Local vulnerability repair could reduce dependenceon ground contact for selected spacecraft applications, but aplausible patch does not establish that it should be activated.We evaluate separate generation and acceptance stages us-ing two quantized Qwen2.5-Coder models on three syntheticC predicates, with three seeds and up to two attempts pertrial. The 0.5B model produces no evaluator-valid repair innine trials; the 1.5B model produces two in nine. Across 34attempts, development-only and additional-acceptance policieschoose identical candidates, providing no evidence of an extra-gate advantage. Inference denies network syscalls, and network-filtered compilation/validation replay reproduces all outcomes. Aseparate measured host workload records 26-27 deadline misseswith immediate artificial validation and zero with phase-awaredeferral, while approximately doubling validation completiontime. That workload excludes inference and actual patch valida-tion. These findings provide preliminary reproducible evidenceand expose evaluation gaps. They establish neither a new repairalgorithm nor satellite safety. Independently sourced defects,protected build/supervisor isolation, and integrated target-devicemeasurements remain necessary.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shawki Aladdin (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: