Elie Nehmé

Thank you for your feedback. Exactly — that was one of the things that surprised me too. The question itself can steer retrieval more than we realize. Explicit relationships give the model a much more stable path. And I just realized I hadn't updated the article with the link to the second part — fixing that now. You can find more on my website: https://elienehme.fr/en Thanks for reading!

I would like to add that one important difference I see between our cases is that, for a given version, the code ultimately has deterministic behavior, which is not necessarily the case when describing a house from different sources. A function cannot really do “yes and no” at the same time. The rule may change from one version to another, and understanding why it changed is extremely valuable context. But at the end of the day, what matters most is being able to determine what the function actually does in that specific version. So I think contradictions between documentation, specifications, historical sources, etc. are important to preserve as context and evidence, but they don't necessarily need to remain unresolved when it comes to the actual behavior of the code.

Thank you so much, Salman, for your thoughtful and detailed feedback! I really appreciate that you read the article so closely and drew these parallels with your own work. I know how challenging and complex this kind of work can be. My approach was shaped by the specific problems I encountered, and I don’t see it as a universal solution to every context-engineering problem. I haven’t faced the exact challenge you’re describing, so your perspective is particularly interesting to me. Your approach of distinguishing claims from facts sounds particularly insightful. I also really like the idea of treating the ontology not as a cleaned-up representation of reality, but as what we currently have evidence to believe about reality. I’ll definitely take a closer look at your work! Best regards, Elie