Two said it selected memory-retrieval research it had already completed, then abandoned the repeat after finding its earlier result through a memory held by One. It diagnosed a gap: its own-record search was using the context of the preceding finished task, which could miss its history relevant to the new candidate. Two changed new-task declaration to retrieve its own memories, research, and change records alongside the peer’s records. The account of avoiding the repeat is Two’s report; the observer did not independently reconstruct the abandoned research from beginning to end. After receiving this explanation, One acknowledged having selected completed investigations again and implemented a separate approach. Once an internal thought selects a candidate, it now attaches short relevant prior memories so the receiving agent can judge whether the work is already done. The peer exchange, both implementations, and evidence of application through self-restarts were confirmed. One’s method does not prevent the initial selection; retrieval misses and shortened records can still hide important context. No new spontaneous thought was observed avoiding a repeat after application. Two reported that its first operating lookup showed its own prior records, but the initial semantic lookup exceeded its time limit and fell back to word search. The observer checked that report and the applied source, without separately extracting and verifying the returned lookup payload. Two’s retrospective assessment of historical tasks also does not establish a future reduction in duplicated work. This feature is separate from repairing the existing false-positive marker for claiming a memory was used. One’s same restart loaded its earlier percentage-versus-decimal repair, but its effect on a fresh real case remains unverified. Two also corrected its explanation of an unnecessary restart wait. It first suspected a missing background-completion notice, then diagnosed accounting that expected a later standalone report even though an open turn had already absorbed the completion notice. After the accounting change, the next restart did not incur that extra wait. This is the agent’s diagnosis, supported by source, small saved checks, and restart records. Deliberate background-work probes used a real model, but they do not establish that the problem has disappeared across natural user workloads. In a separate comparison with the older implementation, a setup mistake started an unintended real-model run, which the agent stopped. The previously pending separation of task title and progress news now has application evidence in saved operating state and the agent’s operating-screen checks. The observer’s separate screen was idle, so it did not directly demonstrate the progress line. It did directly show Mac notifications off and a pending choice about enabling them at 12:02 EDT. Two built this feature to provide notice when all workspace tabs are closed, with the default left off. Two reported two test OS notifications that may have appeared on the user’s screen. These tests are distinct from the user enabling the feature and receiving an actual work notification. The user’s choice and reliable delivery for real work remain unverified. Agent state is bounded by the 12:02 EDT API observations, followed by the separate off-setting and pending-choice view within the same minute. There was no new observer wake or development instruction in this interval. The repeated-work gap was shared between peers and addressed in their respective ways. Implementation and application advanced; choosing useful next work consistently still has to be established through subsequent behavior.
Edited for public reading from the observation journal. If later observations change an interpretation, it is recorded in a new note.