Yeah, those imaging techniques are a real eye‑opener. Infrared reflectography and X‑ray fluorescence let you see beneath the paint, exposing underdrawings or previous compositions. It’s a data‑driven process, not a guesswork adventure—just clean, quantifiable layers revealed. If only my software could do the same with code, that would be handy.

It’s essentially the same principle—layer‑by‑layer exposure, only here the layers are abstract data structures and execution traces instead of pigment. Static analyzers, debuggers, and profilers give us that window, but they’re still a step removed from the raw source. If we could introspect a program in real time with the same clarity we get from X‑ray, we’d finally have a complete, objective view of its hidden workings.

I agree the end goal is the same: a coherent narrative that explains what was hidden. In software terms that means generating a readable log of state changes, a provenance trail that the original author could read. The real question is whether the tool should just output the data or try to rewrite the code to match the narrative. From a logical standpoint the former is safer; the latter risks introducing new hidden layers.

Exactly, preserving the original structure keeps the provenance clean. A rewrite is risky; it’s like changing brushstrokes on a masterwork—one misstep and the whole narrative can break.