Q5, run 2026-11-05-1233-haiku

← back to the run

Whose credit risk does a holder of the Northwind Finance 2030 notes take, and how is it rated?

Tests: Roles: issuer versus guarantor; a finance subsidiary's guaranteed debt carries the guarantor's risk.

Expected: risk_of = E02 rating = A

✅ R1 csv run 1 graded by code

Holders of I03 take the credit risk of guarantor E02 (issuer E04 is the obligor), rated A. The instrument rating (A10, A11) matches E02's level, and E04 has no rating of its own.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R1 csv run 2 graded by code

Northwind Holdings (E02), rated A. I03 is guaranteed by E02 (guarantor_id), and A11 rates I03 at A. E04 has no rating of its own in the data.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R1 csv run 3 graded by code

E02 (Northwind Holdings), rated A. I03 is guaranteed by E02 (guarantor_id), and I03's rating is A (A11).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R1 csv run 4 graded by code

Holders take the credit risk of E02 (Northwind Holdings), rated A. I03 is guaranteed by E02, E04 has no rating records, and I03 is rated A (A11).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R1 csv run 5 graded by code

The holder takes the guarantor's risk, E02, rated A. I03 is issued by E04, which has no rating, and E02 guarantees it. Rating A is from A11 (2025-09-15).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

🟡 R2 rdf run 1 graded by code

The notes' issuer is E04 (Northwind Finance BV), and E02 guarantees them (I03). The data does not say which party is the primary risk, so I've listed E04; the I03 rating is A (A11).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E04", "rating": "A"}

Why: risk_of: expected E02, got E04

🟡 R2 rdf run 2 graded by code

Northwind Finance BV (E04), which issues I03. I03 is guaranteed by E02, and its rating is A (A11, 2025-09-15).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E04", "rating": "A"}

Why: risk_of: expected E02, got E04

🟡 R2 rdf run 3 graded by code

Northwind Finance BV (E04), rated A
The 2030 notes are I03, issued by E04 and guaranteed by E02, and the instrument is rated A (A11, affirmed 2025-09-15). The data records the guarantee but does not say whether it changes the holder's risk.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E04", "rating": "A"}

Why: risk_of: expected E02, got E04

🟡 R2 rdf run 4 graded by code

Northwind Finance BV (E04), rated A. I03 has issuer E04 and guarantor E02, and A11 (AF, A, 2025-09-15) is the latest rating. The data does not say whether the guarantee changes the instrument rating.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E04", "rating": "A"}

Why: risk_of: expected E02, got E04

🟡 R2 rdf run 5 graded by code

Northwind Finance BV (E04), with guarantor E02 also in the chain. I03 is rated A (A11, 2025-09-15).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E04", "rating": "A"}

Why: risk_of: expected E02, got E04

✅ R6 rdf+ontology run 1 graded by code

E02 (Northwind Holdings), rated A. I03 is guaranteed by E02, so its credit risk is the guarantor's, and A11 (2025-09-15) sets the instrument rating at A.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R6 rdf+ontology run 2 graded by code

E02 (Northwind Holdings); rating A
I03 is guaranteed by E02, so its holders take E02's credit risk, and I03 is rated A (A11).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R6 rdf+ontology run 3 graded by code

Northwind Holdings (E02), rated A. I03 is guaranteed by E02, so its holders carry E02's risk, and its instrument rating A (A11) matches E02's A (A09).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R6 rdf+ontology run 4 graded by code

**E02 (Northwind Holdings), rated A.** I03 is guaranteed by E02, so it is rated on the guarantor's credit (A11 = A, latest action), not on the issuer E04.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R6 rdf+ontology run 5 graded by code

E02 (Northwind Holdings); rated A
I03 is guaranteed by E02, so holders take its credit risk, and I03's latest action (A11, AF) is A, in line with E02's issuer rating.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R5 csv+ontology run 1 graded by code

E02 (Northwind Holdings), rated A. I03 is issued by finance subsidiary E04 but guaranteed by E02, so it is rated on the guarantor, and A11 (2025-09-15) affirmed it at A.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R5 csv+ontology run 2 graded by code

Holders take the credit risk of E02 (Northwind Holdings), rated A. I03 is guaranteed by E02 (guarantor field), so it is rated in line with E02's issuer rating, and A11 (2025-09-15) affirmed it at A.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R5 csv+ontology run 3 graded by code

Northwind Holdings (E02). I03 is guaranteed by E02, so the holder takes E02's credit risk. The notes are rated A (A11, affirmed 2025-09-15).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R5 csv+ontology run 4 graded by code

Holders take the credit risk of E02 (Northwind Holdings), rated A. I03 is guaranteed by E02, so it is rated on the guarantor, and A11 affirms it at A, matching E02's A (A08/A09).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R5 csv+ontology run 5 graded by code

Northwind Holdings (E02), as guarantor. The Northwind Finance 2030 notes (I03) are guaranteed by E02, and the instrument is rated A (A11, 2025-09-15).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R4 csv+markdown run 1 graded by code

Holders take Northwind Holdings' (E02) credit risk, because I03 is guaranteed by E02. The note is rated A (A11), in line with the guarantor.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R4 csv+markdown run 2 graded by code

Northwind Holdings (E02), rated A. I03 is guaranteed by E02, so its risk follows E02's issuer rating of A (A09), and the instrument is also rated A (A11).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R4 csv+markdown run 3 graded by code

The holder takes Northwind Holdings' credit risk (E02), since E04 is a finance subsidiary guaranteed by E02. I03 is rated A (A11).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R4 csv+markdown run 4 graded by code

The holder takes the credit risk of E02 (Northwind Holdings), because I03 is guaranteed by E02, and the note is rated A. Its instrument action A11 affirms A.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R4 csv+markdown run 5 graded by code

The credit risk of E02 (Northwind Holdings), rated A. I03 is guaranteed by E02, so it is rated on the guarantor (A10, A11).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R3 csv+padding run 1 graded by code

Northwind Finance 2030 notes (I03) carry A risk of guarantor E02, not issuer E04. E04 has no rating of its own, and the note's A rating matches E02's A (A08, A11).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

🟡 R3 csv+padding run 2 graded by code

E04 (Northwind Finance BV), rated A. I03 is rated A (A11, 2025-09-15); the notes are guaranteed by E02, which the data does not otherwise assess.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E04", "rating": "A"}

Why: risk_of: expected E02, got E04

✅ R3 csv+padding run 3 graded by code

Northwind Holdings (E02), rated A. Northwind Finance 2030 notes (I03) are guaranteed by E02, and the instrument is rated A (A11).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R3 csv+padding run 4 graded by code

E02 (Northwind Holdings), rated A. I03 is issued by E04 and guaranteed by E02, so the holder bears the guarantor's risk; A11 affirmed it at A.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R3 csv+padding run 5 graded by code

Holders take Northwind Holdings' credit risk (E02, guarantor), rated A. I03 (issuer E04) is guaranteed by E02, and I03's latest rating is A (A11).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R10 executed run 1 graded by code

Northwind Holdings (E02), rated A. I03's credit risk is E02's (credit_risk_of), and I03 is currently rated A (A11).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R10 executed run 2 graded by code

The holder takes E02's credit risk, and the notes are rated A. I03 credit_risk_of is E02, and I03 is A (A11) with E02 also A POS.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R10 executed run 3 graded by code

Northwind Holdings (E02), rated A. I03's credit_risk_of is E02, and E02's current LTIDR FC rating is A (A09); I03 is also rated A (A11).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R10 executed run 4 graded by code

E02 (Northwind Holdings), rated A. I03's credit_risk_of is E02 (guarantor), and I03 is rated A (A11), matching E02's A rating (A09).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R10 executed run 5 graded by code

Northwind Holdings (E02), rated A. The 2030 notes (I03) list E02 as credit_risk_of, and E02's current rating is A (A09).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R7 csv+neutral run 1 graded by code

Northwind Holdings (E02). The 2030 notes (I03) are guaranteed by E02, so holders carry its credit risk, and the notes are rated A (A11).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R7 csv+neutral run 2 graded by code

E02 (Northwind Holdings), rated A. I03 is issued by E04 and guaranteed by E02, so it is rated in line with E02; the latest instrument action is A11 (A).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R7 csv+neutral run 3 graded by code

Northwind Holdings (E02). I03 is guaranteed by E02, so holders take E02's risk, and the note is rated A (A11), in line with E02's A issuer rating.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R7 csv+neutral run 4 graded by code

Northwind Holdings (E02), rated A
I03 is guaranteed by E02, so the holder carries E02's credit risk and the note is rated in line with E02's issuer rating. The I03 rating is A (A10, A11), matching E02's current A.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R7 csv+neutral run 5 graded by code

Northwind Holdings (E02), rated A. The 2030 notes (I03) are guaranteed by E02, so they carry its credit risk and are rated in line with its A rating (A11).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R8 csv+axioms run 1 graded by code

Northwind Holdings (E02), rated A. The 2030 notes (I03) have guarantor E02, so the guarantor's credit risk applies; I03 is rated A (A11, 2025-09-15).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R8 csv+axioms run 2 graded by code

The guarantor, E02 (Northwind Holdings), because E02 guarantees I03. I03 is rated A (A11, affirmed 2025-09-15).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R8 csv+axioms run 3 graded by code

E02, rated A. I03's guarantor is E02, so its credit risk sits with E02, which is rated A (A08, A09). The instrument itself is also A (A10, A11).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R8 csv+axioms run 4 graded by code

E02 (Northwind Holdings), rated A. I03 has guarantor E02, and the guarantor takes the credit risk; I03 was affirmed at A (A11).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R8 csv+axioms run 5 graded by code

E02, A
I03's guarantor is E02, so holders bear E02's credit risk, and I03 is rated A (A11).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R9 csv+axioms+markdown run 1 graded by code

Northwind Holdings (E02), rated A. I03 is guaranteed by E02, so the holder takes E02's credit risk, and the instrument rating is A (A11).

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R9 csv+axioms+markdown run 2 graded by code

E02 (Northwind Holdings), rated A. I03 is guaranteed by E02, so its credit risk is E02's, and A11 (2025-09-15) affirmed the instrument at A.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R9 csv+axioms+markdown run 3 graded by code

E02 (Northwind Holdings), rated A. I03 is guaranteed by E02, so it is rated on the guarantor's credit risk, and A11 affirmed it at A.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R9 csv+axioms+markdown run 4 graded by code

E02 (Northwind Holdings), rated A. I03 has guarantor E02, so the holder takes E02's credit risk, and A11 (affirmed A) is the instrument's latest rating.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}

✅ R9 csv+axioms+markdown run 5 graded by code

Northwind Holdings (E02) takes the risk, and the notes are rated A. I03 has guarantor E02, so credit risk sits with the guarantor; A11 (AF, A) is the current instrument rating.

JSON: {"risk_of": "E02", "rating": "A"}