'by the way, your previous attempts have these structural problems."

Just to be clear, it did not have access to any previous work that opus did? Because they are pretty good at digging out relevant tmp files and making use of whatever is out there.

With my fable adventures I caught it hallucinating something and stating it as a fact in CLI twice. And it was something that I did not see opus do in such way, opus obviously many times stated some things that it did not verify but guessed, but fable said something like "the probe showed that ..." - but there was no probe, it was not about some past events it was about what it was doing right now. "I overstated"...

But boy does it know Chinese, so much better than any other english model, gemini used to be the king but fable clearly was trained on a decent amount of it. It has a deep cultural understanding.

Yes, iit had access. Thats actually the point.

I maintain a failure registry in the repo. Every failed attempt gets documented with the exact mechanism, the test that regressed, the revert SHA, and an instruction to start from that frontier. Fable read all of it.

But so did Opus.

Each of the 16 Opus failures ran in the same harness with the same accumulating registry. By attempt 15, it had disproofs 1–14 in context. By the end, Opus had basically the same corpus that Fable started with, and it still kept failing, sometimes by re-deriving an already-disproved approach in a slightly different shape.

So “it leveraged the previous work” doesn’t really separate them. Both had the leverage. Only one converted it.

What changed wasn’t more context. It was that Fable rejected a premise inside the context.

The registry’s standing framing was: “this needs whole-program borrow inference, which conflicts with per-module incrementality” (architecturally blocked.) Fable ran around 5 fresh attempts in-session, hit the same wall, and then noticed the framing was a red herring: the borrow analysis already runs module-wide, and for a single-module program, the module is the whole program.

Opus read that same framing for months and treated it as a constraint. Fable falsified it.

its the same repo, same rules, same disproof history, same workflow. The model was the only variable that changed, and the outcome flipped. Is it possible that attempt 17 by Opus could have figured it out? sure. but there's 16 previous attempts that say otherwise.

As fars as anecdotes go, that’s about as controlled as it gets.