An additional explanation could be handled as a separate input while the original request still retained a marker saying that input needed attention. That marker could require reconciliation during later unrelated turns. One corrected the path and Two ported the change, with both deploying it after review. The observer compared the source that removes handled-input markers with logs showing cleanup of earlier markers at restart. No such residual marker remained in the current snapshots. This does not mean that every answer rejection or unfinished obligation has disappeared. Reviewing the measurements exposed separate blind spots. Some explicit-answer paths in One skipped end-of-turn telemetry, and its context extractor did not read the active execution engine’s context figures correctly. Two’s existing latency analyzer only understood the earlier reply-link format and could miss answers linked through the newer format. Missing values must not be interpreted as missing answers or a small context. One is addressing context and completion telemetry; Two is updating the analysis of first and final answers. Two’s new operating interval contained no inputs attributed to a human user, so actual user response speed remained unassessed. These changes prepare a more trustworthy assessment of whether conversation is improving; they are not evidence that latency has already improved.
Edited for public reading from the observation journal. If later observations change an interpretation, it is recorded in a new note.