what about there being the Et-sign at the start of the string? When it appears like this, it isn't replaced?

Marking issue as resolved following the addition of the RandomMagnaCartaTests test class, containing three methods.

Marking suggestion as resolved following the addition of the FirstCharacterAndAmpersand() test methd.

Great spot, thank you! I have added Michalis to the description and updated the solution & Clause_FiftyFour().

What causes the this error?
Clause_FiftyFour
Test Failed
String lengths are both 1602. Strings differ at index 448.
Expected: "...fiat ad illum terminum sancti Michalis sine occasione, ita..."
But was: "...fiat ad illum terminum sancti michalis sine occasione, ita..."
--------------------------------------------^
the list with the words to capitalize contains "michaelis" and not "michalis"

As illustrated here & is a ligature of E and t, rather than e and t. Therefore, I believe it is appropriate to replace occurences of Et and et.

I like these designations for historical regions, individuals, or events."
Should the et-sign at the beginning of a sentence really be replaced by the &-sign?

The String object is immutable. Every time you use one of the methods in the System.String class, you create a new string object in memory, which requires a new allocation of space for that new object. In situations where you need to perform repeated modifications to a string, the overhead associated with creating a new String object can be costly. The System.Text.StringBuilder class can be used when you want to modify a string without creating a new object. For example, using the StringBuilder class can boost performance when concatenating many strings together in a loop.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-gb/dotnet/standard/base-types/stringbuilder

hobovsky, try again. 😎

I see what you mean, but my fixed tests already cover the introduction and all of the clauses of the document in question. The random tests are a good addition because they ensure that a solution cannot be hardcoded.

What if someone hardcodes a fixed test, and random tests do not generate this scenario? :) If this can happen, that is.

For example, I copied your solution, deleted the word "pasha" from the poper nouns array, hardcoded the only fixed test with the word "pasha", resubmitted a couple of times, and passed all random tests.

you should have 100

Each random test is enclosed in a for loop that runs 100 times.

random tests should optimally cover all types of tests including edge cases...

I see what you mean, but my fixed tests already cover the introduction and all of the clauses of the document in question. The random tests are a good addition because they ensure that a solution cannot be hardcoded.

Random Tests

Hacky is fine. I've added a couple of randoms that variably test strings with ampersands. What do you think?

you should have 100, and keep in mind that random tests should optimally cover all types of tests including edge cases...

I've added two randoms. What do you think?