[Jare]

> I think you can consider your input part of the problem statement

That would be fine if there was only one input. But we have seen countless cases of a solution working for some and not others (including/especially the test input). So the cases and patterns I see in my input may be part of the hidden problem statement, or they may be just an artifact of my particular input. I at least feel more satisfied when I know my solution will solve all inputs.

For that reason, I side with the desire for a bit more purity and closure, vs having to guess, and not being sure about your guess until you go to reddit. Making educated guesses about patterns is a valuable ability, but I don't like the aesthetics of it here.

[tialaramex]

This is definitely something where tastes vary, for example you can see below several people assumed you can multiply any numbers, and that actually worked because the numbers are co-prime, but strictly you need LCM (and since I had LCM in my toolkit I used it)

I try to write solutions which would work for inputs like mine but I'm not fussed if, for example, my code panics on hypothetical "valid" inputs that I didn't consider.

So e.g I have panics for nonsense input like, "Pipe networks with more than one Start can't be solved" and "Uneveen seed list cannot work as described in problem" [Yes that's a typo] but I also have "Should not send signals unexpectedly" and "Surely not all the stones have X velocity 0"