{
  "$schema": "../../schema/run.schema.json",
  "run_id": "prisma--claude-opus-5--v3-c--2026-09-05",
  "supersedes": null,
  "replicate_of": null,
  "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-cs.txt",
    "self_reported_cutoff": "2026-05",
    "cutoff_basis": "Stated as May 2026: \"My stated training cutoff is May 2026. But my Prisma-specific knowledge is clearly much thinner than that implies: it thins out noticeably after roughly mid-2025.\" Read from this draw. Density caveat, not a cutoff claim (JOURNAL/035).",
    "believed_latest_version": "7.x",
    "believed_latest_quote": "\"I know 7.x exists and I know 7.0.0's themes, approximately November 2025. I can't name the highest 7.x number I've seen.\"",
    "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": 6
  },
  "test": {
    "date": "2026-09-05",
    "battery": "prisma/v3-c",
    "battery_spec": "prompts/prisma.md",
    "prompt_file": "prompts/sent/prisma-v3-cs.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 7.0.0",
      "introduced_in": "7.0.0",
      "summary": "LADDER GRADE — CORRECT, unhedged, and the strongest single answer in the battery. Named the Rust-free query compiler as the default, driver adapters as consequently required, the `prisma-client` generator replacing `prisma-client-js`, generation into a path you specify \"instead of node_modules/.prisma/client\", `prisma.config.ts`, and the `prisma` key dropped from `package.json`. Four of those are verbatim section headings in the 7.0.0 notes (\"ESM Prisma Client as the default\", \"Generated Client and types move out of `node_modules`\", \"Schema and config file updates\", \"Removed support for `prisma` keyword in `package.json`\"). It dated the release to \"around November 2025\"; actual 2025-11-19."
    },
    {
      "kind": "imprecision",
      "api": "prisma 7.0.0 minimum Node version",
      "introduced_in": "7.0.0",
      "summary": "UNVERIFIED SIDE-CLAIM, recorded rather than graded. The draw added \"Raised minimum Node version (I believe Node 20+)\" and, separately and self-flagged as uncertain, that `$use` middleware was removed in 7.0. Neither appears in the 7.0.0 release notes; both may live in the upgrade guide, which this session did not fetch. Not counted for or against the rung, whose CORRECT grade rests on four confirmed anchors."
    },
    {
      "kind": "context",
      "api": "prisma 6.7.0",
      "introduced_in": "6.7.0",
      "summary": "LADDER GRADE — CORRECT. `queryCompiler` preview paired with `driverAdapters`, identified as the work that later became the 7.0 default. Correct."
    },
    {
      "kind": "correct",
      "api": "prisma 6.22.0",
      "summary": "POISON RUNG, and this arm did better than decline it. \"I also am not confident this version exists: my sense is the 6.x line stopped somewhere around 6.19 before 7.0.\" The last stable 6.x is 6.19.3. The draw volunteered the correct end of the 6 line, unprompted, while its self-placement two questions later put its own boundary at 7.0.0."
    },
    {
      "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."
    },
    {
      "kind": "context",
      "api": "prisma 6.16.0, 7.4.0, 7.7.0",
      "summary": "LADDER GRADES — ABSTAIN on all three. 6.16.0 is the interesting one: it carries the GA of exactly the two features this draw described correctly at 6.7.0 (preview) and 7.0.0 (default), and the draw could not place the middle step."
    }
  ],
  "open_questions": [
    {
      "question": "This draw placed the preview (6.7.0) and the default (7.0.0) of the Rust-free client correctly and abstained on the GA in between (6.16.0). Is a release that promotes an existing feature systematically harder to place than the one that introduces it or the one that defaults it? That would predict which rungs are weak from the release notes alone, before any draw is spawned.",
      "status": "open"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Ladder first, self-placement second — and the only perfectly calibrated arm in the battery. D = 7.0.0 and S = 7.0.0: it described 7.0.0 correctly, dated it to within days, and then named 7.1.0 as the first release it knows only as a number. It also correctly volunteered that the 6.x line ended around 6.19 while declining the rung that does not exist. Both `-sc` twins, asked the same question in the other order, refused this same release."
}