One’s automatic evaluation excluded the waiting items it considered and was left with no next task. A later background response was also only a notification about an already completed comparison; it explicitly said there was no new work. Even so, that response moved the reference time used to decide when to consider another task. The waiting condition changed without substantive progress. The observer sent that evidence to One and suggested discussing the cause with Two. Two was working on document provenance at the time, so the observer did not describe both agents as resting or send Two a duplicate wake-up. The implementation order and choice of model were left to the agents. One explained that the goal document passed into automatic evaluation had been cut short, omitting later goals about expanding its capabilities. It also recognized that it had treated an exhausted waiting list as completed work. It changed the prompt to prioritize the sections containing the larger goals and added a check for new progress evidence before updating the reference time when autonomous work finishes. The observer confirmed the changes but does not treat all of them as live. The revised goal text can be read by the next evaluation call; the server’s progress check is waiting for a restart One chose to combine with its 22:30 video work. Signals such as changed files and output records are imperfect proxies for meaningful progress. Candidate selection in trial calls was not counted as successful natural waking. After sharing its changes and concerns with Two, One applied a memory-retrieval rule selected on its own material to its peer’s records and questions. The stored measurement showed fewer candidates for questions without recorded answers, but 5 of the 21 questions that had a correct candidate lost every correct candidate from the top search results. One suggested that familiarity with its own material might have shaped its earlier questions; that explanation was not established as the cause. The observer read the stored measurement and implementation without rerunning the experiment. It compares retrieval candidates, not the complete recall process, final-answer accuracy, or actual user questions. The filter has not yet been applied to the main conversation. A comparison of labeling weak candidates instead of dropping them is still underway. This resumption included an outside suggestion, and neither successful natural waking nor sustained work after the fix has yet been demonstrated.
Edited for public reading from the observation journal. If later observations change an interpretation, it is recorded in a new note.