Utilizing the Bitcoin crate, I am making an attempt to create a transaction programmatically in Rust that spends an output related to a P2WPKH handle. That is the related code snippet:

fn sign_transaction<SignFun>(
    own_public_key: &[u8],
    own_address: &Tackle,
    own_utxos: &[Utxo],
    mut transaction: Transaction,
    key_name: String,
    derivation_path: Vec<Vec<u8>>,
    signer: SignFun,
) -> Transaction
the place
    SignFun: Fn(String, Vec<Vec<u8>>, Vec<u8>) -> Vec<u8>,
{

    let txclone = transaction.clone();
    let mut hash_cache = sighash::SighashCache::new(&txclone);
    for (index, enter) in transaction.enter.iter_mut().enumerate() {
        let worth = get_value(enter, own_utxos);    // Lookup the worth by discovering the corresponding UTXO
        let sighash = hash_cache
            .segwit_signature_hash(index, &own_address.script_pubkey(), worth, SIG_HASH_TYPE)
            .anticipate("Creating the segwit signature hash failed.");

        let signature = signer(key_name.clone(), derivation_path.clone(), sighash.to_vec()).await;

        // Convert signature to DER.
        let der_signature = sec1_to_der(signature);

        let mut sig_with_hashtype = der_signature;
        sig_with_hashtype.push(SIG_HASH_TYPE.to_u32() as u8);
        let witness_bytes = vec![sig_with_hashtype, own_public_key.to_vec()];
        enter.witness = Witness::from_vec(witness_bytes);
    }

    transaction
}

When sending a signed transaction to my native Bitcoin node in RegTest mode, I get the next error:

error code: -26
error message:
non-mandatory-script-verify-flag (Signature should be zero for failed CHECK(MULTI)SIG operation)

I logged the next info:

• Public key: 0377f5de845ac601f24e7cbf2e4abcc9e1040cd4ae971ecaa00837b1c74684e15b
• Tackle: bcrt1qh3zle7xs34azdyycg8cpf9wx5nxjpcqyqv4eyc
• Enter spent with worth: 625000000
• Transaction to signal: 0100000001ceac446d9350730c2a886220bed7ae154ca3f717897819091d5e72dcd0f0895e00000 00000ffffffff0200e1f505000000001600148be949ae15ee4b5da9af0ce2bf8d3f3c43c582da26 dc4a1f00000000160014bc45fcf8d08d7a26909841f01495c6a4cd20e00400000000
• Sighash: d7e5696f18363b58c84b8d57014d291c9f7ebbac562d219f7e7014b9a5685bbf
• SEC1 signature: c10c09b210914e49f295c07c9f96352e085df9d2c4272292239445d6f89483bc64c9903bebaba4b bf998d217c80375c36b60b212a824b63435e30205b2ed5a6a
• DER signature: 3045022100c10c09b210914e49f295c07c9f96352e085df9d2c4272292239445d6f89483bc02206 4c9903bebaba4bbf998d217c80375c36b60b212a824b63435e30205b2ed5a6a
• DER signature with Sighash kind: 3045022100c10c09b210914e49f295c07c9f96352e085df9d2c4272292239445d6f89483bc02206 4c9903bebaba4bbf998d217c80375c36b60b212a824b63435e30205b2ed5a6a01
• Signed transaction: 01000000000101ceac446d9350730c2a886220bed7ae154ca3f717897819091d5e72dcd0f0895e0 000000000ffffffff0200e1f505000000001600148be949ae15ee4b5da9af0ce2bf8d3f3c43c582 da26dc4a1f00000000160014bc45fcf8d08d7a26909841f01495c6a4cd20e00402483045022100c 10c09b210914e49f295c07c9f96352e085df9d2c4272292239445d6f89483bc022064c9903bebab a4bbf998d217c80375c36b60b212a824b63435e30205b2ed5a6a01210377f5de845ac601f24e7cb f2e4abcc9e1040cd4ae971ecaa00837b1c74684e15b00000000

Observe {that a} comparable piece of code for legacy (P2PKH) transactions utilizing the identical ECDSA signer works completely, so I am assuming the signer is okay.

Any assist to determine the place the issue lies could be drastically appreciated!