AI-Assisted Strategic Posture Assessments: NVIDIA and Intel
Description
This dataset provides the machine-readable results supporting the AI-assisted Strategic Posture assessments of NVIDIA and Intel for 2017 and 2020. The analysis applies Ansoff’s Strategic Success Hypothesis to contemporaneous Form 10-K filings by assessing Strategic Aggressiveness (SA) and Capability Responsiveness (CR) against a common Environmental Turbulence Level (ETL) benchmark. The workbook contains the source filings, ETL values, the final item-level SA and CR scores for each company-year, evidence coverage, construct averages, strategic and capability gaps, and the resulting overall assessments. NVIDIA is assessed as broadly aligned in both periods, while Intel shows an emerging capability gap in 2017 and becomes capability-constrained by 2020. The company-year assessments were conducted in fresh, independent AI conversations using the same locked indicators, scoring rules and source restrictions. The dataset is intended to facilitate verification of the calculations reported in the paper and enable researchers and practitioners to reproduce or extend the instrument to other publicly listed companies with sufficiently informative annual filings.
Files
Steps to reproduce
Obtain the four contemporaneous Form 10-K filings used in the study: NVIDIA fiscal 2018, Intel 2017, NVIDIA fiscal 2021, and Intel 2020. Use the locked Strategic Posture instrument containing 25 Environmental Turbulence Level (ETL), 20 Strategic Aggressiveness (SA), and 20 Capability Responsiveness (CR) indicators, each scored from 1 to 5. Assign NE when the filing does not provide sufficient evidence. Conduct each company-year assessment in a fresh, independent AI conversation. Upload only the relevant Form 10-K and the locked SA and CR descriptors. Exclude internet sources, later events, stock returns, analyst ratings, previous assessments, and the expected company classification. Score all 20 SA and 20 CR indicators using only evidence contained in the filing. Record the supporting filing passage, location, contradictory evidence, rationale, and confidence level. Keep strategic ambition separate from execution capability. Audit the provisional scores for unsupported inference, hindsight, use of financial performance as evidence of alignment, confusion between SA and CR, overlooked contradictions, and incorrect filing references. Retain, revise, or classify each flagged item as NE. Calculate SA and CR as the arithmetic means of the usable item scores. Exclude NE items from the mean but include them when calculating evidence coverage. Apply the common ETL benchmark of 4.60 and calculate: Strategic gap = SA − ETL Capability gap = CR − SA Interpret absolute gaps of 0.00–0.50 as broad alignment, 0.51–1.00 as a meaningful or emerging gap, and values above 1.00 as a substantial gap. Reconstruct ETL separately as an audit by scoring the 25 ETL indicators from the shared contemporaneous filings. The study obtained 4.44 for 2017, 4.72 for 2020, and a pooled estimate of 4.58. Compare the resulting item scores, construct means, coverage rates, gaps, and classifications with the values reported in the workbook. Minor item-level variation may occur across AI runs, but the principal comparison concerns whether the overall assessment and gap interpretation remain stable.
Institutions
- Ca' Foscari University of VeniceVeneto, Venice