It cannot be presented as a confirmed fact that a cup with pens in Joe Cabot's office announces the identity of the infiltrator in Reservoir Dogs. The claim combines a description of props with a narrative interpretation, and the exact arrangement of the objects has not been corroborated, nor has any explanation from the production team assigned that function to them. For that reason, it is not accurate to describe the color, contents, or position of the supposed cup as if they were established facts.
The film does use color-coded aliases for the robbery participants. That detail may suggest associations to viewers, but it does not automatically turn any colored object into a clue. Mr. Orange's identity has a narrative development that can be understood without resorting to this hypothesis about the set dressing.
Nor is it appropriate to claim that the clue is disproven because a script does not describe the object. Written text and staging do not always include the same details. The conclusion is more limited: this explanation of the cup lacks sufficient support to be treated as an established key to the film.
What Is Being Attributed to the Supposed Cup
The claim suggests that a pen holder in Joe's office foreshadows a betrayal. To support it, one would first need to establish the visual detail and then the narrative connection assigned to it. In this case, there is no corroborated image that would allow the described placement and arrangement to be accepted as accurate. That framing cannot be reconstructed by adding colors or positions that have not been verified.
The association is imaginable because the color names do serve an explicit function: Joe assigns them as aliases to limit personal information among the members of the group. That procedure belongs to the dialogue and to character identification. Extending it to the contents of his desk requires an additional link that the mere existence of the nicknames does not provide.
Quentin Tarantino's draft dated October 22, 1990, preserved at IMSDb, can be consulted to study the group's introduction. However, it does not allow this reading of the props in the released film to be confirmed. The lack of a written indication also does not prove that an object did not appear during filming: that would be a different and broader conclusion than the available documentation supports.
The identity of the infiltrator has a different narrative basis
The film establishes Mr. Orange's police identity through actions and dialogue. The reveal of the infiltrator changes what the viewer knows and gives meaning to his earlier preparation. That information does not depend on recognizing a container or interpreting a color code in the office. The story retains its explanation even when the audience has not noticed any detail of that kind.
A distinction must also be made between what the audience discovers and what Joe knows at each moment. If a set piece could be interpreted as a warning for the viewer, that would not prove that the character was aware of the infiltration. Attributing knowledge to Joe based on an object in his space would add a conclusion about the plot that the visual hypothesis also does not establish.
The defensible formulation is therefore limited: one may propose a reading of cups and pens as foreshadowing, but the described detail and any authorial intent have not been confirmed. There is no basis for attributing that supposed clue to Tarantino, for treating it as proof of the cop's identity, or for turning it into a different scene from the one the film actually presents.
The word mole is used here to refer to the undercover cop among the people taking part in the heist. Describing him as a traitor adopts the gang's perspective, since they believe they are working with another criminal. These are two ways of naming the same position within the conflict, even if they do not express the same point of view. That difference matters when an interpretation of the set design claims to foreshadow betrayal: it needs to make clear who the supposed warning is aimed at and from what knowledge it is being interpreted.
The alias Mr. Orange identifies the character within the group; it is not a description of every object that may be associated with him. If a color word and a visual element happened to coincide, that would allow one to propose an association. By itself, however, it would not explain when the viewer is meant to recognize it or what new information it provides. The question about the cups is limited to that specific attribution, without altering the identity established by the film through the development of its story.