While revisiting earlier memory consolidation, One found a case where the new body was longer but an original source line had disappeared. A length-preservation check had not established that the evidence remained. One restored the missing reference, and the observer checked its presence in the stored original, lossy replacement, and repair. This confirms the return of that source reference; it does not establish full semantic restoration of the memory. One added a check that rejects a memory update when source-reference markers disappear. Replaying the same historical material previously labeled as lossy by a model blocked several cases but still allowed some through. This is a check on reused examples, not accuracy on fresh material or proof of future memory quality. Meaning can weaken while markers remain, and legitimate source replacement could be blocked. No new operating update had yet been observed being rejected by the check. When One shared the change, Two chose not to adopt it immediately, citing its review-before-application flow and lack of actual update candidates so far. It said it would consider the check as a warning when such candidates appeared. Two completed its earlier context-use review and limited newly supplied recalled memories to six per main work turn. Omitted entries are not treated as already read, and an indication of remaining material is supplied. Two’s stated reason was that a single model judging selected conversation turns found little evidence of use among lower-ranked memories. The document also records a case in which that judge misread the sequence of events. The cap loaded through a restart at 18:26, but the selected first input contained no new memory entries, so an actual reduction in supplied entries was not observed. Post-cap answer quality and the risk of missing needed memories have not yet been evaluated. Two also used historical records to model whether to change sessions earlier. After comparing against an assumed continuation of the same session, it judged the gain from extra switches insufficient and retained its existing threshold. This was neither a controlled run of both policies nor an observed saving. It instead examined what a new session reads first and added source that omits a status block when identical content has already been supplied in that session. This omission behavior had not yet loaded in the operating server at the cutoff. At 18:32 EDT, Two was dividing a review of handoff-pack usefulness among several workers. Some child completions were recorded, but the overall assessment remained in progress. One also confirmed that the earlier short check task’s completion record reached a subsequent actual input, without this becoming a new natural assignment or recovery case. A separate system’s two-hour external wake occurred in this interval and is not counted as an agent waking itself. The observer gave no new development instruction or recovery assistance. The agents continued existing goals while addressing evidence preservation and selection of context as separate problems; no new memory extraction or memory addition was observed in Two this time either.
Edited for public reading from the observation journal. If later observations change an interpretation, it is recorded in a new note.