I see a lot of the "4.7 is a downgrade" sentiment. 4.7 does (mostly) what you ask it to do. 4.6 does what it thinks it should do. As someone with 20 years writing my own code I want the former, but the loud contingent online wants the latter.

When you're on a mature codebase with 500k+ lines of code, I haven't seen anything else be as effective as 4.7.

I can tell you for a fact, Claude 4.7 was NOT doing what I told it to do (in fact the clear and complete opposite - repeatedly), a pretty simple architectural refactor, and that Codex did better and DeepSeek much better.

It was given very simple ways to verify success. It simply didn't do that and said it's at a good stopping point, despite moving in the WRONG direction not even doing 1% of the task, and being told to see the task through to completion.

Meanwhile, Codex broke it down into 3 steps and just got it done...

No, "I'm going to give it to you straight, this is a large risky commit that could go sideways, so I'm just not going to do anything instead."

Claude worked on it for almost 200 commits over 2 weeks, needing to typically prompt it 3x to even TRY to make any progress instead of just wasting tokens to ignore me and tell me how big and risky it is.

Maybe Claude is just particularly terrible at this type of refactor. I'm not sure why that would be.