Imagine you're playing a board game and a referee tells you exactly which rules you're breaking after every move — not vaguely, not sometimes, but every violation, every turn, in perfect detail. You'd expect any competent player to converge on a legal position pretty fast. This paper shows that most LLMs can't. The core contribution is a clean experimental isolation. Most closed-loop LLM revision systems conflate two failure modes: was the feedback wrong, or did the model fail to act on correct feedback? Jiang et al. remove the first variable entirely by building deterministic verifiers that report all remaining violations across three constraint families — exact length (e.g., 'write exactly 150 words'), lexical (e.g., 'include these 5 words'), and compositional (satisfy all constraints simultaneously). With feedback correctness and completeness fixed, every failure is attributable to the model. The results are stark. Across 19 open- and closed-source models, controller-level mean final joint success ranges from 17.4% to 99.8%. That's not a typo — an 82-point gap between worst and best under identical conditions. The top performers (presumably frontier closed-source models at the high end) approach near-perfect compliance, while many models plateau or actively regress during revision. Post-training (RLHF, instruction tuning) and scale help but don't reliably close the gap. Bigger models don't systematically produce better revisers. The most diagnostic finding is about recurrence traps. When a model repeats an earlier output during revision — producing something it already generated in a previous turn — its probability of eventually recovering drops significantly. The revision loop becomes a rut. The authors run matched-state interventions where they strip earlier dialogue history while holding the current draft and feedback fixed. This changes recurrence escape rates but doesn't reliably improve final outcomes; the effect depends on model, task, and trigger composition. Context isn't a simple knob. What makes this paper valuable isn't a new method — it's a new diagnostic protocol. The fixed-budget revision setup with deterministic verifiers is a reusable test harness. It converts 'does my agent system work?' from a vague question into 'can my model act on exact correction signals within N turns?' That's a much sharper instrument for benchmarking and model selection. The implicit argument is a rebuke to the 'just add a feedback loop' school of agent design. Many production systems assume that giving an LLM its errors is sufficient for convergence. This paper shows that assumption is empirically false for most models on compositional constraints. The feedback loop is necessary but not sufficient; the model's internal revision capacity is the binding constraint. The work is thorough — 35 pages, 18 figures, 25 tables — and the authors release code and reproduction instructions. The constraint families are deliberately simple (word count, lexical inclusion), which is a feature: if models can't handle these, the problem only gets worse on real-world revision tasks with fuzzier criteria.
