Thank you for the detailed and insightful response — I really appreciate it.
I also had a chance to read through the paper you mentioned, and I found it very interesting. The approach of incorporating an application specification to guide parameter selection and circuit validation feels like a very practical and much-needed direction, especially from the perspective of users trying to apply FHE in real-world settings.
I’m glad to hear that OpenFHE is planning to support this kind of validation and dynamic tracking in future versions — it sounds like a solid step toward making FHE more robust and user-friendly.
That said, while I understand this behavior will likely be addressed more thoroughly in the future, I wonder if a minimal runtime warning or exception (e.g., when attempting a multiplication with zero-depth parameters) could still be helpful in the meantime. The same idea applies to another report I submitted, where a single EvalRotate silently produced incorrect results due to insufficient parameters. I fully understand this may not be the current design focus, but from a user experience standpoint, such lightweight checks could help catch configuration issues early and reduce confusion during experimentation.
Thanks again — I’m looking forward to future updates!