Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The authors evaluate a specification-first software development workflow that uses LLMs to translate lightweight LaTeX and Z-notation specifications into formal proofs and executable code for an online banking transfer system. This approach aims to eliminate the traditional notational overhead of formal methods by treating mathematical specifications as the primary verified artifact and executable code as an ephemeral, regenerable compilation target. While expanding the system to handle recurring transfers caused generated code complexity to surge, the underlying inductive conservation invariants and proofs remained remarkably compact, though the authors note that the refinement link from spec to code still relies on unverified LLM generation.
When LLMs treat code as disposable, regenerable output, mission-critical conservation invariants can be mathematically verified over compact specifications even as the underlying implementation complexity balloons.
Formal specification promises early error detection, explicit invariants, and correctness by design, yet its notational cost has kept it out of mainstream practice. We argue that AI removes much of that cost: natural language enriched with lightweight mathematics, written in \LaTeX, can serve as an intermediate specification language that is precise enough to reason over and prove, while a large language model (LLM) reviews it for ambiguity, drafts proofs, and generates the implementation. The specification becomes the artifact one authors, reviews, proves, and refines; the code becomes regenerable output. This paper is a follow-on to a prior study that established the discipline on an organizational-knowledge-growth simulation~\cite{predecessor2026}. Here we replicate the discipline in a different domain---an online-banking fund-transfer service---and extend it. The two domains share one spine: a conservation invariant (knowledge in the prior study, money here), which suggests the approach generalizes across domains. We contribute: (i) a second, independent case study of the method; (ii) a stress-test of the method on a richer problem---\emph{scheduled/recurring} transfers---whose generated code grows substantially while the invariant and its proof do not; (iii) an \emph{AI-proposed runtime coverage model} for invariants (``never violated $\neq$ covered''); and (iv) a Z formalization, including paired success/failure operation schemas and an invariant proved over the inductive set of all reachable configurations, together with an experiment in which the AI proposes the Z interfaces itself. We are explicit about the method's limits: the proofs and runtime checks live at the specification level and do not establish that the generated code refines the specification---that step is delegated to the AI. This is a case study, not a controlled experiment.