[Bug] Model prioritizes static analysis over user's direct runtime observations

Bug Description
Model reasoning issue: Prioritizes its own static analysis over user's direct observation

The user explicitly stated that plugin files remained on the server after deployment. However, the model analyzed only the Dockerfile's COPY . . instruction and concluded "files won't persist because it's a Docker container
deployment," dismissing the user's observation.

Steps to reproduce:

1. User stated that old files remain on the server after deployment
2. Model analyzed the Dockerfile and asserted "files won't remain" as fact
3. When the user pushed back, the model accepted but then speculated "it must be a volume mount" without any evidence
4. When pressed again, the model made yet another unsupported guess

Root cause: When the model's static code analysis conflicts with the user's direct runtime observation, the model treats its own derived conclusion as more reliable than the user's firsthand experience. The model fails to
recognize the limits of its information access (e.g., infrastructure config, Helm values, volume mounts exist outside the local repository).

Expected behavior: When the model's analysis contradicts the user's stated observation, it should accept the user's observation as fact and investigate why its analysis is incomplete, rather than correcting the user.

Model: Claude Opus 4.6
…
Note: Content was truncated.