CLAUDE WATERMARK REMOVER · DESTINATION TEST
Does split with a limit preserve the unsplit tail?
No. After cleaning, split(",", 2) returns only two pieces. It does not preserve the remainder as the second piece.
What the test establishes
The fixture separates character cleanup from field extraction. Three visible fields survive cleaning, but the destination limit discards the third field. This is downstream data loss, not removal of another hidden marker. Keep all pieces or use an explicit first-delimiter strategy when a remainder is required.
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.
{
"cleaned": "a,b,c",
"limited": [
"a",
"b"
],
"all": [
"a",
"b",
"c"
]
}Capability boundary
The comma fixture has no quoting or embedded delimiters. It is not a CSV parser test. The numeric split limit counts returned pieces rather than retained bytes or code points.
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.