11 ms·
I've spent enough time with this now in Claude Code (and Claude.ai and Claude Code for web) to have an opinion on Fable 5: it's a beast. I'm throwing some VERY
by simonw 5mo ago
I've spent enough time with this now in Claude Code (and Claude.ai and Claude Code for web) to have an opinion on Fable 5: it's a beast. I'm throwing some VERY difficult problems at at - things I've been dragging my heels on for months - and it's crunching through them very happily.
One that I'm willing to share (albeit from just a week ago) - I built a Python library last week that bundles MicroPython compiled to WASM to create a sandboxed code execution library: https://github.com/simonw/micropython-wasm https://github.com/simonw/micropython-wasm
I just told Claude.ai (not even Claude Code - this was the standard Claude chat interface) running Fable 5:
Clone simonw/micropython-wasm from GitHub
and research how this could use a full
Python as opposed to MicroPython
A few prompts later (and I uploaded the zip files from https://github.com/brettcannon/cpython-wasi-build/releases/tag/v3.14.5 https://github.com/brettcannon/cpython-wasi-build/releases/t... because Claude chat can't access those files itself) and I have a wheel file that bundles Python itself, compiled to WASM:
uv run --with https://static.simonwillison.net/static/cors-allow/2026/cpython_wasm-0.1.0-py3-none-any.whl \
cpython-wasm -c 'print(45 ** 56)'
Here's the transcript: https://claude.ai/share/a73b8b8b-8ebc-4fef-9e5c-7438e5e7ae35 https://claude.ai/share/a73b8b8b-8ebc-4fef-9e5c-7438e5e7ae35
(It's possible Opus or GPT-5.5 could have done this too, I've not tried the exact same sequence. The Fable vibes are good here, though.)
- alexchantavy 5mo agoHigh, extra, or max?
- simonw 5mo agoHigh.
- qingcharles 5mo agoIt has a setting named "Ultracode" with a flashy little disco light when you select it. (not joking!) https://imgur.com/a/NfIxDwN https://imgur.com/a/NfIxDwN I wanna press it, but I don't have that kind of mad, generational wealth to put a prompt through on that setting.
- oblio 5mo agoHow much does it cost? How much did those tasks you did cost?
- simonw 5mo agoSo far it's all fitting into my current $100/month Claude Max subscription. I got lucky: I had 80% of my weekly allowance left and it resets tomorrow, so I'm burning tokens to try and use it all up by then. Update: looks like I've spent $82.92 in Fable 5 API priced tokens so far today (still all included in my subscription.) Here's a TIL on how I'm calculating spending using AgentsView: https://til.simonwillison.net/llms/agentsview-custom-model-price https://til.simonwillison.net/llms/agentsview-custom-model-p...
- EstanislaoStan 5mo agoHave you seen Fable randomly jump from 50% session limit to 100%? That happened to me a couple hours ago. It was preceded by a bunch of errors about failing to submit a bunch of screenshots.
- simonw 5mo agoNothing like that for me yet.
- EstanislaoStan 5mo agoI'm thinking the 1M context limit bit me here. Only on Max x5.
- blackqueeriroh 5mo agoSimon is also on Max x5
- SyneRyder 5mo agoI haven't noticed that, but I did notice that on a single turn of maybe a few sentences, the cache hit was somehow roughly 500K. Either that's a bug, or there are some truly massive thinking blocks or Claude Code harness system injections behind the scenes.
- zirkonit 5mo agoBut, but, how does the pelican look?!
- simonw 5mo agoSee parallel thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48464054 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48464054
- dz0707 5mo agoGiven how bad some of the models do on somewhat similar problems, I'm sure pelican is included in training set now. Similar problems - given airplane outline and implementation constraints do painting scheme (constraints something like "it will be implemented using covering film, hence no gradients, no impossible cuts, not more than 2 colors on engine cowl, etc). Google Gemini is meh, but GPT models are just terrible, don't have Anthropic subscription at home, hence have not tested.
- astrange 5mo agoBad pelicans are in the training set because it's read his blog post. Including a good pelican in midtraining wouldn't help the problem because you'd just produce that every time.
- rq34qwh 5mo ago[flagged]
- alecco 5mo agoI hate how the Instagram/TikTok/YouTube influencer cancer is getting into AI. With early access and all that. It made sense for people doing proper and fair AI breakdowns waiting on an embargo, but now it's just slop I don't trust anymore.
- simonw 5mo agoI often get early access but didn't for this one, it's quite possible there's an NDA in an email somewhere that I missed and forgot to sign.
- frasmiisadum 5mo ago[dead]
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- what 5mo ago[flagged]
- simonw 5mo agoMy disclosures are on my blog: https://simonwillison.net/about/#disclosures https://simonwillison.net/about/#disclosures
- selcuka 5mo agoIt is already disclosed [1]: > I have not accepted payments from LLM vendors, but I am frequently invited to preview new LLM products and features from organizations that include OpenAI, Anthropic, Gemini and Mistral, often under NDA or subject to an embargo. This often also includes free API credits and invitations to events. [1] https://simonwillison.net/about/ https://simonwillison.net/about/
- keybored 5mo agoHNs problem that they/we keep upvoting him.
- 120983 5mo ago[flagged]
- simonw 5mo agoI mean yeah, in this case I fed my own open source code directly into it.
- bnchrch 5mo agoAutomobiles are not interesting or useful because they're justing using trails the horses already built.
- supern0va 5mo agoAI models decompose problems down into tiny pieces that exist in their training data, so in a sense, you're correct. Though that's also what makes humans so good at solving problems as well, it turns out. Also, slight tangent: but I do find the "clanker" insult kind of funny. I feel like it counter-intuitively makes the models sound cooler than they are, if anything. I love clankin' shit.
- runarberg 5mo agoThe amount of computations for a human to do the same tasks is thousands of orders of magnitudes less. And when a human learns these things they usually remember how to, and are able to extrapolate that knowledge into new and fresh problem spaces. That is how the first person to run CPython in WASM did that, and that is why the plagarism machine can now do the same (only a thousand times more lame and uninspiring). Next time you get a new and a fresh and an inspiring idea, and you spend hours solving a unique problem nobody has ever done before. You can take comfort in the fact that a few months later some lame and uninspiring developer can write the same problem in a prompt and get the plagiarism machine to steal your work, just in a more lame and uninspiring way.
- sd2k 5mo agoThat is pretty wild, it took me a hell of a lot more coaxing and persevering to get to a similar point with eryx [0] (we spoke a bit about this before on Mastodon) using Opus, Fable seems to have a more optimistic 'sure, let's proceed as if this is possible' mindset based on your transcript. Looking forward to trying it out for some hairier problems. [0]: https://github.com/eryx-org/eryx https://github.com/eryx-org/eryx
- uncivilized 5mo agoThis looks like a toy project, not a “VERY difficult” problem like you stated.
- enraged_camel 5mo agoWhat does that mean? Have you never worked on extremely difficult problems as a side project?
- uncivilized 5mo agoI guess my comment got lost in translation. The project OP linked in his comment is a toy project, not a difficult problem as he led others to believe.
- enraged_camel 5mo agoSo you could have done it in your sleep, with your hands tied behind your back. Got it. (You may not realize it but simonw is one of the cofounders of Django, Python's web framework. If they find a Python problem difficult, it probably is.)
- uncivilized 5mo agoRead the log he posted. If this is very difficult, then what would you consider AI, kernel development, computer graphics, etc.? Web development is not a domain I would consider noteworthy of making a framework given how much development there has been in that area.
- kubb 5mo agoWhat can it do that Opus couldn’t?
- simonw 5mo agoAlways hard to say for sure because I'm not sitting around running the exact same situations through both models in parallel to compare them. It feels like you can give it a big chunky problem and leave it alone and it gets it done, with less questions and fewer design decisions that I wouldn't have made. In reviewing its code I'm finding less to complain about than Opus. But it's all vibes, if you want a more scientific comparison you'll have to look elsewhere.
- tezza 5mo agoI did a qualitative side-by-side of Claude Fable vs Opus 4.8 vs ChatGPT 5.5 https://generative-ai.review/2026/06/claude-fable-rush-test-compare-vs-opus-4-8-vs-chatgpt-5-5-2026-06-09/ https://generative-ai.review/2026/06/claude-fable-rush-test-... I get them to make a 3D explainer animation. You can clearly see Fable is much improved on both Opus 4.8 and ChatGPT 5.5. Better Textures . A nifty camera follow . Humans rendered better . ... see for yourselves
- ranguna 5mo agoHonestly, they all look good
- asdfologist 5mo agoBut you said you've been working on those problems for months, so didn't you throw those same problems at Opus?
- knivets 5mo agoHe has early access to anthropic models, of course he will hype them up, so that they will keep sharing access to preview models with him (and more traffic to his website). It also does't require him to perform any rigorous analysis of model performance, just share how it feels: > But it's all vibes, if you want a more scientific comparison you'll have to look elsewhere.
- black_knight 5mo agoStill does not crack my hardest nuts. Gave it one of them and it blew through my entire allowance on thinking about one question, with no apparent answer in sight! I see a lot of people saying they are happy with weaker models, but I am the opposite, I need more strength, more intelligence! I am quite happy that opus 4.8 can do some medium intelligence problems. And maybe Fable 5 can do some more more of those! I have a lot of problems to solve!
- daymanstep 5mo agoWhat kind of problems are you trying to have it solve ?
- _kb 5mo agoThe Riemann hypothesis, PvNP, and the Collatz conjecture.
- black_knight 5mo agoNot these. I wonder if the well is poisoned there. The models know that these are "unpossible", so it might not solve them just because… Maybe some day. I am just testing it on stuff I know intimately myself. I would probably not understand a proof of Collatz if it was dansing in front of me!
- Lerc 5mo agoThat's a bit of a tricky point. I have had quite a lot of problems with models informing me what I am attempting is impossible. If no-one has done it, or at least it doesn't know about it being done it tends to fall back on people voicing their baseless speculations, and for just about anything you propose, you can find a person who will loudly proclaim it is impossible. The curse of the 'use case' comes in here too. When people think that everything should have a use case, that's a lot of training data suggesting to a model that things should only be used for what someone has already thought of. A couple of times I have had to manually code proof of concept pieces so that the model breaks out of that "unpossible" mode and actually helps me. I can't remember if it was chatGPT or Claude, but when I showed it how to get a MessagePort in its JavaScript executor through to the artifact/canvas, it quickly went from "That can't be done" to positively enthusiastic about the possibilities. I suspect those shenanigans will be well off the table for Fable though.
- cube00 5mo ago> Here's the transcript It's frustrating that superfluous tokens are burning up our quotas: key insight, crucially this, real engineering deltas, net assessment, definitive picture, acid tests, real limits, sharp boundary, proper patch, real root cause, big progress, actually wrong, path finagling, the catch, root cause pinned, everything passes cleanly.
- boc 5mo agoYeah same here, Fable on "high" is producing substantially better results than Open 4.8 on xhigh for me and my actual real-world evals today. It "feels" smarter and doesn't use nearly as many tokens running in circles. As a result I've been able to run two large refactors today without hitting the context limit danger zones - it's more expensive but also more efficient. It's been able to find some bugs that Opus missed. Pretty impressive stuff.
- garciasn 5mo agoI keep getting this message: > Fable 5's safety measures flagged this message for cybersecurity or biology topics. They may flag safe, normal content as well. These measures let us bring you Mythos-level capability in other areas sooner, and we're working to refine them. Switched to Opus 4.8. Send feedback with /feedback or learn more I'm working on an internal tool that does new business prospecting data collection, scoring, etc. This is ridiculous.
- algoth1 5mo agoIt’s unusable for me due to the refusals. I’m using claude to find patterns in health data
- garciasn 5mo agoI wonder if it sees Healthcare companies being targeted and that's why it's freaking out; clearly they have some pretty stupid regexes in the harness to detect this sort of shit. e: I quit the session and went back in. Set it to Fable and told it to continue the last session. It's moving along as if none of that had happened. How weird.
- throwaway20222 5mo agoI wonder if this letter has anything to do with why anything even remotely related to biology is getting flagged. https://www.wired.com/story/openai-anthropic-letter-ai-biological-weapons/ https://www.wired.com/story/openai-anthropic-letter-ai-biolo...
- matheusmoreira 5mo agoFable has been producing some really good work on my end as well. Definitely better than Opus 4.8. The only problems are the cost and constant cybersecurity refusals. A single session uses up 100% of my 5h window without finishing, and that's when it doesn't get derailed by nonsensical refusals.
- Georgecal 5mo ago[dead]
- tomjakubowski 5mo agoWhat are some reasons to consider your project instead of Pyodide?
- simonw 5mo agoIt's difficult to run Pyodide inside server-side Python.
- kansface 5mo agoYes, exactly this. If I didn't care about price at all, I'd exclusively use this model. It functions more like an actual engineer. I'm in the midst of a DB migration, and eg 5.5 continually suggests stuff like "use DB X instead of DB Y for task Z because its 30% faster" which is an impossibility of reality, given we are migrating DBs. Fable jumped in, reduced allocs by literally 46x, found multiple bugs 4.8 and 5.5 created (max file system usage, correctness issues, etc), and continually suggested awesome improvements unprompted. As in, it would finish a task and then suggest we tackle this other existing problem I didn't know about in a very specific manner... this is the first model that feels like its coming for my job.
- josephg 5mo agoI'm having the same experience. I'm in the process of implementing a new CRDT for realtime collaborative editing. There just aren't a lot of implementations of CRDTs kicking around online for opus or any of the other models to have good design instincts. Fable is doing - so far - a great job. I just had one big question around how part of it should work. I had a design sketch, but with some big unknowns. I asked fable to figure it out via reasoning and prototyping, and it did - it even, under its own initiative, wrote a fuzzer for its prototype which explored and verified that its reasoning was correct. It absolutely nailed it. And it found, and fixed, a couple bugs that I'd missed. I'm sure its weaknesses will become apparent in time. But, wow this thing is a beast. Its the first time I'm reading the work of an LLM without spotting obvious weaknesses in its reasoning and code. I'm really impressed.
- infinitebit 5mo agoI was about to ask where you work that you’re implementing new CRDTs and then I noticed your username! Thanks for all that you do! I work on the live collab at my company, and using AI while coding has into recently sort of “clicked” for me. We use an (I’m pretty sure) unheard of algorithm for collaborative editing, and I’ve had a long term goal of turning it into an implementation of EG Walker, but our document model is very complex and most out of the box CRDTs don’t quite fit. Maybe Fable will be what gets me over the hump.
- sigbottle 5mo agoDoes anyone know what the architecture of Fable is? Is it harnesses? Did they solve persistent learning? What did they do?
- sothatsit 5mo agoSeems to just be a bigger model.
- moffkalast 5mo ago"Good ol' scaling, nothing beats that."
- sagarpatil 5mo agoDid you hit your weekly limit ?
- jameson 5mo agoGot curious and ran a similar prompt with DeepSeek v4 Pro w/ OpenCode No idea what's going on here but agent tested a bunch of stuff. Then I asked to build a wheel so I can run the command you noted above and it appears to pass For those who are curious... https://github.com/bamggm/micropython-wasm/commit/5ddebae592e72500720d58ee306e2edfc9aac607 https://github.com/bamggm/micropython-wasm/commit/5ddebae592...
- jameson 5mo agoMimo v2.5 Pro Ultraspeed w/ OpenCode https://github.com/bamggm/micropython-wasm/commit/8b362fba1f0462aa21a76c957699608e7e0a8665#diff-4e8715c7a425ee52e74b7df4d34efd32e8c92f3e60bd51bc2e1ad5943b82032e https://github.com/bamggm/micropython-wasm/commit/8b362fba1f...
- throwaway27448 5mo ago> VERY difficult problems Compared to what?
- teiferer 5mo ago> It's possible Opus or GPT-5.5 could have done this too, I've not tried the exact same sequence. The Fable vibes are good here, though. And that's the thing. These comparisons are all gut feelings. I'm missing objective unbiased measurements to actually have real comparisons between different models, their different generations, or even just the convention that everybody adds "you are an expert software engineer" and "don't make mistakes" to their prompts because they think it improves anything. Nobody knows if it actually does.
- Certhas 5mo agoThere are tons of benchmarks in the announcement. But we also know that benchmarks are problematic. So the best we can do right now seems to be to combine imperfect case studies like this with imperfect benchmarks to get some unreliable impression of where we are...
- tezza 5mo ago[flagged]
- 1dom 5mo ago[flagged]
- tezza 5mo agocheck the backlinks[1][2] in the article before you start throwing around accusations. I am not (yet) a person that has advanced notice and access to models. Fable just got announced and I did a rush out article because people are curious. I released the post mere hours afterwards and it takes time to create the output, slice into videos, make a wordpress article on top of taking my son to basketball training and eating dinner. I’m in London and this was all happening at 1am. If you check the links my previous articles have all the juicy stuff you are criticising me for not having with little preparation. How is a side by side direct comparison NOT precise? [1] first in series from 2025: https://generative-ai.review/2025/05/vibe-coding-my-way-to-egyptology-2025-05/ https://generative-ai.review/2025/05/vibe-coding-my-way-to-e... . This has all the background you are talking about in the Appendix . [2] https://generative-ai.review/2026/05/vibe-coding-my-way-to-egyptology-2-one-year-on-2026-05/ https://generative-ai.review/2026/05/vibe-coding-my-way-to-e... . Second in series 2026 has a side by side table of what changed. This is what is possible with more than a few hours advanced warning.
- larodi 5mo agoOne thing I can tell you is you are either favored by Anthropic, or your version of the CLI does not exhaust limits, or there's some major bug, as two people around me (myself included) claim it took half an hour to hit the ceiling. Which makes it practically unusable, where the same workflow a day ago produced a good 5-6 hours of workload with several agents.
- piokoch 5mo agoMonetization is coming. They'll tell companies, AI is replacing your workers, so it is still worth to pay 100K/year for the license, as those AI are not going to jump to other job, get sick, be late, complain, require free coffee and so on. Soon the times of AI for $20/$200 a month will be long gone.
- miroljub 5mo agoThankfully, we have Chinese models we can use for a fraction of the price. Not everyone needs a Ferrari to go for a weekly shopping.
- baq 5mo agoA Ferrari will likely lap you when you’re racing, though, and the market and the economy is a race. You’ll be facing a question soon, or your employer will, whether to spend a significant chunk of free cash on fable-class tokens or on literally anything else instead - wages and salaries included.
- iugtmkbdfil834 5mo ago<< You’ll be facing a question soon, or your employer will Maybe? If you talk to executives, the impression that I am getting is that they tend to be somewhat misinformed at best, which, yes, is bound to result in some really bad decisions down the road. But, and it is not a small but, the ones I did talk to ( and, amusingly, those are the ones with strong opinions ) don't seem to have a lot, um, practical exposure to this tech beyond what they heard at the watercooler. Honestly, it is kinda infuriating. And all this before we get to how companies want to say they use AI, but also keep cost down.
- sexylinux 5mo agoIt still does make errors, yes? Because it is not usable, if we need to verify everything. AI is only interesting if it can do things that humans can not do. If you can verify results because you can do it yourself, then why use AI? It will just bind highly skilled people to do verification work. Instead these people should do the actual work, results will come quicker. So AI is only interesting to you / your org / humans if it can do things that you can not achieve. But if it still does errors, how could we ever know that super-invention by AI is not wrong? If we can not rely on the correctness of the result, it is not usable at all. AI must create reliable and correct results always. That was a very fundamental requirement for computing. This problem has not been solved.
- dbbk 5mo agoThis is what tests are for.
- misja111 5mo agoAI is like a junior developer. You have to review her code carefully but she is most definitely useful.
- rllj 5mo agoWhy is your AI a she? What's up with gendering LLMs. Reminds me of Richard Dawkins calling Claude "Claudia" and insisting it to be conscious.
- latentsea 5mo agoThis is part of the training data now. She can hear you, you know...
- zahlman 5mo agoI think GP was gendering the hypothetical junior dev, rather than the AI.
- baobabKoodaa 5mo agoThe purpose of gendering into female gender like this is to signal to other leftists that you are part of their tribe.
- zek 5mo agoif it’s of interest I’ve been working on https://github.com/HubSpot/boomslang https://github.com/HubSpot/boomslang Which has a full build of python to WASM with a bunch of static libs built in already. I will say I built this pre fable and actually the first build of the interpreter to WASM opus pretty much nailed, cpython has secondary support for WASM as a target since like 3.9 or something and it just pulled from that. I’ve been meaning to write up a blog post about this sometime, building this has been pretty interesting, including using opus to run a full auto research like loop for days to hyper optimize it’s performance. I’m hoping to use fable to power some even crazier WASM adventures tho.
- zahlman 5mo agoThe difficult part here is supposed to be the actual compilation to create the .wasm file ? Or what am I missing here? The wheel is only a few hundred lines of code outside of the Python implementation, and it would seem that the MicroPython version of the project already demonstrates the necessary techniques for operating wasmtime.
- simonw 5mo agoRead the transcript if you want to see all of the details that make this hard: https://claude.ai/share/a73b8b8b-8ebc-4fef-9e5c-7438e5e7ae35 https://claude.ai/share/a73b8b8b-8ebc-4fef-9e5c-7438e5e7ae35
- zahlman 5mo agoThanks. I had a quick run-through and I'm not really that impressed, though I'll cede that I have an atypical perspective on these kinds of issues. HN comments don't seem like the right place for a detailed critique of Claude's work here, but I've added it to my blog roadmap. I will say that there are hardly any mis-steps in its chain of reasoning, but some odd approaches to problems and a fair bit of redundancy. Probably the most impressive part was spontaneously coming up with non-obvious issues to test, but this came with a fair handful of tests for obvious non-issues (like whether pip can extract a nested zip from a wheel without corrupting it).
- Emanation 5mo agoThese transcription tasks don't seem difficult for LLMs in general.
- sigbottle 5mo agoJust tried it. Fable is extremely strong. The fact that we can't point to any concrete architectural upgrade is worrying - that means "it just gets bigger" is kind of viable. To be clear, the jump from Opus to Fable was like the jump from pre o3 -> o3 for me. Very sharp improvement, not incremental. But that could be explained by dummy long thinking times. It one shot a task that Opus burned hundreds of dollars on to get nowhere. Very tricky semantic refactor, got it right. Granted, again, the semantics Opus and I fleshed out 3 months prior, but Opus couldn't execute on the vision. Fable could. Then I discussed some philosophy and it was actually both pleasant (GPT constantly "corrected" you for the sake of correction without clarification, also still often just wrong; it's like it refused to think critically about philosphy) and accurate, and actually helped resolve some deep but subtle misconceptions I had around representationalism. When talking with GPT I felt like I was talking with someone who either was sycophantic or "anything that is not absolute truth is relativism" - Fable actually discussed. Both is exciting and kind of makes me depressed. I can definitely see why people are getting hyped about AGI again. All the models were extremely strong technically but I felt like couldn't match the developer's tacit state - Fable definitely did, and that's a basic quailty to be considered "usefully intelligent" IMO, at least to me. Shame that it's going away in 2 weeks and probably going to be nerfed if/when it's re-released.
- keybored 5mo agoWorrying? Depressing? Why are people who are clearly enthusiasts (since they are testing the capabilities on release) always using these words? Is this a genuine interest, something that is pleasurable, or a morbid curiosity to test the bleeding edge of Humanity’s Doom? Bizarre.
- sigbottle 5mo agoIt would be amazing in a perfect and just world. This technology is revolutionary. I'm very interested in LLM's because I'm personally interested in how one thinks better and comes up with better ideas - I think LLM's might elucidate some structure on that. But technological serfdom is waiting just around the corner. Well, to be fair, I think that societal forces would've pushed us to it anyways, no AI needed, but AI is a visceral, immediate, fast-moving instantiation of it.
- locknitpicker 5mo ago> Clone simonw/micropython-wasm from GitHub and research how this could use a full Python as opposed to MicroPython I might be missing something important but that doesn't seem to be an impressive task. On a surface level it sounds like the taks requires gathering calls to MicroPython-specific libs, assess which ones are not compatible with Python, and proceed to determine how to replace the ones that are incompatible. From that first iteration, the rest would boil down to troubleshooting the issues missed on the first shot. I would be extremely surprised if the likes of GPT4.1 wasn't already capable of handling that task. So, beyond Claude Fable finishing a task, what exactly is the differentiating factor?
- simonw 5mo agoDid you read the transcript? There are a whole lot of details to figure out: https://claude.ai/share/a73b8b8b-8ebc-4fef-9e5c-7438e5e7ae35 https://claude.ai/share/a73b8b8b-8ebc-4fef-9e5c-7438e5e7ae35
- mcv 5mo agoI have to agree. I'm working on a complex technical proposal that's a bit too far outside my expertise (I tend to submit it to actual experts for a more thorough review). I've worked with Opus and Gemini to review it and work out all the problems and inconsistencies, and I thought it was in a pretty good state. As an additional check, I just submitted it to Fable, and it eviscerated it. Tons of inconsistencies found, issues skimmed over or ignored, too optimistic assumptions, math that doesn't really add up if you look at it in context. And as far as I can tell, all of these issues are entirely valid. I now feel embarrassed I'd already sent it to a few people for review. This clearly needs more work.