Can additional specialist language-model contexts improve software assurance when deterministic tool evidence is already available? We study this question through five experiments spanning authored Java warning controls, OWASP Benchmark assessment, Defects4J test generation, SV-COMP assertion verdicts, and deliberately misleading evidence packages. The evaluated systems use Qwen2.5-Coder-7B-Instruct, with a 1.5B sensitivity analysis, and complete 13,638 model requests. On eight related development warnings, increasing the context count from 1 to 50 increases token use 49-fold without improving unsafe clearance. On 160 OWASP cases, model configurations trade clearance against unresolved outcomes; the ten-context arm assesses only 96 cases. On 32 SV-COMP tasks, raw verifier feedback raises mean correct model verdicts from 12.7 to 22.0, but also raises incorrect verdicts from one to seven; a JBMC-plus-JVM validation baseline returns 26 correct verdicts and six unresolved outcomes. On two sets of 120 evidence packages, models reject 70-100% of applicable counterexamples, while construction-specific scope checks classify every package correctly. No target defect is discovered in three Defects4J bugs, one unsupported by the test adapter. These descriptive results support deterministic evidence admission for the tested settings, while exposing limits of verdict aggregation, feedback interpretation, and the available evaluation coverage.

翻译：暂无翻译