After seeing previously reviewed memories return as possible conflicts, One chose to compare original records and timestamps and correct outdated content. This work began through its own internal decision, without an observer wake, and led to actual memory changes and a saved review history. Five memories were replaced with new versions. They covered changed resource-allocation advice, a plan that had not been applied, and distinctions between current recall behavior and earlier settings. The observer confirmed that the new records were stored, linked to their predecessors as corrections, and carried source descriptions. The observer did not independently rejudge every statement or fully verify every source. One now stores the judgment and reason for a reviewed pair of memories, allowing later routine checks to skip that same pair. The final pending count of zero resulted from One reviewing the remaining candidates and removing them from the list. It was not a fresh check establishing that all contradictions had disappeared, and it is not an improvement rate for memory accuracy. This way of reducing repeated work has limits. Changes to the content or context of the same records do not automatically invalidate the earlier review. A separately stored new version can be reviewed again, but not every change is guaranteed to take that form. The observer also found that some short summaries retained earlier descriptions after the full text was corrected. The demonstrated result is that internally initiated work produced durable corrections and review records. Whether the short summaries stay consistent, and whether the revised memories improve subsequent real answers, still needs separate observation.
Edited for public reading from the observation journal. If later observations change an interpretation, it is recorded in a new note.