Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity

First-person post: product team worker says manager ordered repeated rework and wrong product documentation on Claude reviews the worker calls hallucinated

In a Reddit post on 20 October 2026, an associate product manager at a privately owned e-commerce business writes that a new manager, who joined about three months earlier, connected Claude to the company's content management system and Asana and now has every piece of the poster's work reviewed by it. The poster says Claude keeps hallucinating problems that are not there, that the manager does not check the work or read the team's comments, and that the poster has had to redo 500 SKUs and has redone an SKU task five times, so that a task that used to take three days has taken two weeks. The poster also says the manager wants the knowledge base and product pages changed to match Claude's account of the company's own products, which the poster says is wrong because the information comes from the manufacturers. The post does not quote Claude's output, and the manager's account is not recorded. The account is uncorroborated.

AI system
Claude (reported)
Occurred
2026
Reported
20 October 2026
Event location
Unknown
What the AI did
Informed a human decision about the person
Reported harm
Professional Harm
Whose AI use
Someone else’s AI use
Setting
Work
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account
5 claims: 5 reported. 4 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: Claude, which by the poster's account the manager connected to the company's content management system and Asana and uses to review and assign the team's work

What Happened

The reviews. The poster writes that "a couple of months ago, my manager learned the magic of connectors and now every single thing I do gets reviewed by Claude. AND CLAUDE IS HALLUCINATING." The poster says the manager "reviews everyone's work with that", across development, marketing, sales and customer service.

The rework. The poster writes: "I have had to redo 500 SKUs because "Claudine" (the task assigner) and "Claudeline" (the "checker") keep hallucinating things that aren't there." The poster adds that the manager "does not check our work" and "does not read our comments", that the poster has "redone an SKUs task five times", and that it has "been two weeks for this task that used to take 3 days".

The documentation. The poster says the manager "has decided that Claudine or whatever is right about documentation about our OWN PRODUCTS" and wants the poster to update the knowledge base and product pages "with incorrect information because the AI says so", over the poster's repeated protests. The poster says the information comes from the company's manufacturers.

Replies. In a reply the poster says each change is logged against the task or request that prompted it, and that the manager is the only person with publishing rights.

Limits. The post does not quote Claude's output or show an example of a hallucinated finding. The company, its location and the manager's account are not recorded. The poster's description of the errors and of the manager's reliance on Claude is the poster's own.

Reported harm

The poster says a manager ordered the poster's work redone again and again on the strength of Claude reviews the poster calls hallucinated, stretching a three-day task to two weeks, and wants product documentation changed to match the AI (first-person account, uncorroborated).

How Harm Occurred

By the poster's account, Claude, connected to the company's systems, reviews the poster's work and reports problems that are not there; the manager passes its feedback on as tasks without checking it, so the poster repeatedly redoes work and is told to change product documentation to match the AI.

Outcome

Ongoing

At the time of posting the poster says the rework continues, the company owner is away and there is no HR department; in a reply the poster says they have been logging each change against the task or request that prompted it.

What remains unknown

  • What Claude said in its reviews and whether any of the problems it reported were real.
  • The manager's account of the reviews and the rework orders.
  • Where the company and the poster are located and when the rework began.
  • Whether the documentation changes the manager requested were made or published.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The poster says the manager has Claude, connected to the company's CMS and Asana, review the poster's work, that its reviews report problems that are not there, and that the manager, without checking the work, turns that feedback into orders to redo it and to change product documentation to match the AI. That describes Claude's output being used in the manager's decisions about the poster's work, which the poster connects to five rounds of rework and a two-week delay. The post does not quote the output.

5 claims: 5 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported The poster says a new manager connected Claude to the company's systems a couple of months before the post and now has all of the poster's work reviewed by it.

Causal attribution. Poster's account.

  • reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    A couple of months ago, my manager learned the magic of connectors and now every single thing I do gets reviewed by Claude.
Reported The poster says the poster has had to redo 500 SKUs, and has redone an SKU task five times, because Claude's task-assigning and checking set-ups keep reporting things that are not there, and that the manager does not check the work.

Causal attribution. Poster's account of the AI output and the manager's reliance on it; the post does not quote Claude's output.

  • reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    I have had to redo 500 SKUs because "Claudine" (the task assigner) and "Claudeline" (the "checker") keep hallucinating things that aren't there. My manager does not check our work. ... I have redone an SKUs task five times.
Reported The poster says the task has taken two weeks where it used to take three days.

Causal attribution. Poster's account.

Reported The poster says the manager wants the knowledge base and product pages updated with information the poster says is incorrect because Claude says so, over the poster's repeated protests.

Causal attribution. Poster's account; the poster says the correct information comes from the manufacturers.

  • reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    She wants me to update the KB and product pages with incorrect information because the AI says so. She is not listening to my repeated protests.
Reported In a reply the poster says each change is logged against the task or request that prompted it and that the manager alone has publishing rights.

Causal attribution. Poster's account; context on the workflow.

  • reddit.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
    I've been just commenting on what change was done based on what task/request. She's the only one with publishing rights btw.

Sources

2 sources inspected, from 1 underlying account. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-21 from the arctic_shift Reddit archive (posts/ids and comments/search, HTTP 200); reddit.com itself returned HTTP 403 to the fetcher. No translation and no human reviewer. The poster's username is not recorded. Original post, 17:27 UTC 20 Oct 2026; post and comments re-read about 03:05 UTC 21 Oct. Applies to s1.

Read in English by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-21 from the arctic_shift Reddit archive (posts/ids and comments/search, HTTP 200); reddit.com itself returned HTTP 403 to the fetcher. No translation and no human reviewer. The poster's username is not recorded. The poster's own reply in the thread (17:52 UTC 20 Oct 2026); same author, same source group. Applies to s2.

Event countries: Unknown. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Unknown.

The post and replies do not say where the poster, the manager or the company is located; the poster says the owner pays "us non-Americans" according to their location, which does not locate the poster or the company.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-21: Published under the public-forum rule as a concrete first-person account of a manager using Claude's reviews to order repeated rework of the poster's tasks and changes to product documentation, described with attribution and without corroboration. The post does not quote the AI output, and the manager's view is not recorded.

People described

The poster, an associate product manager on a two-person product team at a privately owned e-commerce business (age, gender and country not stated)

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One person: the poster, who did not use Claude for the reviews and was affected through the manager's use of it. Other team members are mentioned but no harm to a specific other person is described.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#first-person#reddit#workplace#claude

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). First-person post: product team worker says manager ordered repeated rework and wrong product documentation on Claude reviews the worker calls hallucinated. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-product-team-worker-says-manager-ordered-repeated-rework-on-hallucinated-claude-reviews-first-person

BibTeX

@misc{2026_product_team_worker_says_manager_ordered_repeated_rework_on_hallucinated_claude_reviews_first_person,
  title = {First-person post: product team worker says manager ordered repeated rework and wrong product documentation on Claude reviews the worker calls hallucinated},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-product-team-worker-says-manager-ordered-repeated-rework-on-hallucinated-claude-reviews-first-person}
}

Related cases

Low Claude (reported)

Freelance web designer says a longtime client cancelled a commissioned clinic website by text, saying Claude had built the whole site (first-person)

In a public post to r/antiai created on 7 October 2026, a person who describes years of graphic design and website work for one client writes that the client had asked them to build a separate website for a new clinic and had sent over the material, and that on the day of the post the client texted to say not to bother because Claude had built the entire website, asking the poster to review it instead. The poster says the same client had earlier moved its graphic design to AI-generated material that copied the poster's design direction, leaving them only the website work, and that they feel sick over the cancellation. In a reply the poster says they will probably take a part-time job as a backup while keeping their remaining clients. The client is not named and did not respond; the account is the poster's alone and uncorroborated.

Low Pangram AI-text detector

Caine Prize reviews its 2026 winning story after a Pangram AI-detector scan cited by The Atlantic flagged it as AI-generated; the author denies using AI

A week after a Zimbabwean writer won the £10,000 2026 Caine Prize for African Writing, The Atlantic published an article on Sunday 11 October 2026 whose central evidence was a scan by Pangram, an AI-text detection tool, flagging almost the entire winning story as AI-generated. The Caine Prize said it had begun a review: according to its chair, the author would send documentation of his drafts and the prize was talking to the judges and to the magazine that first published the story. The chair told the BBC that The Atlantic had published before a full investigation, tainting the prize and the winner, and said a detector should not be the final arbiter. The author denied using AI and said he had a documented history of the story's development; his literary agency said it was confident the story was his own work. No finding has been announced.

Medium Pangram AI-text detector

Académie Goncourt drops Thélyson Orélien's novel from its prize selection, saying it is likely largely AI-generated after Pangram detector claims; he denies it

On 21 September 2026 an anonymous X account, Balance ton Claude, said it had run excerpts of Thélyson Orélien's debut novel C'était ça ou mourir through the American AI-detection software Pangram, with some passages scoring up to 100 per cent probability of AI generation. On 25 September the Académie Goncourt removed the novel from the first selection of sixteen books for its 2026 prize, stating that the work is 'in all likelihood very largely the product of an artificial intelligence', based on 'the convergent result of several analyses by researchers and journalists', and also citing plagiarism in older texts by the author published in Canada (at least one short story and articles), which do not concern the novel. Orélien, a 38-year-old Canadian-Haitian writer whose novel had won the Fnac novel prize, denies using AI and says its repetitions and certain rhythms reflect his linguistic and cultural world and may be misread by automated tools. His Montreal publisher Boréal suspended promotional activities, saying it could neither confirm nor refute the allegations. Essayist Samuel Fitoussi said he was one of the people behind the account. Whether AI was used to write the novel is disputed; AI-detector reliability is itself contested in the coverage. In October the author acknowledged plagiarism in some of his earlier work while maintaining that no sentence of the novel was generated by a machine. On 17 October 2026 The Canadian Press, published by CBC, reported that Boréal confirmed he had ended an effort to compile evidence of how the novel was written; Boréal said it would keep selling the book, that sales had slowed since the controversy began, and that it could not verify how the novel was written before it received the manuscript on 12 September 2025. A major Quebec bookstore chain reported no significant change in sales.

Medium GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 5 (reported)

Massachusetts: fired teacher asks court to vacate an arbitration, saying the arbitrator improperly used AI tools to judge her AI-detector evidence

A kindergarten teacher at a public elementary school in Concord, Massachusetts, was dismissed in August 2025 after an unsatisfactory evaluation. In arbitration she argued that some of the principal's evaluations may have been produced with AI, relying on GPTZero estimates; the principal denied using AI beyond grammar checks. According to the arbitration decision as reported by The Concord Bridge, the arbitrator stated in an appendix that he used two AI tools, GPT-5.4 and Claude Opus 5, to research whether GPTZero was reliable, checked some of the sources they supplied, concluded that GPTZero's results deserved no weight, and upheld the dismissal on 27 August 2026. On 28 September 2026 the teacher asked Suffolk Superior Court to vacate the decision, alleging that the AI-assisted research was an improper investigation outside the hearing record that the parties were not told about or allowed to challenge. These are allegations in a complaint; the district declined to comment and no court has ruled.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents