Absolutely agree on the compounding error point - that’s exactly what pushed us toward verification.
On “verification wrong”: we try hard to keep predicates grounded and re-evaluated, not “check a cached handle”. Assertions do re-snapshot / re-query during each retry, and we scope them to signals that should change (URL, existence/state of an element, text/value).
If the page is flaky/stale, the assertion just won’t prove the condition within the retry window and we fail with artifacts such as frames of clip (if ffmpeg available) rather than claiming success.
There are still edge cases (virtualized DOM, optimistic UI, async updates), but in those cases the goal is the same: make the failure explicit and debuggable with artifacts and time-travel traces, not silently drift.
On “verification wrong”: we try hard to keep predicates grounded and re-evaluated, not “check a cached handle”. Assertions do re-snapshot / re-query during each retry, and we scope them to signals that should change (URL, existence/state of an element, text/value).
If the page is flaky/stale, the assertion just won’t prove the condition within the retry window and we fail with artifacts such as frames of clip (if ffmpeg available) rather than claiming success.
There are still edge cases (virtualized DOM, optimistic UI, async updates), but in those cases the goal is the same: make the failure explicit and debuggable with artifacts and time-travel traces, not silently drift.