Which visibility keyword interpretations cause accidental public access in UML code generation?

UML 2.5 specifies four visibility keywords—public, private, protected, and package—to enforce access boundaries on class members during model-to-code transformation.

Despite this formalism, code generation tools apply these keywords inconsistently: some enforce the declared access, others default to public for unspecified members, and many reset or ignore the isDerived attribute flag during model synchronization.

This variability can produce mismatched access modifiers and unintended data exposure, particularly in collaborative workflows where multiple tools process the same UML model.

The resulting discrepancies risk accidental public visibility of elements intended to remain private or protected, undermining the model's access-control intent.

Which visibility keyword interpretations lead to accidental public access across common UML code generators? Does the isDerived flag survive model synchronization without explicit preservation, and what alternatives maintain derived-status semantics? What practical workflows can modelers adopt to detect and reconcile these inconsistencies before code deployment?