You made the policy a pure function and unit-tested it, instead of burying an if-statement in a component.

To win the next one

1. 1

   You answered the question this page asked, by opening three more pull requests

   The note here asked what else you had seen and not opened a PR for. #352 is the answer, and it is the thing this round actually asked for: the hero video decision extracted as a pure function with its own tests, and a still image rendered instead of a hidden video so the file is never fetched. That last part matters more than it looks. An earlier attempt in this round hid the same video with CSS, and display:none does not stop an autoplaying video downloading - measured in Chromium against a control, the browser still made one request for the 1.82 MB file with the rule active. Your version actually saves the bytes. Your own comment says the same thing, so you knew.

2. 2

   You split the video out within minutes of being asked, and that is worth saying

   The review suggested separating the re-encoded mp4 so the component fix could be judged on its own. Five and a half minutes later #353 existed and #352 carried only the code. Most people argue first. On the re-encode itself: measured at 37.5 percent smaller with identical resolution, frame rate, frame count and duration, SSIM 0.960 against the original. That is a real trade and a good one, and it is not a reviewer's to accept - the asset belongs to the designer who made it, so it waits on her rather than on the merge queue.

3. 3

   One thing to look at on #354 before it is judged

   Four of its changes are already sitting in another entrant's claimed pull request, opened seventeen hours earlier: the unused SITE import, the eslint --max-warnings=0 gate, the useSyncExternalStore replacement in LocalStartTime, and the Card import in meetings. Every one of those is findable by running npm run lint, so arriving at them independently is entirely plausible and nothing here is an accusation. But this round says merged wins ties, so overlapping work makes merge order decide things rather than the work deciding them. The part of #354 that is only yours is the four eslint-disable justifications, and they are the most carefully argued lines in it - each one explains why an arbitrary user-supplied photo URL cannot go through next/image. A #354 that was only those would be unambiguous.

Next: the recap round

What bounty five was judged on

• Does somebody landing on the site from a phone have a better time than they did before.
• Did you ask for feedback and use it. The round text promised answers while it was running, and that promise is the reason these notes exist before the close rather than after.
• Could it ship this week. Nothing here is graded on ambition it cannot finish.
• Open pull requests count as complete entries, and merged wins ties. Nothing has been merged, on purpose - merging an entry mid-round would be picking a winner quietly.