Launch LPD 29
Not delivered by the deadline
AI-assessed · human review in progress Found and assessed by AI from the cited sources. Shown with its evidence; it is not counted in any Kept Score until confirmed.
- Announced
- 10 Feb 2022
- Due
- 31 Dec 2022
- Checked
- 12 Oct 2026
- Deadline
- Met
- Late
- Not met
- Today
What the company said
“Launch LPD 29 (Richard M. McCool Jr.)”
What we found
Evidence strength A What the grades mean
The company's SEC filings from 2023 and 2024 consistently state that the Richard M. McCool Jr. (LPD 29) was still under construction, indicating the launch did not occur by the end of 2022.
-
A Huntington Ingalls Industries 10-K filed 2023-02-09
“we are currently constructing Richard M. McCool Jr. (LPD 29)” ✓ confirmed on the page
-
A Huntington Ingalls Industries 10-K filed 2024-02-01
“we are currently constructing Richard M. McCool Jr. (LPD 29)” ✓ confirmed on the page
Market reaction: the shares moved -3.5% against the S&P 500 over the three sessions around the disclosure (8 Feb 2023 to 13 Feb 2023). What this measures
Checked 12 Oct 2026.
Commitment lineage
Every time the company restated this commitment. The original is never changed, and the outcome is always measured against version 1.
- Deadline drift +1826 days
- 3 versions
-
Version 1 · original · stated 10 Feb 2022
Deadline 31 Dec 2022 (“2022”)
-
Version 2 · stated 4 Aug 2022
Deadline 31 Dec 2024 (“2024”)
“Launch LPD 30 (Harrisburg) (moved to 2024)”
-
Version 3 · stated 5 Feb 2026
Deadline 31 Dec 2027 (“2027”)
“Launch LPD 31”
Commitment DNA
The structured record of this commitment. Fields the company did not state are left blank rather than guessed.
- Event type
- Commercial launch
- Indicative materiality
- Medium rules
- Action
- Launch
- Deliverable
- LPD 29 (Richard M. McCool Jr.)
- In the company’s control
- High
- Specificity
- High
- Conditional
- Yes: subject to change based upon future events
- Depends on
- Customer
How this entry was checked
- Commitment recordedThe company's words were matched word for word against the filing.
- First checkAn AI model, Gemini (Google), read the company's later filings and recorded the outcome with a quoted passage.
- Second check: disagreesClaude (Anthropic) re-read the evidence blind and read it as “no_evidence”.
- Tie-breakA stronger model read the evidence and both earlier answers, without knowing which was recorded, and agrees with the second check.
Not yet confirmed. Shown on the record, but it will not count in any score until it is confirmed. How verification works
Are you Huntington Ingalls Industries? You can publish an official statement next to this entry, free. Add a statement.
Is something here wrong or out of date? Companies and readers can ask us to check it. Please bring a link to a public source.
Report an error in this entry Reference: KI-C-2022-HII-007677 · Corrections policy