Start 30 days free, no card. Full Pro access for a month, then decide. Start free
Analyst
Jeff Campbell
Period: Reporting periods mapped to calendar 2024 Q4 – 2026 Q1 (6 quarters).
- Questions
- 9on tracked calls
- Challenge rate
- 0%none of 9 questionsLimited sample
- Companies
- 1questioned at least once
- Reporting periods
- 6with questions
These figures cover the whole profile: every tracked question, all reporting periods.
How to read these numbers
Challenge rate is the share of questions that pushed back, pressed for specifics or questioned management’s assumptions. It describes how questions were asked on the calls tracked here; it does not measure whether any view turned out to be right. See how we grade analysts on earnings-call questions.
Rounding. Rates are rounded to whole percentages, so a small share can show as 0% even when some questions were challenging. The count beside each rate is exact; “none of N questions” means no question was challenging.
No questions recorded. “—” means there is nothing to calculate: no questions were recorded for that period on the calls tracked here. It does not mean there was no activity.
Fewer than 3 questions. A company-level rate is withheld when fewer than 3 questions were recorded for that company; the questions are still counted everywhere else.
Small samples. Profiles with fewer than 10 questions are marked Limited sample.
Reporting periods. Questions are grouped by the calendar quarter each company’s fiscal reporting period maps to, not by the date of the call. Periods without a calendar mapping are listed separately under their fiscal label.
Questions asked
Grouped by company, most questions first. Open a company to read its questions, newest reporting period first.
Showing 9 of 9 questions from 1 company
OKLOOklo Inc.9 questions · 6 reporting periods · 0 of 9 challenging
Calendar 2026 Q1
Could you sort of synopsize what the goals of each program are, how they differ if there's any synergies?
Show response
Jake distinguished the NVIDIA/LANL plutonium-chemistry and material-handling focus from INL's Agentic AI reactor-design workflows, both applied to the Pluto program.
Calendar 2025 Q4
will the deconversion discussions you've noted result in Centrus increasing its enrichment capabilities
Show response
CEO said the UF6-based deconversion tech is flexible and supplier-agnostic, colocated with Centrus in Ohio to capture economies of scale, aimed at supporting their growth.
Calendar 2025 Q3
if you could give us any update on your proposed natural gas or Aurora partnership with Liberty Energy.
Show response
Jake said the gas-to-nuclear bridge remains a powerful, validated theme in customer discussions but gave no specific Liberty update. Partially answered.
are you going to be able to do it in a way that won't interrupt your fuel cycle?
Show response
Jake said power operation is the priority; select reactors (Idaho, Pluto) offer flexibility to fit irradiation around the power schedule. Directly answered.
Calendar 2025 Q2
Can you provide some color on the recently announced Atlas effort?
Show response
Jake described Atlas (atomic vapor laser isotope separation) as promising lower levelized enrichment cost; Hexium started on lithium but also saw uranium opportunities.
What's your take on how this might be amended to support Oklo's future recycling effort?
Show response
Jake explained that the law and policy do not block working with utilities/government to recycle used fuel; the main challenge is infrastructure to do it.
Calendar 2025 Q1
Can you add some color on how this licensing effort might be different than that for Aurora?
Show response
Jake explained the fuel foundry follows a materials-handling path (not Part 50/52) with a review potentially 24-30 months, possibly 36, and expected to be faster than a reactor license.
Calendar 2024 Q4
does this require any kind of change in your total license approach or is it already covered
Show response
Management said the impact is minimal and the existing licensing work already accommodates the larger output within the 15-to-75 megawatt envelope.
Can you describe broadly what the readiness assessment entails and does it derisk your actual COLA application?
Show response
Management described a structured two-phase submission with an optional readiness assessment that pre-converges Oklo and the NRC to derisk content and timeline.
Challenge rate by company
Every company this analyst questioned, most questions first. A company-level rate is shown from 3 questions; below that it is withheld.
| Company | Questions | Challenge rate |
|---|---|---|
| OKLO Oklo Inc. | 9 | 0%none of 9 questions |
- OKLOOklo Inc. · 9 questions0%none of 9 questions
Activity by reporting period
Questions recorded for each calendar quarter that companies’ reporting periods map to (not the call date), with the challenge rate for that period. Periods inside the range with no questions are shown as “No questions recorded”.
| Calendar period | Questions | Challenge rate | Companies |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024 Q4 | 2 | 0%none of 2 questions | 1 |
| 2025 Q1 | 1 | 0%none of 1 question | 1 |
| 2025 Q2 | 2 | 0%none of 2 questions | 1 |
| 2025 Q3 | 2 | 0%none of 2 questions | 1 |
| 2025 Q4 | 1 | 0%none of 1 question | 1 |
| 2026 Q1 | 1 | 0%none of 1 question | 1 |
- 2024 Q42 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 2 questions) · 1 company
- 2025 Q11 question · challenge rate 0% (none of 1 question) · 1 company
- 2025 Q22 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 2 questions) · 1 company
- 2025 Q32 questions · challenge rate 0% (none of 2 questions) · 1 company
- 2025 Q41 question · challenge rate 0% (none of 1 question) · 1 company
- 2026 Q11 question · challenge rate 0% (none of 1 question) · 1 company
Topics
Topics tagged on this analyst’s questions.
- Innovation & R&D4
- Regulation Policy4
- Supply Chain3
- Cloud & AI1
- M&A1
- Demand1
- Cost Pressure1
- Product Launch1