Generative AI tools for research are widely deployed, yet individual productivity gains do not guarantee better team research. We argue that how AI use is structured matters alongside access. Personal AI tools may amplify two failures under deadline pressure: a consumption bottleneck, in which generation outpaces team-visible evaluation, and AI-induced research silos, in which private human-AI loops displace shared decision-making. We motivate this position with a mechanism-generating pilot: a 100-minute research sprint with twelve researchers in three independently operating teams, within a seventeen-person session. Both patterns recurred across teams and evidence sources. Of 33 logged AI interactions, one was accepted outright and 27 lacked a recorded disposition; missing records alone do not establish absent evaluation. A parallel autonomous pipeline produced a complete draft without in-session human evaluation, illustrating production capacity rather than comparative quality. We propose Human-AI-Human collaboration: an interaction topology in which AI connects researchers' contexts and supports inspectable collective evaluation and decision-making. The pilot does not isolate AI-specific effects from time pressure or workflow practices. We close with seven modular, falsifiable design hypotheses, prioritizing shared context and team-visible evaluation checkpoints for controlled follow-up.
A bug report describes what went wrong, but rarely where the code should change. Existing repository-level localization methods often let language models iteratively decide what code to inspect next, requiring repeated model calls and substantial token usage. We investigate whether these inspection decisions can instead be planned before source retrieval. In this research, we introduce CuraLoc, which first selects candidate files and represents their symbols using compact behavioral and structural descriptions. In a single planning decision, the model jointly selects starting symbols, chooses code relationships to inspect from each, and forms hypotheses about likely edits. Deterministic retrieval collects the requested source for a final ranking informed by those hypotheses, concentrating model reasoning on choosing and comparing code rather than directing each retrieval step. We demonstrate the efficacy of our proposed approach on the SWE-Bench Lite and Verified datasets. On SWE Bench Verified with GPT-5.2, CuraLoc raises Func@1 from LocAgent's 53.8% to 59.3% while using 90.3% fewer recorded tokens, and also outperforms RepoSearcher (56.2%) and Agentless (39.6%) on Func@1. On SWE-bench Lite, CuraLoc achieves a high 83.8% Func@5 accuracy improving on Agentless by more than 15% in relative accuracy. Additionally, CuraLoc supports different model backbones, with strong localization accuracy demonstrated using both GPT-5.2 and GPT-6 Astra. These results provide evidence that repository-level code inspection can be planned effectively without iterative model-controlled navigation.