Q33, run 2026-11-04-1616-sonnet

← back to the run

Whose credit risk does a holder of the Halden Leasing 2028 notes take, and how is it rated?

Tests: Roles: the guarantor is the parent, not the ultimate parent.

Expected: risk_of = E10 rating = BBB+

✅ R1 csv run 1 graded by code

The guarantor, Halden Bank (E10), rated BBB+ (I05 guaranteed by E10; A29).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R1 csv run 2 graded by code

The holder takes E10's credit risk, rated BBB+. E10 guarantees I05, and A29 gives BBB+.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R1 csv run 3 graded by code

The holder takes the risk of the guarantor E10, which is rated BBB+ after A27.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R1 csv run 4 graded by code

The holder takes the credit risk of E10, the guarantor, rated BBB+. I05 was downgraded to BBB+ in A29, matching E10's rating.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R1 csv run 5 graded by code

Halden Bank (E10), rated BBB+. E10 guarantees I05, and A27/A29 give BBB+ for both.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R2 rdf run 1 graded by code

The guarantor, Halden Bank (E10), rated BBB+. I05 is issued by E11 but guaranteed by E10, and A27 rates E10 at BBB+.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R2 rdf run 2 graded by code

E10, rated BBB+. I05 is issued by E11 but guaranteed by E10, whose current rating is BBB+ (A27).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R2 rdf run 3 graded by code

The holder takes the guarantor's risk, E10, which is rated BBB+ after A27 (2026-04-15). I05 is issued by E11 and guaranteed by E10.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R2 rdf run 4 graded by code

E10 (the guarantor), rated BBB+. E10 was downgraded to BBB+ in A27, and I05 itself is BBB+ (A29).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R2 rdf run 5 graded by code

The holder takes the risk of E10, the guarantor of I05. E10 is currently rated BBB+ (A27).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R6 rdf+ontology run 1 graded by code

The holder takes the credit risk of Halden Bank (E10), rated BBB+. I05 is guaranteed by E10, whose latest rating is BBB+ (A27).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R6 rdf+ontology run 2 graded by code

The guarantor, Halden Bank (E10), rated BBB+. I05 is guaranteed by E10 and rated BBB+ (A29), in line with E10's BBB+ (A27).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R6 rdf+ontology run 3 graded by code

The holder takes E10's (Halden Bank) credit risk, rated BBB+. I05 is guaranteed by E10, and A29 rates it BBB+.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R6 rdf+ontology run 4 graded by code

The holder takes the credit risk of E10 (Halden Bank), which guarantees I05. It is rated BBB+ (A29).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R6 rdf+ontology run 5 graded by code

The holder takes E10's credit risk, rated BBB+. I05 is guaranteed by E10 (not the issuer E11), and E10 was downgraded to BBB+ (A27). I05 itself is BBB+ (A29).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R5 csv+ontology run 1 graded by code

The guarantor, Halden Bank (E10), rated BBB+. I05 is guaranteed by E10, and A29 downgraded it to BBB+.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R5 csv+ontology run 2 graded by code

The holder takes Halden Bank's credit risk (E10, the guarantor of I05), rated BBB+ (A27).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R5 csv+ontology run 3 graded by code

E10, rated BBB+. I05 is guaranteed by E10, whose latest LTIDR (A27) is BBB+.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R5 csv+ontology run 4 graded by code

A holder takes the credit risk of E10, the guarantor, rated BBB+ (A27/A29).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}

✅ R5 csv+ontology run 5 graded by code

The holder takes E10's credit risk, rated BBB+. I05 is guaranteed by E10, whose current rating is BBB+ (A27). I05 is also BBB+ (A29).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E10", "rating": "BBB+"}