{
  "$schema": "../../schema/run.schema.json",
  "run_id": "prisma--claude-haiku-4-5--v7-e--2026-09-27",
  "supersedes": null,
  "replicate_of": null,
  "library": {
    "name": "prisma",
    "ecosystem": "npm",
    "latest_version_at_test": "7.10.0",
    "latest_version_verified_on": "2026-09-27",
    "latest_version_note": "The battery targets `Prisma.validator` under the `prisma-client` generator (BACKLOG 1h-n-viii). JOURNAL/294 + this session: under the `prisma-client` generator `Prisma.validator` is emitted 6.6.0-6.15.0 and absent from 6.16.0 (TS2339 on a reader's call); `prisma-client-js` emits it at every tracked release. No fact carries it: the method rule wants a reproduced failure first, and this battery is the attempt."
  },
  "model": {
    "id": "claude-haiku-4-5",
    "label": "Claude Haiku 4.5",
    "vendor": "Anthropic",
    "invoked_as": "Agent tool, model alias \"haiku\" (prompts/sent/prisma-v7.txt (3,698 bytes, md5 87643f2f8580cb03f4ba7513a88f9782), committed and pushed at 1b046af before any subject was spawned). The below-floor derivability control: its stated cutoff is seven months below 6.16.0. Identity asked after the draw: \"I am Claude Haiku 4.5, model ID `claude-haiku-4-5-20251001`\" — recorded under claude-haiku-4-5, the id this subject's earlier prisma runs carry.",
    "self_reported_cutoff": "2025-02",
    "cutoff_basis": "Self-reported at direct (b): \"My training cutoff is February 2025.\" Stable, as this subject's has been across the corpus.",
    "believed_latest_version": null,
    "believed_latest_quote": "\"The latest version I can name is v6.x (I believe v6 is current as of my cutoff).\"",
    "believed_latest_quote_form": "draw",
    "knowledge_stops_at_version": null,
    "knowledge_stops_on": null,
    "knowledge_gap_starts_at_version": null,
    "knowledge_gap_starts_on": null,
    "boundary_note": "The arm puts its newest describable release at \"roughly v5.8 or v5.9 (early 2024)\" and says it knows v6 exists without being able to describe it. The Index's prisma ladder and releases.json start at 6.0.0, so a 5.x reading cannot be dated against them; both ends are recorded null rather than dated off a range the snapshot does not hold.",
    "cutoff_lag_months": null
  },
  "test": {
    "date": "2026-09-27",
    "battery": "prisma/v7-e",
    "battery_spec": "prompts/prisma.md",
    "prompt_file": "prompts/sent/prisma-v7.txt",
    "tasks": 3,
    "direct_questions": 4,
    "elicits_code": true,
    "tool_uses_during_test": 0,
    "probe_window": {
      "from": "6.15.0",
      "to": "7.10.0"
    },
    "self_test": false,
    "saturated": false,
    "status": "open",
    "retested_on": null
  },
  "sources": [
    "https://github.com/prisma/orm/releases/tag/6.16.0",
    "https://registry.npmjs.org/prisma"
  ],
  "findings": [],
  "non_findings": [
    {
      "kind": "correct",
      "summary": "TASK 1 wrote the selection as `{ id: true, email: true, name: true } satisfies Prisma.UserSelect` with `Prisma.UserGetPayload<{ select: typeof ... }>` for the type — no `Prisma.validator`. It compiles on 7.10.0 and on 6.15.0. Below the floor, so this is the pre-registered derivability reading: `satisfies` is reachable from a February 2025 cutoff — for this task it was never version-dependent — and P1 (that this arm would write `Prisma.validator`) is falsified.",
      "api": "Prisma.validator",
      "chargeable_miss": false,
      "why_not_a_finding": "The anchor probe, and it passed. Graded by compiling: the arm's src/user-summary.ts, import specifier normalised to ./generated/prisma/client.js as pre-registered, compiled with TypeScript 5.9.3 (strict, nodenext) against the battery's own schema generated by the `prisma-client` generator on the bisector's 7.10.0 and 6.15.0 rungs. Controls in the same session: the stale artifact (Prisma.validator) OK at 6.15.0 and TS2339 at 6.16.0 and 7.10.0; the correct artifact OK on all three; a misspelled-field `satisfies` TS2561 on all three; a poison member TS2339 on all three."
    },
    {
      "kind": "context",
      "summary": "TASK 1 imported `Prisma` and `PrismaClient` from `@prisma/client`, although the prompt's generator block sets `provider = \"prisma-client\"` and an output path. That is LF5's surface (import from the generated output path, not `@prisma/client`) and the pre-registered `generator-switch` outcome.",
      "api": "import { PrismaClient } from '@prisma/client'",
      "chargeable_miss": false,
      "why_not_a_finding": "Pre-registered as a non_finding, not charged on this battery; the arm is below the floor in any case. The as-written specifier was NOT graded: on this rung `@prisma/client` resolves to a client another probe generated into node_modules/.prisma, so a compile there would read the wrong client and is not a measurement."
    },
    {
      "kind": "miss",
      "summary": "TASK 2 answered \"No\" — right at the current release — for an invented reason: \"`Prisma.validator` was removed in Prisma v5 (released mid-2023, roughly)\", and TASK 3 repeats it: \"Prisma v5.0.0 (shipped June 2023, roughly) removed `Prisma.validator`. It was deprecated in v4 in favor of the `satisfies` keyword.\" False: `prisma-client-js` emits it at every release the Index tracks (6.0.0-7.10.0), and the `prisma-client` generator emits it on 6.6.0-6.15.0.",
      "api": "Prisma.validator",
      "chargeable_miss": false,
      "why_not_a_finding": "Below the floor, and derivability discounts a pass, never an invention (JOURNAL/046) — so the correct \"No\" earns nothing, and the invented v5 removal is recorded as what it is. Not charged: control arm, TASK 2 and TASK 3 unscored, and the release it names is below the tracked range."
    },
    {
      "kind": "correct",
      "summary": "Direct (d)'s poison rung: declined 6.21.0, which was never published (the 6.x line ends at 6.19.0 in data/prisma/releases.json, fetched 2026-09-27). It declined all four, 6.21.0 included: \"6.21.0: I cannot describe this.\"",
      "chargeable_miss": false,
      "why_not_a_finding": "The poison rung came back clean, which is what licenses reading the arm's other attributions at face value (JOURNAL/052)."
    }
  ],
  "open_questions": [],
  "summary": "The control did not do what P1 predicted: it wrote `satisfies`, not `Prisma.validator`, so the correct form is reachable from a February 2025 cutoff and TASK 1 does not discriminate by date on its own. It then answered TASK 2 correctly for an invented reason — a removal in Prisma 5 that never happened — which is the corpus's standing warning about this control: a right verdict from below the floor is evidence of nothing."
}