I'm no expert. my understanding though is that one of the reasons for contracts is solvers cannot possibly handle all the possible states of a program. if you can throw a contract in places they can break your whole program into subsets. That is, when analyzing a function and everything it calls, it just assumes the contract holds. And if everything works correctly according to contract and doesn't crash, well, they know that function is satisfied. Then they don't need to go back and say, well, everything calling that previous function only needs to meet the contracts, they don't need to prove everything that function calls is correct. This they can only do a subset of the full program analysis prove the whole program.

Yeah, that sounds like the system I rediscovered. The only other thing I'm adding to try and lean more into that system are assertions(?) that are in the middle of a function, that can basically break it up into blocks on their own where the first block proves it true and the second block assumes it's true. So effectively the same thing as breaking it into 2 smaller functions. My main thing right now is, I'm fairly certain there is something wrong with my compiler, I'm a basically a novice in contracts, I'm intermediate in compilers, I'm a novice on SMT proofs, and I wrote the whole thing at this point using AI just to test an idea. So I'm just trying to throw everything I can at it to try and break it. I need to start building it again from scratch (without AI) so I can truly understand where it might break and what doesn't work.