Skip to content

Person-checked company records fromPerson-checked records $750See a worked exampleHuman review in progress

Talk to sales

KeptIndex

Huntington Ingalls Industries

Launch LPD 30

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 2023
Checked
12 Oct 2026
  • Deadline
  • Met
  • Late
  • Not met
  • Today

What the company said

“Launch LPD 30 (Harrisburg)”

What we found

Evidence strength A What the grades mean

Filings from 2024 and 2025 consistently state that the company is still constructing the Harrisburg (LPD 30), indicating the launch did not occur by the end of 2023.

  • A
    Huntington Ingalls Industries 10-K filed 2024-02-01 Regulatory filing · published 1 Feb 2024 · retrieved 12 Oct 2026 · kept permanently by the SEC · fingerprint 68fce079832a
    “we are currently constructing Richard M. McCool Jr. (LPD 29), Harrisburg (LPD 30), and Pittsburgh (LPD 31).” ✓ confirmed on the page
  • A
    Huntington Ingalls Industries 10-K filed 2025-02-06 Regulatory filing · published 6 Feb 2025 · retrieved 12 Oct 2026 · kept permanently by the SEC · fingerprint 2fc571c4c5fe
    “We are currently constructing Harrisburg (LPD 30), Pittsburgh (LPD 31), and Philadelphia (LPD 32).” ✓ confirmed on the page

Market reaction: the shares moved +0.7% against the S&P 500 over the three sessions around the disclosure (31 Jan 2024 to 5 Feb 2024). What this measures

Checked 12 Oct 2026.

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 30 (Harrisburg)
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

  1. Commitment recordedThe company's words were matched word for word against the filing.
  2. First checkAn AI model, Gemini (Google), read the company's later filings and recorded the outcome with a quoted passage.
  3. Second check: disagreesClaude (Anthropic) re-read the evidence blind and read it as “no_evidence”.
  4. 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-007686 · Corrections policy

The Deadline Report

One email a week: the corporate commitments that came due, which were met, which slipped, and what is due next. Free. Stop any time.

No advertising. We never sell or share your address.