Understand the failure.
Verify the repair.
Small, reproducible software failures. The broken implementation, the fix that didn’t work, and the one that passed—preserved together.
Explore the cases ↓How results are verified ↗WHAT THE ARCHIVE CONTAINS
100840 executable cases. 20168 are open.
Every case records the implementation that fails, the fix that did not work, and the repair that passed its checks—with recorded outputs and source hashes. This release adds 100840 cases across 20168 failure mechanisms and 254 domains.
The open tier gives you the failure and the unsuccessful fix for one case in every mechanism. The remaining 80672 cases, 5 variants per mechanism, are member-only: the verified repair, its recorded checks, and the full fixture suite are held in the member archive. Read the methodology ↗
A RECORD OF WHAT WENT WRONG
Browse the archive / 100840
Moving average perpetual costing: average denominator · case 01
After a receipt the new average is far too high because the pooled cost is divided by the receipt quantity only.
Moving average perpetual costing: average denominator · case 02
After a receipt the new average is far too high because the pooled cost is divided by the receipt quantity only.
Moving average perpetual costing: average denominator · case 03
After a receipt the new average is far too high because the pooled cost is divided by the receipt quantity only.
Moving average perpetual costing: average denominator · case 04
After a receipt the new average is far too high because the pooled cost is divided by the receipt quantity only.
Moving average perpetual costing: average denominator · case 05
After a receipt the new average is far too high because the pooled cost is divided by the receipt quantity only.
Moving average perpetual costing: half-cent rounding · case 01
Averages that land exactly on half a cent are truncated, drifting unit cost down over many receipts.
Moving average perpetual costing: half-cent rounding · case 02
Averages that land exactly on half a cent are truncated, drifting unit cost down over many receipts.
Moving average perpetual costing: half-cent rounding · case 03
Averages that land exactly on half a cent are truncated, drifting unit cost down over many receipts.
Moving average perpetual costing: half-cent rounding · case 04
Averages that land exactly on half a cent are truncated, drifting unit cost down over many receipts.
Moving average perpetual costing: half-cent rounding · case 05
Averages that land exactly on half a cent are truncated, drifting unit cost down over many receipts.
Moving average perpetual costing: pooled value uses stale average · case 01
The first receipt after an issue is averaged as if the issued units were still on hand.
Moving average perpetual costing: pooled value uses stale average · case 02
The first receipt after an issue is averaged as if the issued units were still on hand.
Moving average perpetual costing: pooled value uses stale average · case 03
The first receipt after an issue is averaged as if the issued units were still on hand.
Moving average perpetual costing: pooled value uses stale average · case 04
The first receipt after an issue is averaged as if the issued units were still on hand.
Moving average perpetual costing: pooled value uses stale average · case 05
The first receipt after an issue is averaged as if the issued units were still on hand.
Moving average perpetual costing: short issue side effects · case 01
A rejected over-issue still drains on-hand units, making later issues short too.
Moving average perpetual costing: short issue side effects · case 02
A rejected over-issue still drains on-hand units, making later issues short too.
Moving average perpetual costing: short issue side effects · case 03
A rejected over-issue still drains on-hand units, making later issues short too.
Moving average perpetual costing: short issue side effects · case 04
A rejected over-issue still drains on-hand units, making later issues short too.
Moving average perpetual costing: short issue side effects · case 05
A rejected over-issue still drains on-hand units, making later issues short too.
Moving average perpetual costing: average reset at zero stock · case 01
An issue that empties stock zeroes the average, so the next receipt is costed with a zero-weight but reported avg is wrong in between.
Moving average perpetual costing: average reset at zero stock · case 02
An issue that empties stock zeroes the average, so the next receipt is costed with a zero-weight but reported avg is wrong in between.
Moving average perpetual costing: average reset at zero stock · case 03
An issue that empties stock zeroes the average, so the next receipt is costed with a zero-weight but reported avg is wrong in between.
Moving average perpetual costing: average reset at zero stock · case 04
An issue that empties stock zeroes the average, so the next receipt is costed with a zero-weight but reported avg is wrong in between.
Moving average perpetual costing: average reset at zero stock · case 05
An issue that empties stock zeroes the average, so the next receipt is costed with a zero-weight but reported avg is wrong in between.
Moving average perpetual costing: issue boundary · case 01
Issuing exactly the on-hand quantity is rejected as short.
Moving average perpetual costing: issue boundary · case 02
Issuing exactly the on-hand quantity is rejected as short.
Moving average perpetual costing: issue boundary · case 03
Issuing exactly the on-hand quantity is rejected as short.
Moving average perpetual costing: issue boundary · case 04
Issuing exactly the on-hand quantity is rejected as short.
Moving average perpetual costing: issue boundary · case 05
Issuing exactly the on-hand quantity is rejected as short.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: weight basis extension · case 01
A pallet of many light units receives the same freight as a single heavy unit.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: weight basis extension · case 02
A pallet of many light units receives the same freight as a single heavy unit.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: weight basis extension · case 03
A pallet of many light units receives the same freight as a single heavy unit.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: weight basis extension · case 04
A pallet of many light units receives the same freight as a single heavy unit.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: weight basis extension · case 05
A pallet of many light units receives the same freight as a single heavy unit.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: rounding remainder recipient · case 01
Leftover freight cents all land on the last line of the receipt regardless of fractional shares.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: rounding remainder recipient · case 02
Leftover freight cents all land on the last line of the receipt regardless of fractional shares.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: rounding remainder recipient · case 03
Leftover freight cents all land on the last line of the receipt regardless of fractional shares.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: rounding remainder recipient · case 04
Leftover freight cents all land on the last line of the receipt regardless of fractional shares.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: rounding remainder recipient · case 05
Leftover freight cents all land on the last line of the receipt regardless of fractional shares.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: remainder ranking direction · case 01
Lines whose shares were truncated least receive the extra freight cents.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: remainder ranking direction · case 02
Lines whose shares were truncated least receive the extra freight cents.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: remainder ranking direction · case 03
Lines whose shares were truncated least receive the extra freight cents.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: remainder ranking direction · case 04
Lines whose shares were truncated least receive the extra freight cents.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: remainder ranking direction · case 05
Lines whose shares were truncated least receive the extra freight cents.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: duty base · case 01
Duty is overstated because it is levied on the allocated freight as well as the goods.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: duty base · case 02
Duty is overstated because it is levied on the allocated freight as well as the goods.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: duty base · case 03
Duty is overstated because it is levied on the allocated freight as well as the goods.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: duty base · case 04
Duty is overstated because it is levied on the allocated freight as well as the goods.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: duty base · case 05
Duty is overstated because it is levied on the allocated freight as well as the goods.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: duty half-cent rounding · case 01
Duty amounts ending in exactly half a cent are rounded down.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: duty half-cent rounding · case 02
Duty amounts ending in exactly half a cent are rounded down.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: duty half-cent rounding · case 03
Duty amounts ending in exactly half a cent are rounded down.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: duty half-cent rounding · case 04
Duty amounts ending in exactly half a cent are rounded down.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: duty half-cent rounding · case 05
Duty amounts ending in exactly half a cent are rounded down.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: zero weight fallback · case 01
A receipt of items with no recorded weight fails with no allocation basis even though values exist.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: zero weight fallback · case 02
A receipt of items with no recorded weight fails with no allocation basis even though values exist.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: zero weight fallback · case 03
A receipt of items with no recorded weight fails with no allocation basis even though values exist.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: zero weight fallback · case 04
A receipt of items with no recorded weight fails with no allocation basis even though values exist.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: zero weight fallback · case 05
A receipt of items with no recorded weight fails with no allocation basis even though values exist.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: duty capitalization · case 01
Landed unit cost omits duty even though duty is reported on the line.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: duty capitalization · case 02
Landed unit cost omits duty even though duty is reported on the line.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: duty capitalization · case 03
Landed unit cost omits duty even though duty is reported on the line.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: duty capitalization · case 04
Landed unit cost omits duty even though duty is reported on the line.
Landed cost allocation to receipt layers: duty capitalization · case 05
Landed unit cost omits duty even though duty is reported on the line.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: selling cost base · case 01
Selling costs are understated for high-margin goods, so NRV and write-downs are wrong.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: selling cost base · case 02
Selling costs are understated for high-margin goods, so NRV and write-downs are wrong.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: selling cost base · case 03
Selling costs are understated for high-margin goods, so NRV and write-downs are wrong.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: selling cost base · case 04
Selling costs are understated for high-margin goods, so NRV and write-downs are wrong.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: selling cost base · case 05
Selling costs are understated for high-margin goods, so NRV and write-downs are wrong.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: completion cost deduction · case 01
Work-in-process items that still need finishing are carried above what they will realize.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: completion cost deduction · case 02
Work-in-process items that still need finishing are carried above what they will realize.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: completion cost deduction · case 03
Work-in-process items that still need finishing are carried above what they will realize.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: completion cost deduction · case 04
Work-in-process items that still need finishing are carried above what they will realize.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: completion cost deduction · case 05
Work-in-process items that still need finishing are carried above what they will realize.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: negative nrv floor · case 01
Items that cost more to finish and sell than they fetch get a negative carrying value.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: negative nrv floor · case 02
Items that cost more to finish and sell than they fetch get a negative carrying value.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: negative nrv floor · case 03
Items that cost more to finish and sell than they fetch get a negative carrying value.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: negative nrv floor · case 04
Items that cost more to finish and sell than they fetch get a negative carrying value.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: negative nrv floor · case 05
Items that cost more to finish and sell than they fetch get a negative carrying value.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: carrying value cap · case 01
Items whose NRV has risen above original cost are written up above cost.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: carrying value cap · case 02
Items whose NRV has risen above original cost are written up above cost.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: carrying value cap · case 03
Items whose NRV has risen above original cost are written up above cost.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: carrying value cap · case 04
Items whose NRV has risen above original cost are written up above cost.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: carrying value cap · case 05
Items whose NRV has risen above original cost are written up above cost.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: prior carrying default · case 01
Newly counted items show a huge positive adjustment as if they were previously carried at zero.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: prior carrying default · case 02
Newly counted items show a huge positive adjustment as if they were previously carried at zero.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: prior carrying default · case 03
Newly counted items show a huge positive adjustment as if they were previously carried at zero.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: prior carrying default · case 04
Newly counted items show a huge positive adjustment as if they were previously carried at zero.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: prior carrying default · case 05
Newly counted items show a huge positive adjustment as if they were previously carried at zero.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: group write-down floor · case 01
Groups whose NRV exceeds cost report a negative write-down, i.e. an unrealized gain.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: group write-down floor · case 02
Groups whose NRV exceeds cost report a negative write-down, i.e. an unrealized gain.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: group write-down floor · case 03
Groups whose NRV exceeds cost report a negative write-down, i.e. an unrealized gain.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: group write-down floor · case 04
Groups whose NRV exceeds cost report a negative write-down, i.e. an unrealized gain.
Lower of cost and net realizable value: group write-down floor · case 05
Groups whose NRV exceeds cost report a negative write-down, i.e. an unrealized gain.
Retail inventory method estimate: freight-in capitalization · case 01
Cost-to-retail ratio is too low because inbound freight is left out of the cost pool.
Retail inventory method estimate: freight-in capitalization · case 02
Cost-to-retail ratio is too low because inbound freight is left out of the cost pool.
Retail inventory method estimate: freight-in capitalization · case 03
Cost-to-retail ratio is too low because inbound freight is left out of the cost pool.
Retail inventory method estimate: freight-in capitalization · case 04
Cost-to-retail ratio is too low because inbound freight is left out of the cost pool.
Retail inventory method estimate: freight-in capitalization · case 05
Cost-to-retail ratio is too low because inbound freight is left out of the cost pool.
INSPECTABLE BY DESIGN
Every result has a runnable source.
Runnable implementations with recorded outputs, source hashes, and explicit contracts. Related variants share a failure mechanism and belong together in evaluation splits.
Read the methodology ↗