I expect it would take about 15 minutes with the language definition to simply write a static tool (via an agentic coder, why not, just to prove the point) to evaluate the rules of the language, translate it to another (normal) language. Llm does the work there, then runs it through a mechanic to go the opposite direction.
Identification that this has occurred becomes an evaluation of the prose “obscured” values are embedded in.
I get the intent. I just think the testing methodology answers a very specific question, and forms a conclusion that over claims.
I expect it would take about 15 minutes with the language definition to simply write a static tool (via an agentic coder, why not, just to prove the point) to evaluate the rules of the language, translate it to another (normal) language. Llm does the work there, then runs it through a mechanic to go the opposite direction.
Identification that this has occurred becomes an evaluation of the prose “obscured” values are embedded in.
I get the intent. I just think the testing methodology answers a very specific question, and forms a conclusion that over claims.