Uh ok let's say "a thorough understanding of the rest of the function" instead. Does my question make more sense? The reviewer (human or computer) needs to foll

Uh ok let's say "a thorough understanding of the rest of the function" instead. Does my question make more sense? The reviewer (human or computer) needs to follow the logic of the function, understand the true purpose of the function, in order to know that the line which looks like a bug actually isn't one. I feel that most of my bugs are domain specific logic bugs. My original comment wasn't so much of a question but skepticism that such an algorithm can catch the hardest bugs, despite the improved metrics compared to other algorithms.