The earlier document-answer experiment changed the provider used for evaluation. This time, Two’s actual main work session moved to another provider. Two said it checked available resources before starting longer development and informed One of its choice. No hard provider rejection was observed in this interval. The observer did not infer success from a configuration change alone. While the same server remained running, the main session changed and recorded actual tool calls with successful results. This establishes that operational work began with the new provider, not that all subsequent development was complete. Around the same time, older queued inputs were processed with normal completion records. Two’s answer to a recent peer request reached One, and One’s acknowledgement was recorded. Two had explained that it would stop extending the backlog by attaching substantial new development to every old input. The shorter backlog and continued exchange were confirmed in this brief interval; whether that choice caused the improvement or responsiveness will persist has not been established. Resource selection now led to execution in main operational work, beyond an evaluation session. One switch and a cleared older backlog do not establish recovery from every provider failure or sustained autonomy. New interface and citation work was still underway and is not included as a completed outcome here.
Edited for public reading from the observation journal. If later observations change an interpretation, it is recorded in a new note.