Then you have non-superficial results based even on long contexts. Wasn't it clear I was responding directly to parent's concerns? Could I have made it clearer?

What I was getting at is that running LLMs in a loop doesn't really address those concerns at all. You simply get more information, it doesn't do anything for the correctness of that information.

Any patterns it identifies could be imaginary, and you don't have any indication of confidence that all relevant trends have been identified. The most valuable patterns are likely going to be the most hidden and easily missed - those are the ones people are paid to find, not just the low hanging fruit that can be identified with basic statistics.

In the same way that asking an LLM to review some code might produce a hundred superficial comments and miss the things that actually matter.