Abstract: Researchers increasingly use generative large language models (LLMs) to convert corporate text into empirical variables. We examine the extent to which LLM-based textual measures are invariant to model choice using thirteen measures, including sentiment, management clarity, uncertainty, answer specificity, and climate and political risk. Seven LLMs from different providers score earnings call transcripts of S&P 500 companies on these constructs. Cross-model rank correlations average only 0.52, and transcript-level differences common across providers account for only 34% of total score variation. Cross-model disagreement does not predict subsequent analyst or market disagreement, consistent with a substantial model-specific component rather than common ambiguity in the underlying disclosure. Model choice significantly affects downstream inference, with coefficient magnitudes, signs, and statistical significance varying substantially across models. Averaging across providers makes transcript rankings more stable for most constructs, but score levels remain sensitive to the models included in the ensemble. LLM-generated variables should therefore be treated as model-contingent measurements and validated across providers.