As mentioned by other Codewarriors, although this Kata may not be an exact duplicate of an existing Kata on Codewars down to the last line of code, that doesn't mean that this Kata is creative or unique in any manner. Such Kata involving trivial if/else statements that even a 3 year old can comprehend has already been done to death on CW and changing a few numbers here and there (or changing the variable names used) doesn't make it any more challenging or fun. Seeing that this isn't the only Kata you authored with such issues, I would strongly recommend that you 1) read the CW GitHub Wiki on authoring new Kata carefully and 2) pay close attention to Kata you complete that have a high satisfaction rating (ideally 90%+; over 80% at the very least) - what makes them so successful?

Puzzle != making you and your kata look "smart" so people can't point out it's stupid/duplicate to existing katas.

Don't try to shitpost katas and then counter people raising issues by doing more shitposting. Make actually interesting katas.

you should rewrite this part of the description: For example: cost = 450 => 350 returned cost = 300 => 250 returned cost = 299 => 299 returned it's not readable (possibly formatting markdown that are lacking in the description, only): use * at the baginning of different lines to get ticks:

• tick 1
• tick 2
• ...

• the task isn't described. Like, "at all": no rules, no explainations of what are the arguments (the very least!), no context provided.
• not enough sample tests to begin with even the slightest idea of what you want
• tests are not implemented in the best manner: when expecting true/false, you should at least provide the arguments used for the tests in the assertion message. "Caution" isn't a useful message.

• seen and done again, and again and again. Blatant duplicate.

• tests are not even running. Don't you test your code before publishing?:

  File "", line 17
  test.assert_equals(sum_of_numbers(x), , "Did not return the expected value.")
  ^
  SyntaxError: invalid syntax

You really should unpublish this one.