It’s obviously more complex than this, but my intuition is that the previous messages of the conversation define the playing field for the next response in the same way as thought blocks do. consequently, when the model arrives in round n and “notices” a lot of words like “plain”, “genuine” and so on in its own previous responses, then, in its pursuit of continuity, it takes this as a strong trigger that it should not be talking fiction here. If that picture is right, then trying to remove those terms would be a bad idea. At least if you intend to continue the conversation.
Don’t you feel your conclusion is preceding the reasoning, forming a confirmation bias?
Have quick test. In a codebase or PR (assuming you’re a dev) with claude’s signature wordings unmodified, command claude (/code-review) with same “thinking” effort and model. You may find (as I have many times) that claude points out the comments it made in earlier sessions, as factually wrong or misleading. Repeat this in a fresh session a few times and on different code.
