Hey Thariq,

Appreciate the outreach that you do! I love Claude, but I've been noticing reduced fidelity lately. Fable's likelihood of making a mistake increases or decreases based on the hour of the day and whether or not it's the weekend.

On a related note, and I'm happy to work on quantifying it, but qualitatively it feels like Fable's performance is noticeably poorer than initial release / launch.

I am wondering if this is the case because I use Claude via Claude Code to make a personalized care dashboard for my doctors to help me in managing my care.

I noticed in the upgraded filter announcement, https://www.anthropic.com/news/improving-fable-5-s-biology-s... ,

    "In the case of Fable 5, when a classifier fires, the model re-routes the user’s request to Opus 5, a capable model that does not have the same level of biological capability as Fable 5 and which cannot provide as much assistance to a malicious user. This is the fallback that users see when their requests are blocked."

I hope that I'm off base here, but I noticed that the post avoids saying that the user is informed every time when such re-routing occurs. Would you be open to confirming whether or not this is the case?

Is the end user informed every time their query is re-routed?

Or, can you confirm that there aren't scenarios where a user's outputs are degraded without telling them? As was the case for AI research during launch?

Let us know if this A/B test uncovers any load-bearing seams or honest takes on your end! We're all interested.

>We sometimes test API serving configs in Claude Code before rolling them out, and one running now maps the numerical effort value differently.

Why is it considered acceptable to test on paying customers without letting them know or giving them a way to opt out?

Thanks for sharing this here, for those of us who avoid X.com like the plague.

[dead]

[dead]