I'm currently dealing with a kind of similar situation, and honestly I find it a little odd -- I get questions from students which I'm pretty sure are honest and asked in good faith, but they seem to think they are very close to having solved the problem, despite having just over-fitted most of the tests.
It is possible that the problem is poorly written (I'm just a TA, I didn't write it, and it looks pretty clear to me), or it is possible that I'm just really gullible and they aren't actually asking in good faith (I'm a trusting person, but I've been doing this kind of work for a while and so I've seen most of the dishonest questions, this doesn't look like one to me). I dunno, I think I'll just chalk it up to the long tail of weirdness that can occur when dealing with a bunch of students.
My guess is CS1 is often the first time a student has been given a problem they have to actually reason about to solve (rather than follow a script).
This is hard to understand and adapt to and stresses out students that have been trained (for years) to learn the expected script.
You eventually get to this level in math, but only way later in post graduate work (unless you’re exceptional).
I think there’s likely a benefit in explicitly tackling this directly for young/new students, it might help them see the bigger picture. At least the earnest ones struggling to do well anyway.
It is possible that the problem is poorly written (I'm just a TA, I didn't write it, and it looks pretty clear to me), or it is possible that I'm just really gullible and they aren't actually asking in good faith (I'm a trusting person, but I've been doing this kind of work for a while and so I've seen most of the dishonest questions, this doesn't look like one to me). I dunno, I think I'll just chalk it up to the long tail of weirdness that can occur when dealing with a bunch of students.