Quantum compiler assurance requires a semantic relation that matches the intended use and observations that can expose violations at the delivered interface. This critical integrative survey compares verified transformations, equivalence checking, differential and metamorphic testing, property-based testing, and evidence for assurance across revisions. A source catalogue and focused extraction matrix distinguish formal guarantees, reported empirical findings, analytical deductions, and proposed practice. A recorded coverage update and source-level selection decisions make the review auditable within its declared scope. Four documented failure cases connect conditional applicability, parameter association, termination, and phase conventions to method selection. A worked example involving layout metadata, parameter bindings, and ancillary qubits demonstrates why validating a circuit under a reconstructed interpretation can leave the delivered interface unchecked. An illustrative revision scenario then separates fault detection from change attribution. The resulting guidance specifies applicability, complementary observations, and treatment of inconclusive outcomes. Published bug counts, mutation results, and processing benchmarks support different claims and do not establish a common effectiveness ranking. The proposed regression architecture remains unevaluated as a complete system; its practical value requires controlled comparisons on independently adjudicated compiler-change events.

翻译：暂无翻译