6 were provided, we relied on those summaries. The documents were first binned into four categories: Internal, PeerReviewed, Non-Peer-Reviewed, and Advertorial. This allows us to distinguish communications according to degree of accessibility – a key variable in assessing the consistency of ExxonMobil’s representations of human-caused climate change. Tailoring the approaches of Cook et al., Feldman et al., and Elsasser and Dunlap, we then coded each document to characterize its positions on climate change as real, human-caused, serious, and solvable. (Research has shown that these four factors are key predictors of public support for climate policies. Not coincidentally, they also underpin most narratives of climate skepticism and denial.) We also characterized each document’s positions (if any) on the risks of stranded fossil fuel assets. (This is pertinent, because Attorneys General and the Securities and Exchange Commission are investigating ExxonMobil’s understanding and disclosures of the financial risks related to either climate change or future climate policy, and shareholders have questioned the adequacy of ExxonMobil’s disclosures on this point. We therefore examined what, if anything, has been stated on this subject in the documents.) Q9: Are the methodologies used the widely-accepted methodologies to assess these kinds of communications? A9: Yes, our methodologies are based on those that have been used to quantify the consensus on human-caused climate change by Oreskes [6] and Cook et al. [7] and those that have been used to characterize media communications about climate change by Feldman et al. and Elsasser and Dunlap [8,9]. Developed to assess peer-reviewed scientific literature, cable news, and conservative newspapers, respectively, these offer generalizable approaches to quantifying the positions of an entity or community on a particular scientific question across multiple document classes. More broadly, content analysis is a well-established social science method for investigating and characterizing mass media and other communication content [10]. Metag (2016), for example, observes that, “content analysis is one of the most frequently used methods in climate change communication research” [11]. Our methodologies, refined based on critical commentary by independent, anonymous referees, passed academic peer-review. Q10: Why did you choose these methodologies over other available methodologies? A10: A comprehensive answer to this question is beyond the scope of this document, primarily because there are many available methodologies, and because their definitions – including definitions of content analysis – are themselves typically inexact. For example, Titscher et al. delineate twelve distinct social-scientific methods of text analysis, including content analysis [10]. Other disciplines, such as history and investigative journalism, offer