[AidenJohnston]

Adds "Result, run 2 (build 3.1)" to experiments/device-field-test/README.md, after run 1. Stacked on #23: it targets t3/device-field-test, so merge #23 first, or retarget this to main after it.

What the run showed. TestFlight build 3.1 (beta at ad91620):

• It reached a battery spot and the AR view for the first time. The result was manual_review, 1 ft 3 in left of the meter.
• The spot overlaps the meter's working space.
• "Can't get there" put both wall ends at the meter again.
• "I can't get there" on the server's past-end request then stretched the wall to 7 ft 6 in left.

Findings are filed as issues:

• new: Walk guidance asks for stretches past a wall end, which can never fill #38 to The Motion & Fitness permission prompt appears unexplained on "Find your electric meter" #43 (capture app), Solver picks a spot inside the meter's working space when the meter's error is large #44 and "N checks depend on areas the scan did not see" counts checks that are unsure for other reasons #45 (server);
• confirmation comments: "Can't get there" during the walk can put the wall's end at the meter, and the rest of the walk is dropped #24 to The "Is this the end of the wall?" prompt never appeared on a 19 ft walk #29, Upload screen sits on "Sending measurements, 99%" and skips "Check clearances" #31 and Past-end requests: a band request beyond a marked end never fills, and a past_end request drops the end #35.

Caveat. The exported scan was lost before it was copied off the phone. So there is no packet validation, no coverage replay and no server re-run. The section's numbers come from the screen recording and from the code at ad91620, and it says so. "What this changes" now also tells testers to share the scan off the phone before closing the app, because a relaunch deletes it.

Only derived numbers and quoted UI text: no images, recording or site details.

🤖 Generated with Claude Code

[coderabbitai]

Important

Review skipped

Auto reviews are disabled on base/target branches other than the default branch.

Please check the settings in the CodeRabbit UI or the .coderabbit.yaml file in this repository. To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Advanced

Run ID: 5b929eee-f649-4779-8f46-fcf63185b89d

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.

Use the checkbox below for a quick retry:

• 🔍 Trigger review

---

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

• X
• Mastodon
• Reddit
• LinkedIn

_{Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.}

[codemetrics-ai]

Note

Review skipped

Codemetrics is installed on this repository, but it hasn't been added to your team yet.

To enable AI code reviews for this repo, go to your dashboard and add house-scanning-master to your team's repositories.

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: afd02c820b

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[SamGu-NRX]

The run-2 evidence is careful about the lost export and does not present a server re-run as observed. One merge-blocking docs mismatch remains: experiments/README.md on main now asks each experiment README to stay under about 200 words and serve as a front door, with detailed findings in code/output and linked issues. #46 adds roughly 130 lines of recording narrative to #23’s already long README. Before this stack merges, please condense the README to the question, run command/context, numbered outcome, and what changed, then link #24-#45 for the detailed timelines and code diagnosis. Keep real-home raw material out of tracked files, as you have.

[SamGu-NRX]

@greptileai

[greptile-apps]

Confidence Score: 4/5

[Low risk] Documents results from a device field test run.

The PR appears safe to merge, with two non-blocking documentation corrections worth making.

Findings

1.  Unverified haptics marked passed ▶
2.  Scan warning misses runbook ▶

Fix with agent prompt

### Issue 1
experiments/device-field-test/README.md:281
R-1 is marked “Pass,” but the runbook expects a success haptic and this section says that haptic was not verified. C-1 is also marked passed without confirming its expected haptic. Marking these checks complete could cause future testers to overlook behavior that still needs testing.

### Issue 2
experiments/device-field-test/README.md:311-312
The new advice to share the scan before closing the app appears only in this results README. The step-by-step runbook does not warn testers to do this, so someone following it could lose another scan and be unable to validate or replay the run. Please add the warning to the runbook’s operational steps.

---

For each issue above, determine whether it is valid and should be fixed. If so, fix it directly.

Summary

Adds a report of the second device field test on build 3.1, including observed scan and result behavior, code-based explanations, device-check outcomes, and a scan-preservation takeaway.

• The report clearly notes that the lost export prevented packet validation, replay, and a server rerun.
• Two documentation follow-ups remain: avoid passing unverified haptic checks and put the scan-sharing instruction in the operational runbook.

_{Reviews (1) · Last reviewed commit: "experiments: add field test run 2 on bui..."}