Solution
For equity research and ratings teams: draft commentary on a new 10-K or 10-Q lands on the analyst's desk in minutes, with every metric cited to the filing page — the analyst verifies and approves instead of reading under the clock.
The problem
When a company publishes, the market expects commentary in minutes. Reading hundreds of pages and writing under that clock is where quality slips.
Each sector demands its own metrics, and a good commentary cross-references prior filings and competitors. Assembling that by hand at filing-season volume does not scale.
Checking one figure means hunting through a 300-page document. Under deadline, that check gets skipped or it costs the deadline.
The product, not a promise
How it works
A newly published filing lands in the platform the moment it appears.
The key metrics the SMEs defined are pulled from hundreds of pages automatically.
The right narrative template is chosen based on the business scenario the numbers describe.
The template is auto-filled with extracted values and cross-references to earlier filings.
An analyst verifies every number against its source and approves for publishing.
Who it's for
Equity research analyst
Head of research
Compliance & risk
Equity researchers at a leading credit rating organization face a brutal clock: when a company publishes a quarterly or annual filing, they have minutes to read hundreds of pages and produce insightful commentary. Different sectors demand different KPIs, and a good commentary cross-references earlier filings and competitors. Doing all of that by hand, at filing-season volume, does not scale.
The solution started with the researchers themselves. Subject-matter experts defined the metrics worth extracting for each scenario and wrote the narrative templates their commentary follows. Botminds then took over the mechanical work: when a new filing publishes, it extracts those metrics, infers the business scenario from the values, and picks the matching template. The narrative is auto-filled — numbers, comparisons, references to prior filings — and lands on the analyst’s desk as a draft.
The analyst’s job changes from reading and writing under time pressure to verifying and approving. Every figure in the draft is cited to the exact page it came from, so validation is a click rather than a search through a 300-page document.
Commentary from a rating organization moves markets and carries reputational weight, so no draft publishes on its own. The platform compresses hours of reading and drafting into minutes of machine work; the researcher supplies judgment. That division held up in practice because drafts arrive with evidence attached — an analyst trusts a number precisely because they can check it instantly.
The result is more commentaries per researcher, published faster after each filing, with the same expert standing behind every word. The pattern extends to any workflow where a domain expert signs off on machine-drafted analysis: define the metrics once, let the platform extract and draft, keep the human on approval.
Objections, answered
Every figure in the draft is cited to the exact page of the filing it came from, so validation is a click rather than a search. Items the platform is less certain about are flagged, and no commentary publishes without a named analyst's approval.
The templates are yours: your subject-matter experts define the metrics per sector and write the narrative structures. The platform fills them — it never invents a house view.
The full lineage of every published commentary: the filing, the extracted values with citations, the template applied, the analyst's edits, and the approval — recorded as it happened.
The platform already reads SEC filings. Setup is encoding your metric definitions and narrative templates with your SMEs — a configuration exercise measured in weeks, not a model-building project.
Watch a full draft commentary assemble minutes after the filing — every number clickable to its page — live in the demo.
Request a demo