[brainwad]

If you look at the table, the implied revenue for March 2026 was $1.58b. So isn't this just a case of the $5b number being from one month earlier than the $6.66b number? Ed dismisses this, but it seems to be the obvious answer - the CFO quote is from March 9, 2026, so 70% of the March 2026 revenue presumably had not yet been earnt. If you subtract that out (or even the whole month, which would also make sense), it checks out: you get something between $5.08b and $5.54b, reasonably describable as "exceeding $5b".

[vb-8448]

The $19b ARR is from March 3rd, so it is based on the revenue from February.

[brainwad]

Ah, OK. It still seems reasonable they might report the number in the court affadavit with one month lag for various reasons. The root cause in the discrepancy is just that Anthropic claims to be (and appears to be) on a ridiculous tear, with +35% MoM growth. OP and Ed both seem to dismiss this as impossible, but it seems to align with Anthropic's recent desperate search for more capacity.

[vb-8448]

> they might report the number in the court affadavit with one month lag for various reasons

According to the article the total revenue figure in the affidavit is “to date”, so basically 8th or March.

[brainwad]

I expect that no figure ever tended to the courts this way is actually correct literally to the date of filing. It's whatever numbers were in the most recent accounts when it was signed off.

[vb-8448]

Here[0] the original affidavit, IANAL but I'm pretty sure "up to date" in this context means "8th of March".

[0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.46...

[Ukv]

If the last number you saw was ~$5b as of last month, claiming revenue "exceeding $5 billion to date" doesn't seem unreasonable - it's still true.

Could've possibly made a stronger claim, but the affidavit may have been drafted/written before February's numbers were determined, even if those numbers were in by the time it'd been reviewed by their legal team and submitted.