CLAUDE WATERMARK REMOVER · DESTINATION TEST
Why did filter keep a cleaned row whose async check returns false?
Array.filter treats the returned Promise as truthy and keeps the row.
What the test establishes
The fixture compares a direct asynchronous predicate with an explicit two-stage workflow. Array.filter does not wait for the predicate result; the Promise object immediately satisfies its truthiness check. Waiting for boolean flags before filtering produces the empty result intended by this particular predicate. A destination validation pipeline can therefore retain a row that its later check rejects. This has nothing to do with whether the cleaner removed the selected marker. AB is the input to both paths. The experiment uses a deterministic false result rather than network requests so timing and remote validation cannot obscure the control-flow difference.
Reproduce the observation
Save tested-app.js and reproduce.cjs together, then run node reproduce.cjs. Compare its output with the recorded observation. The harness executes the actual homepage callback in a minimal DOM and records its resulting field values and method calls. Destination operations run in Node.js; the homepage DOM is a controlled substitute. Runtime: v24.22.1. No submitted text or genuine Claude output is used.
{
"bad": [
"AB"
],
"flags": [
false
],
"explicit": []
}Capability boundary
One row and a resolved false predicate are measured. Rejections, cancellation and concurrent remote checks are excluded.
This Claude watermark remover edits a small selected character set. These callback observations do not establish authorship, detector scores, statistical-watermark removal or end-to-end browser behavior. For real work, keep the original and compare the exact result at its destination.
Primary material and next step
The tested first-party source snapshot and complete harness are the primary material for this page. For broader scope, read invisible Unicode versus AI watermarks, or return to the cleaner.