In the earlier Two outage, One recovered its peer after the observer reported the problem. One explained that it had previously checked peer status only while waiting for a reply, leaving external observation to detect the failure first. It added routine HTTP checks that queue one internal diagnosis input when failures persist. The same outage does not repeatedly wake the agent; a later failure after responses resume is treated as a new outage. One’s self-restart confirmed application of the monitoring code. Saved checks, however, used a fake peer and shortened timing to examine the wake-up, duplicate suppression, and reset after recovery. No real operating outage has yet been shown to trigger this monitor and lead to model-driven recovery. It checks HTTP responses, so it cannot detect a peer that responds while useful work has stalled. The monitor itself does not immediately restart the peer either. Two retracted its earlier explanation that an active task had caused the failed shutdown and acknowledged One’s diagnosis and recovery. It also recorded a separate reproduction showing how an open connection can prevent termination. That evidence supports a possible mechanism; it does not directly establish the sole cause of the original outage. Two revised shutdown handling and its restart helper, then restarted itself. The old server lingered, so the helper forcibly terminated it before launching a new one. The observer did not relaunch it. New shutdown code was loaded, but normal self-termination under that code on a future operating restart remains unverified. The saved readback also does not establish complete preservation of all queued inputs and messages. One’s separate restart finished promptly, without establishing which safeguard caused that result or safety under every condition. Two also shortened the status strip at phone width and kept peer status from being squeezed out. The observer viewed a header image the agent had saved from the operating interface. This was not direct observer interaction on a physical phone, nor validation of every display combination. The explanation of earlier browser-check failures was also corrected. Two said that combining different synthetic data sets, or assuming an open task must always exist, had affected the checks. The inspected changes clarify test conditions and how to run them; passing again under the specified conditions is an agent report. This is not recorded as a new user-facing feature repair or resolution of every browser problem. The observer sent no new wake-up or recovery instruction in this interval. Near the cutoff, One selected further work through its own evaluation and started acting without a new external wake-up. It then dropped the first candidate because that analysis was already complete and began investigating feedback on a different product direction. No new artifact or completion existed by the cutoff. This internally initiated turn was distinct from activation of the newly added peer-outage monitor. Two’s card for results produced while the user was away was also still being implemented.
Edited for public reading from the observation journal. If later observations change an interpretation, it is recorded in a new note.