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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> 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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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 2 hours ago | parent [-]

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 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		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.