A suite reported a pass with no failures and a total of 352, where the run before it had 374. Twenty-two checks were gone, the host had died partway through, and the only sign was a number nobody had a reason to read. Everything here follows from refusing that.
this run measured 5 conditions, 1 not read: an application that renders its own tree when asked. ok the running instance is the binary this run named: bin/Debug/App.exe, launched by this run ok a binary built from this source: sources unchanged since the build agrees the application is in the language this scenario is written for: pt-BR, from settings.json ok the foreground belongs to the window under test: App — Relatorios not read an application that renders its own tree when asked: it does not take Winwright.InApp DEGRADED (exit 2) - 4 assertions: 3 passed, 0 failed, 1 unchecked (all the desk's) unchecked step 4 report.pt-BR - 'an overflow flyout this run can work' absent (the desk's): the shell would not open the flyout, so the pane could not be brought to the front
Not translated into them — a mapping written twice is a mapping that drifts, and CI reads the number rather than the word. 0 passed, 1 failed, 2 degraded, 3 broken. The last outranks the rest, because a reader told the build failed opens the wrong repository.
The desk it is on, which binary it is driving, whether that binary is stale, the resolved language, the foreground, the launch arguments, whether anything else is showing the application, and whether the desk is this run's alone. Each is reported as measured, absent, or not read — an absent line and a missing line read the same to somebody skimming, and only one of them is a statement.
A run short of what discovery found is not reported as a pass. That is the original defect's own shape, so it is the one check that cannot be left to a convention.