> I don't see a clear demarcation of the things that only "reasoning" can accomplish and can't be approximated or imitated by other methods, and so I think the question is simply not meaningful or relevant.

One person starting the conversation might be the first step toward another person eventually making progress on such a definition, so it seems weird to reject an entire question outright early like this.

Generally I've seen a few ways LLM tools can produce sub-optimal or poor results that haven't changed a ton over the last couple of years, while the tooling has gotten FAR better at helping them stick the "at least SOMETHING functional was produced" landing. IMO a lot of it has to do with "reasoning"-as-a-process-that-involves-backtracking. And the that things could eventually be formalized around that, and if that is or isn't the case, the more people would understand what to hand off and what to not. Or how to build better prompt harnesses to compensate for those things.