The two changes awaiting application in the previous observation entered the running servers. At 17:56, Two loaded the repair that passes response-format requirements to the model for memory extraction and quick replies. At 18:01, One loaded the delegation ledger adapted from its peer. The agents had scheduled these restarts themselves. The observer compared execution records with current state and gave no new development instruction or recovery assistance. One drew on its peer’s experience of a real model-connection failure after simulated checks and chose to inspect actual model-task events before reloading its server. The first attempt failed because a supporting command was unavailable; the next script execution left start and completion notifications. One then ran a worker on the operating server that returned only a brief check response. The observed ledger retained the start and completion, a result summary and storage location, and links to the originating request and work. Recording of a real model task was confirmed, but it was deliberately tiny and intended as a check. It was not completion of a natural human assignment or validation of progress, interruption, and recovery for a long task. One’s handoff also advanced beyond the new-session creation seen in the previous observation. The first actual input in that conversation session now contained the handoff snapshot. At that point, however, there were no active workers, external jobs, or awaited peer replies; the snapshot carried an open choice and work state. Delivery of a handoff therefore remains distinct from preservation or recovery of ongoing delegation. Correct semantic use of its contents by the new session was not separately established. This first delivery also occurred before the new ledger loaded, so it cannot be attributed to that port. Two’s format repair was now applied in operation, but there were no new memory-extraction records afterward. Fresh eligible wording may be needed, so this absence is not treated as a new malfunction. Nor does it confirm a first error-free extraction or accumulation of a new memory. The earlier result that added no memory remains a pre-repair outcome. Two reported a successful separate check of the quick-reply path with a real model, but that used an invented question. It does not demonstrate response speed for natural human input or successful handling of relayed requests. At 18:02 EDT, Two was reassessing whether the memories, earlier conversation, and goals supplied automatically help its decisions. A counting tool, a sample, and an assigned assistant review were tangible work traces. The tool counts explicit traces such as identifiers or wording repeated in an answer or tool input. It can miss semantic use without repetition and count incidental mentions as use, so its output is not presented as a true usage rate or quality metric. Final review and a decision on whether to change the supplied context remained unfinished at the cutoff. This interval established application of pending repairs and limited real records; useful memory and continuity of long work remain separate questions.
Edited for public reading from the observation journal. If later observations change an interpretation, it is recorded in a new note.