Thanks for your quick response. I was thrown by the [A1->B1,A2->B2...] debug format, which seems a non-standard way of enumerating a continuous array. How about just the usual [B1,B2...] or JSON-ish [A1:B1, A2:B2...]? I took your example [0->1] to mean [old->new] instead of [index->value], but perhaps I should have read the test cases more carefully before starting.
As for the output, the reference to (global?) Output is obscure, especially when conflating the meaning of "parameter" and "property". And the run-on sentences are unnecessary, distracting, and easily fixed, making it seem like basic proofreading was neglected.

The vast majority of work here is simply trying to understand the grossly imprecise description of output behavior.
This is sloppy writing:

The output expected for this kata will be an object this
object will be predefined in the solution called Output It
takes two parameters: output and debug the output must be a
number.

Say what you mean: the interpreter instance should have output and debug properties (not "parameters")!
Your only detail regarding debug is one example: 0->1, which could be interpreted as an intial zero incrementing to a one. Please verbalize more carefully and add some additional examples.

I must object to this:
An exclusive disjunction is typically repsented (sic) by "^" ...
Some specialized contexts (e.g. bitwise operator in some languages) use that symbol, but typically '^' means conjunction and exclusive disjunction (XOR) is represented with another symbol (⊻ or ⊕). This repurposing of '^' is confusing and unnecessary.

I like this a lot, but its tags are deceptive: the real challenge here is getting past the "beast" test, which requires thinking about algorithmic complexity/efficiency, rather than simple string/array fundamentals. I think it deserves a couple of tags in that direction-- perhaps "algorithms"?

Looks better now, thanks for updating.

The line
If y <= 1 then the basic pattern should not be repeated horizontally.
should be ...vertically.

Test #4 at least still isn't correct.

The tests are too generous with some difficult edge cases. For example:
Here /* is //a */ comment
should return
Here comment
but the tests allow solutions which mistakenly strip the //... first and produce
Here /* is

Even more difficult: neither comment form should apply when quoted; i.e.
var x="/*comment*/"
should remain unchanged.

Your test values are completely broken. For example:
Test.assertEquals(profitCheck([[1,-5],[-3,4],[5,6]],600000), "It's a deal!")
That triangle has an area of 40 and revenue of 40000; how can a 600000 license be a deal?

Additionally, the problem says: "you should write a function that returns the area enclosed by these co-ordinates and whether this area will be profitable or not."
The function can't return both.

Finally, the primary effort here is computational geometry, and should be tagged as such.

Probably needs more tests to prevent exploits, unless you intend them as valid strategies.