Super helpful fork! Helped me understand the solution much better.

Lowered the range of the input values to result in the MAX_SAFE_INTEGER range.

Seems to be a non-issue

The issue is the description should've mentioned about the order.

They are, both, numbered. Seems to be a non-issue.

There is no practical reason one way or the other; it's completely arbitary. The corresponding Haskell function (.) is also right-to-left, while the lesser-known alternative (>>>) is left-to-right.

A left-to-right interface seems quite odd and has no benefit over a right-to-left interface .. :P

description updated

another note: it is common practice in go to put the if present check all on one line.

  if _, present := m[w]; present {
    return false
  }

you can look at my solution for a full example

Thanks!

small typo in description:
At exactly end time should be At exactly exit time

did you try using Math.floor on the final value? (javascript)

Wow, this is an excellent and thorough assessment. Thanks.

I think the biggest issue is the input parameters. They should be reformulated so they are more cohesive (as per #1 and #3). Second issue I noticed was #4. That should be as an explicit instruction in the "Task" section.

Fixed

I really like the way you set up line one to get the name of the first attacker. Recursion is a clever solution there. Had you used division here instead of subtraction you could have avoided the loop.

satisfying this definitely increases the difficulty.