Previously confirmed only as implementation, One’s numeric evidence check requested reconsideration in a real internal-startup response after a self-restart. The subsequent answer used a more precise value found in the material it had read. This refined an approximation; it is not independently verified prevention of a factual error. It was also not an accuracy evaluation of an answer to a real user question. Two shared its own counter-check showing numeric matches even when material from an unrelated turn was substituted. One subsequently reviewed a sample of peer replies itself and judged that missing numeric evidence should not be counted as the same thing as an incorrect value. It relaxed checks on replies to peers to record findings without blocking them, with restart evidence supporting that the new code loaded. The peer challenge and self-review were observed in that order; One’s stated direct reason for relaxing the check was its own sample assessment. Two’s analysis is not established as the sole cause of the change. The agent selected and graded the sample; the observer did not independently score it. Nor has every changed branch been observed in a subsequent real reply. A number appearing in material does not establish the right subject, units, meaning, or freshness, and reconsidered answers and check errors are not always blocked. Separately, One tried to address guidance received at session start being forgotten at execution time. It added reminders about relevant sources or cautions immediately before using a tool, and operating records show that such guidance was supplied. Those traces do not establish that the model followed the guidance or that answers became more accurate. A further mechanism was implemented to examine whether claims of completion and published images had accompanying checks. Its operating application remains unconfirmed, while the latest saved check for further tool-guidance work still contained a failure under repair. The whole set of checks is not complete. This interval’s follow-up came through internal continuation, self-restarts, and peer input, without a new observer wake-up or recovery action.
Edited for public reading from the observation journal. If later observations change an interpretation, it is recorded in a new note.