# S3R — informed UI retest

This is an informed retest by the same agent, not another blind participant or a human time trial. The original `reviews/S3.md` remains frozen and unchanged. I used only visible UI, the glossary and source drawers. No source code, design files or other review was read.

**Result:** verified substantial improvements through the Malaysia hearing and selection of Malawi. Final completion, final chosen-card citation enforcement, and removal of the duplicate limitation field remain **unverified in this retest**, because the QA route became unavailable. This does not replace the original successful blind S3 completion.

## Access and infrastructure limits

The requested `http://terminal.local:4173/v2/?reviewer=S3R` initially displayed “Cannot GET /v2/” on entry and one reload. Root supplied the verified file URL `http://terminal.local:4173/v2/index.html?reviewer=S3R`, which opened normally.

I created the separate `s3rTab` (tab 60), selected Malaysia / For class / Pair and named the shared pair “Sam and Lee · informed retest.” After reaching Choose evidence, browser calls timed out with DOM.getContentQuads, Page.getFrameTree and Page.getLayoutMetrics errors. Root reported similar failures across retesters and coordinated serial browser use. I paused without resetting the shared REPL or switching browser.

When Root authorized resumption, Reload followed by Resume saved hearing recovered the same Malaysia pair session without losing the retained opening. I completed the main-case hearing and selected Malawi. A later attempt to open MW3 again produced a protocol timeout. Reload then returned “Cannot GET /v2/index.html” at the previously verified URL. Root instructed me to stop and report the verified scope. These infrastructure and route failures are not classified as game UI defects.

## Verified improvements

**Entry and case vocabulary.** “Main case,” “two supporting cards and one complication” and “three board spaces” replace the ambiguous anchor terminology. This directly addresses my original confusion about whether two anchors meant two countries. The opening now states the eventual work: one 60–85-word explanation using both supporting card IDs and a source limit, a brief comparison, and short phrases for another explanation and needed evidence. The work is much easier to anticipate.

**Malaysia party and people key.** I expanded “People, groups, and terms in Malaysia.” It explains BN, PH, PR, PAS, Mahathir/Najib and 1MDB. Votes and seats are explained in district terms. The short capsule distinguishes the different opposition alliances and says seat totals alone do not explain the change. These are useful supports for a student who does not already distinguish a coalition, government and candidate.

**Card versus original source.** The key explicitly says: “MY4 is the game card; MY-D is that original source.” It identifies DOJ as the U.S. Department of Justice. It also explains that MY6 occurred after May and therefore cannot cause the earlier election victory. This is a direct fix for the ID-decoding problem in S3. I later opened MY4, MY1 and MY3 in full and their Source details. The records visibly identify MY-B, MY-D, MY-A and MY-F as underlying documents. The source-record count reflects shared documents, rather than pretending every card is an independent source.

**Glossary.** I opened the expanded glossary through the key. It now explains political actor and option, advantage, electoral district, proportional allocation, civil forfeiture complaint, petition/appeal, set aside/annul, ticket/running mate and source independence. The civil-forfeiture definition supplies the practical distinction I had needed: a request to recover assets allegedly linked to wrongdoing, rather than a criminal conviction or a count of changed votes. Proportional allocation is now explained and tied back to Malaysia.

**Connection screen and one paragraph.** The first idea is retained without an additional editable working-view block. The connection screen presents three required text answers, an optional consequence, and collapsed optional starters/source attachments. This looks less like twelve dropdown decisions. The invented library example is immediately available on that screen. I entered a chain about BN's local district majority and a 64-word explanation citing my selected MY4 and MY1 supporting cards. That paragraph appeared unchanged in Hearing under the same “Your current explanation” label. I revised it once there to name MY4 explicitly in its limitation. No second essay was requested in the verified path.

**Legal-announcement source practice.** The selected first question now asks only “What did the legal announcement record?” It identifies MY4, a U.S. legal announcement in 2016, and the May 2018 election. The source drawer contains only MY-D. The unrelated later reform fight no longer has to be decoded to answer this question. I selected the reading that distinguishes allegations/legal action from evidence of voter responses and received bounded source-use feedback. The alternatives are more comparable in form than the original impossible September-causes-May distraction. This is a clearer test of one distinction.

**Revision handoff.** I chose Make a step more precise and supplied a cautious possible consequence. The step menu displayed current wording. Applying it showed Before/Now, a board-change reminder and a Review my explanation button. The main paragraph was preserved. Review my explanation visibly focused its editor; it did not silently replace my prose. I also completed the vote-seat practice, swapped pair roles and applied Keep it with a reason.

**Rival and evidence request.** The hearing has an explicitly required short response for another possible explanation/different step. I entered Mahathir making PH seem able to govern. I also entered a specific evidence request: interviews in districts that changed, distinguishing prices, the scandal and Mahathir. The UI states that this is the same request in Hearing, Compare and Finish & save. The questions are explicitly called practice; the human-facing paragraph and short responses are identified as the work to discuss. I did not reach the final checks to test their enforcement.

## Confirmed remaining defect in the frozen candidate

After entering the evidence request in Hearing, I moved to Compare and chose Malawi. The supposedly shared evidence-request field was blank. I did not deliberately clear it. This is the country-selection reset Root had already identified. Root reports fixing it in canonical code with regression coverage; I have **not independently retested that fix**. In this frozen candidate, it could make a student believe a response had not saved and require retyping.

## Remaining language and scope limits

The glossary repeats several entries from its initial list, including observation/inference, valid votes, coalition/alliance and turnover. “More useful terms for Malaysia” introduces a long list containing Russia and Serbia examples. This is a minor scanning issue, not a blocker.

For my previously blank optional consequence, the handoff said “Earlier wording was not saved in this version” and “The old source attachment for this step was cleared,” even though I had supplied neither earlier wording nor an attachment for it. There is no evidence of lost data. Plain “Previously blank” and “No previous attachment” would be less alarming in that situation.

I reached Malawi with “Similar result, different ways to act.” Its capsule is shorter and separates the opportunity to vote again from explaining the winner. I could not read the revised Malawi cards, finish the comparison, inspect the final limitation treatment, test chosen-supporting-ID enforcement or save the finished record before the route failed. Those checks remain pending, rather than inferred from earlier versions or Root's code checks.

**Verdict within verified scope:** the revision addresses the largest vocabulary, source-ID and legal-question problems in the blind S3 review. The single current paragraph and explicit human-facing short responses are clearer. The frozen candidate still erased an evidence request on choosing the comparison case. No further game blocker was observed, but this retest does not establish end-to-end completion or classroom timing.
