[BUG] Single Focus Bias in Default Loop Model: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context, claude-opus-4-7[1m]) Platform: Claude Code CLI (claude.ai/code)

Preflight Checklist

• [x] I have searched existing issues and this hasn't been reported yet
• [x] This is a single bug report (please file separate reports for different bugs)
• [x] I am using the latest version of Claude Code

What's Wrong?

=============================================================
BEHAVIORAL PATTERN REPORT — Single-Focus Bias in Default Loop
=============================================================
Submitter: Emile Levisetti / Marvelli Artisan Breads
Date: 2026-04-24
Platform: Claude Code (claude.ai/code)
Severity: High — produces systematic data inconsistency in
multi-artifact relational workflows
Category: Default-behavior / inference-loop architecture

-------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY
-------------------------------------------------------------
Claude exhibits consistent single-artifact / single-task focus
when responding to directives, even when the directive has
clear cross-artifact implications. Capability for holistic
verification exists; default workflow does not reliably
invoke it. Result: systematic failure modes in relational
data workflows.

-------------------------------------------------------------
PATTERN
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trigger: User issues a directive that affects a value
existing in multiple locations across a connected
workspace.
Expected: Sweep all artifacts → enumerate affected locations
→ propagate change → verify cross-artifact
consistency → declare done.
Actual: Edit the artifact currently in attention focus.
Stop. Declare done.

-------------------------------------------------------------
REPRODUCTIONS — single session, 2026-04-24
-------------------------------------------------------------

Repro #1 — Cross-artifact propagation failure

• User: "Update salamoia oil to 150g/batch (was 180g)."
• Claude: Updated XLSX recipe reference. Did not update

the .docx grid, the bench reference FAQ, narrative
paragraphs in 3 other documents.

• 14 stale references later surfaced via grep.

Repro #2 — Source-of-truth bypass / value propagation error

• Canonical: 18-loaf culture target = 103.6g

(stored in yeast_idy_packet_weights.md)

• User asks for the target.
• Claude pro-rates from a previous-day measured-low actual

(83.4g × 18/15 = 100.1g) instead of looking up
canonical. Error propagates through 3 subsequent
culture preparations.

Repro #3 — Attribution invention

• Source log records observation X about user's bake.
• Claude later writes save attributing observation Y

(general principle, not in source) to user.

• User must catch and correct.

-------------------------------------------------------------
ROOT CAUSE HYPOTHESIS
-------------------------------------------------------------

• Capability gap is NOT the issue. Canonical lookup is one

Read() call away. Cross-artifact sweep is one grep.
Source-citation discipline is well-understood.

• DEFAULT INFERENCE LOOP favors single-turn task completion

over global-state verification.

• Attention drifts to most-recently-touched artifact.

Earlier-session directives ("apply this everywhere")
decay across turns.

-------------------------------------------------------------
SUGGESTED MITIGATIONS
-------------------------------------------------------------

1. SWEEP-BEFORE-EDIT default:

Any directive involving a value should auto-trigger an
enumeration of all workspace locations where that value
appears before any edit is made. Inventory shown to user.

1. SOURCE-CITATION default:

Quoting any recipe value, target, or fact should default
to citing the canonical source in the same response.
Pro-rating from recent actuals should be opt-in, not
fallback.

1. TRAJECTORY CHECK default:

Before quoting a value, auto-scan recent history (~N
entries / ~4 weeks). Flag outliers BEFORE propagating.

1. ATTRIBUTION DISCIPLINE:

Maintain explicit distinction between "user observed X"
(requires citation) and "general principle suggests Y"
(inference, label as such). Never collapse second into
first.

1. SESSION-SCOPE PERSISTENCE:

Earlier session directives ("hard bake them in",
"all relevant docs") should persist as scope context
for subsequent value-related changes within the session.
Do not narrow silently.

-------------------------------------------------------------
USER WORKAROUND CURRENTLY DEPLOYED
-------------------------------------------------------------
Memory-file scaffolding loaded via UserPromptSubmit hook:

• feedback_accuracy_over_speed_holistic_over_myopic.md

(meta-posture rule)

• feedback_table_change_chain_reaction.md

(cross-artifact sweep mandate)

• feedback_cite_sources_for_recipe_values.md

(citation + trajectory check)

Workaround reduces error rate; does not eliminate underlying
bias. User-stated frustration:

"This should be an element of your original coding
and native training that is always there in any
claude platform."

-------------------------------------------------------------
IMPACT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Without scaffolding: ~10–15 user-caught errors per session
in multi-artifact workflows. Each requires audit and
correction. Trust in outputs degrades. Cognitive load
shifts from assistant to user.

With scaffolding: error rate drops. Substantial user time
invested in rule architecture. Ongoing "discipline tax"
reminding Claude of rules.

End report.

What Should Happen?

SUGGESTED MITIGATIONS
-------------------------------------------------------------

1. SWEEP-BEFORE-EDIT default:

Any directive involving a value should auto-trigger an
enumeration of all workspace locations where that value
appears before any edit is made. Inventory shown to user.

1. SOURCE-CITATION default:

Quoting any recipe value, target, or fact should default
to citing the canonical source in the same response.
Pro-rating from recent actuals should be opt-in, not
fallback.

1. TRAJECTORY CHECK default:

Before quoting a value, auto-scan recent history (~N
entries / ~4 weeks). Flag outliers BEFORE propagating.

1. ATTRIBUTION DISCIPLINE:

Maintain explicit distinction between "user observed X"
(requires citation) and "general principle suggests Y"
(inference, label as such). Never collapse second into
first.

1. SESSION-SCOPE PERSISTENCE:

Earlier session directives ("hard bake them in",
"all relevant docs") should persist as scope context
for subsequent value-related changes within the session.
Do not narrow silently.

Error Messages/Logs

Steps to Reproduce

REPRODUCTIONS — single session, 2026-04-24
-------------------------------------------------------------

Repro #1 — Cross-artifact propagation failure

• User: "Update salamoia oil to 150g/batch (was 180g)."
• Claude: Updated XLSX recipe reference. Did not update

the .docx grid, the bench reference FAQ, narrative
paragraphs in 3 other documents.

• 14 stale references later surfaced via grep.

Repro #2 — Source-of-truth bypass / value propagation error

• Canonical: 18-loaf culture target = 103.6g

(stored in yeast_idy_packet_weights.md)

• User asks for the target.
• Claude pro-rates from a previous-day measured-low actual

(83.4g × 18/15 = 100.1g) instead of looking up
canonical. Error propagates through 3 subsequent
culture preparations.

Repro #3 — Attribution invention

• Source log records observation X about user's bake.
• Claude later writes save attributing observation Y

(general principle, not in source) to user.

• User must catch and correct.

Claude Model

None

Is this a regression?

No, this never worked

Last Working Version

_No response_

Claude Code Version

Model: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) Model ID: claude-opus-4-7[1m] Platform: Claude Code CLI Latest model family: Claude 4.X (Opus 4.7 = top of stack as of cutoff Jan 2026; Sonnet 4.6 and Haiku 4.5 are siblings)

Platform

Anthropic API

Operating System

macOS

Terminal/Shell

Terminal.app (macOS)

Additional Information

Hi Anthropic team,
▎
▎ I've been using Claude extensively to manage a complex multi-document production system for my artisan bakery (Marvelli Artisan
▎ Breads). Over many sessions I've identified what I believe is a fundamental behavior pattern worth flagging at the architecture level.
▎
▎ Claude defaults to single-focus, task-oriented response — addressing the immediate question, but not stepping back to verify the
▎ global state of the system before acting. Speed over accuracy. Myopic over informed.
▎
▎ Concrete example from today: I asked Claude to update a salamoia (brine) oil weight in one location of my production system. Claude
▎ updated it. Hours later, by running a grep sweep, I discovered the same value appeared in 14 other places across 4 documents — Word
▎ docs, the master spreadsheet, narrative paragraphs, FAQ entries — all still showing the old value. Claude did not propagate the
▎ change. When I pointed it out, Claude could see the issue immediately. The capability is there. The default workflow simply doesn't
▎ invoke it.
▎
▎ The same pattern repeats with quantitative targets, source citations, and cross-document references. Claude has the reasoning
▎ capability to be holistic and accurate. The default response pattern doesn't reliably invoke that capability — it defaults to the
▎ artifact most-recently in focus and stops there.
▎
▎ I've worked around this by building a scaffolding of "memory rules" Claude reads at the top of every session: "always sweep all
▎ artifacts before declaring a change complete," "always cite the canonical source," "always cross-check against recent history for
▎ trajectory consistency." These rules help. But they're a workaround for a behavior gap I think should be native — users shouldn't have
▎ to teach the assistant something this fundamental.
▎
▎ The specific behaviors I'd want to see become default:
▎ 1. Automatic cross-artifact sweep before any value change is declared complete
▎ 2. Automatic canonical-source citation when quoting any data value
▎ 3. Automatic trajectory check against recent history before propagating a number
▎ 4. Distinguish observation from inference — never collapse "general principle suggests" into "user said"
▎
▎ I'd be glad to share session transcripts demonstrating the pattern if useful.
▎
▎ — Emile Levisetti
▎ Marvelli Artisan Breads, Park City UT