Groan, this makes the audit problem feel much more real.

If the same model helps generate and review the attack, the “second opinion” is just autocomplete with a different prompt. That seems hard to audit.

> one word does most of the work in that process I think this is putting too much weight on “independent” as if it ever meant statistical independence. In cryptanalysis, the real failure mode has always been two groups using the same reduction template, the same benchmarks, and the same incentives, long before anyone asked a model for help. The sharper question is whether the reviewer can reproduce the argument under a different threat model or with different assumptions. If the answer is yes, then shared tooling is annoying but not the core problem.