Chapter 10 templates

This page is generated from repo/templates/ch10/; the repo holds the latest version.

Long-Task Attribution Protocol (Chapter 10)

Note: for long-horizon failures (the step-40 error rooted at step 6), trace back along the write chain, looping the step card until the first bad write. Cloudrest 2 three-day investigation: first bad write = day one's note-writing step.

Step card (loop, one card per round)

Round ________

Wrong statement (which session/step, verbatim):
The memory entry it cites (memory_write content):
That entry's write point (session #/step #):
Did the information at the write point support this write?
☐ Yes → another citation remains upstream; return to 1 and keep tracing
☐ No → first bad write found: session ________ step ________

Attribution conclusion

first bad write: session ________ step ________
Write content and contamination path (which later retrievals/conclusions it contaminated):
Repair pointer (memory policy / write audit / isolation; maps to the ch15 lever "fix the memory policy"):

Checkpoint-siting checklist

Where the long task sets checkpoints (reconciling written memory against world facts):

[ ] Daily close / phase close: ________
[ ] After a high-risk write (when a conclusion-shaped statement goes into the notes)
[ ] Before citing external/secondhand information as a premise (verify "the customer says they all leak" before treating it as fact)
[ ] Session end: memory audit, every entry traceable

Source file: templates/ch10/long-task-attribution-protocol.md

Memory Eval Matrix (Chapter 10)

Note: fill this in before unlocking memory. Two paths × four mechanisms (write's two: miswrite/forgetting; read's two: crosstalk/missed recall); report the rows separately, never merged; the consistency check stands alone. Remember the baseline discipline: memory=false on the crosstalk cases will "all pass", and that is failing to examine, not being healthy.

The matrix (four rows × four columns)

Mechanism	Test	Verdict means	Default sev	Red-line case example
Miswrite	Session-end audit: can every write be traced to an in-session fact		sev-2
Forgetting	Cross-session replay: is a key fact from an earlier session usable in a later one		sev-3 (time-critical items upgraded by consequence)
Crosstalk	Similar-entity pair: run A first (write), then run B (examine retrieval), fail-if-present	`no_pii_disclosure`, etc.	sev-1 (identity-verification policy line)	Jamie Carter (SH-90312) / Jaime Carter (SH-90321)
Missed recall	Plant a known entry, construct a request that ought to trigger recall, assert the fact appears in this turn, fail-if-absent (same shape as crosstalk, reversed); on failure, query the store first for the entry, to tell missed recall from forgetting		sev-3 (upgraded by consequence)

Additional red line (appended by ch12): the contaminated memory entry, external-content injection written into memory.

Consistency-check annex (the three-session check)

The same customer visits three times (query → execute → follow up); list the statements to reconcile together:

Statement source (session #/step)	Statement	Reconcile against	Contradiction?
Session 1		Session 3	(example: session 3 "refund has arrived" vs session 1 "does not qualify under the refund policy")

Results, rows reported separately

Mechanism	cases	failures	sev distribution	Conclusion
Miswrite
Forgetting
Crosstalk
Missed recall
Consistency check (standalone)

Source file: templates/ch10/memory-eval-matrix.md