vesting.md's 'Contract Methods' section documents create_vault's signature as pub fn create_vault(env: Env, creator: Address, amount: i128, start_timestamp: u64, end_timestamp: u64, milestone_hash: BytesN<32>, verifier: Option<Address>, success_destination: Address, failure_destination: Address) -> u32, and its 'Usage Examples' Example 1 calls .create_vault(&creator, &amount, ...) with the same eight arguments — both completely omit usdc_token: Address, which is actually create_vault's first parameter in the real src/lib.rs signature. This is a more severe mismatch than the missing return-Result issue already flagged for this file, since copying this signature or example verbatim wouldn't just misrepresent error handling, it would produce code with the wrong number and order of arguments entirely. Correct both the signature block and the usage example to include usdc_token as the first parameter.
vesting.md's 'Contract Methods' section documents create_vault's signature as
pub fn create_vault(env: Env, creator: Address, amount: i128, start_timestamp: u64, end_timestamp: u64, milestone_hash: BytesN<32>, verifier: Option<Address>, success_destination: Address, failure_destination: Address) -> u32, and its 'Usage Examples' Example 1 calls.create_vault(&creator, &amount, ...)with the same eight arguments — both completely omitusdc_token: Address, which is actually create_vault's first parameter in the real src/lib.rs signature. This is a more severe mismatch than the missing return-Result issue already flagged for this file, since copying this signature or example verbatim wouldn't just misrepresent error handling, it would produce code with the wrong number and order of arguments entirely. Correct both the signature block and the usage example to include usdc_token as the first parameter.