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 225

No printed folio visible · Image transcription

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

Customer since 2024

Scaling an agentic operating system

for lawyers

Results

Law firms and in-house teams
served

1,500+

Non-billable hours recaptured
per lawyer weekly, in an
independent study of 31 firms

4.3

Claude Enterprise employee
access

100%

Claude Code growth (about 50
to 700 company-wide)

14x

Background

Legora, the creator of the agentic operating system for
lawyers, is used by thousands of law firms and in-house
legal teams. Claude has powered parts of Legora’s platform
since its launch in October 2024.

Impact

As an AI-native legal company, Legora ran a rigorous model
evaluation to choose the foundation for its platform, and
Claude performed well on the dimensions that mattered
most: prioritizing and following instructions, and adapting
as client requirements changed.

As Claude’s capabilities have grown, so have the platform’s,
taking on the complex, long-horizon legal work that firms
would otherwise do by hand. Claude is part of the reasoning
layer inside Legora’s agentic system: planning and
delegating across drafting, document review, and legal
research, and grounding every answer in a source before a
lawyer sees it. In Legora’s own evaluations, Opus 4.8
produced consistent source-grounded output, with its
biggest gains in transactional drafting.

“Al is becoming fundamental to
how legal work gets done, and it
will reshape how law firms and
in-house teams operate. We have
found Claude to be brilliant at
instruction following and powering
agentic workflows.”

Jacob Lauritzen, CTO at Legora

These results show up in client work: in an independent
study of 31 firms across 14 countries, lawyers reported
recapturing an average of 4.3 non-billable hours a week,
representing $6.9 million in additional annual billing per
100 lawyers. On one M&A deal, Legora’s team reviewed a
900-document data room across four jurisdictions—a first
pass a conventional team would spend a week on—in half
a day.

Legora also builds on Claude internally. Its engineering
team adopted Claude Code early, and today an engineering
team of about 80 supports a platform used by more than
1,500 organizations. AI tools now generate well over half of
Legora’s code, with Claude Code among the primary tools
its engineers build with, and a dedicated developer-
experience team runs background coding agents—up to 10
agents per engineer at once. Claude Code has grown 14x at
Legora, from about 50 seats to more than 700 company-
wide, and today every employee uses Claude across
marketing, design, operations, and legal engineering.

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.