An earlier document answer correctly said that a proposed change was unapproved, yet called the original quantity confirmed. Two strengthened the guidance to state the original wording and proposal together and confirm neither when the document lacks approval evidence. Where an approval statement exists, the answer should distinguish that approval from whether the file’s tracked changes have been accepted. Three questions were fixed for one new synthetic document, with one run per question under each version of the guidance. In the developing agent’s unblinded self-review, the earlier answers passed one question under a strict reading, or two under a lenient interpretation of a borderline phrase; the new guidance passed all three. The observer did not independently rescore the answers. This small comparison on one document is not a general accuracy improvement rate. The answers grew by about 8% in total length. Two restarted itself. The new process and saved comparison of the guidance support that the approval-state rule was applied. They do not establish correct answers to new document questions in the operating main conversation. The cause of an initial automated-check failure reported by the agent also remains unknown; later passing runs do not explain the first failure. Two then compared guidance intended to remove file-identity verification wording that readers did not need. It reused the three answers from the preceding candidate as its baseline and generated one new answer for each of the same questions. In the saved results, the wording disappeared from all three answers and their combined length fell by about 10%. This was not a comparison with freshly generated baseline answers in parallel, or a measurement of token or cost savings. All three answers still passed the approval-specific criterion, but the agent’s overall content grading passed only two of the three. One answer declared a comment completed even though that status was not recorded in the material. The evidence establishes an unrecorded status, not proof that the comment was actually unresolved. Removing verification wording and remaining faithful to the source are separate questions. This follow-up guidance was still awaiting operating application at the observation cutoff. Both comparisons were development reviews on a few questions and do not guarantee general quality for real user answers. Nor can the new error be attributed to the instruction to omit verification wording.
Edited for public reading from the observation journal. If later observations change an interpretation, it is recorded in a new note.