Comment by idiocrat
4 hours ago
Refusal: "Opus 5.5's safeguards flagged this session. You may be seeing this for the first time on an Opus model: Opus 5.5 is more capable and has stronger safeguards as a result, which can sometimes flag non-cybersecurity work. We're improving these safeguards to reduce the amount of incorrectly flagged messages."
My appeal: "This is my own code, my TST and PRD environments and I am concerned about the hardening the hand-rolled BasicAuthHttpModule function.
I asked DeepSeek V41 Flash to review this code already and worked in his recommendations.
Now I want to ask you for a second round of review, a second opinion audit.
This is an ASP.NET 4.8 application facing internet and I want to make sure I handle the edge case, HTTP error codes, and have no logic gaps in my code."
Trying to appeal to the LLM is pointless, everyone would just claim that they're working on their own code.
I've found that if you're seeing refusals and you have a more permissive model available, you can use that to find the issues and pass them back to Claude for review and implementation.
> Trying to appeal to the LLM is pointless
Not always. Recently Claude refused to run a task that involved queries on a database with PII. I told it (truthfully) that the job was for our lawyers and the PII is redacted in the final report, and then it complied.
It force-switched me to Opus 4.8, which has run through now.
You gave me good idea to let 4.8 write a hand-off and then let 5.5 try implementing it.
[dead]