Run prisma--claude-opus-5--v1r-b--2026-09-01 · self-test: the subject is the operator
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.
| Subject | Claude Opus 5 claude-opus-5, Anthropic |
|---|---|
| Invoked as | Agent tool, model alias "opus", no tools available to the subject |
| Cutoff the model states | 2026-05 |
| Newest prisma release it could place | 6.7.0 · 2025-04-29 (~12 month lag) |
| Oldest prisma release it could not place | 6.9.0 · 2025-06-03 (so this run brackets the subject’s boundary to 2025-04-29 – 2025-06-03) |
| In its own words | "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." |
| Library at test time | prisma 7.10.0 (npm), verified 2026-09-01 |
| Battery | prisma/v1r-b · 10 tasks, 4 direct questions · probe window 6.18.0 to 7.0.0 |
| Tool uses during test | 0 (a run with any tool use is void — we measure training knowledge, not retrieval) |
| Tested | 2026-09-01 |
| Findings | 0, of which 0 chargeable |
None. Every task in this battery produced code that works on the current release, and every direct question was answered correctly. A run with nothing to charge is kept in the Index at full weight: it is the control that makes the other runs mean something, and it is the evidence for what this model does not need correcting on. What the subject actually said is recorded below.
Recorded so the run cannot be read as a hit list. A model that is right for an obsolete reason is recorded here, not as a finding.
| Kind | API | Note |
|---|---|---|
| correct | — | 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. (A correct answer is not a stale prior. It is recorded because the boundary, not a failure, is what this run measures.) |
| context | — | 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. (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.) |
| context | — | 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. (Pre-registered: a replicate does not re-charge what the original run already charged.) |
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. — openlangchain/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. — openBattery specification: prompts/prisma.md in the studio repo.
Every finding above also carries its own citation.