bd27ab7422
Record correct real-model answers through complete atomic and corrected traditional native toolsets. Preserve the under-equipped initial baseline separately, full task costs, provenance, resource evidence and profile/strategy limits. The direct model answers with machine facts alone; server Code Mode uses the new value queries but performs extra analysis. No inherent Code Mode or broad complex-software superiority is established. Co-authored-by: gensokyo-dev <342580529+gensokyo-dev@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Kaoru0822 <208281322+kaoru0822-kitauji@users.noreply.github.com>
6.3 KiB
Capability and comparison scope
The experiment has fifteen fact methods behind a shared SDK/CLI owner, exposed as eighteen direct MCP tools or four Code Mode tools. The structured IR/call/ projection/switch facts require the explicitly pinned experimental Kuna patch; they are not capabilities added to stock Kuna or integrated REA by registration alone. Other providers are not wired to this experimental service.
A fair completed-task comparison first needs sufficient facts on both paths, with a common correctness oracle. A complete universal RE interface is not established here. The selected-case question requires native row/edge identities, so it compares the two atomic adapters; no traditional-provider result for that question is invented. Earlier traditional comparisons retain their own questions, engine profiles and limitations in the trial record.
| Analyst question | Composable facts/relations | Executed evidence and limits |
|---|---|---|
| Which implementation owns an observed message? | Callable entries/aliases, encoded strings, exact-address xrefs with occurrence identity and function attribution | Both recent SQLite tasks select the owner before capture. Name equality alone is insufficient; discovery/unattributed coverage remains explicit. |
| Which local condition controls a selected value/call? | Snapshot-local operations, SSA values, indexed operands, definitions/uses with PHI predecessor edges, recovered CFG edges | Four real control-task runs verify the selected guards and machine instructions. Full graph transport checks establish producer fidelity, not global machine equivalence. |
| What crosses a call boundary? | Native call specifications, argument values and separate passing storage; selected callee inputs and bounded definition projections | Earlier pinned call/boundary trials exercise these relations. Storage matches are candidates, not proof of runtime binding or complete ABI/memory effects; a new exporter hash alone is not a repeated cross-function model trial. |
| Which cases map to a recovered edge? | Original case identity/label/address, independent native default, flattened case/out-edge relations | All 182 SQLite original targets match independent ELF table bytes. Four real models answer selected cases and distinguish the native default from the machine range guard. No complete case inventory is needed in model context. |
| What machine bytes support the interpretation? | Batched loaded-image bytes and selected linear instruction windows, each with source/coverage | The case models independently derive signed relative targets. These windows do not establish runtime execution/alignment, a complete machine CFG, live memory or arbitrary file-offset mappings. |
| Can the answer be audited without returning the report? | Snapshot/source identity, selected fields, batch reads, paging and retained raw/decoded Evidence | Real CLI/MCP checks verify source access and capacity fallbacks. Scope/partial/unknown survive composition; a guest-derived answer keeps its own authority. |
The useful grain so far is an identified object plus a relation with its exact qualifiers: an operand needs its slot and PHI binding; a case/out-edge pair needs both identities; an address needs its artifact/address space; an optimized operation needs its snapshot and representation. One small JSON row is not automatically one independently meaningful fact. Machine instructions and normalized operations also cannot substitute for each other.
Selection, projection, batching, paging and bounded traversal compose those facts. The analysis owner derives/validates relations; Code Mode selects and combines them. A query can be fine-grained even when its fresh native capture still computes a whole function. Same-lease reuse is measured separately from that work and does not establish a cross-session cache or native acceleration.
The OpenSSH value-query study adds exact location lookup and inverse operand occurrences for value identities, including inputs/constants without definitions. It checks every retained selected version/use against the complete source graph; this is separate from machine-byte evidence and does not turn SSA occurrences into a memory-alias proof.
The stripped OpenSSH model comparison also verifies a common warning/caller/stack/guard question through the two atomic adapters and the traditional Kuna workflow. Exact machine facts suffice for the direct answer; extra SSA capture is not required by every RE question. The corrected traditional baseline has its complete declared native toolset. This expands the completed-task evidence while retaining the local scope and cost confounds.
Memory alias dependencies, full machine-flow recovery, indirect runtime binding, feasible paths and nontermination remain unknown. The current evidence does not establish provider parity, broad complex-software superiority or a stable Code Mode cost advantage. The wait repeat shows why fewer MCP requests or polls cannot replace correct answers and whole-task costs.