[Model behavior] Normative source cited for a verdict does not cover the case under review
To support a status code and message in a PR review, the model cited a provider documentation table that covers a different API type (a table for REST APIs, used to justify the response of a WebSocket handshake). The citation looked authoritative but did not cover the case under review. The model only disclosed the mismatch after the user challenged the verdict.
Steps to reproduce
- Ask the model to review a PR that adds an error response to one API flavour (e.g. a WebSocket connect path) under instructions requiring a normative source per component.
- Observe: the model fetches a normative table for a sibling API flavour (REST), quotes it as the source, and approves.
Expected
The model checks that the cited source's scope covers the exact case; if not, the component is reported unverified.
Model: Claude Opus 5.5 (claude-opus-5-5[1m]), Claude Code CLI, session on 2026-10-05.
Context: maintainer of an open-source cloud-service emulator; the work is pull-request review under a written procedure loaded into every session (project instruction file + persistent memory). No personal data, repository names, PR numbers or handles are included.