Six pre-existing assertions in test_repl_limit_table.c (across 4 test
functions) used bare strstr() substring checks against whole-number
fixture values on "mem" -- e.g. strstr(captured, "accounted=4.00").
Task 9's fix changed the actual output to "accounted=4.000000 (4.00
B)", but the old substring is a literal prefix of the new one, so
these assertions kept passing by coincidence of formatting, providing
zero actual regression protection for the fix.
Strengthened each to assert the full corrected "<raw> (<human>)"
string. Proved via TDD: reverting task 9's fix now makes all 6
strengthened assertions (plus task 9's own 2 genuine tests) fail;
restoring the fix returns the suite to 85/85 green.
Confirmed via full-file scan that no other loose assertion of this
shape remains, and that info worker/info resource's own regression
suites were never vulnerable to this class of bug (they build expected
strings dynamically rather than hardcoding literal substrings).
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01RLSNJhNoULvVcUhXEFafQC
Rongsong Shen
5125536657