Draft:BRYTER

• Comment: Hello HelixUnwindig, let's ingnore any grammar part and focus on content! I have already said that the sources that you have cited are "reasonable", but let's have a closer look:
  • Footnote 1 has no purpose whatsoever because it is used to establish verifiability for a single word. The citation is insufficient, and the source referred to doesn't seem to be an independent reliable secondary source.
  • Footnote 2 refers to Business Insider Germany's Gründerszene – note to fellow reviewers: Unlike Business Insider, German Business Insider's Gründerszene is a reliable source – that discusses that Bryter has raised a capital of USD 66 million from Fonds Tiger Global. Per WP:ORGTRIV, this does not count towards notability.
  • Footnote 3 refers to FAZ, a reliable source. It says that Bryter managed to raise USD 66 million (i.e., trivial coverage); it says that they planned achieving a market value of USD 1 billion (an earning forecast, i.e., trivial coverage), and FAZ also notes that Bryter planned, in 2021, to achieve double revenue in 2022 (also an earning forecast, i.e., trivial coverage). Per WP:INHERITORG, Brief facts such as Bryter's announcement that they target clients with an annual revenue exceeding EUR 500 million, that they have "many big companies as their clients", or that Tiger Global invested in Bryter, also do not contribute towards notability. According to Bryter's MD, they "want to become a global software provider and grow as big as possible". Apparently, they had not grown big as of April 2021. Now, see, there is a lot of plan to be, want to be, hope to be, and maybe a good starting point. However, I cannot see why they would be notable based on that FAZ article. It is a good source and it is citable, but it does not contribue towards notability.
  • Footnote 4 refers to LTO, a source that needs to be taken with a grain of salt. One can see though from the author's information that, the article was written by "LTO-Redaktion" ("LTO Editorial Team"), which indicates that we behold "routine business coverage". The very first sentence reads "According to Bryter"… well; according to them, a party has given them capital, and that party has previously also given capital to Facebook, Dropbox, et al. This is a strong case of trivial coverage and inherited notability. The next paragraph announces that Bryter now has a capital of EUR 9 million, i.e. trivial coverage. The fourth paragraph of that source says how Bryter want to use their capital: They want to expand internationally, improve the product, and extend their clients' use of the product. This is not a summarisation, this is virtually what that source says. It doesn't go into any further detail or describe that point. I'd argue that this is true for any firm. Who would not want to improve their product? I have a hard time imagining how coverage can be more trivial than this.
  • Footnote 5 refers to LTO, the source is marked as "assisted" by at least one Bryter employee (i.e., we can deem it "sponsored" content); I reckon this doesn't need further explaining.
  • Footnote 6: Dto. LTO, but this time, I would deem it citable. A good content summary, however, would read like this: "Bryter has raised USD 16 million in capital in 2020, and in November 2019, they raised EUR 5.5 million." This is WP:ORGTRIV.
  • Footnote 7: Juve, a reliable, secondary source. While it also discusses trivial coverage (raised capital), the author (Schiffer) notes that Bryter's story is a "success story", and that they have grown significantly. This is the first step in the right direction.
  • Footnote 8: Business Insider Germany's Gründerszene, but trivial coverage (raised capital).
  • Footnote 9: LTO, written by the Editorial Team; the source says that "Eugene Shim, an experienced salesman, was appointed Vice President of Sales" (i.e., hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel).
  • Footnote 10: The first LTO article not written by the "Editorial Team". Nice! And the source's author (Podolski -sic-) discusses in detail how Bryter's software is used in helping refugees on the Greek island of Lesvos. That is the first source that I would deem sufficient to contribute towards notability.
  • Footnote 11: FAZ, lacks author information, and is attributed to dpa; I suspect that this is a mistake, and that the original author can be found in the printed FAZ (which I haven't got access to though). I can, however, I read the entire article, and it discusses "AI-based legal aid technology" if you will, and it doesn't strongly focus on this draft's topic. While it is not always necessary that a sources puts a 100 per cent focus on a draft's topic, the coverage is largely based on what the MD says, and thus, I would not immediately argue that this FAZ article contributes towards notability.
  I mean, we are getting there. FN 10 refers to a very promising source, and FN 11 is not bad. If this draft was based on better sources with more than just trivial coverage, I reckon, we could give it a go. But currently, we have one reasonable source, and another source that we do not have to discard immediately. Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Some of the "German grammar mistakes" that I have previously noted can be attributed to erroneous sources; both citer, and the visual editor would "copy" these mistakes, cf. [ 1 ] --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 08:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: What immediately strikes me as odd are the very weird spelling mistakes that someone able to understand German would most likely not make, thus, I'm not sure whether the draft was composed by someone able to comprehend German-language sources (which this draft is based upon). While the sourcing is reasonable, I doubt that the sources' contents are sufficient to establish notability. This draft almost exclusiveley contains what is deemed trivial coverage per WP:ORGTRIV. In addition to that, I would also argue that the draft attempts making use of inherited notability, which is a principle that cannot be used to establish notability on English Wikipedia. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 17:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

---

BRYTER (alternatively Bryter) is a German legal technology and AI startup company, specialising in providing a no-code platform. Founded in 2018, the company expanded internationally in the following years, with offices in London and New York. They sell software that allows companies and law firms to create their own legal and complaince software and applications without hiring designated software designers.

History

Bryter was founded at the beginning of 2018 by the german jurists Juristen Michael Grupp and Micha-Manuel Bues, working together with Micheal Hübl.

They raised 6 million dollars in a late seed round in 2019 from multiple investors, followed by a Series A in 2020, which raised 16 millions dollars mostly from the same funders, to be used for international expansion. Half a year later, they raised 66 million dollars in a Series B, bringing on Tiger Global Management as a new investor (with an estimated share ownership of 12%), reaching an expected valuation of up to 400 million dollars. The Series B was described as being so fast that "they did not even have the time to create a pitch deck".

The company grew from around 50 employees in 2019 to around 120 in 2021. The companies primary offices are in Frankfurt and Berlin, with additional ones in London and New York City. Since 2021, they have expanded their work with the US market, including closer cooperations with Reed Smith.

In 2019, the company worked with “European Lawyers in Lesvos“ to assist them with providing free legal advice to refugees in the Lesbos refugee camps, digitalising both legal advice and the self-organisation of refugees and volunteers,

Products

The company offers no-code software primarily for legal and compliance applications. According to the company, their clients include Accenture, ING Group, McDonald's and law firms such as Baker McKenzie and Taylor Wessing. Their applications include tools that can be create customised software, such as virtual assistants, chatbots and tools used for automatisation. Together with KPMG Legal, they developed a module that assisted companies with applying for funding during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Grupp, one of the co-founders, described the capabilities as being able to do anythingg from non-disclosure agreements agreements for chinese Chinese law to automating compliance for a large supermarket chain, describing it as "Lego for Jurists". Hans-Peter Schwintowski, a professor at Humboldt University of Berlin and legal tech researcher, described such services as no replacing lawyer, but instead augmenting the way they work, particularly in the face of the current complexity of law.