1.	Let's face it: You don't take all that long agonizing over how a report finishes in your evaluation—it's done lickety-split. True or false? Answer: False. Sure, sometimes it's clear, especially when a report obviously has touched all the bases. But when a report comes up for criticism, I spend loads of time insuring I'm accurate, that my taking a company to task is valid—for reasons apparent after several visits and revisits.
	2.	What about big names, corporations that can do you some good: You pretty much decide quickly that they're going to be on your list of world's best—not that that's necessarily bad! True or false? Answer: False again. Take Ford Motor's 1999 report. As I agonized publicly on Page 1 of my May 2000 print edition, I have yet to decide if Ford warrants all 15 points for CEO articulation of what the company's all about and where he sees it headed. Most traditionally have an "interview with the CEO." That makes it easy to award all 15 points in my Category 14. Now, as I write this, I'm thinking, "Well, maybe Ford's right—clearly, its chief executive IS everywhere talking about the firm's future." Still...
	3.	You proclaim that most attendees at your annual conference are repeat-visitors, but isn't it true you make a mailing every year to the Fortune 1000 to drum up business? If so, doesn't that cast doubts on your contention that few newcomers attend? True or false? Answer: False, I believe you'll find. True, most attendees (at least four dozen of the lid of 75) are repeaters, have attended previously (some as long ago as my very first conference). Yes, in the past I've made a mailing, but it doesn't appear that will be necessary this time, for the first year in 13. So...
	4.	Isn't it pretty much accepted that you take money under the table to name companies to your list of world's best, and that those who refuse to ante up are likely to make the list of world's worst. True or false? Answer: False. No one has ever paid me to make the list of 10 best, though one agency head proffered $25,000 (for "services rendered") after one of his clients made my list of world's worst. I turned it down, obviously, suggested that was little more than a thinly disguised bribe. Several companies have retained me, for a fee stated clearly on my website, to critique their annual report in depth and, no doubt to their everlasting amazement, have ended up on my list of world's worst. Three in one year come to mind: SPX Corp., Armstrong World Industries and Tenneco. That would seem to indicate that, retainers to the contrary, companies can't count on being immune from criticism. They certainly can't buy their way to the top. Neither, in the case of Archer Daniels Midland, can they buy their way OFF the worst list.
	5.	Face it: The only ones likely to warrant praise from you are big companies like IBM, GE and General Motors. Tiny, no-name companies get a pass. True or false? Answer: False. IBM does an outstanding job (if marching to its own drummer), but its reports have yet to come close to top-10 status. The GE report, aside from its memorable letter to shareholders every year, I don't view as very good. GM has had its ups and downs over the years, primarily the latter, indeed once made my list of world's worst. And how would you categorize a company in Fergus Falls, Minnesota? Otter Tail Power Co., based in that out-of-the-way location, is lauded in May for its world-class report and, especially, the writing in its shareholder letter. No one would suggest Otter Tail is huge, important, a company with deep pockets. So it appears you're wrong.