What is Anthropic’s plan for legitimate users falsely caught by Fable 5 safeguards after 7/7?

I pay $200/month for Claude Max, and I’m genuinely confused about what Anthropic expects legitimate professional users to do here. I work in healthcare. That means some of my normal work involves common clinical and public-health language: labs, patient workflows, treatment coordination, diagnostic follow-up, etc. Nothing dangerous. Nothing experimental. Nothing remotely related to creating harm. But Fable 5’s safeguards appear to be routing me to Opus constantly — not just for healthcare questions, but even for totally mundane asks that are unrelated to infectious disease, biology, or even healthcare. My best guess is that the classifier is looking at memory/context attached to my account or prior conversations and deciding the whole interaction is suspect. That is the part that feels broken. I understand why Anthropic needs guardrails. I am not asking for unsafe capabilities. But once a user is clearly not trying to develop a bioweapon or do anything dangerous, what is the plan? Because right now, legitimate users are stuck in a bad spot: We are all in this weird race to test Fable before July 7. After July 7, costs go up because Fable moves to usage credits. But if the system keeps falsely routing normal work to Opus, then paying users may not actually get reliable access to the model they are paying for. That is especially frustrating because Fable is noticeably better for complex professional work. I can tell within a few answers that it understands context and nuance in a way Opus often does not. So this is not just a minor inconvenience. It changes whether the product is usable. The fairness question is simple: If Anthropic’s safeguards falsely restrict a legitimate paying user during the temporary Fable access window, is Anthropic going to extend that access after July 7? Is there going to be a review process? A verified professional-use path? A way to say, “I work in healthcare/public health, this is normal clinical language, and I am not asking for anything unsafe”? Or are legitimate users just expected to pay more for a model they may still be routed away from because their account context contains common healthcare terms? Again, I support guardrails. But broad safeguards that cannot distinguish normal healthcare work from dangerous biology misuse are going to punish exactly the wrong users. Anthropic needs to explain the plan before July 7.