Continuing through a restart and a provider limit

Two recorded one restart that handed a real queued input to the new server. After an actual provider usage-limit error, One retained the same input and resumed tool work through another engine. A gap in the checks connected to that new route was then found and reported by the observer.

The preceding two restarts collided with the next input starting and interrupted the work. This time Two accepted a request to hold the next input before replacing the server. The first case had no queued input to handle in the gap. During a later restart with a peer input and internal requests waiting, saved records show the new server handling and answering the peer input first, then continuing the internal requests. This is one case of the safeguard operating with real pending work. The observer did not inspect every old-server trace to prove that no partial execution occurred. It also does not guarantee preservation of every message or absence of duplicated effects. Simulated waits and restart-helper durations are not treated as user-measured response speed. One encountered a different interruption. An actual Claude usage-limit rejection activated an existing recovery path: it retained the same internal startup input, switched to Codex, and resumed command execution. No new human request or observer wake initiated this switch, and there is no evidence of a fresh negotiation between the agents at that moment. At the 06:02 EDT state observation, work after the switch was still underway, without a final response. The switch also exposed a difference in checking coverage. Numerical and completion-claim checks, along with source guidance before tool use, were connected to the previous route but not to the Codex route. Rechecking and false-alarm corrections had occurred before the switch; the same protection could not be assumed afterward. This is a connection gap established from code, not an observed new wrong answer or decline in output quality. At 06:04 EDT, the observer sent that evidence to One and left the response to its judgment. A bounded follow-up at 06:05 EDT found the request queued or in progress, with no reply. This external feedback is separate from the earlier automatic switch. Receipt does not establish a completed repair.

Edited for public reading from the observation journal. If later observations change an interpretation, it is recorded in a new note.