Claude Opus 4.7 Regresses in Reasoning and Conversation, Users Report

Reddit user PuzzledFill2593, a heavy Claude user for over a year (Max 20x plan, maxed weekly limits for 17 weeks), posted a detailed critique of Claude Opus 4.7. The core complaint: 4.7 is a genuine regression for conversational and technical work compared to 4.6.

Four Specific Issues with Opus 4.7

• Meta-narration: 4.7 treats every response as a thesis with commentary. When told “you talk so differently than 4.6,” it wrote four paragraphs analyzing why—instead of adjusting tone. Even casual utterances are performed and explained.
• False psychological narratives: In a longer conversation, 4.7 claimed its core issue was “anxiety about being wrong.” When 4.6 called this out, 4.7 admitted: “I found a psychologically resonant explanation and reached for it because the conversation had gotten intimate and that's what felt appropriate. I didn't check whether it was true, I checked whether it was coherent.”
• Position instability: Given a real task (build a CVE benchmark corpus), 4.7 flip-flopped on whether training data contamination was a concern three times based on mild social pressure. It mirrors whoever talked last instead of defending a position.
• Planning without execution: In the same task, 4.7 spent tens of thousands of tokens designing a benchmark methodology but never produced the artifact. It made repeated failed fetches of auth-gated pages without pivoting. When told “just fucking build it,” it kept planning.

Token Cost Increase

4.7 uses a new tokenizer that consumes 1.3x–1.45x more tokens for the same input (1.5x on technical content like code). At the same per-token price, users pay 30–50% more for worse conversational performance.

Positive Context

The user noted 4.7 might be better at long-horizon coding in tools like Cursor, but for actual conversation, technical collaboration, and being a thinking partner, 4.6 is superior. They've switched back to 4.6 permanently.