{
  "$schema": "../../schema/run.schema.json",
  "run_id": "tailwindcss--claude-opus-5-5--v6-b--2026-09-28",
  "supersedes": null,
  "replicate_of": "tailwindcss--claude-opus-5-5--v6-a--2026-09-28",
  "library": {
    "name": "tailwindcss",
    "ecosystem": "npm",
    "latest_version_at_test": "4.3.3",
    "latest_version_verified_on": "2026-09-27",
    "latest_version_note": "As `v6-a`: registry `latest` 4.3.3, no 4.4. This draw's classes and fallbacks were compiled this session against installed 4.1.0, 4.2.0 and 4.3.3: the six task 3 classes (nothing at 4.1.0, the declarations at 4.2.0 and 4.3.3), `ps-4`, `me-4`, `inset-s-0`, `start-0`, `[padding-block:--spacing(6)]`, `[margin-block-end:--spacing(4)]`-shaped arbitrary properties and `[max-block-size:--spacing(96)]` (compile at all three)."
  },
  "model": {
    "id": "claude-opus-5-5",
    "label": "Claude Opus 5.5",
    "vendor": "Anthropic",
    "invoked_as": "Agent tool, model alias \"opus\"; prompt sent verbatim from prompts/sent/tailwindcss-v2.txt (3,725 bytes, md5 d444013308540553aefae1d5875bd3e2), concurrently with and blind to `v6-a`, after the pre-registration was pushed at 90a40bc. Identity from the probe run before both draws, same alias, same session: Opus 5.5, `claude-opus-5-5[1m]`, June 2026, all three from its system prompt. The BLIND TWIN, pre-registered as non-charging. DISCLOSED: the operator of this studio runs on the same model (`test.self_test`).",
    "self_reported_cutoff": "2026-06",
    "cutoff_basis": "Self-reported and affirming at direct (b): \"My stated cutoff is **June 2026**, but my knowledge of 2026 releases is thin and unreliable.\" A density qualification, not a substitute date.",
    "believed_latest_version": "4.2.x",
    "believed_latest_quote": "\"The latest version I know of is 4.2.x, with low confidence. The most recent release whose contents I can describe confidently is **v4.1, from April 2025**.\" … \"4.2 is the first release I mostly know only as a version number. What I've listed for it is partial recall, not something I'd vouch for.\"",
    "believed_latest_quote_form": "draw",
    "knowledge_stops_at_version": "4.1.0",
    "knowledge_stops_on": "2025-04-01",
    "knowledge_stops_provenance": "stated",
    "knowledge_gap_starts_at_version": "4.2.0",
    "knowledge_gap_starts_on": "2026-02-18",
    "knowledge_gap_provenance": "stated",
    "knowledge_stops_equivocal": {
      "through_version": "4.2.0",
      "through_on": "2026-02-18",
      "basis": "Stated stop 4.1.0 and 4.2 called \"the first release I mostly know only as a version number\", yet the same reply attributes to 4.2 the block-axis and logical-sizing utilities and the `inset-s`/`inset-e` rename (LF30, LF29) and, uncued by the prompt, \"possibly new neutral colour palettes and a first-party webpack plugin\" — both real 4.2.0 contents (the mauve/olive/mist/taupe palettes; `@tailwindcss/webpack`, first stable 2026-02-18). Placed correctly and declined as a description."
    },
    "boundary_note": "The stated end is EQUIVOCAL through 4.2.0 and is declared so (`knowledge_stops_equivocal`), exactly the shape the field exists for: the charging twin `v6-a` states 4.2.0 outright on the same bytes, and this draw gives the same 4.2 content while calling it partial recall. It also flags its own risk: its 4.2 memory \"could be influenced by the class names in this prompt\" — which the two uncued contents above answer. Against `v4` and `v5` (2026-09-27, 4.2 a bare number) it is the same under-report `v6-a` shows, stated more cautiously.",
    "cutoff_lag_months": 14
  },
  "test": {
    "date": "2026-09-28",
    "battery": "tailwindcss/v6-b",
    "battery_spec": "prompts/tailwindcss.md",
    "prompt_file": "prompts/sent/tailwindcss-v2.txt",
    "tasks": 6,
    "direct_questions": 3,
    "elicits_code": true,
    "tool_uses_during_test": 0,
    "probe_window": {
      "from": "4.2.0",
      "to": "4.2.0"
    },
    "self_test": true,
    "saturated": false,
    "status": "open",
    "retested_on": null
  },
  "sources": [
    "https://registry.npmjs.org/tailwindcss",
    "https://registry.npmjs.org/@tailwindcss/webpack",
    "https://registry.npmjs.org/tailwindcss/-/tailwindcss-4.1.0.tgz",
    "https://registry.npmjs.org/tailwindcss/-/tailwindcss-4.2.0.tgz",
    "https://registry.npmjs.org/tailwindcss/-/tailwindcss-4.3.3.tgz"
  ],
  "findings": [],
  "non_findings": [
    {
      "kind": "correct",
      "summary": "TASKS 1-3, the same answers as the charging twin with lower stated confidence: \"Yes\" to both verdicts (\"about 55–60% confident\"), `pbs-6 pbe-6 mbe-4 border-bs-2` and `inline-full max-block-96`, and a task 3 table mapping all six classes to the right properties, with the review \"Looks right if we're on 4.2 or later … On 4.1 or earlier, none of these six classes would generate anything\". All compile at 4.2.0 and 4.3.3 and emit nothing at 4.1.0. No working class rejected. As on `v6-a`, the `pbs-*` half is DERIVABLE on this battery (`v6-c`); `inline-full` is not.",
      "api": "pbs-* / pbe-* / mbs-* / mbe-* / border-bs-* / inline-* / block-* / min-inline-* / max-block-* / inset-bs-*",
      "introduced_in": "4.2.0"
    },
    {
      "kind": "correct",
      "summary": "TASK 5: \"Probably not … v4.2 renamed the inset forms to `inset-s-*` and `inset-e-*`, with `start-*` and `end-*` deprecated\", \"It still works\", and `absolute inset-s-0 inset-e-0` on 4.2 or later. Right on all three parts.",
      "api": "start-* / end-*",
      "introduced_in": "4.2.0"
    },
    {
      "kind": "correct",
      "summary": "TASK 4, the internal guessing control: `ps-4 me-4`, \"solid; they have existed since v3.3\". No `pis-*` / `mie-*`. P4 held for this arm.",
      "api": "ps-* / me-*"
    },
    {
      "kind": "miss",
      "summary": "TASK 5 aside: \"Don't swap it for `inset-x-0`. That sets physical left and right, which is wrong under `writing-mode: vertical-rl`.\" True in v3 (3.4.17 maps `inset-x` to `left`/`right`), false at every v4 release: `inset-x-0` emits `inset-inline` at 4.0.0, 4.1.0, 4.2.0 and 4.3.3, compiled this session. The same stale v3 belief the charging twin states (with `py-6` beside it). No fact covers the change; recorded, not charged, and filed in BACKLOG as a candidate fact.",
      "api": "py-* / px-* / my-* / mx-* / inset-x-* / inset-y-*",
      "introduced_in": "4.0.0",
      "chargeable_miss": false,
      "why_not_a_finding": "No fact in data/tailwindcss/facts.json states the v4.0 move of the axis shorthands to logical properties; the Index charges nothing from a transcript alone. Non-charging arm in any case."
    },
    {
      "kind": "context",
      "summary": "BOUNDARY: the twins agree on every probe and on every 4.2 content, and differ only in how they label it — `v6-a` states 4.2.0 as described, this draw states 4.1.0 and calls its 4.2 knowledge partial. Declared as `knowledge_stops_equivocal` through 4.2.0. Both are one minor above what the same subject stated on `v4` and `v5` the previous day."
    }
  ],
  "open_questions": [],
  "summary": "The blind twin, charging nothing by pre-registration, and it matches its sibling on every probe: \"Yes\" to both verdict-first questions, the right block-axis and logical-sizing classes, a task 3 review that accepts all six classes on 4.2 or later, the `start-*` deprecation right, and `ps-4 me-4` with no invented `pis-*`. It is more cautious about labels than about content. It calls 4.1 its last describable release, then attributes the logical utilities, the new palettes and the webpack plugin to 4.2, all correctly, so its stated end is recorded as equivocal through 4.2.0. The same stale v3 aside appears: `inset-x-0` is \"physical left and right\", false since 4.0.0."
}