> @MDoerner First, thanks for the awesome review. I have updated all the code sections per your comments. If I did not directly reply to the code comment - you can assume the answer is 'Done'.
Regarding the initial general comments:
1. Line 231 concern: changed to a `switch` statement as recommended.
2. Line numbers: yes - original implementation missed the mark entirely. The correction was pretty straight forward though. Thanks for spotting this.
3. `Resume` is considered in the analy