Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 40 references

NOVA deploys a verification-aware agent to guide architecture changes in industrial recommender systems.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

T0 review · grok-4.3

2026-06-29 05:00 UTC pith:6KVV3ZHX

load-bearing objection NOVA's approach to verification-aware architecture evolution in recommenders reports promising deployment results but needs more implementation details to confirm the claims. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2606.27243 v2 pith:6KVV3ZHX submitted 2026-06-25 cs.IR cs.SE

NOVA: A Verification-Aware Agent Harness for Architecture Evolution in Industrial Recommender Systems

Shaohua Liu , Liang Fang , Yilong Sun , Shudong Huang , Qingsong Luo , Shaoxin Liu , Xiaoyang Chen , Dongqiang Liu
show 11 more authors
Chuangang Ma Zhenzhen Chai Henghuan Wang Shijie Quan Changyuan Cui Zhangbin Zhu Peng Chen Wei Xu Lei Xiao Haijie Gu Jie Jiang
This is my paper
classification cs.IR cs.SE
keywords recommender systemsarchitecture evolutionagent harnessverification cascadeindustrial systemsonline testingGMVpCVR
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper introduces NOVA as a harness that uses an architecture gradient to direct modifications and a verification cascade to validate them at multiple stages. This setup aims to automate what has been an expert-intensive process of evolving recommender architectures while avoiding silent failures that degrade live performance. A sympathetic reader would care because successful automation could scale architecture improvements beyond what human teams can handle manually, leading to faster gains in model quality and business metrics like GMV.

Core claim

NOVA is a level-aware agent harness for verification-aware architecture evolution in industrial advertising recommender systems. It uses an architecture gradient that aggregates prior modifications, verification diagnostics, metric feedback, and trajectory memory to guide the next change in a non-differentiable manner. A verification cascade checks structure semantics, local executability, offline effectiveness, and online impact, blocking invalid candidates early and recording failure patterns. Tasks are controlled at L1 to L4 levels to match automation with risk, routing high-risk ones to human copilot oversight. When deployed, it yields the highest effective pass rates on L2 and L3 tasks,

What carries the argument

The architecture gradient, an SGD-inspired non-differentiable update signal aggregating prior modifications, verification diagnostics, metric feedback, and trajectory memory to guide modifications.

Load-bearing premise

The verification cascade and architecture gradient can reliably distinguish valid architecture changes from invalid ones without requiring extensive per-task human tuning or introducing new undetected failure modes.

What would settle it

An experiment showing that architectures proposed by NOVA cause more or equal silent performance degradations than those from standard coding agents or humans in controlled offline and online evaluations.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Effective pass rates reach 54.5% on L2 ScaleUp and 60.0% on L3 Literature-to-Production tasks.
  • Silent failures are reduced compared to coding-agent baselines.
  • One literature-to-production cycle is shortened by over 13x in human-attended time.
  • Selected candidates improve GMV on three pCVR objectives by +1.25%, +1.70%, and +2.02% in online A/B testing.
  • pCVR bias is reduced by 58.8%, 66.7%, and 37.3% in the same tests.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Similar harnesses could be adapted for architecture evolution in other production ML systems where silent failures are a risk.
  • The approach might lower the barrier for smaller teams to perform complex model upgrades without large expert staffs.
  • Combining the gradient with more advanced search strategies could further improve exploration of architecture space.
  • Long-term use may accumulate a knowledge base of forbidden directions that accelerates future evolutions.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper presents NOVA, a level-aware agent harness for verification-aware architecture evolution in industrial advertising recommender systems. It introduces an architecture gradient (non-differentiable aggregation of modifications, diagnostics, metrics, and trajectory memory) and a verification cascade (structure semantics, local executability, offline effectiveness, online impact) with L1-L4 task routing to Copilot for oversight. Deployed in production, it reports highest effective pass rates on L2 ScaleUp (54.5%) and L3 Literature-to-Production (60.0%) tasks, fewer silent failures vs. coding-agent baselines, >13x reduction in human-attended time for one cycle, and A/B test gains of +1.25%/+1.70%/+2.02% GMV on three pCVR objectives with bias reductions of 58.8%/66.7%/37.3%.

Significance. If the verification cascade and architecture gradient reliably distinguish valid structural changes without hidden per-task tuning or new undetected failure modes, the work would offer a practical advance in scaling expert-driven architecture upgrades beyond AutoML hyperparameter tuning, with direct business impact demonstrated via online A/B tests in a live advertising system.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the central empirical claims (54.5%/60.0% effective pass rates, specific GMV and bias deltas, 13x time reduction, reduced silent failures) are stated without any information on baseline implementations, number of trials, statistical significance tests, or variance, making it impossible to assess whether the data support the superiority claims.
  2. [Verification cascade description] Verification cascade (described in abstract and presumably the methods section): the manuscript supplies no concrete definitions or pseudocode for the 'structure semantics' checks on recommender modules, the pre-simulation method for 'online impact,' or the exact interaction between the cascade and L3 Copilot routing; these omissions are load-bearing because the reliability of early blocking of silent degradations is the key assumption underlying all reported gains.
  3. [Architecture gradient description] Architecture gradient (abstract): the mechanism is characterized only at a high level as an 'SGD-inspired, non-differentiable update signal' that aggregates prior modifications, diagnostics, metrics, trajectory memory, and forbidden directions, with no aggregation rule, weighting scheme, or update formula provided; without this, it cannot be determined whether the gradient guides evolution independently of unreported human tuning.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and claims would benefit from an explicit table comparing NOVA against the coding-agent baselines on the same tasks, including failure-mode breakdowns.
  2. [Introduction] Notation for L1-L4 levels and pCVR objectives is introduced without a dedicated definitions subsection, which could be clarified for readers outside the specific industrial setting.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive feedback, which identifies key areas where additional detail will strengthen the manuscript. We address each major comment below and commit to revisions that improve clarity without altering the core contributions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: the central empirical claims (54.5%/60.0% effective pass rates, specific GMV and bias deltas, 13x time reduction, reduced silent failures) are stated without any information on baseline implementations, number of trials, statistical significance tests, or variance, making it impossible to assess whether the data support the superiority claims.

    Authors: We agree that the abstract would benefit from additional context. In the revision we will briefly note the coding-agent baselines and state that trial counts, significance tests, and variance appear in the Experiments section. Abstract length constraints prevent full statistical reporting there, but the claims will be better contextualized. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Verification cascade description] Verification cascade (described in abstract and presumably the methods section): the manuscript supplies no concrete definitions or pseudocode for the 'structure semantics' checks on recommender modules, the pre-simulation method for 'online impact,' or the exact interaction between the cascade and L3 Copilot routing; these omissions are load-bearing because the reliability of early blocking of silent degradations is the key assumption underlying all reported gains.

    Authors: We accept this criticism and will expand the Methods section. The revision will supply concrete definitions for structure semantics checks, pseudocode for the full cascade, a description of the pre-simulation method for online impact, and explicit routing logic between the cascade and L3 Copilot oversight. revision: yes

  3. Referee: [Architecture gradient description] Architecture gradient (abstract): the mechanism is characterized only at a high level as an 'SGD-inspired, non-differentiable update signal' that aggregates prior modifications, diagnostics, metrics, trajectory memory, and forbidden directions, with no aggregation rule, weighting scheme, or update formula provided; without this, it cannot be determined whether the gradient guides evolution independently of unreported human tuning.

    Authors: We will add a dedicated subsection detailing the architecture gradient. The revision will include the precise aggregation rule, weighting scheme, and update formula, making explicit how the signal is computed from the listed components and confirming that guidance follows the stated mechanism. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; purely empirical system description

full rationale

The paper contains no equations, derivations, predictions, or first-principles results. It describes an implemented agent harness (NOVA) and reports empirical outcomes from industrial deployment and A/B tests. No load-bearing steps reduce to self-definition, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or self-citation chains. The architecture gradient and verification cascade are presented as design choices with observed results, not as outputs derived from themselves. This is self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract contains no formal mathematical content, parameters, or new entities.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5928 in / 1106 out tokens · 44009 ms · 2026-06-29T05:00:44.917656+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Industrial advertising recommender models are continuously improved through architecture evolution. Upgrades such as RankMixer, TokenMixer-Large, and MixFormer show that better structures remain a key source of quality and business gains. Yet developing such upgrades in production is expert-intensive and difficult to scale. Existing automation is insufficient: AutoML mainly tunes hyper-parameters, while effective gains often require cross-module changes under strict constraints; generic LLM coding agents optimize for runnable code, but runnable code does not imply a valid recommender architecture. Candidates may pass local tests while causing silent failures that degrade performance. We present NOVA, a level-aware agent harness for verification-aware architecture evolution. NOVA uses an architecture gradient, an SGD-inspired, non-differentiable update signal that aggregates prior modifications, verification diagnostics, metric feedback, and trajectory memory to guide the next modification. A verification cascade checks structure semantics, local executability, offline effectiveness, and online impact; invalid candidates are blocked early, with failure patterns recorded as forbidden directions. L1--L4 task-level control matches automation to task complexity and risk, routing high-risk tasks to Copilot for human oversight. Deployed in an industrial advertising system, NOVA achieves the highest effective pass rate on L2 ScaleUp and L3 Literature-to-Production tasks (54.5% and 60.0%), reduces silent failures compared with coding-agent baselines, and shortens one literature-to-production cycle by over 13x in human-attended time. In online A/B testing, the selected L3 candidate improves GMV on three pCVR objectives by +1.25%, +1.70%, and +2.02%, while reducing pCVR bias by 58.8%, 66.7%, and 37.3%.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.27243 by Changyuan Cui, Chuangang Ma, Dongqiang Liu, Haijie Gu, Henghuan Wang, Jie Jiang, Lei Xiao, Liang Fang, Peng Chen, Qingsong Luo, Shaohua Liu, Shaoxin Liu, Shijie Quan, Shudong Huang, Wei Xu, Xiaoyang Chen, Yilong Sun, Zhangbin Zhu, Zhenzhen Chai.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Overview of the NOVA level-aware architecture-gradient workflow. The Main Agent fixes the task level and execution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Silent-failure-aware verification cascade. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Future evolution roadmap of NOVA across full [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

40 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages · 4 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Takuya Akiba, Shotaro Sano, Toshihiko Yanase, Takeru Ohta, and Masanori Koyama. 2019. Optuna: A Next-generation Hyperparameter Optimization Frame- work. InProceedings of the 25th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowl- edge Discovery and Data Mining. 2623–2631

    2019

  2. [2]

    Anthropic. 2026. Claude Sonnet 4.6. https://www.anthropic.com/claude/sonnet. Accessed: 2026-06-08

    2026

  3. [3]

    James Bergstra, Rémi Bardenet, Yoshua Bengio, and Balázs Kégl. 2011. Algorithms for Hyper-Parameter Optimization. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS), Vol. 24

    2011

  4. [4]

    Heng-Tze Cheng, Levent Koc, Jeremiah Harmsen, Tal Shaked, Tushar Chandra, Hrishi Aradhye, Glen Anderson, Greg Corrado, Wei Chai, Mustafa Ispir, Rohan Anil, Zakaria Haque, Lichan Hong, Vihan Jain, Xiaobing Liu, and Hemal Shah

  5. [5]

    InProceedings of the 1st Workshop on Deep Learning for Recommender Systems

    Wide & Deep Learning for Recommender Systems. InProceedings of the 1st Workshop on Deep Learning for Recommender Systems. 7–10

  6. [6]

    Matthias Feurer, Aaron Klein, Katharina Eggensperger, Jost Tobias Springenberg, Manuel Blum, and Frank Hutter. 2015. Efficient and Robust Automated Machine Learning. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems

    2015

  7. [7]

    Huifeng Guo, Ruiming Tang, Yunming Ye, Zhenguo Li, and Xiuqiang He. 2017. DeepFM: A Factorization-Machine Based Neural Network for CTR Prediction. InProceedings of the 26th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence. 1725–1731

    2017

  8. [8]

    Xu Huang, Hao Zhang, Zhifang Fan, Yunwen Huang, Zhuoxing Wei, Zheng Chai, Jinan Ni, Yuchao Zheng, and Qiwei Chen. 2026. MixFormer: Co-Scaling Up Dense and Sequence in Industrial Recommenders.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.14110 (2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2026

  9. [9]

    Yunwen Huang, Shiyong Hong, Xijun Xiao, Jinqiu Jin, Xuanyuan Luo, Zhe Wang, Zheng Chai, Shikang Wu, Yuchao Zheng, and Jingjian Lin. 2026. HyFormer: Revisiting the Roles of Sequence Modeling and Feature Interaction in CTR 9 Prediction.arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.12681(2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  10. [10]

    Yuchen Jiang, Jie Zhu, Xintian Han, Hui Lu, Kunmin Bai, Mingyu Yang, Shikang Wu, Ruihao Zhang, Wenlin Zhao, Shipeng Bai, et al. 2026. TokenMixer-Large: Scaling Up Large Ranking Models in Industrial Recommenders.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.06563(2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    Yuchin Juan, Yong Zhuang, Wei-Sheng Chin, and Chih-Jen Lin. 2016. Field- aware Factorization Machines for CTR Prediction. InProceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. 43–50

    2016

  12. [12]

    Ashwin Kumar, Erwin Gao, Matan Levi, Sheela Yadawad, Sherman Wong, Sneha Iyer, and Vinodh Kumar Sunkara. 2026. Ranking Engineer Agent (REA): The Autonomous AI Agent Accelerating Meta’s Ads Ranking Innovation. Meta Engineering Blog. https://engineering.fb.com/2026/03/17/developer- tools/ranking-engineer-agent-rea-autonomous-ai-system-accelerating-meta- ads...

    2026

  13. [13]

    Hanxiao Liu, Karen Simonyan, and Yiming Yang. 2019. DARTS: Differentiable Architecture Search. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations

    2019

  14. [14]

    H. Brendan McMahan, Gary Holt, David Sculley, Michael Young, Dietmar Ebner, Julian Grady, Lan Nie, Todd Phillips, Eugene Davydov, Daniel Golovin, Sharat Chikkerur, Dan Liu, Martin Wattenberg, Arnar Mar Hrafnkelsson, Tom Boulos, and Jeremy Kubica. 2013. Ad Click Prediction: A View from the Trenches. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD International Confe...

    2013

  15. [15]

    Le, and Jeff Dean

    Hieu Pham, Melody Guan, Barret Zoph, Quoc V. Le, and Jeff Dean. 2018. Efficient Neural Architecture Search via Parameter Sharing. InProceedings of the 35th International Conference on Machine Learning. 4095–4104

    2018

  16. [16]

    Qi Pi, Weijie Bian, Guorui Zhou, Xiaoqiang Zhu, and Kun Gai. 2020. Search-based Interest Model for Lifelong User Behavior Sequence Modeling in Click-Through Rate Prediction. InProceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 2685–2692

    2020

  17. [17]

    Reid Pryzant, Dan Iter, Jerry Li, Yin Lee, Chenguang Zhu, and Michael Zeng

  18. [18]

    Automatic Prompt Optimization with ``Gradient Descent'' and Beam Search

    Automatic Prompt Optimization with “Gradient Descent” and Beam Search. InProceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Association for Computational Linguistics, 7957–7968. https://doi. org/10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.494

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2023.emnlp-main.494 2023

  19. [19]

    Esteban Real, Alok Aggarwal, Yanping Huang, and Quoc V. Le. 2019. Regularized Evolution for Image Classifier Architecture Search. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 33. 4780–4789

    2019

  20. [20]

    Steffen Rendle. 2010. Factorization Machines. InProceedings of the 2010 IEEE International Conference on Data Mining. 995–1000

    2010

  21. [21]

    Kimi Team, Guangyu Chen, Yu Zhang, Jianlin Su, Weixin Xu, Siyuan Pan, Yaoyu Wang, Yucheng Wang, Guanduo Chen, Bohong Yin, et al . 2026. Attention residuals.arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.15031(2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  22. [22]

    Hoos, and Kevin Leyton-Brown

    Chris Thornton, Frank Hutter, Holger H. Hoos, and Kevin Leyton-Brown. 2013. Auto-WEKA: Combined Selection and Hyperparameter Optimization of Clas- sification Algorithms. InProceedings of the 19th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 847–855

    2013

  23. [23]

    Haochen Wang, Yi Wu, Daryl Chang, Li Wei, and Lukasz Heldt. 2026. Self- evolving recommendation system: End-to-end autonomous model optimization with LLM agents.arXiv preprint arXiv:2602.10226(2026)

    work page arXiv 2026

  24. [24]

    Ruoxi Wang, Bin Fu, Gang Fu, and Mingliang Wang. 2017. Deep & Cross Network for Ad Click Predictions. InProceedings of the ADKDD’17. 1–7

    2017

  25. [25]

    Xu, Xiangru Tang, Mingchen Zhuge, Jiayi Pan, Yueqi Song, Bowen Li, Jaskirat Singh, Hoang H

    Xingyao Wang, Boxuan Li, Yufan Song, Frank F. Xu, Xiangru Tang, Mingchen Zhuge, Jiayi Pan, Yueqi Song, Bowen Li, Jaskirat Singh, Hoang H. Tran, Fuqiang Li, Ren Ma, Mingzhang Zheng, Bill Qian, Yanjun Shao, Niklas Muennighoff, Yizhe Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Junyang Lin, Robert Brennan, Hao Peng, Heng Ji, and Gra- ham Neubig. 2025. OpenHands: An Open Platform for...

    2025

  26. [26]

    Xidong Wu, Yue Zhuan, Ruoqiao Wei, Hangxin Chen, Di Bai, Jintao Liu, Xinyi Wang, Xue Wang, Luoshu Wang, and Xinwu Cheng. 2026. AgenticRecTune: Multi-Agent with Self-Evolving Skillhub for Recommendation System Optimiza- tion.arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.26969(2026)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Jimenez, Alexander Wettig, Kilian Lieret, Shunyu Yao, Karthik Narasimhan, and Ofir Press

    John Yang, Carlos E. Jimenez, Alexander Wettig, Kilian Lieret, Shunyu Yao, Karthik Narasimhan, and Ofir Press. 2024. SWE-agent: Agent-Computer Inter- faces Enable Automated Software Engineering. InAdvances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Vol. 37

    2024

  28. [28]

    Shunyu Yao, Jeffrey Zhao, Dian Yu, Nan Du, Izhak Shafran, Karthik Narasimhan, and Yuan Cao. 2023. ReAct: Synergizing Reasoning and Acting in Language Models. InThe Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR)

    2023

  29. [29]

    TextGrad: Automatic "Differentiation" via Text

    Mert Yuksekgonul, Federico Bianchi, Joseph Boen, Sheng Liu, Zhi Huang, Carlos Guestrin, and James Zou. 2024. TextGrad: Automatic “Differentiation” via Text. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2406.07496 arXiv:2406.07496 [cs.CL]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.2406.07496 2024

  30. [30]

    Zhaoqi Zhang, Haolei Pei, Jun Guo, Tianyu Wang, Yufei Feng, Hui Sun, Shaowei Liu, and Aixin Sun. 2026. Onetrans: Unified feature interaction and sequence modeling with one transformer in industrial recommender. InProceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2026. 8162–8170

    2026

  31. [31]

    Guorui Zhou, Na Mou, Ying Fan, Qi Pi, Weijie Bian, Chang Zhou, Xiaoqiang Zhu, and Kun Gai. 2019. Deep Interest Evolution Network for Click-Through Rate Prediction. InProceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 33. 5941–5948

    2019

  32. [32]

    Guorui Zhou, Xiaoqiang Zhu, Chenru Song, Ying Fan, Han Zhu, Xiao Ma, Yanghui Yan, Junqi Jin, Han Li, and Kun Gai. 2018. Deep Interest Network for Click- Through Rate Prediction. InProceedings of the 24th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 1059–1068

    2018

  33. [33]

    Size” is the prompt + skill bundle size; “Input

    Jie Zhu, Zhifang Fan, Xiaoxie Zhu, Yuchen Jiang, Hangyu Wang, Xintian Han, Haoran Ding, Xinmin Wang, Wenlin Zhao, Zhen Gong, et al. 2025. Rankmixer: Scaling up ranking models in industrial recommenders. InProceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 6309–6316. 10 A Appendix: Harness Footprint, Efficiency, a...

    2025

  34. [34]

    Parse the full paper before any local implementation; extract architecture, equations, tensor shapes, and dependencies

  35. [35]

    Separate paper-stated facts from inferences and engineering assumptions; log unresolved ambiguities explicitly

  36. [36]

    Generate faithful code, tests, runnable examples, and audit artifacts under paper_repro/. ... # REPRESENTATIVE GUARDRAILS - Never code directly from vague intuition. - Every major implementation choice MUST be tagged as {paper-stated|inferred-from-paper|engineering-assumption}. ... # OUTPUTS spec.md, equation_map.md, ambiguity_log.md, src/model.py, tests/...

  37. [37]

    Retrieve the correct context/topo/ and context/scene/ files BEFORE proposing any modification

  38. [38]

    # REPRESENTATIVE GUARDRAILS - Read topology and scene grounding files first

    Select one optimization direction using priority matrices plus failure history from prior rounds... # REPRESENTATIVE GUARDRAILS - Read topology and scene grounding files first. - Reject changes that violate latency budget, exported-graph schema, or production deployment constraints. ... # OUTPUTS A ranked design.md containing records of the form (explanat...

  39. [39]

    Build unified diffs from each candidate to the baseline rather than reviewing raw code in isolation

  40. [40]

    # REPRESENTATIVE GUARDRAILS - Every finding MUST cite line ranges

    Launch heterogeneous LLM reviewers in parallel and reconcile their findings by location and severity... # REPRESENTATIVE GUARDRAILS - Every finding MUST cite line ranges. - Unresolved block-level findings MUST be fixed or explicitly waived before training. ... # OUTPUTS - Per-reviewer reports - Consolidated summary.md - gate_decision∈{pass, revise, reject...