# What we will not claim

> Five claims we refuse to make on your behalf.

Source: https://counterproof.io/refusals/ · Published 23 September 2026 · CounterProof is a practice of Clavestra Capital Limited (Malta, C 113987).


CounterProof reviews security-critical code with the help of AI models.

**AI review is, in practice, not deterministic.** Run the same review twice and expect different
findings; expect different findings again from a new model generation. In that respect LLM code
review behaves more like fuzzing than like a static analyser, and like fuzzing it is never finished
(Thomas Dullien, ["An age of experimentation"](https://counterproof.io/notes/age-of-experimentation/), BlueHat Asia 2026).

Because of that, we refuse the following claims on your behalf.

**We do not treat agreement between AI models as proof.** Models often make the same mistake: when two are wrong, they tend to be wrong in the same way, and
models from different companies are not automatically independent of each other (Kim et al., ICML
2025). A shared answer can be a shared error.

**We do not let a fluent verdict outrank a test.** For custody, settlement, consensus and
key-handling code, execution, tests and proofs decide. Model output tells us where to look; it does
not tell us what is true.

**We label every finding by how it was established.** *Reproduced* means a test run against the
unmodified code at a fixed revision. *Read* means supported by reading that code, without running
it. We never present the second as the first.

**We do not close a finding by outvoting the reviewer who raised it.** A finding closes when its
raiser withdraws it or when it is demonstrated against the code.

**We do not report "we found nothing" as "there is nothing".** A clean result says what was
examined, not what is absent.