Opus and Sonnet may drift from Fable’s plan
A common workflow is to let Fable plan the work, then give the to Opus or Sonnet, and use Fable again to review the result. The problem is that the may not follow the plan as written. It can reinterpret the plan, rewrite parts of it, summarize sections, or decide that another approach is better.
By the end, the finished work can be quite different from what Fable designed. This makes the planning effort less useful, especially when Fable already chose the , split the work into phases, set limits, and made design decisions. The desired behavior is simple: follow the plan closely unless it is impossible or clearly wrong.
The same drift can happen with both Opus and Sonnet, raising the question of whether current models naturally try to become planners instead of staying in an execution role.
Key points
- Fable is used for planning, while Opus or Sonnet handles .
- The may change the plan instead of following it closely.
- , phases, limits, and design choices can drift during .
- The preferred behavior is to follow the plan unless it is impossible or clearly flawed.
- s may need stricter handoff rules between planning and s.