This post is full of Claude's irritating verbal ticks ("It's not X, it's Y"). It is fine to use Claude (or another LLM) to help with this kind of reverse engineering, but I would prefer the write-up be done by hand.
This would have been more effective if written by hand. The issue content is typical LLM-generated markdown that has a lot of noise (formatting, headings, lists etc.) which makes it fatiguing to read. It comes across like a PowerPoint deck of dense slides. What is really needed is a clear, focused and well-written letter that effectively gets across a message and has the potential to be persuasive to the people within Microsoft who might be in a position to help. An additional problem with the LLM-written style is that it comes across as low-effort, which also lessens its impact.
The major constraint is that the compiler needs to guarantee that transformations produce semantically identical results to the unoptimized code, with the exception of undefined behavior or specific opt-outs (eg. `-ffast-math` rules).
An ML model can fit into existing compiler pipelines anywhere that heuristics are used though, as an alternative to PGO.