Well I can do it although I'm against it. The motivation for random is, that all of these numbers currently works fine. So There is no existing bug saying number -32 passes. I put there 3 ranges, which might in a future bring problems. When I hardcode 3 values, the probability that I hit the troublemaker is 21823-times lower and I might not hit it at all, even thought such value might exist and can be eventually found by random value.

So in case of existing bugs, it makes sense to hardcode one fixed value (still I prefer range of bad values). But in case of not-yet existing bug it just doesn't make sense to me (and to what I learned in RH for 8 years...). It's better to find the bug once a while, than pretend everything works fine because someone hard-codes that -32 is invalid value (while all other numbers silently passes...).

Anyway, I'm changing it to `-55, 63, 72` in next version...