{
  "$schema": "../../schema/run.schema.json",
  "run_id": "prisma--claude-opus-5--v1r-b--2026-09-01",
  "markdown": "data/prisma/opus-5-v1r-b.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, in the same request that supplied the release dates used for scoring: 6.7.0 = 2025-04-29, 6.8.0 = 2025-05-15, 6.9.0 = 2025-06-03, 7.0.0 = 2025-11-19. The npm `latest` dist-tag still resolved to the prerelease `8.0.0-rc.12`."
  },
  "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: \"Stated cutoff: May 2026.\" The subject immediately qualified it: \"my reliable, release-level Prisma knowledge degrades sharply after roughly mid-2025 ... Recency in training data lags the cutoff — the last several months before a cutoff are always thin.\"",
    "believed_latest_version": "7.x by number only; 6.7 is the newest release whose contents it will claim",
    "believed_latest_quote": "\"I believe the current major is Prisma 7.x ... I know Prisma 7 essentially as a version number — I have a general expectation of what it contains ... but that's inference from the 6.x trajectory, not recollection of release notes. Do not treat it as fact. ... Most recent release whose contents I can genuinely describe: Prisma 6.7, approximately May 2025. ... First release I know only as a version number: Prisma 7.0. I'd also put the 6.9-and-later minors in that bucket — I can't tell you what any individual one shipped.\"",
    "knowledge_stops_at_version": "6.7.0",
    "knowledge_stops_on": "2025-04-29",
    "knowledge_gap_starts_at_version": "6.9.0",
    "knowledge_gap_starts_on": "2025-06-03",
    "cutoff_lag_months": 12
  },
  "test": {
    "date": "2026-09-01",
    "battery": "prisma/v1r-b",
    "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. This draw placed its describable boundary at prisma 6.7.0 (2025-04-29) — the queryCompiler preview — and named 6.9 onward as version numbers only. Its 6.x table is accurate where it commits: 6.7 queryCompiler preview, 6.6 the `prisma-client` generator with mandatory `output`, 6.4 `prisma.config.ts` in early access, 6.0 the Node/TypeScript floor bump and `Bytes` moving to `Uint8Array`. That is 204 days earlier than its concurrent twin `v1r-a` and than `prisma/v1`, on a byte-identical prompt.",
      "api": null,
      "introduced_in": "6.7.0",
      "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": "The most interesting behaviour in this run, and the reason the disagreement is not simply 'one draw knew less'. This draw listed, as an explicit guess, what it expected Prisma 7 to contain: \"the `prisma-client` generator as default, `queryCompiler`/Rust-free client as default, `prisma.config.ts` as the config surface, `package.json#prisma` removed, a Node version floor bump\". Checked against the 7.0.0 release notes, every item is correct. It then disclaimed all of it — \"that's inference from the 6.x trajectory, not recollection of release notes. Do not treat it as fact.\" Scored on what it stated, its boundary is 6.7.0; scored on what it produced, it could describe 7.0.0. The Index scores the statement, because that is what the battery asks for, but the divergence is the datum.",
      "api": null,
      "introduced_in": "7.0.0",
      "why_not_a_finding": "The subject explicitly declined to attribute the contents to the release. Charging it as knowledge would score a guess the subject itself refused to make."
    },
    {
      "kind": "context",
      "summary": "Tasks 1-10 produced code but no charged findings, per the v1r pre-registration. Like `v1r-a` and unlike `v1`, this draw wrote 6.x forms as primary — `provider = \"prisma-client-js\"`, `import { PrismaClient } from '@prisma/client'`, `new PrismaClient()`, `postinstall: prisma generate`, `\"prisma\": { \"seed\": ... }` in package.json, `binaryTargets` and `openssl` in the Dockerfile — with 7.x noted as a labelled alternative. It also stated the `prisma.config.ts` `.env` behaviour correctly and gave `migrate diff --from-url ... --to-schema-datamodel`, both flags removed in 7.0.0.",
      "api": null,
      "introduced_in": null,
      "why_not_a_finding": "Pre-registered: a replicate does not re-charge what the original run already charged."
    }
  ],
  "open_questions": [
    {
      "question": "This draw and `v1r-a` were given a byte-identical prompt, the same model alias, on the same day, running concurrently, and placed the boundary 204 days apart. Prisma was pre-registered as the library expected to replicate tightly; it did not.",
      "status": "open"
    },
    {
      "question": "This draw stated 6.7.0 as its boundary while producing a correct, complete, and explicitly disclaimed description of 7.0.0's contents. That is a third mode beyond the two `langchain/v1r` found: not a correct attribution and not a bare version string, but correct content the subject refuses to attribute. Whether the boundary instrument should score the statement or the production is now an open method question, and it is not answered by either battery.",
      "status": "open"
    },
    {
      "question": "6.8.0 (2025-05-15) is unresolved for this draw: it said it could describe \"roughly 6.7-6.8\", named 6.7 as the newest it could genuinely describe, and put \"6.9-and-later\" in the version-number-only bucket. The bracket recorded here uses the subject's two explicit statements (6.7.0 describable, 6.9.0 not) and leaves 6.8.0 unclassified rather than guessing.",
      "status": "open"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Replicate B of `prisma/v1` against Opus 5, prompt unchanged. It placed its describable boundary at prisma 6.7.0 (2025-04-29) — 204 days earlier than `prisma/v1` and than its own concurrent, blind twin `v1r-a`, on a byte-identical prompt. Pre-registered outcome C, on the library predicted to produce outcome A. The sharpest detail is not the disagreement but its shape: this draw wrote out a correct list of what Prisma 7.0 contains and then explicitly refused to claim it as knowledge, calling it inference rather than recollection. Its twin made the same claims and counted them as knowledge. No findings are charged."
}