1.	Before writing an even partially critical review of an annual report, you traditionally notify the company whose name is on the cover—so its producers won't be shocked and/or angry. True or false? Answer: False. Companies, if they send us their annual report, get no advance warning of a critical critique aborning. If their report has achieved "world-class" status, scoring at least 100 of a potential 135 points, they'll have an indication of that honor when sent, free, a certificate on parchment-like stock, suitable for framing, heralding their achievement. Even then, no advance warning is given of a pending review, which inevitably will spotlight the entire report, "warts and all," as they say.
	2.	About your 15th annual conference: One of your dilemmas is how to encourage repeat business; in other words, how do you get prior attendees to come back this fall to Charleston, South Carolina, home of your 1995 conference? True or false? Answer: False. I was not surprised to learn that an attendee at our very first conference, in New York City in 1988, is registered for Charleston in September. Neither did it come as a surprise to learn that an attendee at the second conference, San Francisco in 1989, was signed up to return—as was an attendee at No. 3, in Chicago in 1990. He, too, will be back. I was somewhat surprised, though, to learn that at conference No. 4, in Montreal, in 1991, we had visitors from Helsinki, Finland, and Tokyo. No word yet as to whether those or other Montreal attendees will join us this fall.
	3.	Your experience with annual reports is essentially theoretical, rather than hands-on. True or false? Answer: False. I have roughly half-a-hundred annuals under my belt as the hands-on producer—not just approving press proofs, but in charge from concept to conclusion. I even attested to the mailing of the document, a certification introduced at the annual meeting of shareholders. What's more, I did annuals for the parent company and several publicly held subsidiaries, all but one on the same, calendar-year basis. (One, thank goodness, was on a fiscal year.) One report was named "best produced by an industrial company." All were cited by Financial World for financial disclosure.
	4.	A big change is identification of all personnel in the annual report, rather than just the top brass. True or false? Answer: False. While every CEO of course is fully identified, most companies continue not to care if their employees remain anonymous. The current numbers: 57.4% among 2002s to date picture employees; fewer than half (48.6%) bother to identify every worker, just as every officer and director is identified. What's that indicate? Insincerity. They're fakes when they say "our workforce is our strength."
	5.	Casual attire, which increasingly abounds throughout the world, has yet to invade the key corporate communiqué. True or false? Answer: On the contrary, incidence of casual attire among corporate chieftains has increased since monitoring this element commenced—among 1998 reports. Only one in nine—11.5%—went that relaxed route then, up so far among 2002s to 34.6%. Just over one in three. (We monitor the light-hearted as well the substantive, folks.)
	6.	Several months back, you took Peoria, Illinois-based RLI Corp. to task for continuing to exclude women and minorities from the board of directors. But it has finally seen the light—become properly progressive in that regard. True or false? Answer: Couldn't prove it by me, one way or another: RLI apparently decided not to submit its annual report for the gratis analysis in our overall data base, making me suspect its board remains all male as well as lily-white.