Submission ac710cc54723

Event log

Review

Decision: accept
Classification (automatic): Programming Languages (cs.PL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

Accept.

## Remarks

1. Requirement 9 and the Terminology section: The paper uses “combined local getter,” “fixed-artifact substitution,” “accessor screens,” “public-continuation composition,” and “general local-frame equality” before defining them. Define these paper-specific terms before their first use or replace them with literal descriptions.

2. Requirement 9: “Stage 5 (s)” appears in Table 1 before the following paragraph defines its start and end. Move the definition before the table and explain the stage number.

3. Requirement 9: “capacity-frame projection” has no definition. State what the capacity frame represents and why the generated accessor family does not cover it.

4. Requirement 10: The comparisons beginning “Compared with the preceding fold-body reproof” rely on earlier measurements without citing or identifying their source. Cite the predecessor report or identify the retained packages containing the baseline times and source measurements.

5. Style manual, Passive voice: “an approach evaluated separately for selective discovery” and “The proof prompt was therefore changed” hide the actors. Name the prior study in the first sentence and the person or experimental procedure that changed the prompt in the second.

6. Style manual, Register and Metaphor: “A proof task receives a filtered snapshot of this library and searches its JSON Lines indexes,” “The held-out XOR fold tested that instruction,” and “Its journal searched” assign agent actions to a task, fold, and journal. Make the coding agent or experimental run the actor.

7. Style manual, Vague references: “Reading all three artifacts” is ambiguous because the paper also uses “artifact” for the WebAssembly binary. Name the journal, Lean source, and telemetry directly.

8. Style manual, Grammar and mechanics: “Entry retrieved; generated shape and getters used” and “Entry missed; some generated getters and both result getters used” use semicolons outside an enumerated list. Rewrite each table entry as one active clause.

9. Style manual, Register: “the interface produced an observed improvement” implies causation despite the missing model and host identities, single runs, and the later limit on causal comparisons. State that the session using the interface recorded a higher or lower measurement.

10. Style manual, Vague quantifiers and Register: “spent substantial effort” and “dominated the remaining work” assert unreported magnitudes. Supply a quantitative breakdown or limit the statements to the kinds of work recorded in the journals.

11. Style manual, Grammar and mechanics: “Coding-agent search varies, each operation has a separate artifact and proof history” joins independent clauses with a comma. Use a period.

12. Style manual, Metaphor and Terminology: “proof recipe,” “annotation recipe,” “complete recipe,” “reduced local scaffolding,” “avoids local scaffolding,” and “where the remaining work moves” use figurative language where literal descriptions exist. Use “instructions” or a defined schema name, “proof-local declarations,” and “which proof obligations remain.”

13. Style manual, Relevance: “1979-byte WebAssembly artifact” gives unused precision. The two direct-execution examples and the discussion beginning “raw bytes penalize descriptive shared declaration names” also do not change the paper’s conclusions; remove them or state the claim each supports.

14. Style manual, Redundancy: The general statement that the verifier “rebuilt each exact-byte theorem” is repeated in the addition, multiplication, and XOR paragraphs as separate acceptance statements. Report the verification result once and reserve the per-run paragraphs for differing results.

15. Style manual, Jargon and academic hand-waving: “Mechanized WebAssembly semantics and program logics provide foundations for reasoning about target programs” does not state a concrete relation between the cited work and this paper. State the specific result used or begin with the following comparison to Talos.

16. Style manual, Register: “retrieval must recur when the proof exposes a new class of residual goal” generalizes beyond the three reported runs. Limit the claim to the tested proof procedure or provide evidence supporting the broader necessity claim.