It seems that currently there is no way to avoid the use of try/except in at least one of the functions.

This is definitely not expected and should be mentioned in the description.

The tests do rounding to check if the returned value is close enough to the expected value, but the anti-cheat check doesn't, which causes false positive.

Someone has fixed it

Someone has fixed it

This test checks that the values that had been returned by usages of box includes the expected value.

Lots of existing solutions, including author solution, fail at certain combination of values by division by zero. These edge cases should be tested as fixed tests.

Looks like you are cheating (18 times) without arithmetic operators (and without import).

What else is forbidden?
Should be specified in description.

Tests should use describe/it.

https://www.codewars.com/kata/reviews/5ecd649d2d53be0001c69413/groups/5ecdbf084f70c10001551d76
https://www.codewars.com/kata/reviews/5ecd649d2d53be0001c69413/groups/5ecdb9b8bc7368000169c808
https://www.codewars.com/kata/reviews/5ecd649d2d53be0001c69413/groups/5ecda978a200d20001a50bc5
https://www.codewars.com/kata/reviews/5ecd649d2d53be0001c69413/groups/5ecda330c602900001cd61a1
https://www.codewars.com/kata/reviews/5ecd649d2d53be0001c69413/groups/5ecd9bb650fbac000110b80b
https://www.codewars.com/kata/reviews/5ecd649d2d53be0001c69413/groups/5ecd9afbc602900001cd6148

Ranges of tested values should be clearly specified. For instance, the reference solution does not work for multiply(0, 1) but it works for multiply(1, 0).

Initial code is wrongly formatted (wrong identation).

there are... sort of... but it's a real pain to set up. Honestly, it isn't worth of the effort ;/

Just not cheat but solve the puzzle)