“Based on Microsoft’s own disclosures, without Anthropic and OpenAI’s additions, RPO would have been effectively flat, as evidenced by the fact that in Q3FY26, remaining performance obligations sat at $627 billion.”
Our reading, the sentence that was checked:
Excluding OpenAI and Anthropic deals, Microsoft's RPO would have been effectively flat.
Assessment: Unresolved Evidence as of
Where and when Ed Zitron wrote it
Where's Your Ed At, AI Is Too Expensive, paragraph 36.
- Said
- Source observed
- live page, full text, public
- Evidence as of
- the cutoff for this assessment
- Assessment recorded
- assessment wyea-ai-is-too-expensive-c97106-a1
We recorded 41 claims from this post. See every claim from this post.
The wording above is the version this site observed on 2026-10-28. The source may have been edited after 2026-05-19. This page does not claim the wording was captured then.
What the claim commits to
- Kind
- Observation
- Deadline, as the speaker wrote it
- None stated. This site does not add one.
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Deadline state on 2026-10-29
- No horizon (the release’s reference date)
Conditions
- excluding Anthropic and OpenAI (qualifier, stated by the speaker)
From the speaker
- Based on Microsoft’s own disclosures
- without Anthropic and OpenAI’s additions
- RPO would have been effectively flat
- in Q3FY26
Our interpretation
- Read this as a sequential comparison beginning with FY2026 Q1, covering the additions discussed for Q2 and the subsequent Q3 balance. Do not substitute a year-over-year test.
- Use Microsoft's named fiscal quarters. The context's parenthetical calendar-quarter labels are inconsistent with those fiscal periods.
- Effectively flat means little material net change, not exact equality. The speaker supplies no numerical tolerance.
- Removing additions requires their actual contribution to reported RPO, including any replacement of prior commitments, recognition of revenue, and other adjustments. Announced contract values are not automatically equal to additions to the quarter-end balance.
- The exclusion is a scope adjustment, not a conditional forecast.
Counts as supported if: A reconciliation of the quarter-end RPO balances shows little material sequential change after removing the actual RPO contributions of the identified OpenAI and Anthropic additions.
Counts as contradicted if: The same reconciliation shows a material residual sequential change inconsistent with an effectively flat balance.
Retrospective: these criteria were written after the outcome was public.
Current assessment
Was it true for the period described?
Outcome: Unresolved
The record was checked, and the evidence available by the cutoff does not settle it.
Scored on a plain reading. The speaker named no measure for this claim, so it was judged on the reading an informed reader would take, stated below under our interpretation. Both reviews had to find that reading fair.
- Evidence as of
- Deadline state when assessed
- No horizon
- Assessment recorded
- Policy version
- 2026-10-28.7
Rationale
Microsoft's disclosures establish the aggregate balances, but not the claimed counterfactual. Its growth figures excluding OpenAI are material contrary context, yet they still include Anthropic and do not answer the sequential question. Subtracting announced contract values without reconciling their actual RPO contributions would not reliably establish either flatness or growth.
Limitations
- The calendar labels in the post are inconsistent with the named fiscal quarters.
- Effectively flat has no stated tolerance.
- No complete reconciliation excluding both companies was found.
Evidence (3 items)
Context only: Microsoft,
increased to $392 billion
Why it matters here: Establishes the starting aggregate balance. It does not disclose the residual balance required by the claim.
- Publisher
- Microsoft
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Measures
- Microsoft, Total commercial remaining performance obligations, USD Billions, company reported, 2025-09-30 to 2025-09-30
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: Microsoft,
grew 28%
Why it matters here: The paragraph reports $625 billion total RPO, approximately 45% from OpenAI, and 28% growth in the remainder. That growth comparison still includes Anthropic and does not establish the claimed sequential residual.
- Publisher
- Microsoft
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Measures
- Microsoft, Year-over-year growth in commercial RPO excluding OpenAI but including Anthropic, USD Percent year-over-year, company reported, 2025-12-31 to 2025-12-31
- Describes events of
- Public from
Context only: Microsoft,
grew 26%
Why it matters here: Microsoft reports $627 billion total RPO in the same paragraph. Its growth disclosure excludes only OpenAI and does not provide the sequential change after removing both companies' additions.
- Publisher
- Microsoft
- Kind of source
- Company disclosure: the company describing itself, not an independent finding
- Measures
- Microsoft, Year-over-year growth in commercial RPO excluding OpenAI but including Anthropic, USD Percent year-over-year, company reported, 2026-03-31 to 2026-03-31
- Describes events of
- Public from
What would settle it
Microsoft's reconciliation of the September, December, and March balances showing the actual net contributions of the identified OpenAI and Anthropic additions.
Where it was said (1)
Said once in the sources this register covers.
: Where's Your Ed At, AI Is Too Expensive
Based on Microsoft’s own disclosures, without Anthropic and OpenAI’s additions, RPO would have been effectively flat, as evidenced by the fact that in Q3FY26, remaining performance obligations sat at $627 billion.
- Where
- paragraph 36
- Published
- 2026-05-19
- Source observed
- , live page
- Access
- full text, public
History
Assessment versions
- Assessment wyea-ai-is-too-expensive-c97106-a1: Current. Outcome: Unresolved. Evidence as of 2026-10-28. Public date not recorded.
Recorded events
Assessment publishedBy this site
First assessment published after both reviews and the final-text check passed.