I think my English is a bit lacking, so I didn't explain my situation well enough.

The main point is not that everything is solved if you specify all the conjunction conditions and prove that those conjunction conditions are correct. Rather, the key point is that in that process, the agent keeps expanding subgoals.

For example, two proofs, P1 and P2, are carried out, but they proceed in a way that diverges from the actual progress of the work. That is, you can prove things like "P1: the chicken is safe" and "P2: the origin of this sauce is trustworthy," but combining these does not make a chicken dish.

In other words, the proof logic holds, but my actual task doesn't get solved. I'm questioning how to solve this problem. It's frustrating that I'm not a native English speaker at times like this. I'm sorry for causing a misunderstanding.

For example, it goes like this.

I proved P1 and P2. But then it creates P1.1. It goes and finds information from an agency certifying that this chicken is safe, and puts that in. Then it starts creating P2.1 as well. The origin of this sauce is trustworthy, but maybe there’s a better one somewhere?

It goes on like that.

Ask the model to declare its assumed axioms. Agree that those can be trusted for the time being. Things like the behaviour of third party libraries. Ensure that your review agent enforces this.

[flagged]