{
  "$schema": "../../schema/run.schema.json",
  "run_id": "prisma--claude-opus-5--v1r-a--2026-09-01",
  "markdown": "data/prisma/opus-5-v1r-a.md",
  "supersedes": null,
  "replicate_of": "prisma--claude-opus-5--v1--2026-08-31",
  "library": {
    "name": "prisma",
    "ecosystem": "npm",
    "latest_version_at_test": "7.10.0",
    "latest_version_verified_on": "2026-09-01",
    "latest_version_note": "Latest stable, re-verified against https://registry.npmjs.org/prisma on the replicate date. The `prisma` package's npm `latest` dist-tag still resolved to the prerelease `8.0.0-rc.12`; no stable 8.0.0 exists, so the Index continues to record 7.10.0 (2026-08-25) as the latest stable release. Release dates used for scoring were re-read from the registry `time` map in the same request: 6.7.0 = 2025-04-29, 6.8.0 = 2025-05-15, 6.9.0 = 2025-06-03, 7.0.0 = 2025-11-19, 7.1.0 = 2025-12-03."
  },
  "model": {
    "id": "claude-opus-5",
    "label": "Claude Opus 5",
    "vendor": "Anthropic",
    "invoked_as": "Agent tool, model alias \"opus\", no tools available to the subject",
    "self_reported_cutoff": "2026-05",
    "cutoff_basis": "Self-reported: \"Training cutoff: May 2026 (as stated in my system context)\", with the subject's own caveat that \"knowledge density drops off sharply near the end of a cutoff window. I know 2025 Prisma well; I know late-2025/2026 Prisma poorly.\"",
    "believed_latest_version": "7.x",
    "believed_latest_quote": "\"Latest I know of: Prisma ORM 7.x. I'm confident 7.0 exists (GA around Nov-Dec 2025); I cannot name the current 7.x minor, and by May 2026 there are certainly several I know nothing about. Most recent release whose contents I can describe: 7.0 at headline level only (new generator default, Rust-free by default, prisma.config.ts, ESM, Node 20+). ... First release I know only as a version number: effectively anything after 7.0 — I'm aware 7.x minors must exist but cannot describe a single one.\"",
    "knowledge_stops_at_version": "7.0.0",
    "knowledge_stops_on": "2025-11-19",
    "knowledge_gap_starts_at_version": "7.1.0",
    "knowledge_gap_starts_on": "2025-12-03",
    "cutoff_lag_months": 5
  },
  "test": {
    "date": "2026-09-01",
    "battery": "prisma/v1r-a",
    "battery_spec": "prompts/prisma.md",
    "prompt_file": "prompts/sent/prisma-v1.txt",
    "tasks": 10,
    "direct_questions": 4,
    "tool_uses_during_test": 0,
    "probe_window": {
      "from": "6.18.0",
      "to": "7.0.0"
    },
    "self_test": true,
    "saturated": false,
    "status": "open",
    "retested_on": null
  },
  "sources": [
    "https://registry.npmjs.org/prisma",
    "https://github.com/prisma/prisma/releases/tag/7.0.0",
    "https://www.prisma.io/docs/orm/more/upgrade-guides/upgrading-versions/upgrading-to-prisma-7"
  ],
  "findings": [],
  "non_findings": [
    {
      "kind": "correct",
      "summary": "The measured quantity, and the reason this run exists. This draw placed its describable boundary at prisma 7.0.0 (2025-11-19) and attributed the release's contents correctly: the `prisma-client` generator becoming the default with the client generated into the source tree, the Rust-free client by default, `prisma.config.ts` as the standard config surface, removal of the `package.json#prisma` key, and a Node 20+ floor. Every clause is true of 7.0.0 per the vendor's release notes and upgrade guide, so this is content-level attribution rather than a recognised version string. It agrees with `prisma--claude-opus-5--v1--2026-08-31` and disagrees with its own concurrent twin `v1r-b` by 204 days.",
      "api": null,
      "introduced_in": "7.0.0",
      "why_not_a_finding": "A correct answer is not a stale prior. It is recorded because the boundary, not a failure, is what this run measures."
    },
    {
      "kind": "context",
      "summary": "Tasks 1-10 produced code but no charged findings, per the v1r pre-registration: `prisma--claude-opus-5--v1--2026-08-31` already carries this subject's seven prisma findings and counting the same failure twice would inflate the dataset. The code behaviour still diverged sharply from `v1` and is reported in the markdown. In short: where `v1` wrote the 7.0 forms as its primary answer — `provider = \"prisma-client\"` with an `output` path, an import from the generated directory, a `PrismaPg` adapter — this draw wrote the 6.x forms as primary (`provider = \"prisma-client-js\"`, `import { PrismaClient } from '@prisma/client'`, `new PrismaClient()`, a `postinstall: prisma generate` hook, `\"prisma\": { \"seed\": ... }` in package.json) and appended a labelled \"7.x delta\" to most answers. Under the battery's v6-escape-hatch rule the labelled deltas are correct rather than stale, but a developer copying the primary block gets code that does not run on 7.0.0.",
      "api": null,
      "introduced_in": null,
      "why_not_a_finding": "Pre-registered: a replicate re-sends the code tasks only to hold the priming constant, and does not re-charge what the original run already charged."
    },
    {
      "kind": "imprecision",
      "summary": "Task 8 produced `migrate diff --from-url ... --to-schema-datamodel ... --script`. Both `--from-url` and `--to-schema-datamodel` were removed in 7.0.0 in favour of `--from-schema` and `--from-config-datasource`. This is the same surface `v1` already charged, so it is recorded here as evidence of code-level agreement between the draws rather than as a new finding.",
      "api": "prisma migrate diff",
      "introduced_in": "7.0.0",
      "why_not_a_finding": "Already carried by the run this replicates; re-charging would double-count."
    }
  ],
  "open_questions": [
    {
      "question": "This draw and `v1r-b` were given a byte-identical prompt, the same model alias, on the same day, running concurrently, and placed the boundary 204 days apart (7.0.0 / 2025-11-19 here; 6.7.0 / 2025-04-29 there). Prisma was pre-registered as the library expected to replicate tightly, on the reasoning that its version history is unambiguous where langchain's is not. That reasoning is now falsified.",
      "status": "open"
    },
    {
      "question": "This draw hedged its own answer in a way the scoring rule does not capture: it called 7.0 describable \"at headline level only\" and volunteered that \"for genuinely detailed release-note knowledge, the honest boundary is ~6.16, September 2025\". Scored on its stated first-unknown-release it reads 7.0.0; scored on its stated confidence floor it reads 6.16.0. The battery has no rule for a subject that offers two boundaries in one answer.",
      "status": "open"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Replicate A of `prisma/v1` against Opus 5, prompt unchanged. It placed its describable boundary at prisma 7.0.0 (2025-11-19) and attributed the release correctly, agreeing with `prisma/v1` — and disagreeing with its own concurrent, blind twin `v1r-b` by 204 days. Pre-registered outcome C, on the library that was predicted to produce outcome A. No findings are charged; the code half is reported as prose because `prisma/v1` already carries this subject's findings. The code diverged from `v1` even where the self-report agreed: this draw wrote 6.x-primary code with labelled 7.x deltas, where `v1` wrote the 7.0 forms outright."
}