What REA can and cannot recover

Readable code is not original source

Native decompilers reconstruct pseudocode from machine instructions. Compiler optimizations can remove or reshape source-level information. Original comments, meaningful variable names and project organization may be unavailable.

JavaScript packages often retain executable source text, but bundling and minification can obscure module boundaries and names. Source maps can help when available; they are not guaranteed. REA also has a separate JavaScript source-recovery workflow with its own external engine requirements.

A browser reveals the client side

Website inspection can gather page structure, script artifacts and selected activity from a browser. What the server does internally remains outside that view. An observed API response does not expose the server's implementation.

Network observations begin after attachment and domain activation. A missing request in that observation window cannot establish that the request never happened. Check completeness markers before comparing captures.

Local analysis and model data are different

REA analyzes targets locally, according to the official README. Tool results are then available to the coding agent, whose model provider has its own data policy. Local analysis does not mean that every result stays on your machine.

Use a small authorized target and review what you share with an agent. Runtime workflows can launch or interact with software under your user permissions; static inspection and runtime capture have different effects.

Small reconstructions can be checked rigorously

The published DX-Ball sound-pan case reports 3,205 comparisons against the original x86 function and 63 matching compiled bytes. That is a focused result for a particular function and toolchain, not evidence that an arbitrary program can be rebuilt automatically.

A practical finish line is a specific behavior, a documented chain of evidence, a small independent implementation and a comparison against the original. Expand the scope only after that loop works.

Use a repeatable evidence checklist

A useful report allows another person to assess the same conclusion.

• Record the target version or artifact hash.
• Record REA and analysis engine versions.
• Link each claim to a source location, address or observation.
• Label incomplete, filtered and unavailable evidence.
• Keep hypotheses distinct from observations.
• State which behavior checks actually ran.