The Order Is the Guarantee: Verifier-Budgeted Code Deletion with Static-First Learned Proposals

Large language models increasingly write and repair production code, yet evidence is mounting that their test-passing patches leave codebases harder to maintain. We identify one concrete source: deletion avoidance, the systematic tendency to retain code that an intended edit requires removing. Across the five leading models on the official SWE-bench Verified leaderboard, deletion recall against the developer patch reaches at most 71.7% even on tasks all five solve, and models reach the right file for over 92% of required deletions but cut the exact line in under 52% of cases. Instead, 29.0% of passing patches wrap the targeted code in a guard or fallback, a pattern we call Guard-and-Go. Such patches pass because the original tests rarely check removal: when we retrofit 34 Verified tasks with tests that fail if the targeted code remains, four frontier models spanning closed and open weights fall from 63.2% to 41.9%. Because real repairs mix removal with addition, we curate CanItDelete, a benchmark of 200 tasks mined from real commits whose entire required edit is deletion. Even with the addition work gone, the best model still fails one task in five, and smaller open models fall to 18.0%. We then ablate GPT-5.6 Sol under four cumulative prompts; success moves little until we supply the exact lines, which nearly eliminate incomplete deletion yet raise success only to 80.5% because the model then deletes beyond the spans or adds code instead. Finally, through a pilot study we show one potential fix: teaching deletion during post-training reduces deletion avoidance and improves broader code-editing performance, suggesting the behavior is undertrained rather than beyond reach.

Large language models can generate useful code from natural language, but their outputs come without correctness guarantees. Verifiable code generation offers a path beyond testing by requiring models to produce not only executable code, but also formal specifications and machine-checkable proofs. Progress in this direction, however, is difficult to measure: existing benchmarks are often small, focus on only one part of the pipeline, lack ground-truth proofs or rigorous specification validation, or target verification settings far from mainstream software development. We present VeriContest, a benchmark of 946 competitive-programming problems from LeetCode and Codeforces for verifiable code generation in Rust with Verus. Each problem pairs a natural language description with expert-validated formal specifications, judge-accepted Rust code, Verus-checked proofs, and positive and negative test suites. VeriContest is constructed through a three-phase pipeline that scales from manually verified seed problems to semi-automated expansion with human-in-the-loop review. To further strengthen benchmark quality, we use testing as an additional quality-assurance layer for validating postcondition completeness. VeriContest supports isolated and compositional evaluation of specification generation, code generation, proof generation, and end-to-end verified program synthesis. Evaluating ten state-of-the-art models reveals a sharp gap between coding ability and verifiable code generation: the strongest model reaches 92.18% on natural-language-to-code generation, but only 48.31% on specification generation, 13.95% on proof generation, and 5.29% end-to-end. These results identify proof and specification generation as the central bottlenecks for models and establish VeriContest as a rigorous platform for measuring and training future systems that generate code with machine-checkable correctness.

Frontier coding models may spend substantial capacity learning not only program behavior, but also accidental entropy in human repositories. Such repositories contain valuable signals: tests, incidents, migrations, edge cases, product judgment, and operational history. These signals are entangled with framework churn, naming drift, generated-source ambiguity, dependency rituals, CI dialects, weak proof routes, and human-oriented review customs. We propose agent-first canonical code, a proof-carrying substrate that rewrites routine product software into canonical behavior profiles, typed change algebra, proof lanes, constrained edit grammars, semantic patch cells, runtime negative memory, and proof-carrying change objects. The core hypothesis is that quotienting software by behavior equivalence under a declared oracle can collapse equivalent encodings into governed representatives with explicit evidence and proof obligations. The endpoint is amortized cost per verified correct change, including source, context, reasoning, tools, verification, security, provenance, review, failed loops, defects, and foundry cost under a common oracle. Reported reduction bands are hypotheses, not measured frontier results. The proposed limit is a No-Accident Horizon: removable accident decreases until residual novelty, evidence, governance, risk, and future optionality dominate. For supported routine-product distributions, this gives a defensible planning target near 100-fold all-in cost reduction, not a guarantee for all software. Preliminary QLoRA experiments on Qwen2.5-Coder-14B show that 64,088 canonical trajectories are learnable and suppress tested forbidden-language markers, but do not establish behavior preservation, scaling economics, or verified-change cost. The contribution is a falsifiable program centered on minimum functional description length and verified-change cost.