Why is "Americorophium_UnID Adult Macro" treated differently from the rest of the amphipods? Wouldn't it be caught in the next test?

Hi @sbashevkin! Sorry to be tardy in responding. Here is my thinking:

Americorophium isn’t treated differently/uniquely in the data itself—the test here just uses it as a quick sanity check. After EMP Macro dropped amphipods, the list of missing macro taxa can change, so the test can’t rely on an exact list. The next test only checks that anything missing is amphipod‑related, which could still pass even if no amphipod roll‑up showed up at all. Calling out Americorophium makes sure at least one expected amphipod roll‑up is actually present.

Does that make sense? You know the data better than I do, so if that's not actually the desired behavior, we can nix this.