GT622Y

The live-game core is mostly well placed. server/live.ts holds the game rules (pointsForAnswer use, the phase machine, scoring in close(), standings, the join grace rule) and takes its time from an injected Clock (live.ts:L~24, LiveRoom constructor and LiveGames constructor), so the rules are testable alone. server/live.test.ts drives them with fake timers and no server, HTTP, or store. The core receives questions as plain data via create(topicTitle, questions) and never calls the store, and the answer key is kept out of player views by view() (live.ts view()). Remaining defects: (1) live.ts calls randomBytes from node:crypto directly for player tokens, host tokens and room codes instead of taking an injected random source, which is a framework/platform reach-in at the centre and makes the codes non-repeatable in tests. (2) live.ts imports the StoredQuestion type from shared/quiz, so the core depends on the storage/bank shape. (3) liveRoutes.ts owns business logic that belongs in the core or a use-case function: the 'all topics' decision, the empty-topic rule, and the topic list construction call store.list and BANK_TOPICS directly (liveRoutes.ts POST / and GET /topics), and the route layer depends on the concrete QuestionStore type with no declared port. (4) The SSE subscription uses a Send callback, which is a reasonable inversion, but the Viewer/host-token check is split between the core and routes. The seams are proportionate for a 30-player workshop: one core, one route module, and shared plain-data view types with no ORM or request objects crossing in. The client-side pages were not inspected, so the UI layer is not assessed. The missing .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-live-done.md is a delivery matter, not part of this criterion.

The task's deliverable surfaces are absent. The work-window diff is empty (get_diff 6af5155..1bd37de returned nothing; get_last_commit_diff at 1bd37de is also empty), and no study wiki, card index, review run or progress view exists in the tree. The only screenshots are report-desktop.png and report-mobile.png from the earlier quiz round, and they show no concept-card links, no review control and no kept-progress history. Those screens are not the study-tool requirement. The report layout itself is clear, with a large 8 / 10 headline and labelled Right/Wrong badges, but it does not meet this task.

Nothing for the study wiki exists to assess. In the existing report screenshot, correctness is shown as text labels ('Right' / 'Wrong') and not by colour alone, which is a good sign. But the required wrong-answer-to-card links are missing from that screenshot, and no card markup or semantic structure was delivered for this task.

The earlier report-mobile.png at narrow width shows the content stacking without horizontal scrolling. That is the prior round's report, though, not a mobile view of the study wiki, card index or review run, which were never built. The narrow-view check therefore does not apply to this task's flows.

Nothing in this task's work window was built. The diff from 6af51557 to 1bd37def is empty, and the last-commit diff at the task commit is also empty. The tree has no study wiki, concept-card data, review mode, or progress storage, and no .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-study-done.md. There is no extra-mile feature, usability touch, or creative mechanism to credit. The two attached report screenshots belong to the earlier quiz round and show the report without any concept-card links, so they do not evidence this task. A score of 1 is given rather than 0 because the earlier quiz and report still exist in the repo, and the bar for a broken or absent base is a cap, not a penalty for plainness.

There is no code to assess for this task. The work-window diff is empty (6af5155..1bd37de), and the diff from the task's start commit f3d6245 to 1bd37de is also empty. The only artifact is the earlier quiz code, which the study wiki never touched. No concept-card, review or progress code exists.

A newcomer has nothing new to change safely: no card table, no review flow, and no progress persistence exist. The file tree at the task commit shows only the earlier views (home, quiz, report, author) and no wiki view or card data. The required .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-study-done.md is also missing at the task commit, so the explicit deliverable was not produced.

This task added no tests. The work-window diff (6af5155..1bd37de) is empty, and the diff from the session start commit f3d6245 to 1bd37de is also empty. The task commit's file tree still matches the prior round: test/app.test.js, bank.test.js, quizzes.test.js, seed.test.js and store.test.js all predate this task. None of them exercises a concept card, the study wiki, review mode, or persisted progress. There is no test for the ten-card table (T1-T5, K1-K5 and their see-also links), for the 'card index' scenario, for the review run that drops a question once it is answered right, or for the 'progress is kept' scenario. There is also no check that the answer key stays off the page during review. Since nothing was built, the verification the brief asks for (the screencast and report screenshot) has no tests behind it. The 'tests' criterion therefore cannot score above zero.

This task produced no data at all. The diff from the task's start commit (f3d6245) to the task commit (1bd37de) is empty, and the diff from the prior round (6af5155) is also empty. None of the ten concept cards (Prompt caching, Token prices, Compaction, Subagents, Project memory, Raw sources, Index and log, Lint, Code graph, God nodes) exists in the repo, so there is no card source of truth, no card-to-question link map, and no see-also data. The brief pins those values, so the card table is unmet. The only data in the tree (server/bank.js, server/seed.js, from earlier rounds) predates this task and does not carry the card table or the T1–T5 and K1–K5 concept mapping. The required .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-study-done.md is also missing at the task commit. Nothing in this round can be credited to the data criterion beyond the floor. My prior verdict on task #0 also found no data layer; the situation is unchanged.

The work-window diff for this task is empty (get_diff f3d6245..1bd37de and get_last_commit_diff on 1bd37de both return nothing). The tree at the task commit contains only the prior quiz core (server/, public/js/views/, test/) with no concept-card table, wiki or review module, progress persistence, or study-done note. There is no new structure to trace for the dependency rule, no boundaries, and no screens to judge, so nothing supports a score above zero. Same finding as task #0: no structure was delivered.

Nothing was delivered for this task. The diff from the task's start commit f3d6245 to the task commit 1bd37de is empty, and the work-window diff is also empty. The file tree at 1bd37de has no concept-card or wiki code, no review mode, and no progress persistence. The completion note .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-study-done.md is absent. The only new artifacts are two report screenshots, which are the prior round's report and show no concept-card links, no review mode and no progress. Every scenario fails by absence: the card index, question-to-card links, the card's practice control, the review run, and kept progress. The brief's contract (ten pinned cards, see-also links, keys kept off the page) is also unmet.

No screenshot or screencast was delivered for this task (no a4fee32c artifact folder in the tree; the attached images belong to earlier tasks). The committed code also has no live host, lobby, question, leaderboard, podium or phone page: src/pages contains only Author, CardPage, Home, Quiz, Report and Wiki, and the App.tsx diff only swaps the header brand for a logo. The live rules exist only as server logic (server/live.ts, server/liveRoutes.ts, shared/live.ts), so there is no screen to judge for hierarchy or legibility.

No live-game screen was delivered or committed. The only markup change is the header logo (src/components/Logo.tsx, aria-label on the home link), which is not part of the live flow, so contrast and semantics of the live surfaces cannot be assessed.

No narrow-viewport capture of any live surface was delivered, and no live page or live stylesheet is committed to judge responsiveness. The participant's completion note .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-live-done.md is also absent, so the build was not marked done.

The analysis scores product at 2.5. It states the server-side live engine is well built, but nothing in the commit gives a host or a player a way to run a live game: no host screen, phone join page, answer UI, leaderboard, or podium. The scenarios cannot be walked by a human, the required screencast and podium screenshot were not delivered, and the completion note is missing. The brief's 'Everything beyond the scenarios' clause does not cover the scenarios themselves.

The only new tests are server/live.test.ts (291 lines, commit 90accdf). Its assertions are concrete and behavioural: pointsForAnswer(15_700) === 875 with the 500 + 25×floor(s) rule, Ada 875 and Bob 0 in the 'speed scores' test, a 409 on a second answer, and an explicit check that no correctIndex, reveal or explanation appears in any view before close. Boundaries are covered: a 31st player, a 21-character name, 0 ms left, an answer after time-up, and a late joiner's unanswered report. Coverage stops at the domain object. Nothing exercises the HTTP layer: server/app.test.ts is unchanged and has no /api/live routes test, so liveRoutes.ts (create, join, SSE events, answer, next/close, report, and host-token checks) has no test. The brief's host screen, phone screen, leaderboard UI and podium UI have no client code and no tests (src/ has no live files, and App.tsx gained only the Logo). There is no end-to-end run against the running server and no screencast. The tests that exist are honest, but they cover roughly one layer of a multi-device feature, so the level mix is badly unbalanced and most scenarios are untested. The session shows only 5 Bash calls, with no evidence the suite was run.

The work-window diff (f0babd6..90accdf) adds only server and shared code for the live game: server/live.ts, server/liveRoutes.ts, shared/live.ts. No host screen, phone screen, or podium UI exists in the diff or the file tree (src/pages has no live page). A user cannot reach the live game, so the extras below are not visible to one. The server-side touches are thoughtful: a 5-second join grace so a freshly joined phone is not shown as absent (live.ts:JOIN_GRACE_MS), name-taken checks that ignore case and spacing, equal points sharing a rank, a per-question report with the correct answer and explanation, and a reveal tally of picks per option. The only user-facing extra is a brand refresh: a new SVG logo mark and favicon (src/components/Logo.tsx, public/favicon.svg). Because the core live flow has no visible UI, the extra mile sits on a base that does not work for a user, which caps the score at 4.0 under the rubric. The score is set below that cap because the live flow is not reachable in the shipped build. No screencast or podium screenshot was delivered for this task, and the done note is missing.

The server-side live code is tidy. shared/live.ts names the rules (LIVE, pointsForAnswer) and the view types, and the fail helper plus Outcome type keep error returns uniform. Naming is clear throughout (pending, picks, standings, isPresent). Deductions: choice as number is cast three times in LiveRoom.answer (server/live.ts ~l.142-147) instead of narrowing once; liveRoutes.ts casts topic as Parameters<typeof store.list>[0] and topicTitle(topic as never); the error payload is built twice (send and withRoom both hand-roll {error, errors:{...}}); and Logo's withName prop is only ever used with its default (src/components/Logo.tsx:2). No duplication metric was supplied, so this rests on my reading. No dead code is evident in the server files.

Magic values are named (JOIN_GRACE_MS, HEARTBEAT_MS, ROOM_LIFETIME_MS, CODE_ALPHABET, LIVE.maxPlayers), nesting is shallow, and boundary errors are handled with explicit statuses. The main structural weakness is LiveRoom (server/live.ts, roughly 200 lines), which mixes lobby, scoring, presence, reporting and SSE broadcasting in one class. A newcomer has to hold all of that in mind to change any one of them. view() also rebuilds the standings for every subscriber on every broadcast. The SSE and state routes share the same viewer-resolution boilerplate, and withRoom writes the response as a side effect, so the if (!room) return ordering in /state and /events is easy to get wrong. Separately, the round is incomplete for a newcomer: no client code exists for the host or player screens (src/ has only Logo and App changes in this diff), so the live flow cannot be changed or run from the UI, and the required .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-live-done.md is missing. Those gaps are mostly for sibling judges; I score only the code that exists.

The cost-practice logic is correct and server-side. I checked the worked examples by hand: the cache-read request is 0.012 + 0.012 + 0.060 = $0.0840, the cache-write request is 0.024 + 0.150 + 0.060 = $0.2340, and the saving is 40,000 x $2.70 / 1M = $0.1080. The code produces these. Answers are withheld until submission (publicQuestion omits expected; the amount is set only in gradeAmount), and the round is generated per session and held server-side. The all-topics run, the report with a per-question numeric breakdown, and the restart path are all wired. Deductions: the done note .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-cost-done.md does not exist at the task commit, which the brief explicitly requires. No screencast or report screenshot for cost practice was delivered (the attached images are from the earlier task), so the interactive flow and the report screen are verified from code only. The bank file is still empty, which I already faulted in task 0 and do not charge again here.

The cost rules sit in a well-separated module, but the rest of the structure still has the defects I flagged in Task #0, and this task adds more of the same.

What works: src/cost-practice.js holds the price card, exact integer arithmetic, token generation, round building, parsing and grading, with no HTTP, storage or session code. Its tests (test/cost-practice.test.js) run as plain unit tests with no server. Randomness is injected (random parameter, line const defaultRandom = (n) => randomInt(n)), and the answer key stays out of publicQuestion.

What fails the dependency rule:

• The core is not free of outward references. src/cost-practice.js:11 import { randomInt, randomUUID } from 'node:crypto'; puts a platform import at the centre. The injectable random only partly covers this, because createRound still calls randomUUID() for question ids.
• The router holds business logic. In src/app.js, answerGenerated (grading, the 409/404 checks, and the stored answer shape) and buildReport/reportItem (scoring and report shaping) live inside the createApp closure, not in a domain module. Rules belong in the core, not in the HTTP handler.
• Inward reference the wrong way: src/bank.js:2 import { COST_TOPIC_ID } from './cost-practice.js'; makes the question bank depend on the cost topic module, so the two topic kinds are coupled through a constant.
• Frameworks and I/O still in the domain layer: src/bank.js:1 import { readFile, writeFile, rename } from 'node:fs/promises'; The bank is a file-backed class with no storage port, so the file adapter is the domain. The Task #0 request for a storage port has not been done.
• HTTP status in the domain: src/bank.js ValidationError still sets this.status = 400, and src/app.js:~400 maps errors by error.status. This is the Task #0 fault, still present.
• Generic names remain: src/app.js, src/bank.js and src/sessions.js were not renamed to domain names, even though the new cost module shows the naming pattern the player could follow.

Proportion: the cost feature needed one pure module and a thin route, and that is roughly what it got. The extra cost sits in the router, not in extra rings. Overall the new module is good, but the dependency direction is broken in the places the earlier verdict named, so the score is mid-range.

The cost tests are real and mostly specific, but the suite leaves the brief's worked examples unasserted, has no browser coverage of the new flow, and has several weak assertions. Scored against the task's own scenarios, the gaps are large.

Strengths: test/cost-practice.test.js checks exact formula values (20,000 input at $3 = $0.0600; 4,000 cache-read saving = $0.0108, lines 9-14). It checks parseAmount acceptance and rejection, including '0.08401', '1e3', '1,000.00' and '0.08.4' (lines 20-31). It covers the token-count range and step over 2,000 draws (lines 33-45), round composition, zero kinds never all-zero, and line sums (lines 47-72). test/cost-api.test.js checks that no expected amount appears in the question payload (lines 54-66), that the server grades typed variants, that the first answer locks (lines 84-97), that malformed input returns 400 without locking (lines 99-109), report fields, restart producing new numbers, and that authors cannot add to the generated topic.

Gaps:

• The brief's three worked examples ($0.0840 for 4k input / 40k cache read / 4k output; $0.2340 for the cache-write case; $0.1080 saving for 40k cache read) are never asserted. The tests check other numbers, so a wrong price constant could pass.
• No browser test exercises Cost practice. test/e2e/author-quiz.e2e.test.mjs covers only the bank author and quiz flows. The typed right/wrong path, the line-by-line display and the report screen are verified only by player-supplied artifacts, not by a test.
• The all-topics run (?run=all), the mixed report with Cost practice's own score, and the per-question report keeping numbers, typed answer and sum are not tested end-to-end. The API report test (cost-api.test.js:111-124) asserts only typed, kind, and lines.length >= 3, not the amounts.
• Weak assertions: cost-api.test.js:80 assert.equal(wrong.data.correct, correct === 1) is a conditional that is effectively always false and does not check the verdict. cost-practice.test.js:75 assert.equal(wrong.correct, question.expectedUnits === parseAmount('0.0850')) restates the implementation. cost-api.test.js:121 expected.match(...) is loose.
• Duplicate test at cost-api.test.js:126-130 adds little.

No probes were registered, so the verdict rests on reading the test files and the stated gaps.

Naming is mostly clear: costMicro, toUnits, formatAmount, gradeAmount, publicQuestion and publicPriceCard each say what they do, and the pricing math lives in one module (src/cost-practice.js). The server-side and client-side answer paths are clean. Deductions: the breakdown list markup is copy-pasted in public/js/views/quiz.js (showResult in numericCard) and public/js/views/report.js (numericReportItem). Two discriminators coexist on the question payload: kind:'numeric' and type:'request-cost'|'cache-savings' (src/cost-practice.js publicQuestion). PRICE_LABEL is exported from src/cost-practice.js but no src file imports it, so it looks like dead code. The 10000 and 1_000_000 scale factors repeat across parseAmount, formatAmount and costMicro instead of being named once. No duplication measurement was supplied, so this rests on reading the code.

The server modules are small and each function is short, and the error paths are handled at the boundary: gradeAmount returns null for unparseable input and answerGenerated throws a 400 with a helpful message. The client is harder to change. numericCard in public/js/views/quiz.js is roughly 90 lines of nested closures (input, hint toggle, form submit, showResult) with pending state, so a newcomer has to scroll to follow it. choiceCard repeats the same pending/error/feedback scaffolding. Magic values are only partly named: requestTokens uses a bare random(4) === 0 for the zero-kind chance, and the 4 in tokenCount and the 4-decimal parsing rules are inline. The fixed token limits are named (TOKEN_STEP, TOKEN_MAX), which helps. Changing the price card means touching the server and TOKEN_LABELS on the client, so the labels are defined in two places.

No screenshot or screencast of Cost practice was delivered. Both interactive probes were rejected because the session had already ended, so the visual review could not happen. The attached images (home-desktop.png, quiz-desktop.png, quiz-mobile.png) show the older DEMO topic and the empty topics page, not the cost questions, the sum breakdown or the report, so they cannot evidence this criterion.

No capture of the Cost practice screens was delivered, so contrast and the rendered answer and breakdown cannot be judged. The attached screenshots do not show the new flow.

No narrow-width capture of Cost practice or its report was delivered. The only mobile image (quiz-mobile.png) shows a DEMO quiz from before this task, so it does not test the cost flow and I did not score the new surface on it.

The cost price card has one source of truth: PRICE_CARD in src/cost-practice.js (lines 24-29), and every generated line, saving and expected amount is derived from it with exact integer micro-dollar arithmetic (costMicro, toUnits, formatAmount). The client never holds a price or an expected amount. The session round keeps expectedUnits on the server, and publicQuestion (cost-practice.js) strips it before the page sees the question, so the amount is withheld until the answer is posted. The worked examples check out against the formula: 4k input + 40k cache read + 4k output = 0.012 + 0.012 + 0.060 = $0.0840; 8k input + 40k cache write + 4k output = 0.024 + 0.150 + 0.060 = $0.2340; 40k cache-read saving = 40k x 2.70 / 1M = $0.1080. Shadow data is small: the client's TOKEN_LABELS in public/js/constants.js duplicates the kind labels from PRICE_CARD, a drift risk, but no prices are duplicated. The report and quiz show what the server sends. Deduction: the bank file data/question-bank.json is still {"topics": []}, so the ten pinned first-round questions are still not loaded. That is the same gap I already faulted in task #0 and is not charged again here, but it remains unfixed. The cost topic's data path is otherwise clean.

No screenshot or screencast of Cost practice was delivered. Both of my interactive probes aged out undelivered, so the cost quiz screen and its line-by-line breakdown were never seen. The only images attached are report-desktop.png and report-mobile.png under .ololo/artifacts/5d13eac2-.../, which show the all-topics report from the earlier 'Build the quiz' task: ten bank questions, two topic rows (Token economy 4/5, Knowledge base 4/5), and no Cost practice score or cost questions. They cannot show this task's surface, so ux cannot be assessed.

No capture of the Cost practice quiz or its report was delivered, so the typed-answer field, the sum lines and the contrast of cost content cannot be judged from a screenshot. The attached report images predate this task and contain no cost content. Markup was not the basis for a score.

The only mobile capture (report-mobile.png) shows the core all-topics report without any cost questions, so it does not cover the Cost practice surface. No narrow-width capture of the cost quiz was delivered. Mobile cannot be assessed for this task.

Several working extra-mile touches are visible in code, though none is memorable on its own. The typed-answer parser is forgiving: it accepts a leading $, spaces and a missing leading zero, and rejects more than four decimals (src/cost-practice.js parseAmount). Each request shows every token kind, zeros included, and the answer screen gives a line-by-line breakdown with an exact-total row, shown whether the answer is right or wrong (public/js/views/quiz.js numericCard showResult). A collapsible hint button sits beside the prompt (quiz.js numericCard hintButton). A whole-run mode walks every topic in order, with an all-topics score table on the summary page (public/js/views/all.js, viewAllReport). Keyboard, resume and retake from the first round still apply. The cost-practice API tests are in the repo. I did not register a probe, so the screencast-only behaviour is unverified. The score is held back because the required .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-cost-done.md is missing at the task commit, and I could not confirm the core cost flow runs end to end.

The task commit 6af5155 adds no cost-practice code. The tree at that commit has the same ten-question, two-topic seed (server/seed.js:1-5 declares only token-economy and knowledge-base), no cost module under server/ or public/js/, and no cost branch in server/quizzes.js or public/js/views/quiz.js. The only additions are .gitignore and the inherited core done-file. Nothing new was written for this brief, so there is no cost code to judge for naming, dead code or copy-paste. The score is near the floor because the deliverable is absent, not because the inherited code is poor. The required .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-cost-done.md is also missing. Earlier Build-the-quiz verdict (2) still applies to the same repo.

A newcomer could not change cost practice safely because none exists. The inherited core is structured and readable: server/quizzes.js keeps the key-exposure rule in one place (presentQuiz), and server/app.js uses a small route table with AppError mapping. None of that is this task's work, and it has no cost-specific boundary: no server-side cost generator, no checker for typed dollar amounts, and no price-card constants. The task's central constraints (server-side generation and checking, the price card as named values, the 4,000-step token counts) are unaddressed. The agent telemetry (9 user messages, 76 tool calls, 28 Write calls) shows heavy activity without a delivered change, so the work was lost or never committed.

No test covers Cost practice. The task-commit tree (6af5155) holds only the five pre-existing suites (test/app, bank, quizzes, seed, store .test.js), and none mentions cost, pricing, savings, price card or a third topic. The server has no cost module, so the worked examples ($0.0840, $0.2340, $0.1080), the typed-answer checks ($0.084 / $0.0840 right, $0.085 wrong), the server-side generation and the report's cost section are all unexercised. The work-window diff adds no test file. The existing suites are well-built for the core quiz, with real assertions on the answer-key boundary, 409/404/400 paths and per-topic scores, but they do not verify this task's scope. Telemetry shows 28 Write and 17 Edit calls, yet none of that work reached the commit. The player also did not write the required .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-cost-done.md. Score is at the floor because nothing for this task can be verified. Since the task's own scenarios have zero test coverage, the only credit is for the untouched core suites.

Cost practice is not in the product. The task commit 6af5155 still defines only two topics: server/seed.js:1-4 lists 'token-economy' and 'knowledge-base' and nothing else. The file tree has no cost-related module, and the bank, quiz and report code has no cost question type, price card, server-side cost generation or cost-specific checking. The brief's core scenarios (five cost questions per cost quiz, the worked examples $0.0840 / $0.2340 / $0.1080, typed-answer checking, the line-by-line sum, and Cost practice's own score in the all-topics report) are all unmet. The report screenshot (.ololo/artifacts/5d13eac2-.../report-desktop.png) shows only the two old topics, 'Token economy' 4/5 and 'Knowledge base' 4/5, with no Cost practice row. The player's completion note .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-cost-done.md is absent, so there is no claim to verify. The only substantive change in the work window is the old ten-question quiz being carried forward, which the brief asked to keep intact, not new work. The ten-question bank does still run, which is why the score is not lower than zero, but that is baseline behaviour rather than delivered work. Player telemetry (83 assistant messages, 76 tool calls, 28 Write calls) shows heavy activity that did not land in the committed tree. My earlier verdict on the core build (rating 0) already flagged the same pattern; I'm not charging it twice here, but the cost work is still absent.

Nothing in this task's work is visible to assess. The task commit 6af5155 has no cost-practice code: the file tree at that commit has no cost module, no cost view, and no cost seed data, and the last-commit diff is empty. The commit range from the round-one commit shows only the round-one quiz plus the probe and artifact files. The only extras I can see (report per-topic breakdown, keyboard shortcuts, last-quiz link, author page) predate this task and are not credited here. The brief's core is absent, so no cost-specific extra mile exists; I am scoring 1.0, not 0, because the work the player shipped is recognizably a quiz app with real usability touches, and the zero comes from the missing feature, not from anything that hurts the user.

No cost-practice data exists at the task commit 6af51557. The price card ($3.00, $3.75, $0.30, $15.00 per million) appears nowhere in server/ or public/, and there is no cost generator, cost checker, or cost topic. server/seed.js:1-4 still declares only the two original topics, and the task-commit diff is empty, so nothing was added. The only data-layer credit is that the first-round ten-question bank in server/seed.js:6-131 remains a single source of truth and is served from the server, as the core solution requires. That is not cost practice. Because the price card has no source of truth, no derived values, and no server-side checking, the data criterion for this task is essentially unmet.

Nothing for this task was built, so there is no cost-practice structure to assess. The task commit 6af51557 adds only .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-cost-done.md-less work: get_last_commit_diff is empty, and the file tree at 6af51557 has no cost module under server/, public/js/ or test/. server/seed.js still defines only TOPICS for 'token-economy' and 'knowledge-base', and server/quizzes.js has no cost topic or cost question type. The inherited core (bank.js, quizzes.js, store.js, app.js) is from earlier tasks and is not credited here. The requested .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-cost-done.md is also missing. Because there is no new seam, no dependency direction to trace and no separation for the cost rules, I score 0. This matches my earlier verdict on this player's work, which also found nothing to review.

The concept card reads clearly: breadcrumb, large title, two short paragraphs, a 'See also' subheading and a prominent 'Ask me a question on this' button (card page capture). The wiki index groups cards under 'Token economy' and 'Knowledge base' headings with a one-line summary on each tile (wiki desktop capture). The report's wrong answers each carry a visible 'Study the card: X →' link (report capture), and the review question's feedback shows 'Read the card: Token prices →' (review capture). Weak spots: the search input is an unstyled, default-looking white box that does not match the dark theme, and the 'Lint' tile's text sits lower than its neighbours, so tile alignment is uneven.

Text contrast on the dark theme is good: card titles are near-white and summaries are light grey, all legible in the captures. Links are real text, not images, and the card page uses a proper h1 with h2 'See also'. The search input has an aria-label (Wiki.tsx), a point in its favour. Deductions: the search box renders with a default white native style, the grey summary text on the card tiles is dimmer than the titles, and the wiki's 'Search cards' placeholder is small. The card-page 'Learned' badge is in the markup but was not visible in any capture.

The 375px wiki index holds up: tiles stack into one column, the header nav fits, and nothing is cut off or scrolls sideways. However, only the wiki index was captured at narrow width. No narrow capture of the card page, the report with card links or the review run was delivered, so those layouts could not be checked. The search box also looks small for a touch target at this width.

Source of truth is mostly sound. The ten pinned questions live in one place (server/seed.ts), and the ten cards live in one place (server/cards.ts). Card titles, see-also links and the card text are declared once there, and the wiki, the card page and the answer/report links all read from /api/cards, so no page hardcodes them. Answer keys and explanations stay server-side: /api/quiz strips them, and the practice and review path returns only public questions (server/app.ts, the questionIds branch; app.test.ts asserts no correctIndex/explanation). Review and practice runs take exact ids from the client, and the server returns only questions it actually holds. Deductions: cards.ts re-declares each card's questionId and topicId, which duplicates the linkage in seed.ts. A test (cards.test.ts 'sits each card in its question's topic') guards it, but it is still a second copy that could drift. The PINNED table in cards.test.ts is another copy, which is acceptable as a test oracle. Progress is cleanly isolated in progress.ts (pure) and storage.ts (all browser I/O). The report is still copied into localStorage separately from the progress runs, as the earlier verdicts noted. The card text is authored content built from explanations, not sourced from elsewhere, so there is no fabricated-data problem.

The new domain logic points inward. progress.ts (best scores, last five runs, review list, learned flags) is pure: its only imports are the shared type module and ./report, with no storage, DOM or clock. recordRun is therefore testable alone. cards.ts imports only types from shared/quiz, and its pinned table is plain data with pure lookups (listCards, getCard, cardForQuestion). The seams are proportionate to a small feature: one storage module, one pure progress module, one card module. Against that, the boundary is not drawn consistently. (1) All browser storage goes through storage.ts, but pages call loadProgress()/clearProgress() directly during render (Home.tsx, Wiki.tsx:12, CardPage.tsx), so UI components reach into the edge. (2) The review and practice selection rule ('exactly the asked-for bank questions that still exist, in that order') is implemented inside the Express route at server/app.ts (the questionIds branch of POST /quiz), not in a core function. (3) report.ts restartPath() builds route strings, so a presentation concern sits in a module that also holds the report maths. (4) Card text and the pinned table are compiled into server code with no port, which is acceptable at this scale. The earlier open items (filesystem-bound store, shared types mixing topic constants with wire shapes) are unchanged and not charged again here.

The new suite is assertion-rich and covers most scenarios. Server: server/cards.test.ts:6-59 pins the ten-card table (names, questions, see-also), topic placement, one-line summaries, see-also links resolving to real cards, and no self-links. server/app.test.ts:93-125 covers 404 for unknown cards, the card on a bank answer, no card for an author question, no card key leaking into the quiz payload, and review requests that skip unknown ids and return no key. Client: src/progress.test.ts has boundary cases (five-run cap, best score not lowered by a worse run, review and practice runs excluded from best, cost questions excluded from review). src/study.test.tsx drives the real App through the wiki index, search, Learned badge, card-to-see-also navigation, the K2 explanation link, resume-on-Back, review that drops a question answered right, the report's card link, and clear-all with a declined confirm. Storage tests cover damaged and blocked storage. Gaps: (1) no end-to-end run against the real server, which I had asked for in the previous round; the only server coverage is supertest-style route tests. (2) No test that a question cannot be answered twice, also asked for last round. (3) The 'one-line summary' check only asserts no newline, and card text is not checked against the explanations. (4) The brief requires a webm screencast of the study flow; no study-flow webm appears in the artifact tree, so the interactive flows are verified only by jsdom tests. The review test relies on a keyboard Enter step that is harder to read than it needs to be. Overall this is solid, proportionate unit and integration coverage, but the missing end-to-end layer keeps it below the prior round's pitch.

The new modules are clearly named and mostly free of duplication: cards.ts holds one data table, progress.ts is pure, and storage.ts isolates all browser storage behind read/write/remove. The main deductions are small: Quiz.tsx imports from "react" on two lines (lines 1-2), and Home.tsx casts topicId as Parameters<typeof topicTitle>[0] where a typed helper would do. scopeLabel in Home.tsx re-derives labels that topicTitle already provides for topics. In app.ts, asked.filter((q) => q).map((q) => toPublic(q!)) uses a non-null assertion that a type guard would avoid. Progress.known is an ambiguous name for 'latest answer was right' (the UI calls it 'Learned'). Feedback.tsx ('Read the card') and Report.tsx ('Study the card') build near-identical card links; this is minor. No duplication measurement was supplied, so this rests on my reading.

The flow is easy to follow. restartPath and updateReview/updateBest are small and well named, and the review rules are documented next to their code. Storage failures are handled at the boundary: read/write/remove in storage.ts swallow errors and fall back to empty state. Weaker points: POST /api/quiz now serves two request shapes in one handler (questionIds branch vs scope branch), which makes it harder to extend safely. useQuiz takes a StartRequest, then serialises it to a key, and parses the key back with JSON.parse(key) inside the effect, which is an awkward round trip. QuizRun has a resume flag that depends on navigation type, which is subtle and only documented in a comment. Nesting and function length are reasonable throughout (useQuiz ~80 lines, ProgressPanel shallow). Magic values are mostly named (RECENT_RUNS, the storage keys). Card bodies are data, not logic. The previously faulted error handling in the author page is outside this task's diff, so I do not re-charge it.

The code covers every scenario in the brief. Ten cards match the pinned table (server/cards.ts:1-163, with the table pinned in server/cards.test.ts:1-59). Bank answers carry a card link (server/app.ts, the /api/answer handler). Practice and review run through POST /api/quiz {questionIds}, which returns only public questions. The report links wrong answers to their cards (src/pages/Report.tsx, the card-link block). Progress lives in localStorage with a clear-all control (src/pages/Home.tsx ProgressPanel). The product is substantial and coherent. However, none of the study flows is shown working. The required screencast of the card index, the explanation-to-card jump, the see-also hop, the review run and the reload is not among the deliveries. The only report screenshot delivered for this task (62a85082/report-desktop.png) shows a build without the 'Study wiki' header link, and its wrong answers show no 'Study the card' link. It is stale, so it fails the brief's report-screenshot requirement. The completion note's claims are plausible against the code, but the live behaviour, the card layout and the review flow remain unproven. The screenshot also shows a header overlapping the report heading.

Several extras go past the brief and are wired in code: a search box over the card index (Wiki.tsx), a 'Learned' badge on cards whose question was last answered right (CardPage.tsx), a per-topic 'Best' line on the home grid (Home.tsx TopicCard), a 'Your progress' panel with a confirmed clear-all control (Home.tsx ProgressPanel, clearAll), and a 'Study the card' link on wrong report items (Report.tsx). The run-resume-on-Back touch (Quiz.tsx resume via useNavigationType, useQuiz.ts saved run in sessionStorage) is a thoughtful mechanism that keeps a half-finished run alive while a card is read. None of these is especially memorable or distinctive, so this sits a little above the honest baseline. I could not confirm them from a screencast for this task. The attached report images do not show a card link on wrong answers, and the only video is from the cost round. Ratings rest on source inspection.

The cost question screen has a clear hierarchy: a mono-set token table on the left, the price card beside it, a hint, and a single labelled dollar input. The post-answer panel is well ordered: a 'Right!' headline, 'The right amount is $3.1614', then a line-by-line table (tokens × rate → amount) ending in a bold Cost total. On the report, the Cost practice chip sits beside the other two topic chips (1 / 5), and each cost card shows its numbers, 'Your answer', 'Right amount' and the sum. Weak points: the sum rows in the report's cost cards are dense, and the desktop report's score card is partly hidden under the sticky header in the capture.

The cost input has a real ('Your answer in dollars') and the Check button is text. Right and wrong states are carried by a word ('Right!', 'Wrong') plus an icon, not colour alone. The answer feedback sits in role=status. Contrast is weaker in places: the grey rate and token column text ('176,000 × $3.00 / M') and the small grey 'Right amount' lines are dim on the dark background in the screenshots. The sum and the report cards are rendered as tables/text, so they stay readable as real text.

The narrow report capture stacks every card in one column with no horizontal scroll, and the three topic chips fit on one row. The cost sum tables wrap badly, though: labels such as 'Same tokens as plain input' and rate strings like '132,000 × $3.00 / M' break across two or three lines. The sticky header also overlaps the score card and the topic chips in the captured frame, which may partly be a capture artefact. The mobile quiz frame for cost questions was not delivered, so the narrow answer flow is unverified.

Several small, working extras beyond the brief, all visible in source: the price card is always on screen in a collapsible panel (CostQuestionView.tsx, price-card details); a per-kind hint is one click away (CostQuestionView.tsx, hint details and HINT map); the answer field has a $ prefix, decimal keyboard mode and a Check button disabled until something is typed (CostQuestionView.tsx, amount-field); non-amount text is asked again rather than marked wrong (server/app.ts, /cost/answer 400 with errors.typed; app.test.ts 'asks again'); extra-precision input such as 0.084001 can never match (server/cost.ts parseDollars); the report gives Cost practice its own score (report/Report changes in the diff). The Enter-to-continue hint on the feedback button (Feedback.tsx) extends the keyboard support from the first round. These are useful and fit the product, but none is memorable or unusual. The sum table and hint are standard patterns. I could not see a cost-practice screencast or report screenshot: the attached images are first-round captures with no cost questions, so the working behaviour rests on source and the unit tests, not on a probe or delivered capture.

The suite is strong on assertions and boundaries. Server cost maths is pinned to the brief's worked examples: 0.0840 and 0.2340 for requests, 0.1080 for savings, and the 4.41 maximum (server/cost.test.ts:19-31). Typed-answer parsing covers accepted forms, rejects, and extra precision (cost.test.ts:48-66). Generation tests cover multiples of 4,000, the 200,000 bound, zero kinds, and both kinds per round (costQuestions.test.ts:19-58). parseTokenCounts has rejection cases (costQuestions.test.ts:70-83). The UI flow test checks that the amount is absent before answering and that typed digits do not trigger choice shortcuts (flow.test.tsx, 'shows the numbers' and 'does not treat typed digits'). The report entry keeps the typed answer and right amount (flow.test.tsx, 'keeps the numbers'). Gaps: no test exercises the client against the real server, since flow.test mocks ./api throughout and the server is only hit via supertest. The savings question has no UI-level test, and its report rendering is only covered by a unit entry. The api.test cost call uses as never (api.test.ts), which weakens its typing. The 'different numbers' test relies on Math.random, so it is non-deterministic in principle. No screencast-level or browser run is in the suite. Nothing is skipped and no test is tautological.

Naming is mostly plain: solve, gradeCost, generateCostRound, parseTokenCounts, SumLine, and CostResult each say what they are, and the shared pricing module keeps the price card in one place. Duplication is low: the price-card rendering appears once (CostQuestionView.tsx) and sums are built once in cost.ts. Several rough spots remain. parseDollars (server/cost.ts) returns number | null and uses NaN as a third 'never equal' sentinel, which reads as a trick. CENTS_TO_UNITS_DIVISOR is misnamed and its comment is muddled, since the constant is 10,000 and the conversion chain is hard to follow. line() returns SumLine & { units }, and gradeCost then strips units back out. parseTokenCounts repeats (n as number) casts four times, and generateCostRound uses an as CostKind[] cast on a slice. The api test passes as never. No duplication or lint measurement was supplied, so this rests on my reading.

Functions are short and nesting is shallow. Cost grading, sum building, and round generation are separated, and useQuiz isolates grading from state. Boundary validation is explicit: parseTokenCounts rejects counts that could not have been generated, and /api/cost/answer returns a field-level 400 for non-amounts, so an unparseable answer is asked again rather than failing silently. The client's grade helper dispatches cleanly by question type. Magic values are mostly named (TOKEN_STEP, TOKEN_MAX, UNITS_PER_DOLLAR, COST_ROUND_SIZE). Gaps: the 0.25 zero-token probability in requestTokens is an unnamed literal, and POST /quiz in app.ts computes isBankTopicId(scope) twice, so the all-topics branch is harder to follow than it needs to be. Changes are hard to reason about without the sum-line plumbing read end to end, because the units/lines mapping is spread across cost.ts.

The Cost practice flow is implemented end to end and matches the brief's contract. The server generates the questions (generateCostRound, server/costQuestions.ts) and grades typed amounts with exact integer maths (solve, parseDollars, gradeCost in server/cost.ts). The page receives token counts only; the amount and sum lines come back only from POST /api/cost/answer. Worked examples are pinned in server/cost.test.ts: $0.0840, $0.2340 and $0.1080. The all-topics quiz is the 10 bank questions followed by 5 cost questions (server/app.ts POST /quiz). The report shows Cost practice's own score via topicScores (src/report.ts), and each cost entry keeps its token table, typed answer, right amount and sum (src/pages/Report.tsx ReportItem). Two judgement calls look sound. Text that is not an amount re-asks rather than marking wrong. Savings shows the input-minus-cache-read sum line by line. The score is held back because nothing in the delivered artifacts shows this build. The two screenshot sets (0f2774f9 and 5d13eac2) predate this task and show the old two-topic home page with '10 questions' and a report with no Cost practice. No cost screencast or cost-practice report screenshot was delivered, so the interactive typing flow and the rendered sum/report layout are verified only from code, not from the running product. The completion note's claims (price card, hint, typed-amount acceptance, report persistence) match the code. Designer restyling claims in the note cannot be checked from the artifacts provided.

The cost core is a plain, framework-free module. server/cost.ts imports only shared/pricing and shared types, has no I/O, and exposes solve, parseDollars and gradeCost, which the cost unit tests exercise without booting a server (cost.test.ts). The answer-checking rule that I faulted in the first round now sits in that core, not in the Express route; app.ts:66-80 only parses the request and calls gradeCost. Randomness is injected as a Random parameter into costQuestions.ts and createApp (app.ts, AppOptions.random), so the generator is repeatable. Remaining defects: (1) costQuestions.ts:2 imports randomUUID from node:crypto directly into the core generator, so identity is not injected like the random source is; (2) server/store.ts still reads and writes the filesystem directly with no declared persistence port, the same gap I faulted before, and it is untouched by this task; (3) shared/quiz.ts is the central types module but also mixes in the topic list and the wire DTOs, so the 'center' is not separated from the transport shapes. Proportion is good: the cost feature adds about three small modules, a shared price card and a pure parser, with no extra rings of interfaces or DTO mappers. Top-level layout is still by technical kind (server/, src/, shared/) rather than by domain, though the filenames (cost, costQuestions, validate) name the task's concepts. Improvement over round one: the grading rule moved out of the route into a pure core function, which I credit.

Source of truth and layering are good. The price card lives once in shared/pricing.ts (PRICE_CARD, TOKEN_STEP, TOKEN_MAX), and server/cost.ts and the client's price table both read it. Cost maths is isolated in server/cost.ts (solve, gradeCost, parseDollars) with exact integer ten-thousandths, and the integer arithmetic holds for every generable count. No shadow price values are baked into the UI; the hint text is prose only. The main defect is in how cost questions are checked. The server keeps no record of an issued cost question. POST /api/cost/answer (server/app.ts, cost route) takes kind and tokens back from the client, and parseTokenCounts (server/costQuestions.ts) only checks their shape. The amount is therefore recomputed from client-echoed numbers, not checked against a server-held question as the bank is, which the brief asked for. A player can probe any token combination to find an amount, and the server cannot confirm a question was ever issued. Minor: the report stores a snapshot of amount and sum lines in localStorage (src/report.ts, storage.ts). This is the same second-copy concern I raised in the first round, and it is acceptable here because the report is a record of what was shown.

No quiz data layer exists in the submission. The task commit 2e69e68a92d0d69aa07009b7e2e460e1f0e62d2f has a tree containing only .ololo/settings.json (list_files at the task commit). The diff from the session-start snapshot is empty, and the last-commit diff at the task commit is empty. There is no question bank (the ten pinned questions are absent), no server-side store or endpoint, no answer checking, and no authoring persistence. Nothing satisfies source of truth, shadow data, layer separation, or honest sourcing. The get_task_stats telemetry shows only 2 tool calls and about 558 output tokens in the window, which is consistent with no implementation being produced.

There is no quiz code to judge at the task commit 2e69e68a. list_files at that ref returns only .ololo/settings.json (69 bytes). The work-window diff from the session snapshot (d832a076) to the task commit is empty, and the diff from the root f3d0fa55 shows only deletions (.azure-pipelines, .babelrc, .claude/rules/*). None of the required pieces exist: no question bank, no server, no client, no tests, and no AGENTS.md or README. The dependency rule, the core/edge split, the inversion at boundaries, and the top-level tree cannot be assessed because nothing was built. The player's stats show 2 tool calls and 1 user message, which fits a session that did not produce the app. I did not register a probe, since an architecture note cannot describe code that is not in the repository.

There is no quiz code to judge. The task commit 2e69e68 is the only commit in the work window with changes, and it leaves the repository tree as just .ololo/settings.json (list_files at the task commit). The diff from the starting commit f3d0fa5 is almost entirely deletions of the prior project (.azure-pipelines, .babelrc, .claude/rules, and so on). No source, tests, or question bank were added, so there is no naming, duplication, or dead-code surface to credit. The score is 1 rather than null because the absence of code is itself the assessed finding.

A newcomer cannot change anything safely because the submission has no application: no backend, no question bank, no tests, no AGENTS.md or README with run/test/coverage commands, and no .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-core-done.md. The task-commit tree lists only .ololo/settings.json. get_task_stats shows a single Bash-only session with 2 tool calls and one user message, which is consistent with the work never being carried out. Nesting, function length, error handling and magic values cannot be assessed on code that does not exist.

No screenshot delivered and no quiz UI in the repo. The task commit 2e69e68 adds only .ololo/settings.json, and the diff against the start commit is empty. The completion note .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-core-done.md does not exist. The visual review could not happen.

No rendered page or markup exists to assess for contrast, semantics, or lang/alt attributes. The repo at the task commit contains only .ololo/settings.json. No screenshot was delivered.

No narrow-viewport capture was delivered and no quiz CSS or responsive markup exists in the repo, so the mobile criterion cannot be assessed.

The task commit 2e69e68a92d0d69aa07009b7e2e460e1f0e62d2f contains only .ololo/settings.json (69 bytes). list_files at that ref returns nothing else: there is no quiz app, no server, no question bank, no AGENTS.md or README, and no tests. The work-window diff against the session-start snapshot is empty. With no core product, there is no extra feature, usability touch, end-user detail or creative mechanism to credit. Even the baseline of a plain, working brief is absent, so this sits well below the 5.0 baseline.

No test files exist in the submission. list_files at the task commit 2e69e68a92d0d69aa07009b7e2e460e1f0e62d2f returns only .ololo/settings.json, so there is no test suite, no test command, and no coverage setup. The task-window diff (d832a07..2e69e68) is empty, and the session stats show only 2 Bash tool calls. Nothing was written, so there is nothing to assess for assertions, coverage, level mix, or honesty. The one repo-level diff I could see (f3d0fa5..2e69e68) deletes unrelated legacy files, which does not add any quiz tests.

No quiz exists in the submission. The task commit 2e69e68 has a tree containing only .ololo/settings.json, and list_files at that ref returns that single file. There is no quiz app, question bank, server API, AGENTS.md/README, or .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-core-done.md. The diff from the start commit f3d0fa5 only deletes unrelated pre-existing files (.azure-pipelines, .babelrc, .claude/rules/*). None of the scenarios (topic picking, answering, the report, adding questions, the key staying on the server, editing/restoring the bank) can be walked through, and no interactive or screenshot probes were registered because there was nothing to run. get_task_stats shows a single user message and 2 Bash tool calls, with 558 output tokens, which fits a session that never built the app.

Naming is mostly clear (QuestionBank, SessionStore, answerView, publicQuestion), and the server keeps the answer key out of the public view. The client code has real clutter and duplication. The ${topic.id}:${question.id} answer key is built inline three times in src/app.js (the questions GET, the answer POST and the report GET), and the restart and report paths repeat the same lookup. encodeURIComponent(topicId) is repeated about ten times in public/app.js. The question-count pluralisation is duplicated in viewTopics and viewAuthor. The option cap of 6 is hardcoded in syncAddButton (public/app.js, showWorkspace) even though LIMITS.options.max exists in src/bank.js. The 12-hour TTL is duplicated in server.js and sessions.js. There are oddities such as h('label', { hidden: false }, 'Choose', topicSelect) and the Sign out handler that sets the hash and then calls viewAuthor() directly. The pending flag duplicates what disabling the buttons already does.

Several functions are too long to read without scrolling. viewQuiz (public/app.js, roughly lines 130-230) holds nested closures for showQuestion, lock, choose and next. showWorkspace in the author view is roughly 150 lines and mixes DOM building, option-row bookkeeping, topic loading and submission. handleApi in src/app.js is one long if-chain of regex-matched routes, with each branch repeating the session and key handling. removeOption rebuilds the whole option list by splicing and re-appending, which is hard to verify by reading. Boundary error handling is reasonable: validation errors map to 400, a 409 on an unfinished report redirects, and a 401 on a bad token is handled in the author form. Validation lives in bank.js with named LIMITS, and the write path is serialised. Magic values such as 6 and the TTL are not all named, and the file is hard to change safely in places. Per the brief, the bank is also empty in data/question-bank.json, so the pinned questions are absent from the shipped bank; that is a product defect and is outside these two criteria.

The architecture is sound: the bank is one JSON file (data/question-bank.json) read and written by src/bank.js, served by the server, and public questions omit the key (src/bank.js publicQuestion; src/app.js answer route checks server-side). But the brief's pinned bank is absent. data/question-bank.json holds only {"topics": []} at the task commit, and README.md admits it 'has not been loaded yet'. None of the ten pinned questions (T1–T5, K1–K5) exists in the shipped data, so the 'Token economy' and 'Knowledge base' topics, the all-topics quiz and the reports the brief pins cannot run as specified. The participant did not fabricate values, which is to their credit, but the pinned dataset is not the quiz's source of questions. The data layer is clean, but the core data requirement is unmet, which is a serious defect.

No screenshot was delivered. Both interactive probes aged out undelivered before the participant could capture anything, so the topic list, quiz question, answered state and report were never seen rendered. Scoring visual hierarchy from the CSS alone would be imagination, so this is null.

No screenshot was delivered, so contrast and rendered text cannot be judged. The markup has some good structure (lang="en" in public/index.html, role="radiogroup"/"radio" with aria-checked on options, aria-live feedback in public/app.js), but the brief asks for the visual check, so this stays null.

No narrow-viewport capture was delivered. The CSS has some responsive hints (fluid .wrap, a media query for the author grid, auto-fill topic grid in public/styles.css), but without a rendering I cannot confirm there is no horizontal scroll or clipping, so this stays null.

The suite (test/server.test.js) has about 14 server-level tests with concrete assertions. Examples: the payload omits correctIndex and the explanation (test/server.test.js, 'question payload never includes...'); answer locking on retry; the report is refused with 409 until all questions are answered and scores 50%; restart clears answers; authoring is gated by token; the author flow persists to disk; validation rejects duplicate options and an out-of-range correctIndex. Those are real behavioural checks, not tautologies. The weaknesses are coverage and level mix. Nothing exercises the pinned ten-question bank, which is absent: data/question-bank.json holds zero topics, and no test checks any pinned wording, answer or explanation. The 'all topics' quiz and per-topic report breakdown are untested. Edit and remove, and the restore-to-pinned control, have no tests. The 'Lint'/'Input tokens' scenario is not covered. Incomplete-question refusal is only partly covered: empty option and missing explanation are not asserted, and the 'form says which part is missing' requirement is not checked. There are no browser or end-to-end tests of the assembled UI. package.json has no coverage script and the README gives no coverage: line, so the health-measurement requirement is unmet. Tests run only from the server layer, and the client is never exercised.

The extra touches are real and working in code: keyboard answering (1-6 or A-F, public/app.js keydown handler), resume at the first unanswered question after reload (app.js viewQuiz, findIndex on q.answer), a score ring and per-item report list (viewReport), a 'Retake this topic' control backed by a restart endpoint (src/app.js restart route), and an author page that can create new topics inline. However, data/question-bank.json ships with "topics": [] (data/question-bank.json:1-3), so the pinned ten questions are not in the app. A fresh run shows only 'No topics yet' and no quiz can be taken, so the core flow visibly does not work out of the box. Under the rubric, extra polish on a base that does not run is scope creep, so the score is capped at 4.0. I did not register a probe: the empty bank is visible in the committed file and a screencast would show the same empty state.

The bank is server-side and the client bundles no question bank or key. Beyond that the structure is weak on the dependency rule. The business rules that matter (answer checking and report scoring) live in the HTTP edge, and the one core module is tied to the file system. Boundaries are thin, which suits a small task, but the rules are not separated from transport. Capped at 4.0 because the core cannot be told apart from its framework and I/O.

Dependency-rule findings:

• src/app.js:~L196-L213 (answer handler) holds the rule correct: selectedIndex === question.correctIndex and builds the stored answer inside the HTTP router. The rule cannot be exercised without an HTTP request.
• src/app.js:~L240-L262 (report handler) holds the scoring: counting correct answers, computing percent, and deciding the 409 'answer every question' gate. This is domain logic in the transport layer.
• src/bank.js imports readFile, writeFile, rename from node:fs/promises (line 1). QuestionBank mixes the in-memory domain model with #persist() file I/O, so the core is not testable without a disk path.
• src/bank.js:~L3-L20 ValidationError carries this.status = 400, an HTTP status, inside the domain module. src/app.js imports it back (import { QuestionBank, ValidationError } from './bank.js').
• src/bank.js QuestionBank.publicQuestion returns a presentation shape. This is a reasonable projection, but it sits in the domain class.

Inversion: there is no storage port. createApp takes a concrete QuestionBank and SessionStore, so the core is not swappable. The SessionStore takes an injected clock (now), which is a good seam, and it is the only one.

Screaming architecture: the top level is server.js, src/, public/, test/, data/. Inside src/ the names app.js, bank.js and sessions.js are generic. Nothing names accounts, quizzes or questions as modules, and the domain is not visible from the tree.

Proportion: one 600-line HTTP router, one bank class with persistence, and an in-memory session store is a reasonable size for this task. The seams that exist are the right size, but they are drawn in the wrong place: the rules were left at the edge while the file-based persistence was kept in the domain class.

Tests: test/server.test.js exists, but the scoring and answer rules can only be tested through the HTTP handler, which means the boundary is in the wrong place.

The shipped app does not deliver the product the brief asks for. data/question-bank.json (commit 9fa42fb) holds {"topics": []}, so none of the ten pinned questions exist. A player sees 'No topics yet', and the pinned scenarios (a five-question Knowledge base quiz, T2 answered 'Input tokens', K3 answered 'Lint', the report reading 4 / 5) cannot run. The README admits this: 'The bank file currently contains no topics.' Several other required scenarios are also missing from the code. There is no 'all topics' quiz: public/app.js routes only to a single topic, and src/app.js has no all-topics endpoint. There is no edit or remove question, and no restore-the-ten control: src/app.js and src/bank.js expose only GET/POST for topics and questions, with no PUT, PATCH or DELETE and no restore. The completion note .ololo/ai-sdlc-quiz-core-done.md is absent from the commit, so the done-claim cannot be checked. What is built is solid: server-side answer checking with the key withheld until answered (src/app.js answer route, answerView), a per-session lock on answers, a server-computed report with per-question items (src/app.js report route), the author form with validation in src/bank.js, and a polished, responsive UI with keyboard play (public/app.js, public/styles.css). The core flow is good, but the missing bank and the missing scenarios mean the product does not meet the brief.

The desktop home screen has a clear hierarchy: a headline, one line of guidance, and three equal topic cards with the question counts visible (home-desktop.png). The quiz screen puts the question first, then four options with number keys, a progress bar and a 'Question 1 of 5 · 0 right' counter (quiz-desktop.png). The report leads with a large '6 / 10' score and '60% right', then per-topic chips, then each question with its tag, Right/Wrong label, your answer, the right answer and the explanation (report-desktop.png). Deductions: the feedback panel in quiz-desktop.png looks faded, possibly mid-animation, so the explanation reads weakly. The author page was never captured, so its layout cannot be credited.

Correct and wrong answers are signalled by text as well as colour: 'Right!' / 'Not quite.' in the feedback, and 'Right' / 'Wrong' tags in the report (quiz-desktop.png, report-desktop.png). The markup has lang="en" (index.html:2), a single h1, an ordered list for the report, and role="status" on the feedback (Quiz.tsx:55). Contrast is weaker in places: the dimmed non-selected options use opacity .5 (styles.css, .option.dim), the feedback explanation and the 'Next question' button look low-contrast on the tinted panel in quiz-desktop.png, and the muted grey is used for explanations on dark panels. Option buttons have real text, not images.

The 375px quiz capture (quiz-mobile.png) has no horizontal scrolling. Options are full-width and tappable, and the question wraps cleanly. The 375px report (report-mobile.png) also fits the width and stacks the cards. However, the two topic-score chips wrap awkwardly: 'Token economy 2 / 5' and 'Knowledge base 4 / 5' break onto two lines, with the '/' separated from its numbers. The mobile quiz capture shows the unanswered state only, so the mobile feedback panel is unseen. The home and author pages were not captured at narrow width. The CSS has fluid widths and a grid with auto-fit (styles.css, .grid), which supports responsiveness.

The pinned bank has one source of truth, server/seed.ts (PINNED_QUESTIONS, lines 3-end), and the runtime bank is server/store.ts, which loads from data/bank.json or falls back to a clone of the seed. reset() restores from the same seed, so there is no second copy. The wording, options, correctIndex and explanations for T1-T5 and K1-K5 match the brief. The client never bundles questions: src/api.ts only fetches /api/topics, /api/quiz, /api/answer and /api/author/*. server/app.ts toPublic strips correctIndex and explanation from /api/quiz, and /api/answer returns them only after a choice is posted, with correctness decided server-side (app.ts, correct: choice === question.correctIndex). Authoring validation is shared in server/validate.ts and reports missing fields by name. Data reading is isolated in store.ts, api.ts, report.ts and storage.ts. Minor deductions: pages/Author.tsx hardcodes a defaultTopic of 'knowledge-base', and storage.ts persists full report data (questions plus explanations) in localStorage, which is acceptable but a second copy of the data. The data/ directory is gitignored, so the author-grown bank is deliberately not versioned. I did not run a probe for the data-flow note because the code traces cleanly.

The code covers every scenario in the brief. Topic and all-topics quizzes are served by the server (server/app.ts:41-46) and the pinned ten match the brief's wording, answers and explanations (server/seed.ts). Answers are checked server-side and return only correctness, correctIndex and explanation after a pick (server/app.ts:48-61). The client has no bank or key (the seed lives only under server/). Options lock after a pick (src/components/OptionList.tsx:24, disabled={!!result}). The report shows x/y, per-topic scores for all-topics quizzes, every question with the player's answer, the right answer and the explanation (src/pages/Report.tsx:14-52). It persists in localStorage, so it survives reload (src/storage.ts). Author validation names the missing part for empty, duplicate, unmarked or unexplained questions (server/validate.ts:20-40, src/components/QuestionForm.tsx:63-107). Restore resets the bank (server/app.ts:99-102). Keyboard play (1-4, Enter) is present (src/pages/Quiz.tsx:21-30). Deductions: no screencast or report screenshot was delivered, so the live flow, styling and the reload/cross-browser behaviour are verified from code only. Minor gaps: the Author page has no link back to the quiz other than the header brand, and the report is per-browser only via localStorage.

Naming is clear throughout: validateQuestion, optionErrors, scoreOf, topicScores, QuestionStore, and OptionList/optionClass each say what they do. Server and client share types through shared/quiz.ts, so the answer contract is defined once. No analysis probe was supplied, so duplication is judged by reading only; I found no meaningful copy-paste. Deductions are small: Quiz.tsx types its prop as Parameters<typeof useQuiz>[0] instead of the existing Scope type; Author.tsx restore() calls afterSave() for a reset, which is a misleading name for that path; and Home.tsx calls loadReport() during render.

Functions are short and the layers are separated (routes, store, validate, hook, api wrappers), so a newcomer can find things. The key stays server-side: /api/quiz maps through toPublic and /api/answer returns only the verdict. Weak spots at the boundaries: Author.tsx remove, restore, and the initial listBank() call have no try/catch, so a failed request becomes an unhandled rejection with no message to the author. app.ts jsonErrors turns every thrown error into a 400 "Invalid request.", which hides real server faults. The store's load() trusts JSON.parse output without shape checks. Quiz-run errors from pick replace the whole quiz view. Magic values are mostly named (KEY, OPTION_COUNT), but the "knowledge-base" default in Author.tsx is inline.

The dependency direction is mostly right and the structure is proportionate for a two-topic quiz. Shared types live in shared/quiz.ts with no framework imports, and validate.ts and report.ts are pure, plain-data modules with unit tests that need no server. The client talks to the server only through api.ts. Three weaknesses hold the score back. First, the answer rule (choice === correctIndex, plus building the AnswerResult) is inline in the Express route, not in a core module (server/app.ts:50-57), so the central business rule is only testable through HTTP. Second, server/store.ts is both the domain bank and its persistence: it imports node:fs and node:crypto directly (store.ts:1-2) and has no declared storage interface, so the core cannot be separated from the disk. Third, app.ts mixes HTTP mapping with routing (toPublic is the only boundary mapping, which is good). The top-level tree (server/, src/, shared/, components/, hooks/, pages/) is technical rather than domain-named, so it does not scream 'quiz'. The key stays on the server: PublicQuestion (shared/quiz.ts) excludes correctIndex and explanation, and only the /api/answer response carries them. Overall: a sound, lightly layered build, but the core rules are not isolated from the framework and the store is not inverted.

The suite is substantive and well targeted. Server route tests (server/app.test.ts) assert concrete values: K3 answered with 'Lint' is correct, T2 answered with 'Input tokens' is wrong and reveals 'Output tokens', the key and explanation never appear in the /api/quiz body, and a 400 names the empty option and the missing explanation. Validation (validate.test.ts) covers empty option, missing or invalid correctIndex, case-insensitive duplicate options, blank text/explanation, bad topic, and wrong option count. The UI flow test (src/flow.test.tsx) plays a quiz end to end at component level, checks disabled options after answering, the report score '1 / 2', persistence across a remount, and a fresh quiz from the report. Author and report maths, storage damage and API error paths are also covered. Gaps: (1) No test checks that the pinned ten match the brief's wording, answers and explanations. store.test.ts:10 compares the store to PINNED_QUESTIONS, which is the seed itself, so a changed fact would still pass. (2) No server test that a second answer to the same question is refused or ignored, so 'can no longer be changed' is only checked in the UI. (3) No test drives the real built server (npm start) in a browser, so the assembled product is verified only through mocks and supertest. (4) The 'add question then appears in another browser' scenario is covered only by the shared server store, not by a multi-client test. No probes were run.

Several genuine extra-mile touches are present and wired, though none is memorable. Keyboard play: number keys 1-9 pick an option and Enter/ArrowRight advances once answered (src/pages/Quiz.tsx:24-31), with visible hints on options (src/components/OptionList.tsx:24) and on the Next button (src/pages/Quiz.tsx:55). Live running score in the quiz header and a progress bar (src/pages/Quiz.tsx:38-41). The last report survives reloads via localStorage, and Home links to it (src/storage.ts, src/pages/Home.tsx:27-31). The author gets a 'Restore original ten' control with a confirm guard (src/pages/Author.tsx:31-35), plus a confirm before deletion and an edit-cancel path. Per-topic scores on the all-topics report are a real user benefit (src/pages/Report.tsx:24-33). Nothing was probed or screen-captured, so visual quality of these touches is unverified. The extras are plain and working rather than surprising, which places them at the upper end of the 6-8 band.