Stocks › M › MGNX

MGNX · Earnings-call lab · 37 calls graded · 2016–2025

MacroGenics, Inc.

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

500checks per call

37calls analyzed

2016–2025coverage

NEWESTQ4 2024 call

2025-03-20 · 500 / 500 checks · members only

LockedStarter · $1 first week

AI call read

Grade locked

Grade and plain-English verdict

Expected 45-day move

Locked

Move size estimate, not direction

AI checks completed

500/ 500

Every check answered YES or NO

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

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

OPENQ2 2024 call

2024-11-05 · 10 analysts · 13 questions · 500 / 500 checks

Free · full reportThe quarter before the newest

Call grade · Bottom 9% of 177,437 calls

Very weak call. Management held guidance steady.

Management toneResultTypical range · middle half of all callsFlag

Candor6 /9

—

Evasion5 /9

Specificity5 /9

Confidence5 /9

Uncertainty7 /9

Promotion4 /9

—

Stress3 /9

—

Complexity7 /9

Since the quarter before · Q1 2024 → Q2 2024

Guidance maintained⚑ Critic ammunition⚑ Question left hanging✓ Guidance underwritable⚑ Reads rehearsedFounder-led

Notable checks detected

Are there more than eight analyst questioners?
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?

ScreenersCritic Ammunition Founder-Led Reads Rehearsed Question Left Hanging

Lab panel · Q2 2024 call

30 markers, measured against 177,437 calls

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

4 flags on this call

LanguageResultTypical range · middle half of all callsFlag

AI mentionsTimes management said AI, generative, LLM or agentic.0 mentions

typical 0–0

—

"Great question"Management praising a question before answering it.0 times

typical 0–1

—

Thank-yousEvery thanks on the call, in both directions.55 times

typical 13–31

BuzzwordsSynergies, headwinds, flywheels, best-in-class and friends.3.3 /1k words

typical 0.6–1.8

HedgesSort of, kind of, roughly, I think, probably.3.3 /1k words

typical 5.5–10.5

—

SuperlativesRecord, unprecedented, tremendous, incredible.0.0 /1k words

typical 0.3–1.2

—

Outside forcesMacro, weather, currency, tariffs, supply chain.0 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.36.5 /1k words

typical 21.2–35.3

—

"Excited"Excited, exciting, thrilled.2 times

typical 0–3

—

Script shareShare of the call spent on prepared remarks rather than questions.36% % of call

typical 35%–55%

—

CEO shareHow much of the talking the CEO did.17% % of mgmt words

typical 29%–68%

Longest answerThe longest single management answer in the Q&A.287 words

typical 249–461

—

Reading levelFlesch–Kincaid grade level of management answers.9.3 US grade

typical 7.6–9.6

—

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

FlatteryCompliments, thank-yous and first names between analysts and management.31 of 49

typical 16–30

DodgingQuestions declined, deferred or answered with a different question.8 of 15

typical 5–9

—

BlameResults attributed to weather, macro, currency or other outside forces.0 of 27

typical 3–12

—

HypeSuperlatives and excitement in management language.2 of 11

typical 2–8

—

Analyst pushbackHow hard the analysts pressed: follow-ups, two-part questions, challenges.6 of 22

typical 5–10

—

ConfessionAdmissions, apologies and self-corrections.1 of 11

typical 1–5

—

Call theaterStage management: operator mechanics, scripted cues, "color".18 of 33

typical 12–19

—

Capital returns talkAttention paid to buybacks, dividends, M&A and the balance sheet.0 of 7

typical 1–5

—

Counts are literal: "AI mentions" is the number of times management said it. Behaviour indices count how many checks in a themed group came back YES. Rankings across all companies →

Full transparency

All 500 AI checks

Q2 2024 · 500 checks

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

Choose a past call

500checked

179detected

321not 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

YES Does the CEO answer a question personally after another executive initially responds? Air Traffic · seen in 58% of calls

How to 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% of calls 90% repeat consistency

YES 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 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 90% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

YES 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 YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.8% of calls 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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does an executive begin an answer with "Great question," "Thanks," or "Appreciate"? Air Traffic · seen in 46% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does any speaker say "moving to" or "turning to" when changing topics? Air Traffic · seen in 74.8% 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 74.8% of calls 93.8% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 21.2% of calls 85.3% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does an executive answer a question with another question? Bankruptcy · seen in 36.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 36.2% of calls 84.3% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.9% of calls 87.5% repeat consistency

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does anyone use the phrase "to be honest" or "frankly"? Couples · seen in 33.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.8% of calls 97% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone promise to "follow up" or "take that offline" and fail to commit to when? Couples · seen in 15.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 15.6% of calls 85.3% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone on the call interrupt a colleague mid-sentence? Couples · seen in 13.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.4% of calls 91% repeat consistency

NO Does someone use a personal anecdote rather than a metric to justify confidence? Couples · seen in 20.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 20.8% of calls 81.3% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "question" appear in the operator's speech more than three times? Courtroom · seen in 88.1% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 88.1% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 69.4% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does the word "opportunity" appear at least three times? Courtroom · seen in 77.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

YES Does management use the word "confident" or "confidence" at least twice? Courtroom · seen in 53.4% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does the word "team" appear at least twice? Courtroom · seen in 72% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not 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% of calls 93.9% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does anyone use the phrase "moving forward" or "go forward"? Courtroom · seen in 40.7% 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 40.7% of calls 85.5% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does the word "quarter" appear in at least ten questions or answers during the Q&A? Debate · seen in 75.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does any speaker say "I think" at least three times within a single answer? Debate · seen in 65.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

YES Does the word "obviously" appear in the transcript? Debate · seen in 74.1% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 74.1% of calls 89.7% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does the phrase "if I may" or "if I could" appear? Debate · seen in 32% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

YES Does an analyst's question include the phrase "going forward"? Debate · seen in 20.6% 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 20.6% of calls 83.5% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does an executive cite a specific dollar figure greater than one billion? Discovery · seen in 71% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

NO Does any analyst ask about a specific geographic region or market? Discovery · seen in 70.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 70.6% of calls 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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO Does the CEO mention at least one specific customer segment by name (e.g., "enterprise")? Discovery · seen in 70.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does any speaker say "with that, I'll turn it over"? Discovery · seen in 55.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

YES Does an executive use the phrase "if you look at" at least twice? Editor · seen in 36.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 38.7% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency

NO Does an analyst reference a peer company's results or valuation? Editor · seen in 21.4% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 21.4% of calls 88% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

NO 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 NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 72.2% 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

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

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 28.9% of calls 88.6% repeat consistency

YES Is there a questioner from an investment bank other than the first three analysts who ask questions? Fact Checker · seen in 80.1% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

NO Does the CEO's prepared remarks contain the word "team" at least twice? Fact Checker · seen in 40.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does any speaker use the phrase "moving on" or "with that" to transition between topics? Fact Checker · seen in 80.9% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

YES A single question receives answers from two different executives. Forensic · seen in 83.4% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 83.4% of calls 97.7% repeat consistency

YES A hedge word ("maybe," "sort of") appears inside a direct quantitative claim. Forensic · seen in 78.4% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 78.4% of calls 81% repeat consistency

YES Does any speaker use the word "obviously"? Forensic · seen in 81.7% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 81.7% of calls 95% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

YES Does an analyst reference a competitor by name during their question? Forensic · seen in 24.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 37.4% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

YES Does the word "clearly" appear at least twice? Hostage · seen in 24.8% 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 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

YES 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 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 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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Executive uses the word "excited" more than twice. Insurance · seen in 27.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

NO Does the word "guidance" appear at least three times? Insurance · seen in 58.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 58.2% of calls 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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does the word "capital" appear at least five times? Insurance · seen in 53.8% 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 53.8% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does an executive use the phrase "over time" at least twice? Insurance · seen in 24.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.7% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency

YES Does an executive say "as I mentioned" or "as we said" at least once? Insurance · seen in 75.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 75.9% of calls 87.2% repeat consistency

NO Does the CEO open the call before any analyst questions by mentioning the macro environment? Insurance · seen in 32% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 75% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does the CFO use the word "quarter" at least ten times? Insurance · seen in 74.6% 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 74.6% of calls 90.7% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does management thank analysts for their questions at any point during Q&A? Insurance · seen in 59.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 59.8% of calls 82.5% repeat consistency

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 16.7% of calls 88% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "pipeline" appear without a dollar figure attached? Insurance · seen in 55.3% 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 55.3% of calls 99% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 53.5% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency

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

NO Is the word "flexibility" or "flexible" used at least once? Insurance · seen in 44.4% 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 44.4% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO Does any analyst reference the CEO or CFO by first name? Interrogator · seen in 79.6% 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 79.6% of calls 93.8% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

NO Does anyone say "moving on" or "let me turn it over" during prepared remarks? Interrogator · seen in 36% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does an analyst ask a question starting with "just"? Linguist · seen in 72.9% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 72.9% of calls 81.8% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

NO Does the word "invest" or "investment" appear at least five times in the transcript? Negotiation · seen in 62% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 62% of calls 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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does the CEO mention their own tenure or years of experience unprompted? Negotiation · seen in 19.9% 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 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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Is the word "invest" or "investment" used more than twice? Private Credit · seen in 75% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does the word "invest" or "investment" appear at least twice? Private Credit · seen in 85.8% 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 85.8% of calls 96.7% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 72.9% of calls 96% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Is the word "capacity" mentioned? Private Credit · seen in 55.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

YES 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 YES

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

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

YES Does an executive say "we remain confident" or similar? Private Credit · seen in 35.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does an executive open their first answer by thanking the analyst? Private Credit · seen in 37.1% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does an analyst's turn contain the word "congratulations"? Procurement · seen in 20.2% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO 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 NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO Does an executive state a specific numeric percentage when answering a question? Screenwriter · seen in 86.7% 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 86.7% of calls 97.9% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does management use the word "guidance" at least twice? Screenwriter · 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 95.5% repeat consistency

YES Does the phrase "thank you" appear at least ten times anywhere in the transcript? Screenwriter · seen in 72.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does the word "opportunity" or "opportunities" appear more than three times? Screenwriter · seen in 66.5% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 66.5% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

NO Does the phrase "capital" appear at least five times? Screenwriter · seen in 50.3% 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 50.3% of calls 92.1% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 23.2% of calls 97.7% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does anyone tell a self-contained anecdote with a beginning, middle, and end? Screenwriter · seen in 27.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.7% of calls 82% repeat consistency

NO Does any executive use the phrase "our team"? Screenwriter · seen in 50.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Does any executive say "we're pleased" or "I'm pleased"? Screenwriter · seen in 68.3% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

YES Does any question begin with "Can you" or "Could you"? Semiotician · seen in 84.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 84.8% of calls 85.2% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "quick" or "quickly" appear in three or more analyst questions? Semiotician · seen in 13.2% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.2% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency

YES Does an analyst ask for guidance on a metric management did not offer unprompted? Semiotician · seen in 87.3% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

NO Is there a question about capital allocation (buybacks, M&A, debt, or dividends)? Semiotician · seen in 67.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 67.7% of calls 91.7% repeat consistency

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

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

How to read this YES

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

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

NO 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 NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 87.9% 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

YES Does any executive begin an answer with "Look," or "So,"? Semiotician · seen in 85.7% 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 85.7% of calls 85% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.2% of calls 90.6% repeat consistency

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

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

NO Is the word "excited" used by the CEO more than the word "confident"? Semiotician · seen in 33.1% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.1% of calls 92% repeat consistency

NO Does any speaker use the phrase "the right" before a noun ("the right team," "the right decisions")? Semiotician · seen in 57.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 57.8% of calls 94% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "guidance" appear more than five times in the transcript? Semiotician · seen in 31.8% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Does any analyst's question begin with a compliment or congratulation? Semiotician · seen in 41.5% of calls

How to read this YES

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

YES Are there more questions about revenue than about costs? Semiotician · seen in 69.8% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 69.8% of calls 85.2% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 25% of calls 92% repeat consistency

YES Does management decline to answer by citing a future event ("we'll address that in..." or "at our upcoming...")? Semiotician · seen in 34.6% of calls

How to read this YES

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 34.6% of calls 82% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 87.7% of calls 93.3% repeat consistency

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

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

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

NO Does anyone attribute results to "the team" rather than to strategy? Semiotician · seen in 61.6% of calls

How to read this NO

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

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

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

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

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 30.2% of calls 87.3% repeat consistency

NO Does a speaker say "normal" or "normalized" about conditions that predate any disruption mentioned? Semiotician · seen in 33.7% of calls

How to read this NO

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

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.7% of calls 81% repeat consistency

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

YES Does management use the word "solid" at least once? Semiotician · seen in 57.7% of calls

How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 57.7% of calls 97% repeat consistency

NO Is there an analogy to a machine, engine, or flywheel? Semiotician · seen in 29.2% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 29.2% of calls 88% repeat consistency

NO Is the word "visibility" used at least once? Semiotician · seen in 34.1% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 34.1% of calls 100% repeat consistency

NO Is the phrase "base case" or "scenario" used at least once? Semiotician · seen in 19.1% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 19.1% of calls 96.9% repeat consistency

NO Does anyone say "we take that seriously" or "we're very focused on"? Semiotician · seen in 18% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 18% of calls 92% repeat consistency

NO Is the phrase "to your point" or "as you mentioned" used at least once? Semiotician · seen in 32.8% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 32.8% of calls 83.5% repeat consistency

YES Does the operator say "thank you" more than three times? Semiotician · seen in 30% of calls

How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 30% of calls 94.3% repeat consistency

NO Does management mention a specific competitor by name? Semiotician · seen in 20.8% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 20.8% of calls 93.1% repeat consistency

NO Does management say "the team" at least twice? Semiotician · seen in 31.9% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 31.9% of calls 85.9% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "fundamentally" appear at least once? Semiotician · seen in 12.3% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 12.3% of calls 98.3% repeat consistency

NO Does the phrase "ahead of" precede any mention of guidance or expectations? Semiotician · seen in 14.1% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 14.1% of calls 96.6% repeat consistency

NO Does management use the phrase "on a year-over-year basis"? Semiotician · seen in 16.9% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 16.9% of calls 96.6% repeat consistency

NO Does any single speaker say "right?" as a tag question at least once? Semiotician · seen in 34% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 34% of calls 87.5% repeat consistency

NO Does management use the phrase "on a consistent basis" or "consistently"? Semiotician · seen in 27.8% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 27.8% of calls 95.3% repeat consistency

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

NO Does any speaker use the word "fundamentals"? Semiotician · seen in 17.8% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 17.8% of calls 100% repeat consistency

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

NO Does any analyst ask a question containing the word "why"? Simultaneous · seen in 36.1% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 36.1% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency

YES Does anyone say "if you look at" before citing a number? Simultaneous · seen in 47.7% of calls

How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 47.7% of calls 81.6% repeat consistency

NO Does the phrase "last question" or "final question" appear? Simultaneous · seen in 50.4% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 50.4% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency

YES Does the word "clearly" appear anywhere in the transcript? Simultaneous · seen in 50.9% of calls

How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 50.9% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency

YES Does the CEO speak first among named executives in the Q&A? Simultaneous · seen in 68.3% of calls

How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 68.3% of calls 94.6% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "headwind" or "headwinds" appear at least twice? Simultaneous · seen in 28.5% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 28.5% of calls 97% repeat consistency

NO Does the CFO mention a specific percentage greater than ten? Simultaneous · seen in 89.1% 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 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

NO Does the word "team" appear at least three times? Simultaneous · seen in 59% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 59% of calls 91.6% repeat consistency

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

NO Does any executive say "with that" to transition between speakers or topics? Simultaneous · seen in 75% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 75% of calls 97.3% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "transformation" or "transformational" appear? Simultaneous · seen in 24.2% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 24.2% of calls 99.7% repeat consistency

NO Does any speaker say "moving on" or "next question" themselves? Simultaneous · seen in 25.1% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 25.1% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency

NO Does any speaker use the word "hedging" or say "to hedge"? Simultaneous · seen in 13.5% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 13.5% of calls 96.3% repeat consistency

YES Does any analyst identify themselves with a two-part introduction (name and firm)? Simultaneous · seen in 10.2% 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 10.2% of calls 85.9% repeat consistency

NO Does the word "talent" appear at least once? Simultaneous · seen in 20.8% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 20.8% of calls 98% repeat consistency

NO Is the word "capacity" used more often about factories than about people? Supply Chain · seen in 26.2% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 26.2% of calls 92.3% repeat consistency

NO Does an executive confess to having too much of something physical somewhere? Supply Chain · seen in 12.2% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 12.2% of calls 89.3% repeat consistency

YES Is a supplier or vendor mentioned by name at any point? Supply Chain · seen in 33.7% of calls

How to read this YES

The model found enough evidence in the earnings transcript to mark this exact condition as present.

Transcript-only check Detected in 33.7% of calls 85.3% repeat consistency

NO Does any executive blame weather, season, or geography for a shipment or delivery issue? Supply Chain · seen in 10.8% of calls

How to read this NO

The model did not find enough evidence in the earnings transcript to confirm this exact condition. NO means “not detected,” not necessarily “disproved.”

Transcript-only check Detected in 10.8% of calls 91% repeat consistency

No checks match those filters.

500 checks shown · YES means detected; it is not automatically positive or negative.

Real saved model output

Archived AI reasoning

Earlier Artul research experiments on MGNX calls. Open a question to read the model's original reasoning.

239 saved explanations · 238 questions

NO Answers go deeper than the script: questioning keeps surfacing new concrete detail behind a positive development — compa Q2 2022 · 2 archived calls

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ2 2022 · 2022-08-08

We need to evaluate the transcript for two gates. The question asks to consider only the provided earnings call transcript. We must answer YES only if both gates are satisfied. Let's analyze the transcript. The call is MacroGenics Q2 2022 earnings. Management discusses pipeline updates, restructuring, and financials. The main positive developments mentioned: MGC018 (ADC) for prostate cancer, TAMARACK study planned, lorigerlimab, MGD024, etc. Also, they received $30M milestone from Incyte. In the Q&A, analysts ask about MGC018 dosing, TAMARACK design, MGD024 dosing, etc. Management provides details. We need to check Gate 1: Is there a positive, current development that management presents as going well, and the Q&A produces more concrete operating detail than the prepared remarks? The prepared remarks already gave a lot of detail about TAMARACK, MGC018, etc. In Q&A, analysts ask about specifics like dose reductions, dose interruptions, and management explains their analysis of the data to choose the dose. That is additive. Also, they ask about MGD024 dosing, and management explains MABEL dosing, etc. They ask about TAMARACK sites, and management says they haven't finalized but will be worldwide. They ask about benchmarks, and management explains the patient population. But is this "more concrete operating detail" than prepared remarks? The prepared remarks already had a lot of detail. The Q&A adds specifics about dose selection rationale, but is that "current development" that is positive? The development is the progress of MGC018 and TAMARACK. The Q&A does add specifics about how they derived the dose, which is substantive. However, we need to see if across multiple exchanges, management is additive. There are several exchanges: about MGC018 dosing, about MGD024, about TAMARACK sites, about combination. Each time management provides some new detail. But is it "current" - the development is ongoing, but the TAMARACK study hasn't started yet (planned by year end). The positive development might be the progress of the pipeline, but the Q&A is mostly about future plans and design. The prepared remarks already had that. The Q&A adds some specifics about dose selection from past data, but that is not necessarily "current" activity. Also, the company announced restructuring, which is not positive. The main positive is the pipeline progress.

NOQ3 2016 · 2016-11-02

The transcript is for MacroGenics' Q3 2016 earnings call. Let me evaluate both gates. Gate 1: Is there a positive, current development that management presents as going well, and does the Q&A produce more concrete operating detail than the prepared remarks? The prepared remarks cover several programs: margetuximab (Phase 3 SOPHIA trial enrolling), enoblituzumab (B7-H3 franchise), MGD009, MGD006, MGD007, MGD011, MGD010, MGD014, MGD013, MGA012 (IND cleared). The call is fairly routine—progress updates on clinical trials. In the Q&A, analysts ask about: 1. Margetuximab enrollment and timing of interim analysis. Scott says enrollment has picked up, 90% of sites activated, will provide more detail at R&D Day. This is fairly general—no new concrete specifics beyond what was in prepared remarks. 2. MGD011 (Janssen) study suspended—Scott says no new update, just what Janssen reported. Not additive. 3. MGD010—analyst asks about immunological information. Scott explains the mechanism, the vaccine study, what they'll measure. This is somewhat detailed but it's about the study design and what they expect to present, not really new operating detail about a development going well. 4. MGD006—analyst asks about J&J's CD123 x CD3 hold and read-through. Scott says they continue enrolling, no implications. Not additive. 5. MGD007 (gpA33)—analyst asks about dose/dosing schedule. Scott says they're excited, challenges with expression on normal GI tract, altered pre-medications, enrolled several patients, still too early, will update in first half 2017. This is somewhat more detail but still fairly general—no concrete new specifics like exact patient numbers, dose levels, or data. 6. B7-H3 combo—analyst asks about dosing. Scott confirms 50 mg/kg enoblituzumab + 2 mg/kg pembrolizumab every 3 weeks. This is a specific detail but it was already mentioned in prior calls and is somewhat in the prepared remarks context. Overall, the Q&A doesn't really produce substantially more concrete operating detail than the prepared remarks. Management's answers tend to be general—"we'll provide more detail at R&D Day," "still too early," "no new update." The answers mostly repeat or slightly expand on prepared remarks without adding fresh, specific, present-tense substance about actual operations.

Open the full research page →

NO Trajectory bent upward recently, and management says the change has only started showing Q3 2016 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2016 · 2016-11-02

We need answer YES/NO based on transcript. Need determine if management conveys recent real bend upward and still early. Need parse. We need answer only YES or NO. Need decide. Let's analyze transcript carefully. Company MacroGenics Q3 2016. Management describes progress, pipeline, INDs, trials. Need see if "trajectory has recently bent upward" within last few quarters, real change in business performance, and still early. Potential candidates: - "we ended the quarter with nine programs in clinical development... six DART molecules in Phase 1... We continue to identify... meeting goal of submitting at least one IND per year in 2016 with expectation two more in 2017." - "MGA012 IND cleared FDA" and "on track to submit two additional INDs in 2017." This is pipeline expansion, not necessarily business performance. - "margetuximab... continue to enroll patients and activate sites... 90% sites activated... nice uptick in enrollment over last two months." This is a recent real change? Enrollment uptick. But is it a bend? They had expected 3 years. Management says "there's been a nice uptick in terms of enrollment over the last two months." This is recent, actual. But does it convey "still early"? They plan to provide more precision at R&D Day. Not necessarily "results understate trajectory." Also not a business performance overall. - "MGD010 regained rights from Takeda; based on encouraging results, plan to continue advance." Not bend. - "MGD014 contract" etc. - Financial results: R&D expenses increased, revenues decreased due to one-time milestone in 2015, net loss increased. Cash $314M funds ~2 years. No upward bend in financials. - "We believe we have created a strategy that those who didn’t have clinical development with externalized development opportunity through partner collaborations and allowed us to extend pipeline and build value." Not bend. - "We are pleased to announce that this program was recently approved to expand into first of three Asian countries... opening trial sites in Korea soon..." This is expansion, early? Maybe. - "enoblituzumab combination with pembrolizumab advanced into dose expansion cohorts, while enoblituzumab study completing last dose-escalation cohort." This is progress, not necessarily bend. - "MGD006... expect clinical update at R&D Day" etc. - "MGA012 IND cleared FDA... working to start Phase 1." New IND, early. - "MGD010...

Open the full research page →

NO Skeptical premise dismantled with receipts: the call's central doubt is answered by named, checkable current facts Q3 2016 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2016 · 2016-11-02

We need to determine if there is a specific doubt about the company that is live in the conversation, and whether management answers it with named, checkable facts from the recent period that run directly against it. Let's analyze the transcript. The call covers various programs. The main doubts that arise: 1. Regarding MGD011 (CD19 x CD3) partnered with Janssen: There was a study listed as suspended on clinicaltrials.gov. Analyst asks about it. Management says no new update, but they understand it was a question from FDA requiring more time, and it wouldn't delay start. This is not a doubt about MacroGenics itself but about a partner's study. Management doesn't provide concrete facts to rebut a doubt; they just say no update. 2. Regarding MGD006 (CD123 x CD3): Analyst asks about a hold on a J&J study of a similar molecule, and what impact it has on MGD006. Management says they continue to enroll patients, are diligent in dosing, and have no indication that the FDA's response to J&J's molecule has implications for them. This is a doubt about safety of the class, but management's answer is reassurance and plans, not concrete facts from recent period that run against it. They don't provide specific numbers or events. 3. Regarding MGD007 (gpA33 x CD3): Analyst asks about narrowing down dose or schedule. Management says they are excited, but it's still too early, they are enrolling patients, and will update in first half of 2017. This is not a doubt being rebutted with facts; it's an ongoing development. 4. Regarding margetuximab SOPHIA trial: Analyst asks about enrollment and timing of interim analysis. Management says they have activated 90% of sites, enrollment has picked up, and they will provide more detail at R&D Day. They also mention a futility analysis expected in 2017. This is a doubt about enrollment speed and timing, but management's answer is that they are on track, and they will give more detail later. They don't provide specific numbers of patients enrolled or concrete facts that run against a doubt. They say "nice uptick" but no specifics. 5. Regarding MGD010: Takeda returned rights. Management says they have received many inbound calls and are discussing partnerships. This is a doubt about the program's viability, but management's answer is that they are exploring options, not concrete facts. 6. Regarding B7-H3 combo: Analyst asks about dosing.

Open the full research page →

NO Cheap-to-serve incremental business: management says the next tranche of volume costs it almost nothing extra Q3 2016 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2016 · 2016-11-02

We need to determine if management conveys that the cost of serving the next increment of business has become unusually low, and that additional business is already arriving. The transcript is about MacroGenics, a biotech company. They have a pipeline of drugs in clinical trials. The "business" here is drug development, partnerships, and potential future revenues. The concept of "serving the next increment of business" might refer to advancing their pipeline, enrolling patients, or getting approvals. But the question is about a company that has already spent money to be bigger than it currently is, and incoming business is now starting to ride over that spending. In biotech, this could be about having a platform technology that can produce many drugs, and they are now advancing multiple programs. But the key is: do they say that the next unit of business is cheap? They might mention that they have a platform (DART, Fc optimization) that allows them to create many molecules, and they are submitting INDs. But do they say that the cost of each additional program is low? They do mention that they have a strong balance sheet and are funding operations for two years. But they also have increasing R&D expenses. They are not saying that incremental business is cheap. They are investing heavily. They have a pipeline, but they are still in clinical trials, not generating revenue from products. The "business" might be partnerships and collaborations. They have collaborations with Janssen, Pfizer, etc. But they are not saying that additional partnerships cost little. They are also planning to submit more INDs, but that requires spending. The question is about a situation where the company has already built capacity and now additional volume is arriving at low incremental cost. In this transcript, management does not convey that. They talk about progress, but not about low incremental cost. They also don't mention that additional business is already arriving in a way that rides on existing base. They mention enrollment in trials, but that is not "business" in the sense of revenue. They are a development-stage company. So the answer is likely NO. We need to be careful: the question is about "the cost of serving the next increment of business has become unusually low" and "additional business of exactly that kind is already arriving now." Management does not say that.

Open the full research page →

NO Money already collected for work not yet done: the company is sitting on customer-funded obligations that dwarf what it Q3 2016 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2016 · 2016-11-02

We need to answer YES or NO based on the transcript. The question asks: does management describe that customers or counterparties have already put money or irreversible commitment into the company for things the company has not yet delivered, and does management treat that accumulated, unearned obligation as large relative to the company's current level of business, with the work of discharging it now the company's central task? We need to look for evidence in the transcript. The company is MacroGenics, a biotech. They have collaborations with partners like Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, Merck, etc. They receive milestone payments, upfront payments, etc. But the question is about customers/counterparties paying ahead of delivery for things the company still owes. In biotech, collaborations often involve upfront payments and milestones. But the transcript mentions revenues from collaborative agreements. For example, Jim Karrels says: "On the revenue side, we reported total revenues consisting primarily of revenues from collaborative agreements of $33.3 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2016, compared to $14.7 million for the quarter ended September 30, 2015. This decrease was primarily due to recognition of a onetime milestone received from Janssen Biotech in 2015." Wait, that says decrease? Actually it says "This decrease" but the numbers increased? Actually it says "compared to $14.7 million" so it increased? But then says "This decrease was primarily due to recognition of a onetime milestone received from Janssen Biotech in 2015." That seems contradictory. Possibly a typo. But anyway, they have collaborative agreements. But the question is about unearned obligation. Do they have deferred revenue? The transcript doesn't explicitly mention deferred revenue or customer prepayments. They have collaborations where they receive milestone payments, but those are often recognized as revenue when earned. The question is about money already received for things not yet delivered. In biotech, collaborations often involve upfront payments that are recognized over time. But the transcript doesn't describe that as a large obligation relative to current business. The company has cash of $314 million, and they have expenses. They mention they have enough cash for about two years. They also mention they filed a shelf registration for potential capital raises.

Open the full research page →

NO Already spoken for downstream: customers are buying to fulfill business they have already secured Q3 2016 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2016 · 2016-11-02

We need to determine if management conveys that customers are buying because of commitments already secured on the customers' side. The transcript is about MacroGenics, a biotech company. They have collaborations with partners like Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, etc. The question is about whether the demand behind what the company sells is already committed on the far side of its customers. In this context, the company's "customers" are likely its collaboration partners (e.g., Janssen, Pfizer) or perhaps the patients? But the question is about business commitments. Management discusses their pipeline, clinical trials, etc. They mention collaborations with partners. For example, they have a collaboration with Merck for a trial. They mention that Takeda returned rights to MGD010. They have a contract with NIAID for MGD014. But do they describe that these partners have already secured business downstream? The question is about whether the company's current or incoming business is pulled by commitments already in place further along the chain. For a biotech, the "customers" might be the partners who are developing the drugs, but the partners' own commitments? Or perhaps the company's revenue from collaborations is based on milestones, but those are not necessarily tied to the partners' own secured business. The transcript does not mention that the partners have already won contracts or have secured sales. It's more about the company's own progress. Management talks about enrolling patients, advancing trials, etc. They do not describe that their partners have already secured commitments from end customers (e.g., patients or healthcare providers). The only mention of "commitments" might be the contract with NIAID, but that is a government contract, not a downstream commitment. The question asks: does management convey that the company's customers are buying from the company to serve business those customers have ALREADY SECURED on their own side? In this transcript, there is no such description. Management talks about their own pipeline and collaborations, but not about the partners' secured business. For example, they mention that Janssen is developing MGD011, but they don't say Janssen has already secured sales or approvals. They mention that they regained rights to MGD010 from Takeda, but that's not about downstream commitments. So the answer is NO.

Open the full research page →

NO Substance without an audience: strong current business reported into a thin, shallow professional crowd Q3 2016 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2016 · 2016-11-02

We need to answer YES or NO based on the transcript. The question asks: does the call show BOTH (1) genuinely strong, concrete current business and (2) a thin or shallow professional audience around it? First, assess (1): Does management report real, present-tense operating strength in the recent period? Look for specific operating substance: growing orders, customers, volumes, output, utilization, wins, deployments, activity, described with specifics. The transcript mentions: "we continue to enroll patients and activate two clinical sites in our Phase 3 SOPHIA trail" - that's ongoing activity. "approximately 90% of the anticipated trial sites have been activated" - specific. "the combination study with pembrolizumab has advanced into dose expansion cohorts" - specific progress. "MGD009... continues to be evaluated in a Phase 1 study" - ongoing. "MGD006 and MGD007... currently being studied in Phase 1 trial and are in dose escalation" - ongoing. "our IND for MGA012... cleared the FDA and we are working on start after the Phase 1 clinical trial" - that's a regulatory win. "we plan to continue to advance MGD010" - but that's after Takeda returned rights. Also "we recently dealt the last subject in the final cohort of our Phase 1 study of MGD010" - that's a concrete completion. Also "we expect to bid an IND for MGD014 in the first half of 2017" - that's future. But the question asks for current business strength, not just pipeline. The company is a biotech with clinical trials. The strength is in progress of trials, enrollment, site activation, IND clearance. That is concrete operating substance for a biotech. They also mention "we ended the quarter with nine programs in clinical development" - that's a count. So there is real, present-tense activity with specifics. Now assess (2): Is the Q&A thin or shallow? Look at the number of questioners. The transcript shows: Michael Schmidt (Leerink), Boris Peaker (Cowen), Philomena Kamya (Stifel), Debjit Chattopadhyay (Janney). Also an unidentified analyst from Wedbush? Actually there is "Unidentified Analyst" from Wedbush? The operator says "Our next question comes from David Nierengarten with Wedbush Securities." but then the analyst says "Hi this is Dilip sitting in for David." So that's one. So we have: Michael Schmidt, Boris Peaker, Philomena Kamya, Debjit Chattopadhyay, and Dilip (from Wedbush).

Open the full research page →

NO Order-of-magnitude gap: the company is already serving a demand source whose scale dwarfs its own current business Q3 2016 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2016 · 2016-11-02

We need to determine if management describes a mismatch of scale between the company and the demand it is already serving. The question asks: does management convey that the company is currently supplying, serving, or participating in something whose size, spending, volume, or population is enormous relative to the company's own current business, such that even a modest further share would make it several times bigger? We need both: (1) real current participation in something much larger, and (2) management explicitly draws the size contrast and treats it as the point. Let's review the transcript. Management discusses various programs: margetuximab, enoblituzumab, MGD009, MGD006, MGD007, MGD011, PF-06671008, MGD010, MGD014, MGD013, MGA012. They talk about clinical trials, enrollment, partnerships. They mention a Phase 3 SOPHIA trial for margetuximab with 530 patients, about 90% sites activated. They mention expansion into Asia. They mention B7-H3 franchise. They mention R&D Day. Is there any statement about a huge market or a large flow of activity that the company is already inside? They talk about "broad expression across multiple solid tumor types" for B7-H3. But that's a market description, not necessarily a current participation with a size contrast. They mention "we ended the quarter with nine programs in clinical development" and "six DART molecules in Phase 1 clinical development." That's about their pipeline, not about a large demand they are serving. They mention "we have a very active business development group" and "in-bound calls" for MGD010. But that's not about a large flow of activity they are already inside. They mention "we are very excited about the potential for MGD007" but that's prospective. They mention "we continue to enroll patients" in various trials. That's real activity, but is the size of the patient population or the market enormous relative to the company? The company is a biotech with $314 million cash, nine programs. The trials are small (e.g., 530 patients for SOPHIA). That's not enormous relative to the company's size. The company's revenue is from collaborations, not from selling to a huge market. The question is about a mismatch of scale: the company is small relative to the demand it is already serving. For example, if they were supplying a component to a huge industry, or serving a large population.

Open the full research page →

NO Ready-to-run scale already paid for and now filling: management describes a step-change capability recently completed an Q3 2016 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2016 · 2016-11-02

We need to determine if the transcript describes a situation where the company has recently finished putting in place a capability that is large relative to the company itself, real business has already begun flowing into it, and most of the capability still sits unused. Let's analyze the transcript. The company is MacroGenics, a biotech. They have a pipeline of drugs in development. The question is about a "capability" that is large relative to the company. In biotech, this could be a manufacturing facility, a sales force, a clinical trial network, or something like that. But the transcript is about clinical development, not about a new factory or sales force. Let's read the transcript carefully. The CEO discusses various clinical programs. There is no mention of building a new facility, hiring a large sales force, or any such capability. The company is a clinical-stage biotech. They have collaborations with partners. They have a pipeline. The question asks: "does management describe that the company has RECENTLY FINISHED PUTTING IN PLACE A CAPABILITY THAT IS LARGE RELATIVE TO THE COMPANY ITSELF, and that real business has ALREADY BEGUN FLOWING INTO IT while most of that capability still sits unused?" Look for any mention of a capability that is now finished and being used. For example, they might have built a manufacturing plant, or they might have received FDA approval for a drug, or they might have launched a product. But the transcript is about Q3 2016 earnings call. They are still in clinical trials. They have not launched any product. They have a pipeline. The only thing that could be considered a "capability" is perhaps their technology platforms (Fc Optimization, DART, Trident) which they use to create molecules. But that is not a new capability they just finished putting in place; it's their core technology. They mention that they have nine programs in clinical development. They are enrolling patients. They have an IND for MGA012 cleared. They plan to submit two more INDs in 2017. But that is not a "capability" in the sense of a large asset. The question is likely designed to identify a situation where a company has built a large facility (like a factory) and is now filling it with orders. But here, there is no such thing. Let's check if there is any mention of a new facility or something. The CFO mentions cash, expenses, etc.

Open the full research page →

NO Free option on their own operations: management describes a real capability it already owns that could serve a second, m Q3 2016 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2016 · 2016-11-02

We need answer YES/NO based on transcript. Question asks: Does management describe that something the company already owns/operates for existing business has turned out useful for second much larger purpose, and recently begun turning that second use into real business without building new company? We need parse transcript. Company is MacroGenics, biotech with platforms: Fc Optimization, DART, Trident. They have pipeline. We need identify if they describe existing capability used for second larger purpose and converting. Possible examples: DART platform developed for cancer? Now used for autoimmune and infectious diseases? They have MGD010 for autoimmune (regained rights from Takeda), MGD014 for HIV (funded by NIAID), MGD013 for PD-1/LAG-3. But is that "second use" materially bigger? They are developing DART molecules for various diseases. Also B7-H3 franchise. Also MGA012 IND cleared. Question specifically: "something the company already owns and already operates for its existing business has turned out to be useful for a second, much larger purpose — and recently begun turning that second use into real business, without having had to build a new company to do it?" Management describes capabilities: "This part of the business is attributable to our first-in-class antibody-based technology, including our Fc Optimization platform, which modulates antibody direction with immune effector cell. Our DART® platform that enables the targeting of two antibody specificities to a single recumbent molecule and the Trident platform..." That's existing technology used for multiple programs. But second use? Perhaps the DART platform built for oncology now used for autoimmune/infectious diseases. But is that "much larger purpose"? Not clear. They mention MGD010 for autoimmune disorders, MGD014 for HIV, MGD013 for immune checkpoint. But no mention of "second use" being larger than original. Also "numbers barely show it" - any revenue? No. Another angle: MGD010 was partnered with Takeda, now regained rights; they plan to continue. That's not second use. Maybe "Fc Optimization platform" used for margetuximab and enoblituzumab. Not second use. They mention "we ended quarter with nine programs in clinical development ... six DART molecules in Phase 1. Two being advanced by partners." Collaboration model. But no. Maybe "MGA012" IND cleared, but no details.

Open the full research page →

NO Bought the ticket, hasn't taken the ride: the company has already paid for its next stage and is now waiting to be paid Q3 2016 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2016 · 2016-11-02

We need to determine if management describes a situation where the company has already paid for a stage of business it has not yet been paid back for. The key is: spending done, return outstanding, and management treats payback as a matter of time. Looking at the transcript, there are several programs. The most prominent is margetuximab Phase 3 SOPHIA trial. They are enrolling patients. That's ongoing spending, but the return (revenue) is not yet there. However, is that a "stage of business" they have already paid for? They are spending on clinical trials, but that's normal R&D. The question asks about a materially larger level of operation where the spending is done and the return is outstanding. For example, building a manufacturing plant, hiring a sales force, etc. In the transcript, they mention they have filed an IND for MGA012 and are starting a Phase 1 trial. That's spending, but not yet return. But is that "already paid for"? They are just starting. They also mention MGD010, they regained rights from Takeda. They have completed a Phase 1 study. They plan to advance it. But no revenue yet. The key is: does management describe a situation where they have already spent money or committed resources to reach a larger operation, and the revenue from that is not yet arrived? For example, they might have built a manufacturing facility, or hired a sales team, or entered a market. In this transcript, I don't see that. They are a biotech company with clinical trials. They are spending on R&D, but that's ongoing. The return from a successful drug is far off. But the question is about a "stage of business" - like they have already paid for a stage, e.g., they have already completed a trial and are waiting for results? But they are still enrolling. Look at the language: "we continue to enroll patients" - that's ongoing spending. The return is not yet there, but it's not that they have already paid for something and are waiting for the payback. They are still in the middle of spending. The question specifically asks: "does management make clear that THE COMPANY HAS ALREADY PAID, IN CASH OR REAL RESOURCES, FOR A STAGE OF BUSINESS IT HAS NOT YET BEEN PAID BACK FOR" - meaning they have already incurred the cost, and the benefit is still outstanding. For example, they might have built a factory, and now they are waiting for production to start.

Open the full research page →

NO Cornered by one hard problem: management describes the company organized around solving a specific difficulty most other Q3 2016 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2016 · 2016-11-02

We need answer YES/NO. Need evaluate transcript. Need determine if management describes company organized around solving particularly difficult problem others haven't solved, routinely fail at, avoid; and convey currently succeeding at hard thing in live operations. We need parse transcript. Company MacroGenics biotech with platforms: Fc Optimization, DART, Trident. They have pipeline. Need see if management frames as hard problem at center? They mention "first-in-class antibody-based technology", "DART platform enables targeting two antibody specificities", "Trident platform three specificities." They discuss progress. But question asks specifically "SOLVING ONE PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT PROBLEM THAT OTHERS IN ITS MARKET HAVE NOT SOLVED, ROUTINELY FAIL AT, OR AVOID ALTOGETHER" and "currently succeeding at that hard thing in real, live operations." Need look for management's own words. They don't explicitly name a hard problem. They mention "greater problem of researching and developing treatment options for patients suffering from these diseases." Generic. They mention "We believe we have created a strategy that those who didn’t have clinical development with externalized development opportunity through partner collaborations and allowed us to extend our pipeline and build value." Not hard problem. They mention "industry leading B7-H3 franchise" and "intend to exploit potential." But no description of difficulty. They mention "first-in-class" and "platforms" but no hard problem. They mention "challenges for MGD007 target molecule is expression of antigen on normal GI tract" and "too early whether acceptable dose" - that's a difficulty they are struggling with, not mastered. They mention "we have been very diligent in slowly moving up dosing" etc. Not a central hard problem solved. Need answer NO. But let's be thorough. The question asks "Using ONLY supplied earnings call transcript and no outside information: On this call, does management describe the company as being organized around SOLVING ONE PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT PROBLEM THAT OTHERS IN ITS MARKET HAVE NOT SOLVED, ROUTINELY FAIL AT, OR AVOID ALTOGETHER — and convey that the company is currently succeeding at that hard thing in real, live operations?" Need answer YES when management's own words convey ONE coherent picture with both halves present as present-tense reality. Here no.

Open the full research page →

NO Fresh problems of growth: the call's frictions are about handling more business, not finding it Q3 2016 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2016 · 2016-11-02

We need answer only YES or NO. Need evaluate transcript. Need determine if difficulties discussed are predominantly problems of growth vs weakness/decline etc. Need use only transcript. Let's parse call. Company MacroGenics Q3 2016. Management discusses progress, pipeline, clinical trials. Difficulties/challenges? They mention "continued to make good progress", "advance portfolio". No explicit major difficulties? Let's identify any pains/challenges: - Jim Karrels financial: expenses increased due to increased activity in preclinical immune checkpoint programs, initiation of Phase 1 trials. G&A increased due to increased staff, recruiting costs, stock comp. This is growth-related? Increased costs due to expansion. But not framed as "difficulties" necessarily. - Scott: "we ended quarter with nine programs in clinical development... six DART molecules in Phase 1... strategy... externalized development... build value." "meeting goal of submitting at least one IND per year in 2016 with expectation two more in 2017." - margetuximab: "continues to be further advanced clinical program and is accurately enrolling patients and initiating new trial types" "approximately 90% of anticipated trial sites activated" "nice uptick in enrollment over last two months." No difficulty. - B7-H3 franchise: "recruitment ongoing" "combination study advanced into dose expansion" "anticipate sharing data." - MGD009, MGD006, MGD007 in dose escalation. "We expect to be able to provide clinical update." - MGA012 IND cleared, working to start Phase 1. - MGD010: Takeda concluded license agreement, MacroGenics regained rights. Takeda's decision followed re-prioritization. "Based on encouraging results... plan to continue to advance MGD010." "recently dosed last subject in final cohort." No difficulty. - MGD014, MGD013 INDs in 2017. - Strong balance sheet. Q&A: - Michael Schmidt: margetuximab enrollment, timing interim. Scott: "nice uptick in enrollment over last two months" "provide more precision at R&D Day" "expected from start of trial late last year, take about three years to enroll" "futility analysis when reach certain number endpoints... occur in 2017." No difficulty. - MGD011 study suspended on clinicaltrials.gov. Scott: "I have no new update about that study as reported by Janssen. This was a study designed to look at MGD011 in combination with Imbruvica.

Open the full research page →

NO Strong facts, held-back story: management reports concrete strengthening but deliberately keeps expectations below it Q3 2016 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2016 · 2016-11-02

We need to determine if management both reports concrete, already-occurring strength in the business AND visibly holds the story back from that strength. Let's analyze the transcript. The call is about Q3 2016 results. Management discusses various programs. Key points: - Margetuximab: Phase 3 SOPHIA trial enrolling patients, 90% sites activated. They say "nice uptick in terms of enrollment over the last two months." That's concrete strength: enrollment increasing. - They plan to provide more precision about estimates for completion of enrollment and readout at R&D Day. They say "we are in that time frame" and "my expectation is to provide little more detail next month." They also mention a futility analysis expected in 2017. So they are not raising guidance or giving specific numbers, but they are noting progress. - Enoblituzumab: combination study with pembrolizumab advanced to dose expansion cohorts. That's progress. - MGD006: they will provide clinical update at R&D Day. - MGD010: Takeda returned rights, they plan to advance it. They finished last subject in final cohort. - MGD014: IND expected first half 2017. - MGD013: IND submission in 2017. Financials: R&D expenses increased, net loss increased. Cash $314M. They filed shelf registration for flexibility but no immediate plans. Now, does management report concrete, already-occurring strength? Yes, they mention enrollment uptick, dose expansion cohorts, etc. But is that "strength" in the business? It's progress in clinical trials, not necessarily revenue or orders. But the question says "real improvement in the recent period such as rising orders, volumes, customers, activity, wins, utilization, or output." Clinical trial enrollment is activity. So yes, they report concrete progress. Now, do they hold the story back? They are cautious about giving specific timelines, but they are not necessarily under-promising. They say they will provide more detail at R&D Day. They don't raise guidance. But is there a visible gap between reported facts and stated expectations? They report enrollment uptick, but they don't say "we expect to finish enrollment earlier" or anything like that. They just say they will provide more precision later. That might be standard practice. Also, they mention a futility analysis in 2017, which is a standard milestone. They don't seem to be overly cautious.

Open the full research page →

NO Proven engine, fuel already in the tank: a working growth driver plus already-held means to multiply it Q3 2016 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2016 · 2016-11-02

We need to determine if management describes both (1) a proven, already-producing growth engine that is still small relative to its room, and (2) the means to multiply it are already in the company's hands, as one connected present-tense story about the same part of the business. Let's analyze the transcript. The company is MacroGenics, a biotech. They have multiple clinical programs. The question asks about "the SAME part of the business" - so we need to identify a specific driver. Management discusses several programs: margetuximab (Phase 3), enoblituzumab (B7-H3), MGD009, MGD006, MGD007, MGD011, MGD012, MGD010, MGD014, MGD013, MGA012. They also mention collaborations with Janssen, Pfizer, Takeda, etc. The question is about a "proven, already-producing growth engine" - in biotech, that might be a product that is already generating revenue, but here they are mostly in clinical trials. They have revenues from collaborative agreements, but that's from partnerships, not from a product. They mention "revenues consisting primarily of revenues from collaborative agreements" - that's from milestones and such, not from a product. The question asks about a growth engine that is "already generating real business today (actual revenue, orders, customers, volumes, output, or usage in the recent period)". In this transcript, they don't have a product on the market. They have clinical programs. They have collaborations that bring in revenue, but that's not a growth engine in the sense of a product scaling. They talk about their pipeline and clinical progress. They mention "we ended the quarter with nine programs in clinical development" and "six DART molecules in Phase 1". They talk about advancing programs. But none of these are generating revenue from sales. They have collaboration revenue, but that's from partners, not from a product they are scaling. The question specifically asks about a "growth engine" that is "already producing" and "still small relative to its room". For example, if they had a drug on the market with limited penetration, that would be it. But they don't. They do mention "margetuximab" in Phase 3, but that's not yet approved. They are enrolling patients. That's not a proven growth engine. They also mention "MGD010" which they regained rights from Takeda. They talk about advancing it. But again, it's in Phase 1.

Open the full research page →

NO Demand arrived first, the company is growing to meet it Q3 2016 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2016 · 2016-11-02

We need to answer YES or NO based on the transcript. The question asks: Does management convey BOTH of the following about the business right now, as one connected present-tense story? (1) NEW DEMAND IS ALREADY SHOWING UP. Management points to demand for what the company sells that has recently arrived or recently stepped up and is REAL TODAY — actual orders, customers, sign-ups, bookings, volumes, usage, patients, projects, or buying activity that began or accelerated in the recent period — described as observed fact rather than as pipeline, market opportunity, forecasts, or hoped-for interest. (2) THE COMPANY IS ACTIVELY GROWING ITSELF TO SERVE IT. In response to that arriving demand, management describes the company presently making itself bigger or more capable — in whatever form fits the business, such as adding capacity, production, inventory, locations, or equipment; hiring, training, or expanding teams; extending shifts, output, or service coverage; standing up systems, facilities, or supply; or otherwise scaling its ability to deliver — with these steps described as already underway or already decided and being executed now, not merely planned, hoped for, or under study. We need to check the transcript for both halves. The company is MacroGenics, a biotech. They have clinical programs. The "demand" would be patients enrolling in trials, or perhaps partnerships. But the question is about "demand for what the company sells" — likely their drug candidates. They are enrolling patients in trials. Is that "demand"? Possibly. But we need to see if management describes new demand that has recently arrived or stepped up, and then describes the company actively growing itself to serve it. Let's scan the transcript. Scott Koenig says: "we continue to enroll patients and activate two clinical sites in our Phase 3 SOPHIA trail" and "we are pleased to announce that this program was recently approved to expand into the first of three Asian countries. We’re specific in opening trial sites in Korea soon and believe approvals for Taiwan and Singapore will follow." That is about expanding trials, not necessarily demand for a product. Also, they have an IND for MGA012 cleared, and they are working to start a Phase 1 trial. They also mention they plan to submit two more INDs in 2017. They talk about progress in clinical development.

Open the full research page →

NO Two-sided intensity: both new counterparties arriving and existing ones enlarging in the same recent period Q3 2016 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2016 · 2016-11-02

We need answer YES/NO based on transcript. Need identify both directions: new paying counterparties actually arrived in recent period (Q3 2016), and existing counterparties enlarged what they take. Management must describe both as already-occurring facts. Let's examine transcript. The call is about clinical development, pipeline, partnerships, trials. "New paying counterparties actually arrived: fresh customers, accounts, partners, or programs that actually signed, ordered, or began transacting in the recent period." Does management describe any new partners/collaborators/income? Let's search. - "we ended quarter with nine programs in clinical development between MacroGenics and partners, with six DART molecules..." - "Two of these molecules are being advanced by partners Janssen and Pfizer..." These are existing partners? - "MacroGenics and Takeda announced conclusion of License and Option Agreement for MGD010, which allowed MacroGenics to regain worldwide rights" - Takeda exited, not new. - "collaboration with Merck" for gastric cancer - existing? It says "conducted in collaboration with our partner, Merck" - but no new signing. - "IND for MGA012 cleared FDA" - new program, not paying counterparty. - "we plan to host R&D Day" etc. Regarding existing counterparties enlarged: "continue to enroll patients and activate two clinical sites" "90% of sites activated" "program approved to expand into first of three Asian countries" - this is about clinical trial sites, not paying counterparties. Maybe "collaboration payments we anticipate receiving" - not actual. Question asks about business intensity from both directions: new paying counterparties actually arrived, and existing counterparties enlarged what they take. The transcript is about a biotech with partners. Need see if management describes new partners signing in recent period or existing partners expanding. I see no such. There is mention of "we have received a lot of in-bound calls about this program" after Takeda, but that's interest, not actual. Also "business development group... engaging various parties" but no deals. No mention of new partnerships signed in Q3. Existing partners? Janssen and Pfizer are ongoing collaborations, but no description of enlarging orders/scope in recent period. The talk is about clinical trial progress, not revenue from counterparties.

Open the full research page →

NO Engine explained, runway named: management decomposes current strength into specific still-working causes and points to Q3 2016 · archived research check

Original model output from the research archive. It may be verbose or include the model's working notes.

NOQ3 2016 · 2016-11-02

We need answer YES/NO based on transcript. Need assess if management explains current strength by naming specific causes and indicates same causes have specific identified room left. Transcript: Q3 2016. Management discusses progress. Need find current strength decomposed into named causes. Examples: margetuximab Phase 3 SOPHIA enrolling, 90% sites activated. But is that "strength" in business? They mention progress. Enoblituzumab combination with pembrolizumab advanced into dose expansion cohorts. MGD010 regained rights, finished last subject. MGA012 IND cleared. They have nine programs. But need current strength with specific drivers and room left. Question asks: "On this call, does management EXPLAIN THE CURRENT STRENGTH OF THE BUSINESS BY NAMING ITS SPECIFIC CAUSES — identifying the particular driver or drivers (one is enough) behind results, orders, volumes, customers, or activity that are demonstrably good right now — AND does management indicate that those SAME causes are still in force with SPECIFIC, IDENTIFIED ROOM LEFT that they have not yet consumed?" Need answer based on transcript. Management doesn't really discuss financial results as strength? They report net loss, expenses. They mention progress in pipeline. Could be "current strength" in clinical development. Need see if they name specific causes and room left. For example, margetuximab: "continues to be further advanced clinical program and is accurately enrolling patients and initiating new trial types for the pivotal Phase 3 SOPHIA study... As of September 30, approximately 90% of the anticipated trial sites have been activated in both the U.S. and Europe." That is specific: sites activated, enrollment. Room left? They say "we continue to enroll patients and activate two clinical sites" and "we plan to provide more precision about estimates with regard to completion of enrollment and readout of data." They don't explicitly say same cause has specific unconsumed room? They say 90% sites activated, so 10% not activated. But is that "room"? Also enrollment ongoing, but no specific number. They mention "we expect to provide little more detail next month." Not enough. Enoblituzumab: "combination study with pembrolizumab has advanced into dose expansion cohorts, while the enoblituzumab study is completing the last dose-escalation cohort." That is progress.

Open the full research page →

Showing the latest 18 of 238 archived research questions.

These archived questions are separate from the newer 500-check scan above.

Past calls

MGNX call history

Open a quarter only when you want its detailed evidence.

F Q3 2024 · Very weak call · 2024-11-05Management held guidance steady. The delivery was frequently evasive.

Guidance: maintained⚑ Critic ammunition⚑ Question left hanging✓ Guidance underwritableFounder-led

Candor 6/9

Specificity 6/9

Evasion 6/9

Confidence 5/9

Uncertainty 7/9

Promotion 4/9

Stress 3/9

Complexity 7/9

View the 20 core call-quality checks

NO Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?

YES Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?

YES Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?

NO Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?

YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?

NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?

YES Does an obvious question remain unanswered?

NO Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?

NO Do they serve a small fraction of their addressable customers?

NO Is volume about to step up rather than grow gradually?

NO Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?

NO Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?

NO Do current results look bad while the direction looks better?

NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?

NO Is consolidation happening among their peers?

YES Is a founder still running the company?

YES 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?

F Q1 2024 · Very weak call · 2024-05-10Management held guidance steady against contracting margins. The delivery was rich in specifics.

Guidance: maintainedMargins: contracting⚑ Critic ammunition⚑ Question left hanging⚑ Reads rehearsedDirection beats results

Candor 6/9

Specificity 7/9

Evasion 5/9

Confidence 7/9

Uncertainty 5/9

Promotion 6/9

Stress 5/9

Complexity 7/9

View the 20 core call-quality checks

NO Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?

NO Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?

NO Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?

NO Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?

YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?

NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?

YES Does an obvious question remain unanswered?

NO Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?

NO Do they serve a small fraction of their addressable customers?

NO Is volume about to step up rather than grow gradually?

NO Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?

NO Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?

YES Do current results look bad while the direction looks better?

NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?

NO Is consolidation happening among their peers?

NO Is a founder still running the company?

NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?

NO Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?

NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?

YES Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?

D Q4 2023 · Weak call · 2024-03-07Management held guidance steady against accelerating demand. The delivery was unusually candid, rich in specifics.

Guidance: maintainedDemand: accelerating⚑ Critic ammunition⚑ Question left hanging✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Volume step-up ahead✓ Early product, fast growth⚑ Reads rehearsed

Candor 7/9

Specificity 7/9

Evasion 3/9

Confidence 7/9

Uncertainty 5/9

Promotion 6/9

Stress 2/9

Complexity 8/9

View the 20 core call-quality checks

NO Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?

YES Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?

NO Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?

NO Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?

YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?

NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?

YES Does an obvious question remain unanswered?

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?

NO Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?

YES Do current results look bad while the direction looks better?

NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?

YES Is consolidation happening among their peers?

NO Is a founder still running the company?

NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?

NO Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?

NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?

YES Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?

D Q3 2023 · Weak call · 2023-11-07Management held guidance steady against steady demand. The delivery was rich in specifics.

Guidance: maintainedDemand: stable⚑ Critic ammunition⚑ Question left hanging

Candor 6/9

Specificity 7/9

Evasion 5/9

Confidence 7/9

Uncertainty 4/9

Promotion 5/9

Stress 2/9

Complexity 8/9

View the 20 core call-quality checks

NO Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?

NO Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?

YES Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?

NO Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?

YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?

NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?

YES Does an obvious question remain unanswered?

NO Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?

NO Do they serve a small fraction of their addressable customers?

NO Is volume about to step up rather than grow gradually?

NO Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?

NO Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?

NO Do current results look bad while the direction looks better?

NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?

NO Is consolidation happening among their peers?

NO Is a founder still running the company?

NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?

NO Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?

NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?

NO Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?

D Q2 2023 · Weak call · 2023-08-09Management held guidance steady. The delivery was rich in specifics.

Guidance: maintained⚑ Critic ammunition⚑ Question left hanging✓ Guidance underwritableDirection beats results

Candor 6/9

Specificity 7/9

Evasion 4/9

Confidence 7/9

Uncertainty 5/9

Promotion 6/9

Stress 2/9

Complexity 6/9

View the 20 core call-quality checks

NO Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?

YES Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?

YES Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?

NO Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?

YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?

NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?

YES Does an obvious question remain unanswered?

NO Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?

NO Do they serve a small fraction of their addressable customers?

NO Is volume about to step up rather than grow gradually?

NO Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?

NO Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?

YES Do current results look bad while the direction looks better?

NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?

YES Is consolidation happening among their peers?

NO Is a founder still running the company?

NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?

NO Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?

NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?

NO Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?

C Q1 2023 · Caution · 2023-05-09Management held guidance steady. The delivery was rich in specifics.

Guidance: maintainedMargins: stable⚑ Critic ammunition⚑ Question left hanging✓ Guidance underwritable✓ Resolves doubts⚑ Reads rehearsed

Candor 6/9

Specificity 7/9

Evasion 4/9

Confidence 7/9

Uncertainty 4/9

Promotion 5/9

Stress 2/9

Complexity 8/9

View the 20 core call-quality checks

NO Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?

YES Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?

YES Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?

YES Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?

YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?

NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?

YES Does an obvious question remain unanswered?

NO Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?

NO Do they serve a small fraction of their addressable customers?

NO Is volume about to step up rather than grow gradually?

NO Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?

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?

YES Is consolidation happening among their peers?

NO Is a founder still running the company?

NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?

NO Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?

NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?

YES Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?

D Q4 2022 · Weak call · 2023-03-15Management gave no formal guidance against contracting margins. The delivery was rich in specifics.

Margins: contractingHeadcount: cutting⚑ Critic ammunition⚑ Question left hanging✓ Resolves doubtsDirection beats results

Candor 6/9

Specificity 8/9

Evasion 4/9

Confidence 7/9

Uncertainty 5/9

Promotion 5/9

Stress 3/9

Complexity 7/9

View the 20 core call-quality checks

NO Would a skeptical short-seller find this call reassuring?

NO Would a careful investor underwrite management's guidance?

YES Is management's confidence proportionate to the evidence presented?

YES Does the call resolve more doubts than it creates?

YES Is there something a critic could fairly use against the company?

NO Is a claimed advantage dependent on scale they lack?

YES Does an obvious question remain unanswered?

NO Is a product early in its life but growing very fast?

NO Do they serve a small fraction of their addressable customers?

NO Is volume about to step up rather than grow gradually?

YES Are high fixed costs currently underutilised?

NO Is pricing recovering from a depressed level?

YES Do current results look bad while the direction looks better?

NO Are deferred revenue or customer prepayments growing?

YES Is consolidation happening among their peers?

NO Is a founder still running the company?

NO Does the final speaker sound like they are summarizing a finished story?

NO Is a fast-growing segment obscured by a declining one?

NO Does the CFO speak more than the CEO?

NO Does the call read rehearsed rather than lived?

View 28 earlier calls

Call	Date	Grade	Guidance	Demand	Margins	Candor	Evasion
Q3 2022	2022-11-05	F	maintained	unclear	unclear	5/9	6/9
Q2 2022	2022-08-08	D	raised	unclear	contracting	6/9	4/9
Q1 2022	2022-05-03	D	maintained	unclear	contracting	6/9	4/9
Q4 2021	2022-02-24	F	maintained	unclear	contracting	6/9	5/9
Q3 2021	2021-11-03	F	maintained	mixed	contracting	6/9	6/9
Q2 2021	2021-07-30	D	maintained	unclear	unclear	6/9	5/9
Q1 2021	2021-04-29	D	none	unclear	contracting	6/9	5/9
Q4 2020	2021-02-25	D	maintained	unclear	contracting	6/9	4/9
Q3 2020	2020-11-06	C	maintained	unclear	stable	7/9	2/9
Q2 2020	2020-07-31	D	raised	unclear	contracting	6/9	4/9
Q1 2020	2020-05-05	D	raised	unclear	stable	6/9	5/9
Q4 2019	2020-02-25	D	maintained	unclear	contracting	6/9	4/9
Q3 2019	2019-11-10	D	none	unclear	contracting	6/9	3/9
Q2 2019	2019-08-01	D	none	unclear	contracting	6/9	5/9
Q1 2019	2019-05-02	C	none	unclear	unclear	7/9	4/9
Q4 2018	2019-02-26	C+	maintained	stable	contracting	7/9	4/9
Q3 2018	2018-11-07	D	maintained	unclear	contracting	6/9	5/9
Q2 2018	2018-08-07	D	maintained	stable	contracting	7/9	3/9
Q1 2018	2018-05-08	D	maintained	unclear	contracting	6/9	5/9
Q4 2017	2018-02-27	C+	none	stable	unclear	6/9	2/9
Q3 2017	2017-11-08	D	none	unclear	contracting	6/9	3/9
Q2 2017	2017-08-03	D	none	unclear	contracting	6/9	5/9
Q1 2017	2017-05-03	D	none	unclear	contracting	6/9	4/9
Q4 2016	2017-02-28	D	none	unclear	contracting	6/9	4/9
Q3 2016	2016-11-02	D	none	stable	unclear	6/9	4/9
Q2 2016	2016-08-03	D	maintained	stable	unclear	6/9	5/9
Q1 2016	2016-05-05	D	maintained	unclear	contracting	6/9	4/9
Q4 2015	2016-02-29	D	none	unclear	contracting	6/9	4/9

Keep exploring

Companies with similar call quality

LRN

Stride, Inc.

MIND

MIND Technology, Inc.

HOFT

Hooker Furnishings Corporation

SIFY

Sify Technologies Limited

BSX

Boston Scientific Corporation

INFY

Infosys Limited

← MGNI All “M” companies MGOL →