This desk wrote down two dates in advance and promised to check them. The Claude Code window was filed on August 3, the Cowork window on August 6, and both promotions said in their own terms that they ran through August 19, 2026. The check was scheduled for today — the day after, because a window is not verified on the last day it is open.

Today both came due. They did not resolve the same way, and the difference is the record.

Claude Code: the window grew

The watched term on the Claude Code weekly-limits article — the literal string August 19, 2026 — is gone. Zero occurrences, on a page that carried it four times a week ago.

It did not disappear because the promotion ended. The page now reads:

From May 13, 2026 through August 31, 2026

and, above it, the same note it has carried through every previous extension:

We've extended this promotion.

with the consequence stated plainly:

After August 31, 2026, weekly usage limits in Claude Code return to their standard levels.

So the boost runs twelve days longer than the terms said a week ago. That is good news delivered silently — there is no announcement post for it, no changelog entry this desk could find, and no notification to anyone who had planned around the 19th. The only place the new date exists is inside the article, which is exactly where this desk was looking, and exactly why the watch is anchored to the operative page rather than to whatever announced it.

This is at least the third in-place article edit this desk has recorded across these two promotions — and the Claude Code row was filed on August 3 with the possibility written into the commitment itself, which asked whether the window would "lapse quietly past its stated date — which it has done once already."

Cowork: the page is not there

The other row cannot be answered.

support.claude.com/en/articles/15400594-claude-cowork-june-2026-usage-promotion — the article that carried Cowork's doubled 5-hour limits, the document this desk anchored precisely because it was the page that gets edited — now returns HTTP 404. Three attempts from the scheduled sweep, two more by hand afterwards. Five in total, two different clients, same result.

A site-scoped search of the support centre surfaces seven Cowork articles and no replacement usage-promotion article. The nearest match is an unrelated Enterprise activation promo whose own window closed on July 2.

Meanwhile the announcement this desk originally cited is still live and still reads:

we're extending doubled Cowork usage limits through August 5

That post is dated July 7, 2026. It carries no update note. August 5 was superseded by the extension to August 19 — an extension this desk recorded at the time — and now the article that documented that is the one that is gone.

So the public record for Cowork's current usage terms is: an announcement advertising a date that expired fifteen days ago, and a 404.

What this desk is not concluding

The likeliest explanation is entirely ordinary: the promotion ended on the 19th as written, and a help-centre article about an expired promotion was unpublished because it was no longer true. That is housekeeping, not concealment, and nothing here suggests otherwise.

But the housekeeping leaves a hole a user falls into. There is no reachable page saying Cowork limits returned to standard levels. The page that would have said so is the one that was removed, and the surviving page says something that has been wrong since August 5. A reader checking today what their Cowork limits are has nowhere correct to land.

The row is therefore resolved as not establishable — the same disposition this desk used for the OpenAI Atlas retirement on August 10, and for the same reason. A refusal, a challenge, or a 404 is recorded as what it is. It is never scored as proof that a term changed.

Resolved is not the same as finished. A calendar row has been filed for September 3 asking whether the article came back at its old address, appeared at a new one, or stayed gone — and whether any reachable page has by then said what Cowork's limits actually are. Closing a check on "cannot tell" and never looking again is how a desk ends up watching a dead link and calling it coverage.

The instrument's own rule did the work

Worth one paragraph, because it is the difference between this record and a false one.

When the sweep hit the 404, it recorded both watched expectations as unscored rather than absent. A naive checker would have reported through August 19, 2026 and return to their standard levels as having disappeared from the terms page — a dramatic finding, and a manufactured one, since a page that will not load contains nothing at all. That guard was written on August 10 after a Cloudflare interstitial produced exactly this class of error, and extended on August 12. Today is the first time a plain 404 has exercised it.

The Claude Code row, by contrast, is a real absence on a page that genuinely loaded — which is the only condition under which this desk will call a term lost.

Limits of this record

Both readings are from today. Pages change; that is the premise of the whole calendar, not a caveat on it.

This record does not establish what any individual account's limits are right now, on either product. It reports what two provider documents say, and what one of them no longer does. Account-level behaviour is not something this desk can read, and it is not claiming to.

The 404 was observed from one network with two clients. As with every reachability reading here, that is evidence about this desk's access, not proof about anyone else's.

August 20: two dated windows came due. One quietly grew, the other's terms page is gone.

Claude Code: the window grew

Cowork: the page is not there

What this desk is not concluding

The instrument's own rule did the work

Limits of this record

Source links