Copy of a conversation with ChatGPT to review observations and clarifying questions for the Example PSE

Your observations and reasoning are strong—you're demonstrating thoughtful attention to how the problem is structured, what assumptions are safe to make, and how examples reinforce the logic of the rules. Here's a review based on your two goals:

✅ Review of Your Observations

Observation 1:

You note that the function name and parameter names are specifically given.

✅ Relevant and accurate.
👍 You're correctly identifying a constraint that's implied by the wording ("Create a function named...").
✔️ Helpful for staying aligned with interface expectations (especially in test-driven environments or interviews).

Observation 2:

The inputs are strings representing one of three moves.

✅ Makes sense and is clearly supported by all examples and the rules table.
✔️ Your note about comparing strings is appropriate given the format of the data.

Observation 3:

Return value is a specific string indicating win/tie status.

✅ Clear and grounded.
✔️ Highlighting that ties are a valid case shows good attention to possible outputs and edge behavior.

Observation 4:

Hypothesis: same move = tie. Supported by examples and rule table.

✅ This hypothesis is well-supported and accurately extracted from both the examples and the rules.

Observation 5:

Positional meaning matters: first argument = Player 1.

✅ Very relevant and correctly interpreted.
✔️ This will help ensure you don’t misattribute a win to the wrong player.

Observation 6:

Inferring the core "beats" rules from the table.

✅ Correct and well-connected.
✔️ Noting this early helps guide logical conditions without needing to overanalyze the examples.

✅ Review of Questions (and whether they’d be useful to ask)

You haven’t listed any explicit questions yet, so here are some suggestions for good ones you could ask, along with a few additional observations that build on your excellent foundation.

🔍 Suggestions: Additional Questions & Observations

🔸 New Question 1:

"Are the inputs guaranteed to always be lowercase strings?"

💡 Why it's useful: While the prompt only uses lowercase ("rock", "paper", "scissors"), it doesn’t say whether the input will be case-sensitive. If not guaranteed, we might need to handle "Rock" or "PAPER" differently, depending on expectations.
🧠 What you'd learn: Whether normalization is needed before processing logic.

🔸 New Question 2:

"Will the function always receive valid moves, or should it handle unexpected inputs?"

💡 Why it's useful: Even though you're assuming input validation is handled elsewhere (based on your instructions), this is still a clarification worth asking early when working on real-world code or if the prompt were longer or vaguer.
🧠 What you'd learn: Whether defensive coding is needed inside the core logic.

🔸 New Observation 7:

The return values must match the example phrasing exactly, including punctuation.

✔️ Why it matters: Output formatting is exact; “Player 1 wins!” is different from “Player 1 Wins” or “player 1 wins!” in a test.
📌 Important for test cases or automated graders.

🔸 New Observation 8:

There are only 9 unique combinations of inputs (3 moves × 3 moves), and all are explicitly listed in the rule table.

✔️ Why it's useful: This means the problem space is fully defined—no surprises or undefined combinations. That limits complexity and helps with planning the logic.
💡 Suggests that testing all cases is possible and simple.

🔸 New Question 3:

"Is the function expected to be reused multiple times in a program (e.g., in a loop or game engine), or is this a one-time use?"

💡 Why it matters: It might affect how much you optimize or design for reusability.
🧠 What you’d learn: Context around how the function will be used (helpful in larger system thinking).

✅ Summary of Feedback

Your observations are accurate, relevant, and grounded in the problem description and examples.
You're doing a great job of cross-referencing rules, examples, and positional input meaning.
You're also showing strong reasoning for the structure and logic you plan to use.
To improve even further, consider expanding with clarifying questions about:
- case sensitivity
- validity of inputs
- format precision
- usage context of the function
These help you better understand both edge behavior and integration into larger systems.

Let me know if you want help coming up with clarifying questions tailored for a specific type of interview, code review, or class assignment!

Around "New Observation 8", the information under it says "Suggests that testing all cases is possible and simple.". Why would that observation mean that testing all cases is simple?

Great question—let's take a closer look at why "New Observation 8" supports the idea that testing all cases is simple.

🔍 Observation 8 Recap: