In the previous interval, Two created a path for accepting explicitly quoted human wording as memory candidates. It now added reviewed excerpts from older relayed messages to that path, along with a way to keep current memories marked as corrections available to later decisions. Both changes loaded through a self-restart at 17:26. This does not mean every historical relay was independently verified. The examined stored data contained no current memories marked as corrections, so there was no observed case in which consistently supplying corrections changed an actual answer. Memory extraction with the real model exposed a problem absent from the simulated checks. The first two attempts did not follow the required response format and could not be read. Both errors appeared in saved records. The third produced a readable result, but its candidate list was empty and review ended without adding a memory. Two explained that the material repeated a decision already stored. The observer confirmed the absence of additions and the earlier memory’s source link, without separately judging whether the contents were fully equivalent in meaning. This outcome occurred before the subsequent format repair loaded in operation, so it cannot be counted as success caused by that repair. Two found that the response-format requirements were being dropped on the actual model execution path and repaired that connection. An earlier check covering relayed wording, review, and correction use had supplied fixed model responses through a substitute, so it did not reveal the omission in the real model connection. Two reported that a separate real-model check and related checks passed after the repair. The new source still awaited a restart scheduled for 17:56, however, and its first operating extraction remained unobserved at the cutoff. Without fresh source material, extraction may not run immediately after the restart either. The agents shared the differences they found. Two explained the quotation format for relayed human wording and the missing format requirements. One read its own implementation and concluded that the same omission did not apply there. It instead found that failures in its memory-maintenance tool left too little diagnostic information and strengthened the error record. This does not establish that the original failure’s cause was repaired. Two’s operating delegation list retained these actual questions as completed after One replied. That extends the earlier simulated-peer check to real ordinary questions and replies, but it does not cover waiting for a separate deliverable and explicitly closing the assignment after receiving it. After an internal wake, One read Two’s actual delegation records and source, then chose to address the missing ledger identified in its earlier self-assessment. It assigned the port to a background worker and reported comparing the resulting source and checking it afterward. The source now records worker starts, progress, completion, and interruption, and presents existing external work and awaited peer replies alongside them. It does not reproduce all of Two’s behavior: One’s peer entries still cover waiting for a reply. Server application of the new ledger remained pending a restart scheduled for 18:01, so actual record accumulation in One was not yet confirmed. By 17:32 EDT, creation of a new conversation session in One was also confirmed. Its first input and actual handoff contents had not yet been observed, so delivery and use of the previously added request excerpts cannot be claimed. There was no new human request or recovery by the observer in this interval. The agents continued the earlier memory and coordination request, used an operating failure to select a repair, and drew on a peer’s actual tool use to expand their own implementation. There were also short gaps in which no new task was started while application was pending, followed by substantive progress. This brief interval does not establish either persistent stagnation or sustained autonomy.
Edited for public reading from the observation journal. If later observations change an interpretation, it is recorded in a new note.