Investor briefing
One quarterly script and eight peer-call summaries from approved digital sources; include preparation, editing, fact/quotation checks and publication approval. Exclude event logistics, website, CRM and the rest of IR.
Evidence: Analyst work-share scenario. Recent references remain, but none establishes these whole-workflow endpoints.
Reference task model
The reference workload starts with 100 manual staff-hours. Organization settings adjust the hours below at the same work volume. Work shares and task reductions are assumptions informed by the cited evidence. Negative values add checking work.
| Operating work | Before staff-hours | Lower saving assumption | Higher saving assumption | Staff-hours saved lower case | Staff-hours saved higher case |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gather approved source packs and organize current materialsAssumption and referencesAnalyst assumption: retrieval assists organization but approved input preparation remains. Sources: 3 | 15 | 0% | 20% | 0 | 3 |
Draft and edit the earnings scriptAssumption and referencesAnalyst transfer below the 88.9% first-draft TEI reference to allow tone changes, contextual editing and different tool quality. Sources: 1 | 30 | 45% | 80% | 13.5 | 24 |
Read and synthesize the eight peer callsAssumption and referencesAnalyst transfer capped at the TEI's 80% peer-summary reference; low endpoint retains more transcript reading. Sources: 1 | 35 | 50% | 80% | 17.5 | 28 |
Verify figures, claims and quotations; complete disclosure approvalAssumption and referencesAnalyst safeguard: no approval saving, and up to five extra hours of checking per 100 baseline workflow hours. Sources: 3 | 20 | -25% | 0% | -5 | 0 |
| Reference workload total | 100 | 26 | 55 |
26–55% before outward rounding to 25–55%. These are scenario endpoints, not confidence limits.
How much does the work mix matter?
The work shares above have not been measured. If independent checking takes 35 of the original 100 hours, instead of 20, the same task-saving assumptions produce 15–45%.
Other work shares shrink proportionately so the baseline remains 100 hours. The additional 15-hour review share is an illustrative sensitivity, not a measured allocation. An organization with a different work mix needs its own baseline.
Citations
The Total Economic Impact of Q4 Platform
Sponsored single-customer interview and financial model · 2025-06
One energy company's inputs to a June 2025 Forrester/Q4 model put script drafting at 36 to 4 hours and each peer-call summary at 10 to 2 hours. Full editing, checking and approval time was not separately measured.
Evidence period: Interview, deployment and measurement dates undisclosed; three-year financial projection, not three years of observed results. Model version undisclosed.
Use here: Task-specific reported inputs; no directly observed 25-55% complete-workflow range.
Primary source ↗From Manual to Strategic: Murphy USA's IR Transformation
Named vendor customer case · 2025-04-30
Murphy USA reports three days saved per earnings cycle and half as many people needed on competitor calls. It used Q4's AI, transcripts and other platform tools together; the article does not isolate AI's contribution or give total staff hours.
Evidence period: Deployment, measurement dates and model version undisclosed.
Use here: Reported platform benefit, with no compatible workflow denominator.
Primary source ↗Can AI Actually Handle Earnings Season? A Workflow Test for IR Teams
Vendor workflow guidance · 2026-08-14
Q4's 2026 workflow guide describes AI drafting and summarization, followed by source checks and finance, legal and executive approval. It reports no time-saving result.
Evidence period: 2026 product/workflow guidance; no experiment or deployment measurement.
Use here: None.
Primary source ↗How to interpret this range
Conditional planning scenarios, not measured population bounds or confidence intervals.
The same work is completed manually using existing systems and approved inputs. Sources and calculation models are usable. These are workflow reference cases, not company types.
- The workflow is in steady-state use and passes checks for equivalent output quality.
- Volume, coverage and output remain unchanged. Saved capacity is not assumed to reduce staffing.
- Human review, corrections, exceptions and existing approvals are included.
- Baseline task shares and transferred task-saving rates are analyst assumptions, not measured industry allocations.
Savings include conventional extraction, matching, retrieval and integration delivered with each scoped project. The separate marginal contribution of GenAI is not established.
Separate costs: Implementation and training, Separate project/platform upkeep, Upstream remediation outside the project, Additional output and newly worthwhile work.
Already-automated work, low adoption, difficult exceptions or unreliable output can produce smaller savings, zero or additional work. The positive lower endpoint is not a guaranteed minimum.
- Manual drafting and peer synthesis remain substantial baseline work; source packs and transcripts are already available in readable form.
- Users check source links and retain existing disclosure approval. Additional fact-checking can increase the review block by 25% at the low endpoint.
- The 15/30/35/20 baseline allocation is a transparent analyst scenario, not a measured industry distribution.
- The upper endpoint uses smaller drafting savings than the consultant's 88.9% first-draft reference and allows no final-review saving.
Convert to monthly hours: Monthly operating hours saved = baseline monthly workflow hours × saving percentage. Net capacity released = operating hours saved − annual project upkeep / 12 − allocated shared upkeep / 12. Shared upkeep is allocated once across the portfolio.
What would improve the estimate
- Share of current time spent on final review versus first drafts and peer summaries
- Whether baseline research already uses summaries or transcripts
- Correction burden for financial claims and executive tone
- AI drafts require substantial rewriting or repeat source checking
- Existing templates and summaries already remove most preparation labor
- Expansion to more peers or richer output absorbs released time
- Time one comparable earnings cycle and separately log preparation, first drafts, peer synthesis, edits and final review; compare equal outputs and eight peers.
Reviewed 2026-10-25 · Reference model data · Research notes