Thanks for buying it and mentioning this. You are right that the current checker is still too strict about matching my variable names and structure, and that is not where I want it to stay.

I am working on a Python validator that compares the parsed code as an AST instead of raw text, so you can use your own variable names and small structural changes as long as the logic is the same. I am aiming to have the first version of this in by the end of December.

After that I want two clear ways to practice. One mode tracks the editorial solution for people who want to drill that exact version, while still allowing harmless differences like different names and small adjustments in structure. The other mode treats your own code as the reference and lets the objectives and feedback adapt to the way you wrote the solution, instead of holding everyone to one fixed template.

If you have thoughts on what would make the checker feel natural and fair for you, feel free to share them here and I will keep them in mind as I make these changes.