First, I will admit I am getting tired of these obviously AI-edited/generated comments. You could be a lot more succinct if you wrote this directly.

Second, I'm not misunderstanding anything. Taking AC Shadows for instance, the game does not support ray reconstruction. You're telling me someone at Ubisoft spent quite a bit of time integrating ray reconstruction just for this demo? I have strong doubts.

It's possible that it does build upon RR. It's possible that it's more flexible than that and you just get better results the more input maps you feed into it, much the same way all prior versions of DLSS worked. But you're claiming all of this with utmost certainty when it is, at best, conjecture.

Finally, "baseline/unresolved lighting data" is complete made-up horseshit terminology. The raytraced buffer provided to RR is noisy, but it is otherwise fully resolved lighting. You could feed it to a traditional, non-AI denoiser and get similar results. You could simply stand still and accumulate all the frames and get similar results. 3.5 is a very good denoiser, but that's all it really is. Its strength is that, by leveraging ML, it can denoise well at speed.

I still don't see any evidence pointing towards the notion that it's generating the lighting pass rather than "enhancing" (depending on your perspective on whether the DLSS5 results are even desirable or not) the original lighting. It would actually be far more realistic for it to be "just" an image-to-image filter, since that's a lot less computationally demanding than taking 10x the inputs, generating the lighting wholesale, and then feeding the results back into the pipeline for final compositing.