service that the company is not yet able to deliver" - e.g., pre-sales of production from wells not yet drilled? No mention. Need answer NO. But let's be thorough.

Open the full research page →
NO Call runs ahead of the accounts: the business management describes is already operating beyond the period it is reportin Q4 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ4 2016 · 2017-02-14

The question asks whether there is a clear gap between the trailing period being reported and the level at which the business is already operating, such that management describes a company that has already moved beyond the results it is presenting. Let me analyze the transcript. The call is for Q4 2016 earnings. The company is Gulfport Energy, which operates in the Utica Shale and recently acquired SCOOP acreage in Oklahoma. Key points from the call: - 2016 was a record year with production growth of 32% over 2015 - The company announced a 2017 capital budget of $1-1.1 billion, up significantly - They plan to increase rig count in the Utica (from 3 to 6 rigs) and add 4 rigs in the SCOOP - The SCOOP acquisition closed recently (or is closing shortly - "we are closing here shortly on the SCOOP") - They plan to turn to sales 72-80 gross wells in Utica and 17-19 in SCOOP during 2017 - Production forecast of 1-1.1 Bcf/d, up 45-53% over 2016 Now, is there a gap between the reported period (Q4 2016 / full year 2016) and the current operating level? The 2016 results reflect the Utica operations with 3 rigs. The SCOOP acquisition was announced in December 2016 but the company says "we are closing here shortly on the SCOOP" - so it's not yet closed at the time of the call. The 2017 plan involves doubling the rig count and adding the SCOOP. However, the question is about whether management describes the company as ALREADY operating at a higher level than the reported period. Let me look for evidence: - Management talks about 2016 results as strong but the forward-looking statements are about 2017 plans - The SCOOP acquisition is not yet closed ("we are closing here shortly") - The increased activity is planned for 2017, not already happening - The rigs are being added - "We currently have six high spec built-for-purpose shale rigs running" - this is in the Utica, which is an increase from 3 rigs in 2016 Wait, let me re-read: "We currently have six high spec built-for-purpose shale rigs running that are locked in at attractive rates for the remainder of 2017" - this suggests the rigs are already running. But the 2016 results were with 3 rigs. Also: "In the SCOOP, we have recently added two senior drilling engineers to the group" - this is about staffing for the new asset. The question is whether management treats the reported numbers as behind the business.

Open the full research page →
NO Demand has broadened across independent fronts: growth is now coming from several distinct, currently-producing sources Q4 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ4 2016 · 2017-02-14

We need answer only YES or NO. Need evaluate transcript. Question asks: Does management describe current growth carried by several distinct independent sources at same time at least three genuinely different engines, each already producing real current business, and management conveys breadth is recent/building, company was until recently narrower, several sources still have most contribution ahead? Need use only transcript. We need parse. Company Gulfport Energy. 2016 results: record production growth 32% over 2015. Existing asset base Utica Shale. Also ended year with significant acquisition in SCOOP Oklahoma. So two basins: Utica and SCOOP. But SCOOP acquisition just announced/closed? In 2016? They say "ended the year with significant acquisition" and 2017 budget includes SCOOP. Is SCOOP already producing real current business? Yes acquisition includes existing production, reserves, cash flow. They describe SCOOP as "existing strong production base" and "immediate uplift in pricing". So current business. But is that at least three engines? Need identify at least three genuinely different engines: Utica dry gas, Utica wet gas? SCOOP Woodford, Springer, Sycamore? Products: natural gas, oil, NGLs? Marketing arrangements? Geographies: Appalachia and Mid-Continent. But question asks growth carried by several distinct independent sources at same time — at least three genuinely different engines such as different products, customer types, end markets, geographies, channels, ways of earning. Management describes Utica and SCOOP as two basins. Also within Utica dry gas and wet gas? They plan 5 rigs dry gas, 1 wet gas. But is wet gas a separate engine? Maybe not. SCOOP liquids-rich vs Utica dry gas. Also NGLs and oil? But growth primarily natural gas. Need see if management conveys breadth is recent/building: "combination of Utica and SCOOP provides opportunity... further diversifying Gulfport's commodity price exposure" "two of North America's..." They say "2016 proved to be a defining year... existing asset base provided another year of record production growth... and we also ended the year with significant acquisition in core SCOOP... positioning Gulfport as leading operator in two..." So breadth is new due to acquisition. But is that at least three engines? Maybe Utica, SCOOP, and midstream? No. Need answer NO if growth rests on one or two engines.

Open the full research page →
NO Insiders still discovering the upside: management reports the opportunity keeps revealing itself bigger in live operatio Q4 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ4 2016 · 2017-02-14

We need to determine if management conveys that it is still discovering new upside inside the business that is already working, and responding with real attention/resources. The question asks for a YES if both halves are present: (1) fresh discoveries coming out of live operation, and (2) management following the discoveries. Let's analyze the transcript. The call is about Q4 2016 earnings. Management discusses the Utica and the SCOOP acquisition. The SCOOP acquisition is a new asset, but the question is about "inside business that is already working" - i.e., the existing operations. The acquisition is a new business, not necessarily a discovery within existing operations. However, the question might consider the SCOOP as a new opportunity, but it's an acquisition, not a discovery from live operation. The question specifically says "in the course of actually operating, selling, or delivering in the recent period, the company keeps encountering genuine positive surprises about how much more there is for it to do". So we need to see if management talks about learning something favorable about the scope of its opportunity from current activity. Look for phrases like "we learned", "we discovered", "we found", "we are excited about the upside", etc. Also, management might talk about the Utica and how they are finding more potential, or about the SCOOP and how they are seeing more zones. In the transcript, Mike Moore says: "Our continued focus on efficiencies throughout the year paid dividends and we experienced another year of costs trending lower... Our drilling and completion teams continued to push the technical limits... increasing efficiency and further reducing our D&C cost per lateral foot by nearly 10% over our publically provided estimated well cost in 2016." That's about cost, not about discovering new upside. Stuart Maier talks about the SCOOP geology: "The recently acquired SCOOP acreage is located in the heart of the play... we see significant potential upside for the Sycamore... The Sycamore is age equivalent to the Meramec and Osage... we see considerable upside to recovery factors as we take our knowledge from the Utica and apply it here as we enter developmental mode in the SCOOP." That's about the new acquisition, not about existing business. Rob Jones talks about drilling efficiencies, but not about discovering new opportunities.

Open the full research page →
NO Spending like a bigger company on purpose: current results carry the cost of an expansion aimed at demand management say Q4 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ4 2016 · 2017-02-14

We need to answer YES or NO based on the transcript. The question asks: Does management acknowledge that the company's CURRENT reported results are being visibly weighed down by the cost of an expansion the company has ALREADY undertaken — spending, hiring, capacity, inventory, footprint, or organization added ahead of the revenue it will serve — AND does management justify carrying that burden by pointing to demand or business that it says is ALREADY REAL — arriving, committed, or observable now — rather than merely hoped for? We need to check if management on this call describes an expansion that is already underway and costing something now, and justifies it with demand that is already real. Let's review the transcript. The call is about Q4 2016 earnings. They discuss 2016 results and 2017 plans. They mention the SCOOP acquisition, which is a major expansion. They talk about increasing rig counts, hiring, etc. But the question is about CURRENT reported results being weighed down by the cost of an expansion already undertaken. The current reported results are for Q4 2016 and full year 2016. The SCOOP acquisition was announced in December 2016, but the closing is likely in early 2017. They mention "we are closing here shortly on the SCOOP" so it's not yet closed. They also talk about 2017 plans with increased activity. But do they acknowledge that current results are being weighed down by expansion costs? They talk about costs trending lower, efficiencies, etc. They don't seem to say that current results are depressed due to expansion. They talk about 2016 being a great year. They mention that they have locked in costs, etc. They don't mention any burden on current results from expansion. They talk about 2017 capital budget and increased activity, but that's future. The question is about current reported results being weighed down. They don't acknowledge that. They also don't justify with demand that is already real? They talk about marketing arrangements, but not specifically that they are carrying expansion costs now. They talk about the SCOOP acquisition as an opportunity, but it's not yet closed. So the expansion is not yet underway in terms of costs? They have incurred some costs? They mention leasehold expenditures, but that's part of capital. They don't say it's weighing down results. They also talk about 2017 plans, but that's future.

Open the full research page →
NO Overtaken by their own success: management is reworking company plans mid-course because real business arrived bigger or Q4 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ4 2016 · 2017-02-14

We need answer YES/NO based on transcript. Need identify if management reveals company's own working assumptions overtaken by actual activity, bigger/faster/broader than assumed, and already changed something concrete, still catching up. Let's parse transcript. Company Gulfport Energy. 2016 results, 2017 budget. Acquisition SCOOP. They discuss efficiencies, cost reductions, production growth. Need see if any statement that actual activity exceeded company's own assumptions and management already acted, still catching up. Possible areas: Utica drilling efficiencies? They say 2016 results exceeded many previous drilling records, but that's operational improvement, not necessarily "reality outran assumptions" in sense of demand/activity. They planned 2017 with increased rigs. SCOOP acquisition? They acquired asset, but that was planned. Did they say actual production or well results came in better than expected? They mention "we have found a highly prolific stacked-pay resource" but not that it outran assumptions. They mention "we see considerable upside to recovery factors" but that's future. Need look for management saying "we were surprised by how well X performed" and "we have already changed something." For example, in Utica, they increased rig count from 3 to 6? They say "We doubled our rig count in the Utica" for 2017. But that was planned budget, not necessarily response to overshoot. They mention "we have recently added two senior drilling engineers" to SCOOP. That is a concrete action, but is it because reality outran assumptions? They added engineers to handle new asset, not necessarily overshoot. Maybe there is mention of "we have been active in the market over the past several months, expanding the book to include acquired SCOOP production" - hedging, not operational. Question asks: "On this call, does management reveal that THE COMPANY'S OWN WORKING ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ITS BUSINESS HAVE BEEN OVERTAKEN BY WHAT IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING — that real activity in the recent period arrived bigger, faster, or broader than the company itself had assumed when it set its current plans — AND that management has ALREADY CHANGED SOMETHING CONCRETE about how the company operates in response?" Need find if management says something like "we expected X but got Y, so we are doing Z." Let's scan. Mike Moore opening: "2016 proved to be a defining year...

Open the full research page →
NO Undersized for what it has already been handed Q4 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ4 2016 · 2017-02-14

We need to answer YES or NO based on the transcript. The question asks: does management convey that the company is presently too small for the business it has already been given? That is, real, already-secured or already-arriving business is large relative to the company as it stands today, and the company is visibly working now to become big enough to serve it. We need to check three conditions: (1) business already the company's, not something to win; (2) out of proportion to present size; (3) company visibly growing into it now. Also, management should convey that results just reported contain little of this business. Let's analyze the transcript. The company is Gulfport Energy, an oil and gas producer. They have two main assets: Utica Shale in Ohio and a recent SCOOP acquisition in Oklahoma. The call discusses 2016 results and 2017 plans. Key points: They acquired SCOOP acreage. They are increasing activity. They have a capital budget of $1-1.1 billion for 2017, up from previous. They plan to increase production by 45-53% over 2016. They are adding rigs: in Utica they have 6 rigs, in SCOOP 4 rigs. They are planning to drill more wells. They talk about efficiencies and cost savings. But is the business "already secured" in the sense of demand, orders, contracts? For an oil and gas company, the business is the production and sale of hydrocarbons. They have reserves and production. They have marketing arrangements. They have hedges. But the question is about "business already been given" - meaning they have secured demand or contracts that exceed their current capacity. In oil and gas, the "business" is typically the production they can sell. They have a certain production rate. They are increasing it. But is there a situation where they have already committed to sell more than they can produce? They have hedges, but that's not exactly demand. They have marketing contracts. They mention they have a strong marketing portfolio. But the essence is: is there a situation where they have more business (e.g., committed sales) than they can currently handle? That seems unlikely for a commodity producer. They can always sell at market. The "business" is not a fixed order book. So condition (1) might not be met. However, the question is broader: "real, already-secured or already-arriving business is LARGE RELATIVE TO THE COMPANY AS IT STANDS TODAY".

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 Q4 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ4 2016 · 2017-02-14

We need answer YES/NO based on transcript. Need determine if management conveys dramatically cheaper/faster/easier to attempt new thing, and already taking several swings with at least one showing results. Let's parse. Company Gulfport Energy. They have Utica and acquired SCOOP. They talk about operational efficiencies, cost reductions, drilling/completion improvements. But question is about "attempt a new thing" - e.g., entering new play? They acquired SCOOP, now developing. They mention applying learnings from Utica to SCOOP, increasing sand volumes, testing Springer and Sycamore. Is that "new thing"? They are entering SCOOP, a new asset. They have multiple zones. They are taking swings: testing Springer and Sycamore, developing Woodford. But is cost of attempt dramatically fallen? They talk about efficiencies in Utica, cost per foot down, but that's existing offering. For SCOOP, they say they will implement best practices, but not yet. They mention "we plan to immediately walk up sand volumes" etc. But no evidence that cost of attempting new thing has fallen relative to past. They acquired SCOOP, but that's a one-time acquisition, not repeated attempts. They are increasing rigs. They mention "we have 10 rigs running between the two plays now" and "we've locked in costs." But the core question: Does management convey that it has become dramatically cheaper/faster/easier to attempt a new thing than it used to be, so company is now taking swings it previously could not afford, and already taking several such swings with at least one showing results? Let's look for specific language. Mike Moore: "Our continued focus on efficiencies throughout the year paid dividends and we experienced another year of costs trending lower across all areas of our business further expanding margins and increasing our overall returns." That's cost of operations, not attempts. Rob Jones: drilling efficiencies, days reduced, but that's existing. Mark Malone: completion efficiencies, stages per day increased. That's existing. They talk about SCOOP: "we plan to immediately walk up the sand volumes and begin implementing our base Utica design across the play." That's applying existing technique to new asset. But is that "attempting a new thing"? Yes, entering SCOOP is new. But did cost of attempt fall? They acquired acreage, but that's not necessarily cheaper.

Open the full research page →
NO Reality beat their plan and they're leaning in: recent realized upside surprise, response underway, drivers still live Q4 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ4 2016 · 2017-02-14

We need to determine if the transcript contains a coherent story of a realized favorable surprise, a visible response, and the cause still running. Let's analyze. The transcript discusses 2016 results, the SCOOP acquisition, and 2017 plans. Management mentions operational efficiencies, cost reductions, and production growth. They talk about exceeding previous records, but do they explicitly say something was better than the company's own expectation? For example, they mention "we exceeded many of our previous drilling records" but that's not necessarily a surprise vs. expectation. They also mention "our 2016 realized natural gas price... approximately 4% better than the midpoint of a guidance range" but that's financial vs guidance, not an operating surprise. They also mention "our oil differential narrowed by 21% over 2015" but no explicit "better than expected" for operations. The key is whether management recounts a specific event that exceeded their own plan and they are responding. The SCOOP acquisition is a major event, but it's an acquisition, not a surprise in operations. They talk about the potential of the SCOOP, but that's forward-looking. They mention "we have been active in the market over the past several months, expanding the book to include the acquired SCOOP production" - that's a response to the acquisition, but not a surprise. They also mention "we are encouraged by recent FERC progress" but that's not a surprise. Look for phrases like "ahead of expectations" or "better than we thought". I see "we exceeded many of our previous drilling records" but that's not a surprise vs plan. They also say "we had an exceptional year that we exceeded many of our previous drilling records" - again, not a surprise. They mention "our 2016 results are a testament to the focus... improving upon efficiencies" but no explicit surprise. They also mention "we have locked in about 85% of our Utica drilling and completion costs" - that's a response to cost environment, but not a surprise. The question asks: "does management recount that something REAL in the recent period turned out BETTER THAN THE COMPANY ITSELF HAD EXPECTED OR PLANNED — and is the company ALREADY responding to that favorable surprise in some visible way, with the cause of the surprise described as still in effect rather than finished?" I need to find a specific instance.

Open the full research page →
NO The open question just closed: management treats a doubt that used to hang over the business as now answered, and names Q4 2016 · archived research check

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

NOQ4 2016 · 2017-02-14

We need answer YES/NO. Need analyze transcript. Need determine if management identifies specific doubt/open question that until recently hung over business, now answered favorably with evidence. Transcript: Gulfport Energy. They discuss 2016 results, SCOOP acquisition, Utica. Need look for prior doubt/open question. They mention "As we approached this new acquisition, our process was very focused and methodical. We aim to evaluate opportunities that included meaningful cash flow, production and reserves, did not dilute quality... competed with returns of high quality core Utica, which is not an easy task. That said, through our SCOOP acquisition, we have found a highly prolific stacked-pay resource..." This is about acquisition, not necessarily doubt. They talk about "Our continued focus on efficiencies throughout the year paid dividends and we experienced another year of costs trending lower..." No prior doubt. They mention "The combination of Utica and SCOOP provides us opportunity..." No. Question asks: On this call, does management identify a SPECIFIC DOUBT OR OPEN QUESTION that until recently hung over the business — something genuinely uncertain or unproven about company in recent past — and convey that this question has NOW BEEN ANSWERED IN COMPANY'S FAVOR, pointing to real, recent evidence from business itself as what settled it? Need see if management acknowledges any prior doubt. They talk about "As we approached this new acquisition, our process was very focused and methodical. We aim to evaluate opportunities that included meaningful cash flow, production and reserves, did not dilute the quality of our existing portfolio, and also competed with returns of our high quality core position in the Utica, which is not an easy task. That said, through our SCOOP acquisition, we have found a highly prolific stacked-pay resource with strong production history, a multi-year high return drilling inventory, and an opportunity for significant upside from both a resource and an operational perspective in what I believe is a unique opportunity and truly one-of-a-kind." This is about acquisition being good, but not a prior doubt about company. They talk about "The SCOOP is a very delineated high quality reservoir with stacked-pay potential across the position. Historically, the industry is focused on the Woodford and Springer formations.

Open the full research page →

Showing the latest 18 of 222 archived research questions.

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

Past calls

GPOR call history

Open a quarter only when you want its detailed evidence.

B Q4 2025 · Solid call · 2026-02-25Management held guidance steady against accelerating demand and expanding margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics, relaxed under questioning.
Guidance: maintainedDemand: acceleratingMargins: expandingPricing: raisingCapex: flat⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured⚑ Question left hanging✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts✓ Volume step-up ahead
Candor 7/9
Specificity 8/9
Evasion 2/9
Confidence 8/9
Uncertainty 3/9
Promotion 5/9
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?
YES Does an obvious question remain unanswered?
NO Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?
NO Do they serve a small fraction of their addressable customers?
YES Is volume about to step up rather than grow gradually?
NO Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?
YES Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?
NO Do current results look bad while the direction looks better?
NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?
NO Is consolidation happening among their peers?
NO Is a founder still running the company?
NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?
NO Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?
NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?
YES Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?
B Q1 2025 · Solid call · 2025-05-07Management held guidance steady against accelerating demand and expanding margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics, relaxed under questioning.
Guidance: maintainedDemand: acceleratingMargins: expandingPricing: stableCapex: flat⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts✓ Volume step-up ahead
Candor 7/9
Specificity 8/9
Evasion 3/9
Confidence 8/9
Uncertainty 2/9
Promotion 5/9
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?
NO Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?
NO Do they serve a small fraction of their addressable customers?
YES Is volume about to step up rather than grow gradually?
YES Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?
YES Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?
NO Do current results look bad while the direction looks better?
NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?
NO Is consolidation happening among their peers?
NO Is a founder still running the company?
NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?
NO Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?
NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?
NO Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?
B Q4 2024 · Solid call · 2025-02-26Management held guidance steady against accelerating demand and expanding margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics, relaxed under questioning.
Guidance: maintainedDemand: acceleratingMargins: expandingPricing: raisingCapex: flat⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts✓ Volume step-up ahead
Candor 7/9
Specificity 8/9
Evasion 2/9
Confidence 8/9
Uncertainty 3/9
Promotion 6/9
Stress 1/9
Complexity 5/9
View the 20 core call-quality checks
YES Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?
YES Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?
YES Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?
YES Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?
YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?
NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?
NO Does an obvious question remain unanswered?
NO Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?
NO Do they serve a small fraction of their addressable customers?
YES Is volume about to step up rather than grow gradually?
NO Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?
YES Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?
NO Do current results look bad while the direction looks better?
NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?
NO Is consolidation happening among their peers?
NO Is a founder still running the company?
NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?
NO Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?
NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?
NO Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?
C+ Q3 2024 · Mixed call · 2024-11-06Management lowered guidance against steady demand and expanding margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics, relaxed under questioning.
Guidance: loweredDemand: stableMargins: expandingPricing: stableCapex: decreasing⚑ Critic ammunition✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts✓ Volume step-up ahead✓ Early product, fast growth
Candor 7/9
Specificity 8/9
Evasion 2/9
Confidence 8/9
Uncertainty 3/9
Promotion 5/9
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?
YES Is volume about to step up rather than grow gradually?
NO Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?
YES Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?
NO Do current results look bad while the direction looks better?
NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?
NO Is consolidation happening among their peers?
NO Is a founder still running the company?
NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?
NO Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?
NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?
YES Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?
A Q2 2024 · Exceptional call · 2024-08-07Management held guidance steady against steady demand and expanding margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics, relaxed under questioning.
Guidance: maintainedDemand: stableMargins: expandingPricing: under pressureCapex: flat✓ Clean call✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts⚑ Reads rehearsed
Candor 7/9
Specificity 8/9
Evasion 2/9
Confidence 8/9
Uncertainty 4/9
Promotion 5/9
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?
NO Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?
NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?
NO Does an obvious question remain unanswered?
NO Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?
NO Do they serve a small fraction of their addressable customers?
NO Is volume about to step up rather than grow gradually?
NO Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?
YES Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?
NO Do current results look bad while the direction looks better?
NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?
NO Is consolidation happening among their peers?
NO Is a founder still running the company?
NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?
NO Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?
NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?
YES Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?
A Q1 2024 · Exceptional call · 2024-05-01Management held guidance steady against mixed demand signals and expanding margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics, relaxed under questioning.
Guidance: maintainedDemand: mixedMargins: expandingPricing: under pressureCapex: decreasing✓ Clean call✓ Skeptic reassured✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts
Candor 7/9
Specificity 9/9
Evasion 2/9
Confidence 8/9
Uncertainty 3/9
Promotion 5/9
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?
NO Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?
NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?
NO Does an obvious question remain unanswered?
NO Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?
NO Do they serve a small fraction of their addressable customers?
NO Is volume about to step up rather than grow gradually?
NO Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?
YES Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?
NO Do current results look bad while the direction looks better?
NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?
NO Is consolidation happening among their peers?
NO Is a founder still running the company?
NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?
NO Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?
NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?
NO Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?
B Q4 2023 · Solid call · 2024-02-28Management held guidance steady against steady demand and expanding margins. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics, relaxed under questioning.
Guidance: maintainedDemand: stableMargins: expandingPricing: under pressureCapex: decreasing⚑ 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 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?
NO Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?
NO Do they serve a small fraction of their addressable customers?
NO Is volume about to step up rather than grow gradually?
NO Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?
NO Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?
NO Do current results look bad while the direction looks better?
NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?
NO Is consolidation happening among their peers?
NO Is a founder still running the company?
NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?
NO Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?
NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?
YES Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?
View 29 earlier calls
CallDateGradeGuidanceDemandMarginsCandorEvasion
Q3 2023 2023-11-01 B+ raisedstableexpanding 7/9 2/9
Q2 2023 2023-08-02 B+ raisedstableexpanding 7/9 2/9
Q1 2023 2023-05-03 A maintainedslowingstable 7/9 2/9
Q4 2022 2023-03-01 A maintainedstableexpanding 7/9 2/9
Q3 2022 2022-11-02 B+ mixedstablecontracting 8/9 2/9
Q2 2022 2022-08-03 B loweredstablecontracting 8/9 1/9
Q1 2022 2022-05-04 A raisedacceleratingcontracting 8/9 1/9
Q4 2021 2022-03-01 A maintainedacceleratingexpanding 8/9 2/9
Q3 2021 2021-11-03 B+ raisedstableexpanding 7/9 3/9
Q2 2021 2021-08-06 B maintainedstableexpanding 7/9 2/9
Q2 2020 2020-08-05 D maintainedunclearcontracting 8/9 2/9
Q1 2020 2020-05-08 D withdrawnslowingexpanding 7/9 2/9
Q4 2019 2020-02-28 D loweredslowingcontracting 8/9 3/9
Q3 2019 2019-11-01 C maintainedstableexpanding 7/9 4/9
Q2 2019 2019-08-02 C+ maintainedstablestable 7/9 3/9
Q1 2019 2019-05-03 A maintainedstablestable 7/9 2/9
Q4 2018 2019-02-28 B maintainedstableexpanding 7/9 1/9
Q3 2018 2018-11-02 C+ raisedstableexpanding 6/9 3/9
Q2 2018 2018-08-02 A maintainedstableexpanding 7/9 1/9
Q1 2018 2018-05-09 A raisedacceleratingexpanding 7/9 2/9
Q4 2017 2018-02-22 B maintainedstableexpanding 7/9 1/9
Q3 2017 2017-11-02 A raisedacceleratingexpanding 7/9 2/9
Q2 2017 2017-08-10 A raisedacceleratingexpanding 7/9 3/9
Q1 2017 2017-05-09 A raisedacceleratingexpanding 7/9 2/9
Q4 2016 2017-02-14 A raisedacceleratingexpanding 7/9 1/9
Q3 2016 2016-11-03 A raisedacceleratingexpanding 7/9 1/9
Q2 2016 2016-08-05 A raisedacceleratingexpanding 7/9 2/9
Q1 2016 2016-05-05 B maintainedacceleratingexpanding 7/9 2/9
Q4 2015 2016-02-18 C+ loweredslowingcontracting 8/9 2/9
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.

← GPN All “G” companies GPP →