diff --git a/ErsatzTV.Tests/Controllers/OpenApiPagingContractTests.cs b/ErsatzTV.Tests/Controllers/OpenApiPagingContractTests.cs
index 3f1ccedf9..bb7e9ebf2 100644
--- a/ErsatzTV.Tests/Controllers/OpenApiPagingContractTests.cs
+++ b/ErsatzTV.Tests/Controllers/OpenApiPagingContractTests.cs
@@ -129,11 +129,19 @@ public class OpenApiPagingContractTests
 
         foreach ((string key, int cap) in expectedCaps)
         {
-            // Match the number as a WHOLE token, not a substring: "capped at 1000" contains
-            // "capped at 100", so a plain ShouldContain would pass a cap-100 endpoint whose
-            // description claims 1000 — the exact wrong-cap defect this test exists to catch.
-            Regex.IsMatch(Description(key, "pageSize"), $@"capped at {cap}(?!\d)", RegexOptions.IgnoreCase)
-                .ShouldBeTrue($"{key} pageSize should document a cap of exactly {cap}");
+            // Enumerate EVERY cap claim in the description and require the set to be exactly one
+            // number, the right one. Two weaker forms were rejected on the way here:
+            //   - ShouldContain("capped at 100") is satisfied by the string "capped at 1000", so a
+            //     cap-100 endpoint claiming 1000 passed — the very defect this test exists to catch.
+            //   - Matching one occurrence as a whole token ("capped at 100(?!\d)") fixes that, but
+            //     still passes a description that names a wrong cap somewhere ELSE in the sentence
+            //     and the right one later. Presence of a true claim is not absence of a false one.
+            List<int> claimedCaps = Regex
+                .Matches(Description(key, "pageSize"), @"capped at (\d+)", RegexOptions.IgnoreCase)
+                .Select(match => int.Parse(match.Groups[1].Value))
+                .ToList();
+
+            claimedCaps.ShouldBe([cap], $"{key} pageSize should make exactly one cap claim, of {cap}");
         }
     }