second brain
source
← 首页

external-source

The Missing Complement: State-Conditioned Minimal Sufficient Evidence for Coding Agents

The Missing Complement: State-Conditioned Minimal Sufficient Evidence for Coding Agents

Note: body below is original English text extracted from arXiv abs / HTML. Do not treat this file as a translation.

arXiv:2609.20050 · published 2026-09-17 · submitted 17 Sep 2026

Abstract

A coding agent halfway through an issue has already read much of what a retriever ranks highest. Relevance is scored per passage, but sufficiency belongs to the set: a ranker can fill its budget with variants of one required fact and leave the decision unsupported. We formulate state-conditioned minimal sufficient evidence recovery: given a captured agent state, recover a compact evidence combination that supplies the support its next decision still lacks. SERBench measures this on 500 held-out states from 45 repositories, recording what the agent has seen and crediting only sets that cover every fact the current decision was annotated to require. MSS-Complement treats acquisition as set construction, not ranking. Three semantic calls propose a jointly sufficient set, search for what it lacks, and return 4-8 intact source units within 6,144 tokens. One configuration, fixed on calibration data, recovers a complete set for 73.0% of those states at five items and 80.6% at eight, against 61.4% and 72.4% for Qwen3 embedding with reranking. A matched control ranking by similarity alone reaches 66.6%, placing the gain in the set-level policy, not the computation. From frozen repository source with no gold-derived pool, the lead is 5.0 points. On AMA-Bench it answers from a 76.2% smaller answer prompt, with accuracy 2.08 points above that benchmark's own memory agent. Removing one required group from an otherwise complete set costs 12.3 and 11.1 points of repair-localization precision under two executors. Retrieval for agents is better posed as recovering what a decision lacks than re-ranking what an issue resembles.

Authors

Zhexi Feng, Ruiyi Zhang, Yongbo Yang, Pengtao Xie

Key claims (verbatim-leaning English extract)

Structure (section headings from HTML)

(section headings from HTML)

Body excerpts (original English)

A coding agent halfway through an issue has already read much of what a retriever ranks highest. Relevance is scored per passage, but sufficiency belongs to the set: a ranker can fill its budget with variants of one required fact and leave the decision unsupported. We formulate state-conditioned minimal sufficient evidence recovery : given a captured agent state, recover a compact evidence combination that supplies the support its next decision still lacks. SERBench measures this on 500 held-out states from 45 repositories, recording what the agent has seen and crediting only sets that cover every fact the current decision was annotated to require. MSS-Complement treats acquisition as set construction, not ranking. Three semantic calls propose a jointly sufficient set, search for what it lacks, and return 4–8 intact source units within 6,144 tokens. One configuration, fixed on calibration data, recovers a complete set for 73.0% of those states at five items and 80.6% at eight, against 61.4% and 72.4% for Qwen3 embedding with reranking. A matched control ranking by similarity alone reaches 66.6%, placing the gain in the set-level policy, not the computation. From frozen repository source with no gold-derived pool, the lead is 5.0 points. On AMA-Bench it answers from a 76.2% smaller answer prompt, with accuracy 2.08 points above that benchmark’s own memory agent. Removing one required group from an otherwise complete set costs 12.3 and 11.1 points of repair-localization precision under two executors. Retrieval for agents is better posed as recovering what a decision lacks than re-ranking what an issue resembles. A coding agent searches for a symbol, opens the implementation it finds, watches a test fail, and revises its hypothesis ( Jimenez et al., 2024 ; Yang et al., 2024 ; Xia et al., 2024 ) . The issue never changes; what the agent needs to see next changes at every step. The site that mattered a moment ago is now visible history, and a caller or configuration branch is the missing fact. What the next decision still needs is whatever the trajectory has not established, and that target moves even when the query does not. One response is to keep everything, but addressability is not selection. Lost in the Middle shows that use depends on where supporting text sits; RULER and NoLiMa separate nominal window size from what a model sustains ( Liu et al., 2024 ; Hsieh et al., 2024 ; Modarressi et al., 2025 ) . At each step, the agent must select evidence from a growing history under a fixed context budget. The other response is to retrieve ( Lewis et al., 2020 ) . Embedding, reranking, and software-specific retrievers judge relevance to an issue accurately ( Zhang et al., 2025b ; Shao et al., 2025 ; Reddy et al., 2026 ) , and agent-aware variants condition on the reasoning trace ( Chen et al., 2026 ) . Two properties of a decision-time query stay outside that objective. The first is redundancy: a passage can be maximally relevant and add nothing because the agent already has it, and in a 21-state pilot 53.3% of an unmasked state-conditioned query’s top ten is already observed. The second is joint sufficiency: relevance is defined one item at a time, so an ordering built from those scores cannot express a constraint that only the whole set satisfies. A repair turning on a call site, its caller, and a configuration constraint needs all three, and a ranker may spend the budget on variants of the first. Figure 1 shows both. We call the resulting target state-conditioned minimal sufficient evidence recovery . Acquisition is conditioned on the visible state and judged on whether the returned combination covers what the next decision leaves unresolved. Sources may substitute inside a requirement, while distinct requirements must be covered together, so more of one fact cannot compensate for another’s absence. Minimality constrains the certificate, not the returned set: a requirement is recorded only if removing it would weaken the decision’s support ( section 3 ). Small working contexts and sufficiency checks are both familiar; neither has been anchored to a decision state whose observations are recorded and a certificate fixing which sets count. SERBench makes the target measurable. It turns trajectory prefixes into portable state cards, records their observed evidence, and scores returned prefixes against private grouped certificates of unresolved requirements; the endpoint, Complete-MSS@ k k , gives partial support zero credit. Cal500 supplies 500 development states, and Test500 another 500 from 45 repositories disjoint from Cal500’s. Released candidate pools isolate set recovery, and a gold-blind track from frozen source measures the discovery stage supplying them. MSS-Complement follows from the formulation, so every decision it makes is about a set. Three semantic calls over a fused ranking propose a jointly sufficient selection, search deeper candidates for what it lacks, and finalize 4–8 intact source units under a 6,144-token ceiling. Expansion and finalization read the current selection, which lets the method ask what is missing rather than what is similar. One configuration, fixed on Cal500, transfers unchanged to every main evaluation below. On Test500, MSS-Complement recovers a complete evidence set for 73.00% of states at five items, against 61.40% for Qwen3-Embedding-8B with Qwen3-Reranker-8B, and 80.60% against 72.40% at eight. The gain concentrates where the formulation predicts: 14.79 points on the 284 states requiring at least two groups. A control keeping the three calls and the source ceiling but ranking by independent similarity reaches 66.60%, placing 6.40 points with the set-level policy. The advantage carries past the released pools to gold-blind discovery, at 5.00 points. On AMA-Bench it answers from an answer prompt 76.2% smaller, at 2.08 points higher accuracy, and on Action52 its evidence localizes repairs more precisely than the reranked baseline under two executors. Three contributions follow. We define state-conditioned minimal sufficient evidence recovery, separating a decision’s unresolved evidence requirements from the available candidate pool and certifying sufficiency over groups rather than items. We release SERBench , a repository-disjoint benchmark of captured decision states whose private certificates make complete-set recovery scorable. We present MSS-Complement and evaluate its set-level policy under matched controls, gold-blind repository discovery, and downstream repair localization. SWE-bench, SWE-agent, and Agentless evaluate or perform repository-level issue resolution, and RepoCoder studies repository-level completion by iterating retrieval and generation ( Jimenez et al., 2024 ; Yang et al., 2024 ; Xia et al., 2024 ; Zhang et al., 2023 ) . ContextBench, Agent Retrieval Bench, CORE-Bench, and SWE-Explore evaluate context and file retrieval from issue or workflow signals ( Li et al., 2026a ; Qin & Xie, 2026 ; Zhang et al., 2026a ; Zhang et al., 2026b ) . SERBench specifies an exact intermediate decision, records the evidence established by its trajectory, and scores joint coverage of its remaining requirements. Qwen3 Embedding, ReasonIR, and SweRank study general embedding and reranking, reasoning-intensive retrieval, and software-issue localization ( Zhang et al., 2025b ; Shao et al., 2025 ; Reddy et al., 2026 ) . AgentIR uses retrieval intent from an agent’s reasoning trace ( Chen et al., 2026 ) . Set-aware acquisition includes NEST’s selection under retrieval noise, S2G-RAG’s sufficiency prediction and evidence-gap generation, Evidence Tree Search’s combination search, and search control in RAAC and AutoSearch ( Verma et al., 2026 ; Li et al., 2026b ; Sun et al., 2025 ; Soudani et al., 2026 ; Sun et al., 2026 ) . PACE prioritizes complementary evidence and adapts reranking depth in multi-hop QA ( Cai & Zafarani, 2026 ) . Evidence ranking and sufficiency verification also appear in fact verification and long-video QA ( Alt et al., 2026 ; Yan et al., 2026 ) . Our setting couples set-level acquisition to the unresolved requirements of a captured coding-agent state. Generative Agents and MemGPT manage long interaction histories, while LongMemEval, LoCoMo, and MemoryAgentBench evaluate conversational or incremental memory ( Park et al., 2023 ; Packer et al., 2023 ; Wu et al., 2025 ; Maharana et al., 2024 ; Hu et al., 2026a ) . AMA-Bench evaluates long agent-environment trajectories, and τ \tau -Knowledge connects knowledge retrieval to tool-mediated outcomes ( Zhao et al., 2026b ; Shi et al., 2026 ) . Structured memory methods organize software experience, revise hierarchical memories, or provide tree access ( Shen et al., 2026 ; Hu et al., 2026b ; Liu et al., 2026 ) . Router-Mem routes between memory-processing paths using evidence sufficiency, and MESA selects and fuses query-specific memory views ( Lin et al., 2026 ; Zhao et al., 2026a ) . SERBench measures the source-evidence combination still needed at a decision, and MSS-Complement supplies intact sources as the working context. Appendix A expands the comparison, including long-context evaluation and retrieval foundations. A decision’s working context is its visible state plus the source evidence acquired to support it. We budget that evidence separately from the stored trajectory and from retrieval-controller tokens. Let 𝒞 r \mathcal{C}{r} be repository r r ’s frozen evidence corpus. At decision time t t , the normalized state is s t = ( x , n t , h t , O t , ψ t ) s{t}=(x,n_{t},h_{t},O_{t},\psi_{t}) : x x is the issue, n t n_{t} the current information need, h t h_{t} the visible-trajectory summary, O t ⊆ 𝒞 r O_{t}\subseteq\mathcal{C}{r} the observed source evidence, and ψ t \psi{t} the hypothesis and subgoal. Let 𝒱 t ⊆ 𝒞 r \mathcal{V}{t}\subseteq\mathcal{C}{r} denote the candidate pool available at the decision, and 𝒰 t = 𝒞 r ∖ O t \mathcal{U}{t}=\mathcal{C}{r}\setminus O_{t} the unobserved evidence universe. A method returns an ordered sequence ℛ t = ( e 1 , … , e L t ) \mathcal{R}{t}=(e{1},\ldots,e_{L_{t}}) from 𝒱 t \mathcal{V}{t} , subject to an item limit L t ≤ K L{t}\leq K and source-token budget B B . The pool may overlap O t O_{t} . Write 𝒫 t ​ ( k ) = { e 1 , … , e min ⁡ ( k , L t ) } \mathcal{P}{t}(k)={e{1},\ldots,e_{\min(k,L_{t})}} for its first k k available items. Prefixes are taken from the returned order without removing observed units or backfilling their positions. Observed units cost budget without adding certificate coverage. Each state has a grouped certificate 𝒢 t = { g 1 , … , g m t } \mathcal{G}{t}={g{1},\ldots,g_{m_{t}}} . Group g j = ( A j , q j , w j , ρ j ) g_{j}=(A_{j},q_{j},w_{j},\rho_{j}) specifies acceptable evidence IDs A j ⊆ 𝒰 t A_{j}\subseteq\mathcal{U}{t} , their required count q j q{j} , a necessity weight w j w_{j} , and a semantic role ρ j \rho_{j} . Each certificate specifies the support still missing at the captured decision: its acceptable evidence and complete alternative branches are drawn from the unobserved portion of the corpus. Its coverage is The threshold applies within each group and reduces to OR when q j = 1 q_{j}=1 . All required groups are conjoined. A certificate may also enumerate complete alternative solutions as a family ℬ t \mathcal{B}{t} of evidence sets. A branch must be recovered in full, so completion is The branch term is zero if no alternatives are enumerated. Each enumerated branch is an inclusion-minimal witness derived from the grouped certificate: every member belongs to at least one acceptable set, and every branch jointly satisfies all group thresholds. A branch is therefore an alternative combination that satisfies the grouped requirements, not a separate route that bypasses them. Under this schema the branch term never raises C t ​ ( k ) C{t}(k) above the grouped product, which therefore decides every Test500 score reported here; the scorer retains the term for certificates whose branches are not derived this way. Minimality belongs to the certificate’s decision-specific requirements, so the metric asks retrieval to cover a sufficient combination within budget, not to return a provably minimal set. Over N N evaluation states, the primary endpoint is Group recall and necessity-weighted recall measure partial coverage. Appendix D specifies these metrics, grouped nDCG, and prediction validation. The supporting evaluations distinguish evidence recovery from repair localization, with the state, model, tools, repository, and evaluator held fixed while the evidence changes. SERBench fixes a coding agent’s visible state and evaluates whether retrieval recovers the source evidence needed for its next decision. Figure 2 connects state construction, observed-evidence alignment, and grouped certificates to the recovery and downstream evaluations. Test500 contains 500 states from 242 real issue instances across 45 repositories. It captures four decision boundaries: before search (200 states), after search (124), after file inspection (104), and before an intended edit (72). Each state has a reconstructable repository snapshot, issue, visible tool history, and source observations. Trajectories come from an instrumented coding-agent harness run over repository snapshots frozen at each issue’s base commit. The agent plans, searches the repository, inspects source files, and regenerates its information need, hypothesis, and subgoal after every observation; the prefix up to one of the four boundaries above is one state. Gold patches, test patches, certificates, and method outputs are never exposed while a trajectory runs. Prefixes are normalized into portable state cards carrying the current need, searches, opened files, observations, failures, hypothesis, and subgoal. Agent-authored plans remain visible context, while captured tool outputs determine which source evidence has already been acquired. A file path named in a plan therefore enters the observed set only after source confirmation. Appendix B gives the harness configuration, schema, and selection criteria. Repository source is frozen at the trajectory base commit and segmented into provenance-preserving units. File reads and search results are aligned to these units to record O t O_{t} . Test500 evaluates each frozen candidate pool as released, retaining observed units where they occur. In a 21-state pilot, 53.3% of an unmasked state-conditioned query’s top ten repeated evidence already visible to the agent, against 18.1% for issue retrieval. Annotators identify the decision’s unresolved requirements, ground each in source units, and specify acceptable alternatives and coverage thresholds. A requirement is retained when its removal would weaken support for the next grounded action. Minimal sufficiency is local to the decision, allowing a repository to support several valid solutions. Groups capture jointly required facts, while a complete alternative branch counts only when recovered in full ( equation 2 ). Test500 includes 124 states with multiple enumerated branches. In the certificate panel of figure 2 , sources substitute within requirement A, requirement B must also be covered, and the enumerated branch covers both at once. Appendix C gives the annotation object, branch counts, and review protocol. Cross-family model audits provide review signals, followed by independent review of all 500 states by two human experts and source-grounded arbitration by a senior expert blinded to the model decisions. Two further experts outside that chain independently audit 80 uniformly sampled release states; they jointly accept 77 of 80 (96.25%) and agree on all eight assessed fields for 151 of 155 groups (97.42%). Appendix C covers construction and adjudication, and Appendix C.4 the audit. Released candidate pools contain 20–120 source units, mean 81.01. Construction combines gold-blind repository retrieval with units located through subsequent trajectories, gold patches, and test patches, then removes construction-source tags. Every private certificate is nonempty and grounded in its public pool. These recall-complete pools isolate evidence-set recovery. The separate full-repository diagnostic tests discovery from the visible state and frozen source alone. Cal500 provides 500 labeled development states from 174 repositories disjoint from Test500’s. Test500 publishes state cards, bounded candidate excerpts, schemas, scoring code, and provenance fields, while certificates and evidence roles stay in a separate organizer evaluator that scores completed predictions. MSS-Complement receives a visible state, the supplied candidate pool, and a source budget, and returns an ordered evidence set for the next decision. Fused candidates pass through three semantic calls that propose a set, find its missing support, and finalize the delivered context ( figure 3 ). Each call evaluates joint sufficiency, and only the finalized source units reach the downstream model. The state card supplies the issue, current need, and visible trajectory context. On Test500, the nine retrieval views rank the frozen public candidate pool directly. Reciprocal-rank fusion combines nine lexical, dense, entity, and recency views into a deterministic ranking for the frozen state and repository. The pool supplies breadth; the semantic calls decide joint support. Appendix E specifies the retrieval routes, depths, and pool cap. The proposal call uses DeepSeek-v4-pro, abbreviated Pro. It reads the state, current question, and leading source cards, then selects an eight-unit set S 0 S_{0} covering the entities, values, conditions, time points, or causal links required for a precise answer. The expansion call uses DeepSeek-v4-flash, abbreviated Flash. It receives S 0 S_{0} and further candidate summaries excluding units already selected. It seeks additional sources supporting facts absent from the proposal, including missing endpoints, conditions, and transitions. Flash finalization reads the proposal, expansion candidates, and a ranked reserve, with each candidate tagged by origin. It checks their support jointly, revises the selection, and returns 4–8 ranked units, removing repeated support where possible. The renderer enforces the 6,144-source-token ceiling. The final context is intact source evidence with its provenance preserved. Controller allocation, prompts, candidate-pool and stage-input limits, and output sizes are fixed on Cal500 and transferred to the primary Test500, repository-discovery, AMA, prospective, and action evaluations. Declared ablations and controller-family comparisons vary their stated factors separately. Appendix E records stage capacities, card limits, validation, fallback behavior, and configuration identities. Acquisition uses the public state and candidate source evidence. Each cohort supplies its own candidate inputs, whose construction and observed-evidence handling are documented separately. It receives no certificate, required group count, gold evidence ID, answer, reward, or judge output. Private certificates enter only when the organizer scores completed predictions. Section 6.2 measures recovery of a complete evidence set under a tight budget. Section 6.3 asks whether completing that certificate changes what an agent does next, at a repair-localization decision on Action52 and at executed repository tests on Fresh23. Section 6.4 varies the discovery stage, task family, and controller family. Section 6.5 attributes the gain under matched budgets. All Test500 methods are evaluated on the same public states and frozen candidate pools. External retrievers choose their query representation on a repository-disjoint 75-state subset of Cal500, and MSS-Complement uses the Cal500 configuration of section 5 . The supporting evaluations also use SSR , our one-pass semantic set-selection comparator (Appendix D.2 ). The primary endpoint is Complete-MSS@5, with group and necessity-weighted recall, larger prefixes, and matched source-token budgets. All intervals below are 95%; those for Test500 and repository discovery come from 20,000 paired resamples clustered by repository. Model endpoints, cohort-specific resampling, seeds, and trace accounting are in Appendices D.1 , E , F.2 , and F.4 . At five source units, MSS-Complement reaches 73.00% Complete-MSS, 11.60 points above Qwen3-Embedding-8B plus Qwen3-Reranker-8B, [ + 6.89 , + 17.21 ] [+6.89,+17.21] ( table 1 ). Group recall improves by 9.57 points and necessity-weighted recall by 9.51, both intervals excluding zero. The same five slots thus cover more unresolved requirements and complete a combination more often. Under a matched three-call budget, removing the set-sufficiency objective, selected-set feedback, and adaptive sizing costs 6.40 points, so the gain is not a by-product of spending controller calls ( section 6.5 ). These pools isolate selection from discovery, and the headroom inside them is wide: uniform selection of five units recovers 5.17%, and 38 points separate the strongest baseline from the oracle ceiling, of which MSS-Complement closes 11.60 (Appendix B ). At eight items the gain is 8.20 points, [ + 4.91 , + 13.85 ] [+4.91,+13.85] , and a common 4,096-source-token ceiling gives 8.80 points. Appendix D gives the full prefix and token-budget comparisons. The gain is larger where several requirements must be supported together: at five items it is 14.09 points on the 149 states needing at least three groups, [ + 6.25 , + 21.67 ] [+6.25,+21.67] , against 7.41 on the 216 single-group states. Appendix D.5 reports every stratum at both budgets. Partitioning Test500 by recorded candidate/observation ID overlap, MSS-Complement ranks first among the twelve primary methods on all five metrics in both strata, leading Qwen3 embedding with reranking by 8.28 points of Complete-MSS@5 in the 314 states without overlap and 17.20 in the 186 with it. The strata differ in trajectory stage, so the wider lead under overlap is descriptive rather than causal (Appendix D.4 ). Test500 scores a returned set against a certificate. Whether completing it changes what an agent does next is a separate question, and two cohorts answer it. Action52 scores a repair-localization decision against validated reference repairs; Fresh23 scores an executed repair against the repositories’ own tests. Both are built by Test500’s construction and screening procedure from separately frozen issue cohorts that share repositories with it (Appendix B ). Action52 holds 52 frozen states, one from each of 52 repositories so that paired resampling has independent units. Each carries a source-grounded certificate, and 32 of the references are constructed minimal residual repairs while 20 retain the validated historical patch. Each state is paired with five evidence conditions: Qwen3-Embedding-8B, that embedding reranked, MSS-Complement , Oracle-MSS, and Oracle evidence with one required group’s alternatives removed. DeepSeek-v4-flash and Claude Sonnet 5 receive identical bundles and propose local code targets without repository browsing, and source-grounded adjudication labels each target precise, coarse, or wrong, with fixed-budget precision giving unused and non-precise slots zero credit (Appendix F.4 ). Adding the reranker recovers much more evidence ( table 2 , left), yet neither executor’s target precision separates from the embedding baseline, at + 2.92 +2.92 points for DeepSeek, [ − 5.14 , + 11.45 ] [-5.14,+11.45] , and 0.00 0.00 for Claude, [ − 6.83 , + 6.63 ] [-6.83,+6.63] . Against this stronger baseline MSS-Complement gains 12.87 points of precision under DeepSeek, [ + 5.39 , + 20.36 ] [+5.39,+20.36] , and 4.09 under Claude, [ − 1.89 , + 10.29 ] [-1.89,+10.29] . Under DeepSeek, reference-file recall improves by 4.44 points as well, [ + 0.12 , + 10.44 ] [+0.12,+10.44] , with no loss across the 52 paired cases. Removing one required group from otherwise complete evidence, at the same evidence count, costs 12.28 and 11.11 points of precision while leaving 48.27% group recall in place: the conditions separate on whether a certificate is completed rather than on how much of one is covered. Action52 uses its own certificates and returned-set budgets, so this tests the grouped-MSS target rather than restating a Test500 result. Fresh23 moves the endpoint to executed tests. It is a census, not a sample: every qualifying task frozen after the main release is in it, so its size is set by what was runnable. Each task runs the whole loop, in which a retrieval method supplies evidence, an executor proposes a patch, and the repository’s own tests decide the outcome, with the deployable conditions reading no organizer-private label at inference time. Two organizer-constructed diagnostics bound the target: Oracle-MSS resolves 11 of 23 tasks on the fail-to-pass criterion, and removing one required group from that same evidence costs three of them and returns the condition to BM25’s eight, and under that criterion the incomplete certificate resolves no task that the complete one misses. MSS-Complement reaches the Oracle’s strict resolution, 8 of 23, from the lowest mean API token usage of any deployable condition ( table 2 , right). The direction holds under both criteria, and every paired interval in table 25 reaches zero. The full-repository diagnostic starts from frozen source using only the visible state and observed mask, over a fixed 500-state cohort that shares 434 state IDs with Test500 and carries its own certificate snapshot, in which a complete certificate is reachable for 333 states inside the shared BM25 top-1,000 pool. It gives a 5.00-point Complete-MSS@5 gain over all states, [ + 1.62 , + 9.44 ] [+1.62,+9.44] , and 7.51 points on the coverable subset, [ + 2.73 , + 13.88 ] [+2.73,+13.88] , from a smaller five-item source context ( table 17 ). The first number composes discovery with selection; the second conditions on discovery having succeeded. AMA-Bench moves the task family: 208 real agent episodes and 2,496 questions ( Zhao et al., 2026b ) , with the Cal500 configuration transferred without AMA-specific tuning and a single answer model and judge shared by every acquisition method. MSS-Complement answers 1,399 correctly against 1,347 for AMA-Agent ( table 3 ), a difference of + 2.08 +2.08 points, episode-clustered [ − 0.16 , + 4.37 ] [-0.16,+4.37] . The clearest gain is a 76.2% smaller answer prompt alongside the higher accuracy point estimate. Constructing it consumes retrieval-controller tokens, so the online total is 33.57K against 13.95K ( table 3 ). The result trades acquisition computation against answer-visible context. Appendix F.2 reports paired outcomes, deployment latency, and the full token breakdown. Replacing the DeepSeek controller family with Claude on the 44-state prospective cohort, with the candidate input, prompts, evidence limits and scorer held fixed, gives 52.27% Complete-MSS@5 against 45.45%, so the policy carries across families. Appendices F.1 – F.3 and E report that comparison, the prospective evaluation, and the parameter-neighborhood checks. The independent-similarity control matches the three-call policy in controller configuration and call budget, removing the set-sufficiency objective and selected-set feedback and fixing the output to seven units (Appendix E ). It reaches 66.60% Complete-MSS@5, and the full policy improves on it by 6.40 points, [ + 3.42 , + 10.46 ] [+3.42,+10.46] ( table 4 ). The separation appears where the formulation says it should: at a single returned item the two do not separate, − 1.40 -1.40 points, [ − 3.26 , + 1.05 ] [-3.26,+1.05] , and the ordering reverses as soon as the prefix has room for more than one requirement. The no-feedback variants separate the objective from output sizing. The objective alone adds 3.20 points, [ − 0.25 , + 8.26 ] [-0.25,+8.26] , adaptive sizing a further 3.00, [ + 1.06 , + 6.50 ] [+1.06,+6.50] , and feedback a further 0.20, [ − 4.00 , + 3.14 ] [-4.00,+3.14] . The overall contrast against independent similarity establishes the policy-level gain. Expansion and finalization add 3.00 points over the single-stage proposal, and among the configurations reaching 73.00%, the adaptive final policy delivers the smallest mean source context.