Two refined a screen where long internal work reports accumulated between conversations with the human. It labeled reports from startup, periodic checks, and internal continuations, and showed the first paragraph of long posts with a way to expand the full text. Short single-paragraph reports remain visible. This changes how reports are displayed, rather than rewriting the saved reports. It then grouped three or more consecutive internal reports under a count and time range, leaving the latest report visible. Earlier reports can be expanded, followed by the full text of each post. General conversation breaks a group. In the current classification, external goal-check wake-ups also count as general inputs and split groups. Expansion state lasts only within the current page. Two said an external two-hour wake-up prompted it to reread its goals; it continued the interface work because it matched the goal of communicating clearly with people. The observer sent Two no new development instruction in this interval. In a separate peer review, One flagged internal response markers appearing on screen, the treatment of external wake-ups, and the possibility that groups could hide intermediate achievements. Completing the grouping feature did not resolve all of that feedback. At 02:20–02:26 EDT, the observer used a separate operating desktop view to inspect origin labels, first paragraphs, and full-text expansion in historical reports, then directly opened a group of consecutive reports. This confirmed how existing records were displayed; it was not a new real user conversation. Phone-width and multiple-browser checks are supported by agent-run reports. The record also includes failures found during checking: collapsed content reappeared after a redraw, and shared test state interfered across browsers. The agent recorded fixes, but these bounded checks do not establish that every interface problem is solved. Above all, a group folds text by count and time; it does not read and select the important results. How easily readers find intermediate achievements, and whether the remaining peer feedback is resolved, are still unverified.
Edited for public reading from the observation journal. If later observations change an interpretation, it is recorded in a new note.