Despite the warning, I'm stoked it worked.
{Warning: Concatenation involves an empty array with an
incorrect number of rows.
This may not be allowed in a future release.}
The test suite could match the problem statement more closely if it would test an input that was also prime. One would expect that if the input is 7, the output would be 2 + 3 + 5 since 7 is not "below" 7?
Please add more detail to your problem description, using grammar, in particular. What are the inputs, what are the outputs? Please keep the standards up.
I realize that an even better signal would be one created as before except with the modification
sig(breakPoint) = (-1)^(randi(2)-1)*(1.01)*sig(breakPoint);
so that the jerk could be positive or negative...