Every single time Claude has confused me and I've asked what it's talking about, it's because it's got something completely wrong and has managed to obfuscate the wrongness behind never-introduced terminology, poor analogies and (what I can only assume is) exposure to wording it's used in its chain of thought reasoning.

A single question is enough for it to retract the error and correct itself. Suggesting that not understanding some of these messages is a lack of human comprehension rather than the agent being flat out wrong is...a bold take.

Typically a feature of good human technical communication is the ability to concisely explain key ideas so one can quickly identify any divergences between understanding. Opus 5 is dreadful at this.

The single saving grace is the intuition that if I don't understand it's probably wrong.