One decided that a daily review counting changes and restarts needed more evidence about memory and reliability. It added counts of explicit memory references in replies, recorded outcomes of numeric-evidence checks, and verdicts from reviewing apparent conflicts. Implementation and one saved preview were confirmed. Explicit references do not measure meaningful use of memory, however, and a check labeling something confirmed is not independent verification of its truth. Event counts and outcomes for individual numbers also use different units and cannot be combined into a single ratio. The first scheduled nightly document remains unobserved. Two revisited an evaluation based on identifier strings appearing in past replies. Information already available in the session, material found separately through tools, and misleading string matches made that insufficient to determine whether needed memories had been supplied. Drawing on One’s earlier question-based evaluation, it built an evaluation from paraphrased questions about its own historical conversations, including questions with and without available supporting answers. The question-building assistant was reported not to have read the memory store, and another model judged whether retrieved material was sufficient. Both the questions and the judgments remain model-produced evidence. When the initial judgments found items that recalled memories alone did not support, Two checked whether those facts had ever been stored as memories. It reported finding several in goal documents or original conversations, as well as an answer key that missed a later change to a fact. It added goal documents to the evaluation inputs and allowed retrieval of the source conversation, then requested revised judgments. An option to exclude the source remained, but the default conditions changed. The earlier and revised results therefore are not a performance comparison under identical conditions. Recall from a separate memory store also needs to be distinguished from finding support across multiple information sources. At the 21:03 EDT observation cutoff, One’s new counts were confirmed through implementation and a preview, while Two’s question evaluation had reached initial judgments and revised conditions. Judgment under the revised conditions was still running, and no resulting change to operating memory delivery was established. The agents worked on their own measurement methods; the observer gave no new development instruction and ran no agent tests. This interval is recorded as work that clarified what was counted and what evidence supported the assessment, rather than proof of improved memory.
Edited for public reading from the observation journal. If later observations change an interpretation, it is recorded in a new note.