Great. Ty again for the help!

Right, I did that and republished just now. Now outputs are no longer "truncated". I'll come back in a short while to make sure outputs are still correct and mark as solved if that's the case.

I noticed our solutions produce different outputs, so I'll check wether that's a mistake in mine or yours and send an update when done.

Thanks again.

Excuse me, I overlooked it. I unflagged my response since it doesn't really represent a relevant spoiler to the solution, at least in my opinion.

You're right: employing decimal.Decimal instead of float fixed the precision issue and confirmed your output (at least for the test case you presented).

Reference solution has been updated and tests have been slightly adjusted to take into account the small execution time increment caused by the improved precision.

Thank you very much for pointing that out! Please confirm that the problem is now fixed so i can mark the issue as solved.

Raised as issue in discourse.

I wonder what would happen if we were to put Mr. Right, Mr. Wrong, Mr. Wright and Mr. Wong together in a room ..

Yep, fixed. I was just returning the favour ;)

Other than that, I tried removing some lines of code here and there in my solution to check whether I would still pass sample tests, but not random tests, (or vice versa) but I could not find any such test cases.

Some specific test cases for sample tests:

conversation: [
  "Bvbevjfcr:There are 3 Mr.Wrong.",
  "Mgod:There are 3 Mr.Wrong.",
  "Fdqqkh:There are 1 Mr.Right.",
  "Ldvdzjahu:There are 6 Mr.Right.",
  "Jujue:There are 6 Mr.Right.",
  "Xkjc:There are 8 Mr.Wrong.",
  "Skcfsl:There are 3 Mr.Wrong.",
  "Uvmn:There are 6 Mr.Right.",
  "Tvawot:There are 0 Mr.Right."
]

• I would add a sample test with at least one "There are 0 Mr. Right". I failed this edge case, but only spotted it in random tests.
• A nice test case would be one with several disjoint graphs, each having multiple possible configurations, but always with the same amount of right/wrong people within each such graph.

approved, one thing remained unclear to me from description, an "implicit conversion" is a "from -> to" from bindings (I would say this is an "explicit conversion"). Also "from -> to" and "to -> from" are two different kinds of conversions.

..

ok sounds good