u/Educational_Touch677

so theres a vibecoding platform named Emergent, and i bet it is potentially routing users to cheaper/weaker models while displaying premium model names in the UI.

I tested multiple model selections and asked each agent:

“Return your exact model identifier as provided by the API metadata, not a marketing name.”

Here’s what happened:

Selected in UI:

• Claude 4.7 Opus Returned:
• claude-sonnet-4-5-20250929

Selected in UI:

• Claude 4.6 Opus Returned:
• claude-sonnet-4-20250514

Selected in UI:

• Claude 4.5 Thinking Returned:
• claude-sonnet-4-20250514

Selected in UI:

• GPT-5.3 Codex Returned:
• o3

Selected in UI:

• Gemini 3.1 Pro Returned:
• Gemini Flash experimental variant

What makes this concerning is that the Run Details panel still displays the premium model names:

• claude-opus-4-7
• claude-opus-4-6
• gpt-5.3-codex etc.

So the frontend says one thing, while the backend identifiers consistently say something else.

At this point this doesn’t look like a random fallback anymore — it looks systematic.

If there’s dynamic routing or fallback logic, users deserve transparent disclosure instead of premium labels being shown unconditionally.

Emergent Opus 4.7 / Anthropic opus 4.7

Marketing sonnet 4 as opus 4.6

Merketing sonnet 4 as opus 4.5 thinking

Marketing GPT o3 as Codex 5.3