AI mentions in earnings calls
How often listed companies lean on the word — narrative pressure in its rawest form.
- Latest
- 71
- Heat
- 89
- Weight
- 15%
Mentions per 100 calls · transcript review
04Standing analysis · Revised quarterly
Market monitor
Six indicators, one composite reading. The monitor doesn’t predict the market — it keeps a running record of the distance between conviction and evidence, so that drift is visible while it is still cheap to correct.
Heated 78/100
Conviction is running ahead of evidence. Expect louder claims, thinner proof, and a widening gap between pilots and production.
+3 pts vs. last quarterLast review: July 5, 2026Revised quarterly. Next review: October 2026.
Composite reading, last eight quarters
Composite of six weighted indicators, 0 (frozen) to 100 (overheated).
The six indicators
Each indicator is normalized to a heat score from 0 to 100, where 100 reads as maximally overheated. Two indicators are inverted: for those, low raw values heat the reading.
Pilot-to-production rate
Inverted scaleThe share of AI pilots that reach production. The lower it drops while activity rises, the hotter the market.
- Latest
- 11%
- Heat
- 80
- Weight
- 20%
% of pilots reaching production · survey panel and public post-mortems
Automation reversals
AI-attributed staff cuts followed by rehiring for the same function within a year — conviction spent before evidence.
- Latest
- 33%
- Heat
- 83
- Weight
- 20%
% of announced cuts · press and filings review
Budget without an owner
Enterprises with an AI budget but no named owner or written strategy. Money moving faster than accountability.
- Latest
- 55%
- Heat
- 70
- Weight
- 20%
% of enterprises · survey panel
The AI label premium
Median revenue-multiple premium of AI-labeled firms over comparable peers. What the label alone is worth right now.
- Latest
- 3.7×
- Heat
- 90
- Weight
- 15%
Multiple gap (×) · deal and market data
No plan at all
Inverted scaleFirms with no AI capability plan whatsoever — the frozen end of the market. High values cool the composite; that failure just books later.
- Latest
- 34%
- Heat
- 43
- Weight
- 10%
% of firms · survey panel
Zone definitions
Frozen 0–15
Activity has stalled well below what the technology already reliably does. The failure here is quiet: lost bids, lost optionality.
Cool 15–40
Adoption is deliberate and evidence is keeping pace with conviction. Underinvestment is the risk to watch.
Balanced 40–60
Conviction and evidence are roughly in step. Decisions made in this band tend to survive the next cycle.
Heated 60–85
Conviction is running ahead of evidence. Expect louder claims, thinner proof, and a widening gap between pilots and production.
Overheated 85–100
The narrative is carrying spend that the operating results no longer support. Corrections from this zone are rarely gentle.
Methodology
Every indicator is normalized against a fixed floor and ceiling to a heat score between 0 and 100, where 100 reads as maximally overheated. Indicators where a low raw value signals heat — pilot conversion, the no-plan share — are inverted before weighting.
The composite is a weighted mean. Weights favor indicators that measure the gap between stated conviction and operating evidence (pilot conversion, reversals, ownerless budgets) over pure narrative volume.
Zones are fixed, not fitted: 0–15 frozen, 15–40 cool, 40–60 balanced, 60–85 heated, 85–100 overheated. Both tails are failure zones by construction — that is the editorial thesis, stated upfront rather than hidden in the scale.
Limitations
Readings are editorial estimates compiled from public filings, surveys and press review. They are directional, not precise — built to compare quarters, not to trade on. Not investment advice.