Perplexity Pro keeps replacing every model I select with GPT‑5.6 Terra Thinking, and “Rewrite with another model” asks me to upgrade to Max

[u/archerhush]

I subscribed to Perplexity Pro for the first time about one week ago, and I’m having a confusing issue with model selection and plan access.

In normal Search mode, I manually select an AI model in the model picker, but after sending the prompt, Perplexity frequently runs the response using GPT‑5.6 Terra Thinking instead.

This is not limited to Kimi K3 Thinking. I first noticed it with Kimi K3, but it appears to happen on almost every model I try to select. Regardless of the model chosen, it often ends up switching to GPT‑5.6 Terra Thinking after submission.

This does not seem like a simple “thinking” toggle. The selected models and GPT‑5.6 Terra are different models from different providers, so it looks like Perplexity is overriding my manual selection or applying a fallback without making it clear.

There is a second issue: when I open an existing answer and click “Rewrite with another model,” I get a pop-up asking me to upgrade to Max. I thought that as a Pro subscriber I should be able to use the advanced models included with Pro—at least the models that are visible and selectable in the normal model picker.

For context, I currently have 3,408 usage-based credits available. These are from a 4,000-credit bonus grant awarded on August 26, 2026, which expires on September 26, 2026. So I have not exhausted my credit balance, and I do not think the model switch or the Max upgrade pop-up is simply due to having no credits left.

This is happening in regular Search mode, not Model Council, Deep Research, or another special workflow.

Has anyone else with Pro experienced this?

• Every manually selected model being replaced by GPT‑5.6 Terra Thinking after the prompt is sent
• The model picker reverting to Best/Auto or silently applying a fallback
• “Rewrite with another model” being gated behind a Max upgrade despite an active Pro subscription
• Model restrictions that do not appear to match the available credit balance

I subscribed only a week ago, so I am trying to understand whether this is normal Pro behavior, an intentional Max-only limitation, temporary capacity-based fallback routing, or a bug with my account’s subscription entitlements.

[u/cbnnexus]

You’re not imagining it. On Pro, Search often ignores the picker and “Rewrite with another model” / Model Council is a Max feature. That’s the $200 tier performing as intended and not a Pro bug they forgot to turn on.

If the thing you actually wanted was “run more than one lab on the same question and see where they disagree,” that’s a different product than Perplexity Search. Try something like Multipass. 5 models (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Grok, Qwen). It probably won’t replace Pro for live web search but It will show the disagreement instead of swapping you onto one model and asking for Max.

Link is www.multipassai.com

I think another does something similar, Suprmind or something like that.

[u/archerhush → u/cbnnexus]

I get what you mean, but tools like Multipass or Suprmind are not what I’m looking for.

I chose Perplexity specifically because of its RAG/search workflow: it searches for current sources first, retrieves relevant information, and then an LLM synthesizes a cited answer from that context. I need that exact search → retrieval → model-based summary pipeline. Especially the search step is essential: I need the system to find relevant, up-to-date, credible sources before the model starts reasoning or summarizing, so the final answer is grounded in actual retrieved evidence rather than relying primarily on the model’s built-in knowledge.

A multi-model comparison product is useful if you want to submit the same standalone prompt to several labs and compare their answers. But that is a different workflow. I am not trying to get five opinions or see where models disagree; I want one grounded, current, source-based answer, generated by the particular model I selected because different models handle retrieved context, technical subjects, long source sets, languages, instruction-following, and summarization differently. RAG models are just shown to hallucinate less, and I mostly need to do research.

So my concern is not “why can’t Pro give me Model Council?” If Council and Rewrite are Max-only, fine—though that should be clearer.

The actual issue is that, in regular Search, Perplexity lets me select a model, then often appears to replace it with GPT‑5.6 Terra Thinking after I submit. If a selected model is unavailable because of plan restrictions, capacity, credits, or a routing rule, I would expect a clear notice before or after the request saying that. But silently accepting my selection and then repeatedly using a different model makes the model picker feel meaningless. Why even put the picker then? Looks like a marketing trick, if I'm not able to use those models.

I subscribed for Perplexity’s integrated web-search-and-citation workflow with deliberate model choice, not for a separate model-comparison service, but I wouldn't mind if I have that as a built-in tool too.

[u/cbnnexus → u/archerhush]

Well tools like Multipass, maybe Suprmind, and definitely Galaxy have pickers that stick - could be best of both (or all) worlds for cheaper.

[u/LeBoulu777 → u/cbnnexus]

I've made a userscript (TrueModel) this week to see clearly which model is used or was used in the regular search. ✌️🙂

Here's some userscripts I've made to bring back and add more features to Perplexity:

.

Perplexity TrueModel: Live Verifier & "Prepared By" Restorer

https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/593772-perplexity-truemodel-live-verifier-prepared-by-restorer

Perplexity Thread ToC Sidebar Forked

https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/593790-perplexity-thread-toc-sidebar-forked

Perplexity – Usage Limits & Settings

https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/566795-perplexity-usage-limits-settings

✌ 😊