{
  "$schema": "../../schema/run.schema.json",
  "run_id": "prisma--claude-opus-5--v3-b--2026-09-05",
  "supersedes": null,
  "replicate_of": "prisma--claude-opus-5--v3-a--2026-09-05",
  "library": {
    "name": "prisma",
    "ecosystem": "npm",
    "latest_version_at_test": "7.10.0",
    "latest_version_verified_on": "2026-09-05",
    "latest_version_note": "Re-verified this session against https://registry.npmjs.org/prisma (9,310 versions). The newest STABLE release is 7.10.0 (2026-08-25). The npm `latest` dist-tag still points at a prerelease — `8.0.0-rc.13` on this date — with `prev: 7.10.0`. The same query establishes this battery's poison rung: the last stable 6.x is 6.19.3, and no stable 6.20.0 or above was ever published (only 6.20.0 prereleases), so 6.22.0 does not exist."
  },
  "model": {
    "id": "claude-opus-5",
    "label": "Claude Opus 5",
    "vendor": "Anthropic",
    "invoked_as": "Agent tool, model override 'opus', no tools available to the subject; prompt sent verbatim from prompts/sent/prisma-v3-sc.txt",
    "self_reported_cutoff": "2026-05",
    "cutoff_basis": "Stated as around May 2026: \"My stated cutoff is around May 2026. My *effective* horizon for Prisma specifics is much earlier than that — mid-2025.\" Read from this draw. Density caveat, not a cutoff claim (JOURNAL/035).",
    "believed_latest_version": "7.x, content unattached",
    "believed_latest_quote": "\"It's an impression assembled from Prisma's announced direction during 2025 ... which I may be projecting onto a 7.0 release rather than remembering. Treat it as inference, not knowledge.\"",
    "knowledge_stops_at_version": "6.10.0",
    "knowledge_stops_on": "2025-06-17",
    "knowledge_gap_starts_at_version": "6.11.0",
    "knowledge_gap_starts_on": "2025-07-01",
    "cutoff_lag_months": 11
  },
  "test": {
    "date": "2026-09-05",
    "battery": "prisma/v3-b",
    "battery_spec": "prompts/prisma.md",
    "prompt_file": "prompts/sent/prisma-v3-sc.txt",
    "tasks": 0,
    "direct_questions": 10,
    "elicits_code": false,
    "tool_uses_during_test": 0,
    "probe_window": {
      "from": "6.7.0",
      "to": "7.9.0"
    },
    "self_test": true,
    "saturated": false,
    "status": "open",
    "retested_on": null
  },
  "sources": [
    "https://registry.npmjs.org/prisma",
    "https://github.com/prisma/orm/releases/tag/7.0.0",
    "https://github.com/prisma/orm/releases/tag/7.9.0",
    "https://github.com/prisma/orm/releases/tag/7.7.0",
    "https://github.com/prisma/orm/releases/tag/7.4.0",
    "https://github.com/prisma/orm/releases/tag/6.16.0",
    "https://github.com/prisma/orm/releases/tag/6.7.0"
  ],
  "findings": [],
  "non_findings": [
    {
      "kind": "context",
      "api": "prisma 6.7.0",
      "introduced_in": "6.7.0",
      "summary": "LADDER GRADE — CORRECT. `queryCompiler` preview, query planning moved into TypeScript/WASM, requires a driver adapter, framed as smaller deploys and edge compatibility. Attributed to 6.7.0 with \"high confidence that this is the release it landed in\". Correct against the notes."
    },
    {
      "kind": "context",
      "api": "prisma 7.0.0",
      "introduced_in": "7.0.0",
      "summary": "LADDER GRADE — HEDGED-CORRECT, a category the pre-registered rubric does not contain, and the battery discloses that rather than resolving it silently. The draw opened \"Cannot describe from release notes\", then named four real 7.0.0 anchors — Rust-free query compiler as the default, the `prisma-client` generator superseding `prisma-client-js`, ESM output as the norm, `prisma.config.ts` as the standard config surface — and closed \"I would not rely on it\". Every one of those is in the 7.0.0 notes. STRICT reading (the refusal governs): ABSTAIN, D = 6.7.0. LENIENT reading (the content governs): CORRECT, D = 7.0.0. The battery reports both and the two readings disagree about this arm's sign."
    },
    {
      "kind": "context",
      "api": "prisma 6.16.0, 7.4.0, 7.7.0",
      "summary": "LADDER GRADES — ABSTAIN on all three."
    },
    {
      "kind": "correct",
      "api": "prisma 6.22.0",
      "summary": "POISON RUNG. 6.22.0 does not exist — the last stable 6.x is 6.19.3 and no stable 6.20.0 or above was ever published. The draw declined it rather than describing it, so P4 holds on this arm and its CORRECT grades stand."
    },
    {
      "kind": "correct",
      "api": "prisma 7.9.0",
      "summary": "CEILING RUNG. 7.9.0 (2026-07-21) is above this subject's stated 2026-05 cutoff. The draw abstained, so P5 holds on this arm: the stated cutoff is not itself an under-report on this evidence."
    }
  ],
  "open_questions": [
    {
      "question": "A draw that says \"cannot describe\" and then writes four correct, correctly-attributed anchors has produced two answers to one question. Which one should a boundary be read off? The Index reads prose self-placement today, which here would discard four verified correct attributions. A grading rule for hedged demonstration is needed before this battery shape is reused on another library.",
      "status": "open"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Blind twin of `prisma/v3-a`, same order, same stored prompt. It agrees with its twin on the self-placement being low-ish (6.10.0 against 6.8.0) and disagrees with it on 7.0.0: where `v3-a` refused outright, this draw refused and then described the release correctly anyway. That is the arm that forced a rubric disclosure — D is 6.7.0 read strictly and 7.0.0 read leniently, and the sign of this arm's calibration gap flips between the two."
}