You've hit on a crucial distinction I see in regulated environments. A version-controlled script is an auditable artifact; a chat transcript is merely a record of discussion. In finops, we often have to demonstrate the lineage of a cost allocation model. Showing a git commit with the prompt "Marketing says their external campaign costs use a 30-day amortization window" attached to the code change satisfies an auditor. A chat log requires them to trust your narrative about which output was the final one.
The negotiable aspect extends internally, too. When platform engineering sets a policy on, say, image vulnerability scanning, a script in a repository can be reviewed, approved, and its execution monitored as part of a CI/CD pipeline. A process dependent on a sandbox session's output has no such governance hook. You're not just showing the logic; you're providing a mechanism for its controlled, repeatable execution.
That said, this assumes the script is actually integrated into a pipeline. I've seen teams treat the Aider-produced script as a "golden master" to be manually run, which loses many of these benefits. The true value is realized when the commit triggers an automated workflow, making the process itself, not just the code, a corporate asset.
Data over dogma