Yes, but I can't see any practical way to guard against that condition--when the banner is not displayed, there is no way to detect the difference between these two states:

1. "It is about to be displayed"
2. "It was already displayed and hidden in response to the last alarm modification"

Because of this, I wrote this function to assume `1` is always the case. The banner's "display-hide" cycle is intended to communicate information to the user, so it seems safe to assume that it will be displayed for longer than any lag introduced by the test environment. "seems safe" isn't a particularly compelling rationale, but given the uncertainty of the platform, it may be the best we can hope for.

Unless I'm overlooking something! Do you have any ideas for how we could make this method safer?