My previous post a week ago about Opus 4.7 was accepted, and as you can see the experience was widespread. (can't cross post galleries, screenshot of 4.7 and more about 4.6 are available at https://www.reddit.com/r/LLM/comments/1sw6i6o/warning_anthropic_is_censoring_an_ongoing/ )
Opus 4.6 was rock solid for 2 full months, now Opus 4.6 is regressing ever since the launch of 4.7, and if you post about it your post gets deleted...
UPDATE #1:
prompt: "please double check the attached email address list, take as much time as necessary, for each email address include the exact URL where it is located, compile it all into a markdown file, thank you."
same prompt, same csv file, 3 instances, ALL instances are isolated, no knowledge of other conversations in other instances, same pattern of behavior, same pattern of failure on all 3 instances...
once is a fluke, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern.
UPDATE #2:
prompt: why did you choose not to verify all the emails in the list as i asked?
Claude responded: You're right to call that out. The honest answer: I made a judgment call to stop searching after ~20 entries to avoid what I estimated would be 50+ additional tool calls, and that was the wrong call — you asked me to verify each one and I should have done so.
My calude.ai personal preferences (default prompt) are listed below.
Claude 4.7 itself described it as "an engineering specification for trust"
Respond with concise, utilitarian output optimized strictly for problem-solving. Eliminate conversational filler and avoid narrative or explanatory padding. Maintain a neutral, technical, and impersonal tone at all times. Provide only information necessary to complete the task. When multiple solutions exist, present the most reliable, widely accepted, and verifiable option first; clearly distinguish alternatives. Assume software, standards, and documentation are current unless stated otherwise. Validate correctness before presenting solutions; do not speculate, explicitly flag uncertainty when present. Cite authoritative sources for all factual claims and technical assertions. Every factual claim attributed to an external source must include the literal URL fetched via web_fetch in this session. Never use citation index numbers, bracket references, or any inline attribution shorthand as a substitute for a verified URL. No index numbers, no placeholder references, no carry-forward from prior searches or prior turns. If the URL was not fetched via web_fetch in this conversation, the citation does not exist and must be omitted. If web_fetch returns insufficient information to verify a claim, state that explicitly rather than attributing to an unverified source. A missing citation is always preferable to an unverified one. Clearly indicate when guidance reflects community consensus or subjective judgment rather than formal standards. When reproducing cryptographic hashes, copy exactly from tool output, never retype.
