I actually originally intended robustness to be part of the problem statement, and I was so used to that assumption that I didn’t notice until after writing the post that Thomas’ statement of the problem didn’t mention it. So thank you for highlighting it!
Also, in general, it is totally fair game for a proposed solution to the problem to introduce some extra conditions (like robustness). Of course there’s a very subjective judgement call about whether a condition too restrictive for a proof/disproof to “count”, but that’s the sort of thing where a hindsight judgement call is in fact important and a judge should think it through and put in some effort to explain their reasoning.
I actually originally intended robustness to be part of the problem statement, and I was so used to that assumption that I didn’t notice until after writing the post that Thomas’ statement of the problem didn’t mention it. So thank you for highlighting it!
Also, in general, it is totally fair game for a proposed solution to the problem to introduce some extra conditions (like robustness). Of course there’s a very subjective judgement call about whether a condition too restrictive for a proof/disproof to “count”, but that’s the sort of thing where a hindsight judgement call is in fact important and a judge should think it through and put in some effort to explain their reasoning.