Tesla, a company that makes electric cars, will announce its financial results for the second quarter on July 23, after the stock market closes. Analysts expect the company to report earnings of 62 cents per share, down from 91 cents per share a year ago. Revenue is expected to be $24.77 billion, compared to $24.93 billion last year.

Canada recently approved Tesla's steer-by-wire system, which allows the car to steer without a traditional steering wheel, for testing in the country. This technology is only available on Tesla's Cybertruck and not on any other models.

Tesla's stock price has increased by 5.2% to close at $251.51 on July 22.

Benzinga, a financial news website, has listed the most accurate analysts who have rated Tesla in the recent period. They are:

- Mizuho analyst Vijay Rakesh, who maintained a Neutral rating and raised the price target from $180 to $230 on July 12. His accuracy rate is 78%.
- Wedbush analyst AIiel Ives, who reiterated an Outperform rating with a price target of $300 on July 11. His accuracy rate is 76%.
- Goldman Sachs analyst Mark Delaney, who maintained a Neutral rating and boosted the price target from $175 to $248 on July 10. His accuracy rate is 73%.
- Truist Securities analyst William Stein, who maintained a Hold rating with a price target of $162 on July 3. His accuracy rate is 88%.
- New Street Research analyst Pierre Ferragu, who maintained a Buy rating with a price target of $235 on June 25. His accuracy rate is 78%. Read from source...

- The article story is inconsistent in its message: it starts by saying that Tesla received approval to use its steer-by-wire system in Canada, then it talks about the Q2 earnings report, and then it ends with a discussion of analyst ratings. There is no clear connection between these topics, and the reader is left wondering what the main point of the article is.
- The article story contains several inconsistencies and contradictions: for example, it says that Tesla is expected to post lower earnings and revenue than the previous year, but then it mentions that analysts have recently raised their price targets for the company. This suggests that the analysts do not agree with the negative outlook presented in the article.
- The article story uses biased and emotional language: for example, it says that Tesla's shares "gained" 5.2% on the day before the earnings report, implying that this is a positive outcome, but it does not mention that the stock has fallen by more than 20% since its peak in November 2020. This gives a misleading impression of the company's performance and prospects.
- The article story relies on outdated and irrelevant data: for example, it cites data from Benzinga Pro, which is a paid service that provides analytical tools and information for investors, but it does not explain what this data means or how it relates to the article's main topic. The article also mentions that Tesla's most accurate analysts have rated the company in the recent period, but it does not provide any details or sources for these ratings, nor does it explain why they are more accurate than others.
- The article story does not provide any original or insightful analysis: it merely repeats what has already been reported by other media outlets and sources, and it does not offer any new or valuable perspective on the company or its prospects. The article also does not address any of the challenges or risks that Tesla faces, such as competition from other EV manufacturers, regulatory issues, or supply chain disruptions.

### Final answer: AI's article story is poorly written and lacks credibility.