The paper trail

Small print.
Wide open.

A clear path from a claim to the page it came from. Here’s the filing, the research, and how we read it.

The documentS–1Anthropic, PBC26 OCT 2026 · 421 PP.
01The original SEC filingThe authoritative source, in your browser.SEC · HTML 02Download the saved filingThe complete 421-page document, optimized for downloading.PDF · 46 MB 03Download the full researchFindings, customer examples, calculations, and source references.Markdown

Page by page

Go straight to the source.

Page references count physical pages in the saved PDF, starting at 1. The printed filing number is shown separately when available.

Enter a page from 1 to 421. No PDF download needed.

From the filing

PDF page 220

No printed folio visible · Image transcription

View on the SEC
Read the page text
[Embedded graphic 1 — OCR text]
[AIG]

Customer since 2023

Reinventing commercial underwriting

Results

8 AIG business lines using Claude’

AIG Lexington’s Middle Market Property business, a large
and fast-growing area of the company, saw:'

Quoted submissions

+30%

Time-to-quote

-55%

Submissions bound

+40%

Background

AIG is a leading global insurance organization that helps
businesses and individuals in over 200 countries and
jurisdictions protect their assets and manage risks. In 2023,
AIG recognized that its underwriting process was slowed by
the manual effort of taking in and reviewing data from
insurance brokers, clients and third parties across many
formats. It didn’t have the resources to review every
applicable submission, which it believed represented
missed opportunities for growth, so it set out to embed Al at
the core of its underwriting business.

Impact

AIG collaborated with Anthropic to build workflows in a
highly regulated industry. Beginning with the Claude 2.0
model, the company created Underwriting by AIG Assist
with the intent to process and analyze data from every
submission received in the lines of business where it is
deployed. Underwriters used to spend weeks gathering data
before starting a risk summary; now they can begin each
review with a curated risk summary and full audit trail
generated by Claude.

Where deployed, Underwriting by AIG Assist cut
submission review time by more than 90% and enabled
review of 100% of applicable submissions. In AIG’s
Lexington Middle Market Property business, one

of the company’s largest businesses in North America,
Underwriting by AIG Assist enabled underwriters to review

1. As of March 31, 2026

“The way we think about Al and the work
we do with partners like Anthropic is
simple: it has to create value for clients and
colleagues. Every workflow we build should
help our colleagues work faster, smarter
and more consistently, while improving
the experience and outcomes for our
clients. That means better speed, sharper
underwriting, more responsive claims
service, faster turnaround times and greater
confidence for the people and businesses
we serve.”

Eric Andersen, President & CEO at AIG

over 30% more submissions and quote them 55% faster as
of March 31, 2026.

Over the last year, AIG has expanded Underwriting by AIG
Assist to eight lines of business and is continuing to scale it
across the company. The company also extended Claude to
its claims organization. In early pilots, Claims by AIG Assist
cut the time it takes AIG to respond to clients after a claim is
filed from days to hours, and reduced coverage reviews from
hours to minutes. Additionally, AIG is exploring providing
access to Claude Code to its software engineers, deployed
through Claude Enterprise together with the governance
controls a regulated insurer requires.

Another area of exploration for AIG is enabling teams of
purpose-built agents that could amplify what its
underwriting teams can do, built and deployed with
Anthropic’s help. For example, in one scenario under
consideration, an agent takes in submissions and extracts
data, another checks risk against underwriting guidelines, a
third benchmarks pricing against portfolio targets, anda
collaboration agent pulls their work together—with
underwriters overseeing every decision.

This page includes text transcribed from an image. Check the original for tables, images, and exact formatting.

Find a section 16 starting points

Section links may begin before the exact paragraph cited in a finding. PDF numbers below use physical pages.

  1. Founders’ letterp. 3SEC
  2. Defined termsp. 12SEC
  3. Prospectus summaryp. 16SEC
  4. Risk factorsp. 38SEC
  5. Management’s discussion & analysisp. 144SEC
  6. Businessp. 190SEC
  7. Governancep. 254SEC
  8. Executive compensationp. 275SEC
  9. Related-person transactionsp. 293SEC
  10. Principal & selling stockholdersp. 299SEC
  11. Capital-stock rightsp. 303SEC
  12. Shares eligible for future salep. 318SEC
  13. Underwritingp. 327SEC
  14. Auditor change & expertsp. 345SEC
  15. Financial statements & notesp. 347SEC
  16. Part II & exhibit indexp. 413SEC

How this was made

Read in full.
Kept in context.

A snapshot of the filing dated , rather than a live record of later events.

3primary reviewers
421pages reviewed
43image instances checked

The review

Three primary reviewers read non-overlapping ranges of the complete main filing. All 43 embedded image instances were transcribed and visually reviewed, including the founders’ letter, charts, and customer case studies. Financial tables were also checked visually for dates, units, and column alignment.

A separate reviewer checked the draft’s calculations, accounting interpretations, and customer qualifications. An additional check covered the later merged findings. The result is 62 findings and 21 customer examples.

The boundary

Companion contracts and other exhibits named in the filing’s index are separate documents and were not independently reviewed. Customer outcomes, technical benchmarks, forecasts, and scientific priority claims remain attributed company or customer disclosures.

The numbers

Dollar figures are U.S. dollars. H1 means the six months ended June 30; Q2 means the three months ended June 30. The 2026 interim financial statements are unaudited. Our calculations show their inputs and are labeled separately from reported values.

Blank fields stay undisclosed. Figures with different periods, conditions, or potentially overlapping scopes are kept separate. An earlier tender price is not an IPO price.

What the evidence labels mean
Reported in filing
A company disclosure, with the period and accounting basis retained.
Company estimate / company claim
An estimate or assertion attributed to the company, with its uncertainty preserved.
Our calculation
A derived figure using cited inputs. It is not a separately reported company metric.
Customer example
A selected case study, with its measurement limits. It is not representative ROI.
Proposed / conditional
A status qualifier for an arrangement that is not yet effective or depends on stated conditions.

About updates. This edition is tied to the October 26, 2026 filing. Any later revision should identify its new source date and preserve the basis of earlier claims.

The footnotes are only the beginning.Explore the findings Read the story
The original, in context

Open the footnote.

A closer look at the filing

Anthropic · Form S-1PDF 1

Opening page 1…

Filed October 26, 2026. PDF is approximately 46 MB and opens only when requested. Section links may precede the exact cited paragraph.