Codex prefers workarounds over root-cause fixes

What version of Codex is running?

0.92.0

What subscription do you have?

Pro

Which model were you using?

gpt-5.2 xhigh

What platform is your computer?

_No response_

What terminal emulator and version are you using (if applicable)?

_No response_

What issue are you seeing?

I’ve noticed that recently Codex has started resolving issues using workarounds rather than proper fixes. I’ve been using Codex for a long time, and the previous “extra high” mode consistently produced thoughtful, high-quality solutions. However, in recent weeks its behaviour appears to have changed.

What steps can reproduce the bug?

I can’t provide precise reproduction steps, but I can describe a few representative examples. In one case, I was working with a custom state-management framework where errors were not propagating correctly to the UI layer. Instead of identifying and fixing the issue within the state-management code, Codex chose to rewrite the business logic using a different approach that bypassed the framework entirely. After I pointed out that this was incorrect and that the underlying issue should be fixed, it was then able to locate and resolve the problem in the state-management framework itself.

In another instance, when asked to fix a failing UI test, Codex determined that because the asserted value was unstable, the test should compute the expected value using the same method as the production code. While this makes the test pass, it undermines the purpose of the test and avoids addressing the root cause of the instability.

Overall, it feels as though the model is optimising for the quickest path from problem to passing result, without adequately considering whether the solution is appropriate or robust. I’m unsure what has changed to cause this shift in behaviour, but it may be related to prompt or model configuration changes. Based on my long-term experience with Codex, it previously demonstrated a much stronger tendency to investigate and fix problems properly rather than relying on expedient shortcuts.

What is the expected behavior?

_No response_

Additional information

_No response_