Fable 5.1 unreachable in Claude Code despite unused plan-included Fable allocation; credit-block dialog shows "not included in plan" copy with no affirmative action

Claude Code: 2.1.258 (linux, native install)
Account: Claude Team, premium seat

oauthAccount.organizationRole = user

What happens

/model -> select Fable 5.1 gives a confirm dialog:

Switch to Fable 5.1?
Fable 5.1 runs on usage credits, purchased separately from your plan.
> No, keep my current model
Request more from your admin

There is no affirmative option, so Fable 5.1 cannot be selected at all.

/usage-credits reports: "Your organization is out of usage credits. Contact your admin to add more."

Why this looks wrong

/usage at the same moment:

Current week (all models): 10% used
Current week (Fable): 4% used

Per the help centre, premium seats on Team plans include Fable 5 and 5.1 as a
standard part of the plan, usable up to 50% of weekly limits at no extra cost.
96% of that Fable allocation is unused, yet Claude Code routes Fable to usage
credits and then hard-blocks on the empty org credit pool. The same account
selects and uses Fable 5.1 normally in the claude.ai web client, so the seat
itself is not gated.

Net effect: an unused, plan-included allocation is unreachable in Claude Code,
and the block is attributed to a credit pool that should not be involved.

Secondary: dialog copy is wrong for this state

Reading the dialog's own branch conditions, the state is
overagesEnabled=true, balance=null, blocked=true, limitReached=false.

That combination selects the "runs on usage credits, purchased separately from
your plan" string -- the not-included-in-plan wording -- when the actual
situation is "included in plan, but the org credit pool is empty". It also
leaves the confirm label falling through to "Request more from your admin"
with no "Continue with Fable 5.1", so the branch is a dead end by construction.

The admin-request confirm screen additionally says "Only send this if you're
running into usage limits", which is not true here, so the single offered
action would send admins a misleading request.

Possible cause

In the bundled CLI, setFableCreditsRequired is inferred from rate-limit
response headers rather than a plan-entitlement field, and one path defaults
to credits-required when the server data is ambiguous:

me = k?.rateLimitType === "seven_day_overage_included";
if (!me && k?.rateLimitType === undefined && V !== "fetch_error"
    && V !== "unknown")
  setFableCreditsRequired(true);

If a premium Team seat's Fable inclusion is not expressed as rateLimitType
"seven_day_overage_included", this concludes credits are required while the
included allocation is nearly untouched.

Expected

With included Fable allocation remaining, selecting Fable 5.1 should proceed
without a usage-credits gate. If credits genuinely are required for this seat,
the dialog should say why (org credit pool empty / spend limit reached) rather
than "purchased separately from your plan", and should not depend on an
inference from rate-limit headers.