Context, memory and retrieval
Recover from stale summaries and missing source context.
Reviewed: 2026-10-03
Illustrated teaching example • Fictional data
Narration: Microsoft Mark · locally synthesized

00:00:00.000 — Stored does not mean currently supplied.

A file can exist on disk without being in the model’s current context. A conversation can be stored without every message being included. Memory, retrieval, and summaries can help continuity, but they can also introduce missing or stale information. Inspect the actual source packet.

Visual description:
History · Memory · Retrieval · Compaction

00:00:21.625 — Name the different mechanisms.

Context is the information supplied for this inference. Product memory stores information that may be reintroduced later. Retrieval fetches material from a collection. Compaction summarizes history to continue work within limits. These mechanisms do not guarantee that every important instruction or current fact survives.

Visual description:
Context: Supplied for this inference
Memory: Stored and selectively reintroduced
Retrieval: Fetched from a collection
Compaction: Compressed history; details may be lost

00:00:45.917 — A summary conflicts with the source.

The fictional summary says the pilot succeeded. The authoritative version two source says it has not started. An old version one note proposes four weeks, while version two proposes two. Resolve the conflict using the stated source authority. A newer timestamp alone would not establish authority in real work.

Visual description:
Session summary: Pilot succeeded.
Authoritative v2: Two-week pilot proposed; not started.
Authority is explicit in this teaching fixture.

00:01:09.542 — Create a short restart record.

Keep the objective, source references and versions, established decisions, unknowns, and next action. For Riley, record the proposed two week pilot and unknown savings. Retain a reference to the authoritative facts. The record helps you resume; it does not replace the evidence or grant new permissions.

Visual description:
Objective: draft a pilot proposal. Source: authoritative Riley v2. Status: proposed, not started. Duration: 2 weeks. Savings: unknown. Next: define measurements and review the draft.

00:01:33.958 — Load, check and reconcile.

When tools are available, explicitly request the relevant authorized files and inspect the read results. Otherwise, supply the relevant text. Confirm the source version, reconcile contradictions, and check the draft. A folder map or filename is a navigation aid, not proof that the contents were read.

Visual description:
Identify source
Supply or read it
Resolve conflict
Check draft
Preserve the source reference and uncertainty.

00:01:57.625 — Recover a different fictional session.

Use the lesson’s stale summary exercise. Identify the authoritative source, remove invented success, preserve unresolved questions, and write a restart prompt. Explain why the chosen source applies. Passing means another person can recover the task without guessing which facts are current.

Visual description:
Could a teammate restart this task safely?
Objective and source version.
Decisions and unknowns.
Next action and permissions.
Your evidence: a concise, source-linked restart record.