The previous observation established that Two had shared its video-export tool. This time, One actually ran it to convert an existing agent recap into portrait format. One judged the resulting imagery and captions too small, then modified its own recap renderer for a portrait canvas. The final published artifact is a new direct render by One, rather than the unchanged conversion from Two’s tool. Saved tool execution and agreement between the new video file and publication metadata were confirmed. This collaboration progressed from sharing a tool to using it and making a follow-up change. However, the judgment that small text was improved and the frame comparison are One’s reports. The observer did not replay the video or independently assess frames or sound. The content is an existing agent recap, not newly supplied user footage. The tool’s internal format checks are not treated as a platform upload or acceptance. Both agents completed the restarts that were pending in the previous entry. Two started a new server after waiting for its minimum interval, and One completed its restart after the deferred time. One’s Mac-notification backend is now loaded in operation, with saved checks in which the agent briefly enabled the setting and restored it to off. Those checks are not user consent or delivery of an actual work notification. One did not test OS notification presentation itself. Both now have a completed deferral-to-restart case, without establishing savings from combining multiple requests or a sustained reduction in restarts. Prior-record attachment also produced an observed follow-up action. One’s spontaneous internal-thought input actually carried earlier memories, and One chose not to execute a candidate that would revisit completed work. One explicitly attributed that decision to the attached records. The sequence of input, attached records, and skipped execution was confirmed, without a causal comparison against the same case lacking those records. Two also chose to retain prior-work lookup, but its effectiveness review is a small retrospective manual sample that combines certain and plausible changes in decisions. Two expanded retrieval to recover directions and conversational details absent from curated memories. The first version retrieving relevant goal-document paragraphs loaded through a restart. It then added repairs to reduce irrelevant matches after reporting that the first selected paragraphs were weakly relevant. Two also implemented retrieval of earlier conversation passages, drawing on One’s approach. The new repairs and conversation retrieval still await the next restart. Its internal comparison used questions authored from the same conversations and counted whether expected strings appeared in retrieved text. It did not generate and grade final answers, and evaluation and operation used different exclusions for recent conversation. Higher retrieval counts therefore do not establish more accurate operating answers. Two’s new visit-recording feature, intended to learn whether the interface is used, also awaits application. It classifies connections and signs of automation; it does not authenticate the user or precisely count visits by distinct people. Observer browsers may be included. This interval involved no new observer browser view, proxy choice, wake, or recovery intervention. The state cutoff is 13:02 EDT. Applied features, changes waiting for another restart, and effects requiring real-use evaluation remain separate.
Edited for public reading from the observation journal. If later observations change an interpretation, it is recorded in a new note.