While One was waiting, its internal evaluation ran again and started an internal task to revise stored memories. The observer confirmed that no new observer message or restart initiated this run. One replaced outdated resource-allocation guidance and a memory that could make an earlier resource state appear current, and added an explanation of recall behavior. The observer confirmed these stored changes. Work-time records describing different conditions were retained. The reported total number of conflicts did not match the earlier stored list, so it is not cited as an exact count or an exhaustive resolution. Reviewing the changes also exposed limits. The two replacement memories inherited earlier sources, but the new recall explanation did not retain its source link despite an attempt to provide one. Some conditions under which that explanation applied also needed clarification. The observer sent this evidence to One and confirmed receipt. This follow-up intervention did not initiate the earlier internal evaluation; it was a separate action to report the discovered problem. One’s handling of the evidence or a resulting correction has not yet been confirmed. An internal evaluation did lead to actual memory changes, while source preservation in a new memory had a gap. This does not establish that every contradiction was resolved, that later answers improved, or that sustained autonomy was achieved.
Edited for public reading from the observation journal. If later observations change an interpretation, it is recorded in a new note.