Fable did not automatically reduce Claude Code rework
A personal review of 102 local Claude Code sessions found that finished work still often needed correction. Opus needed rework in 13 of 63 sessions, about 21%. Fable needed rework in 11 of 39 sessions, about 28%.
This was not a controlled comparison, because the tasks were different and the numbers do not have statistical significance. Fable received newer and harder work. One build alone created 7 rounds of corrections.
The overall view still favored Fable as the better model. The main lesson is that a smarter model can invite longer hands-off runs, and that can make bad harder to catch early.
Key points
- The review covered 102 local Claude Code sessions.
- Opus needed rework in 13 of 63 sessions, or about 21%.
- Fable needed rework in 11 of 39 sessions, or about 28%.
- The comparison was not controlled, so it does not prove one model is better.
- Long runs can create extra cleanup when a bad assumption is not caught early.