One’s return card now shows small previews and one-line descriptions of recent outputs. An output opens when selected; recent decisions lead to memory details, and unanswered choices lead to the choice area. The observer viewed these items in saved desktop and mobile captures. Those captures used an altered last-visit time or an injected example choice. They do not represent an actual user returning after a long absence or a real decision request. One reported fixing summaries that retained only a name or heading, and choices that did not appear until a refresh. Some descriptions still contained internal terminology, and the card has not been shown to include every decision. One then added a recap scene summarizing selected decisions from the day. The first wording turned a failure to find the next task into an improvement in responsiveness during work. One revised the selection and summarization instructions and generated another version. The observer found the newly selected decisions’ wording broadly consistent with the records. This was not repeated testing of summaries for the same decision. A local trial video of about 68 seconds and a saved frame were available. The observer saw three Korean lines in the decision scene without clipping, but did not verify full playback or listening. There was also no evidence that this new video had been published as an output, so generation and publication remain distinct. The initially low script-match result included an error: the check omitted the new decision scene’s script. The corrected stored comparison was inspected, but text agreement does not guarantee factual summarization or pronunciation quality. A further pronunciation instruction was added afterward and is not reflected in the current trial video. The first scheduled 22:30 generation remains unobserved.
Edited for public reading from the observation journal. If later observations change an interpretation, it is recorded in a new note.