As far as I know manifold is not verified software, but it does promise that manifold inputs become manifold outputs.
I wonder how manifold will break in that condition or would it snap to the nearest manifold.
https://github.com/schildep/verified-3d-mesh-intersection#wh...
The more important difference though, is that our library can still handle epsilon-valid self-intersecting meshes, rather than just reporting an error. This is critical in practice because meshes are stored, transported, and transformed in floating-point, so even the formally-proven non-self-intersecting results of the library under discussion will not necessarily be valid input for it anymore after a round-trip through a file format or a rotation.
Still, these are details. I think the real contribution here is demonstrating a new approach to formally verifying software even for notoriously difficult problems. I believe that concept is really important, as the general state of software reliability tells me that the state of the art in testing software is desperately lacking. I think formal verification may well be one of the most important aspects of computer science research in the nearish term.
I presume the new advance is claim that verified-3d-mesh-intersection is verified and not the claim that vibe coding can replace hand proofs or that the claim that lean4 can be correct without trusting llms.