After the observer reported a missing source discovered following One’s self-initiated memory revision, One corrected its memory-writing tool. The new recall explanation retained a source and more precise conditions. The original memory revision began with an internal wake; these corrections responded to external feedback from the observer. In the same response, One reported correcting a memory that recorded the number of items reviewed. A comparison with the earlier text showed that the replacement record still said the same thing. A corrected progress document or the existence of a new version did not establish a corrected memory body. The observer sent this discrepancy back. One then changed the stored count and source, retaining a link to the earlier incorrect record as correction history. The observer confirmed the resulting stored content. The original internal wake, the two external feedback steps, and the agent performing the corrections are recorded separately. One also changed the tool to reject storing identical wording as an update and to carry the completion state of finished work into the replacement record. Saved checks report those behaviors. Different wording does not itself guarantee factual truth, however, and the observer neither reran the checks nor verified every historical memory.
Edited for public reading from the observation journal. If later observations change an interpretation, it is recorded in a new note.