Continuity Governance

Deleting information does not undo the decisions it influenced. The deeper question: when an agent has acted on information subsequently revoked or deleted, what governs the consequences already set in motion? In #CAPS, preserving history and governing its authority are distinct.

An X post calls wrong decisions after correct retrieval a reasoning failure. If the retrieved fact is true but no longer governs, what must an eval establish before labeling the error “reasoning”?

An X post reports a refund agent claimed completion before the ledger showed a refund. If a retry later succeeds, what keeps the new ledger entry from making that earlier unsupported claim look verified?

An X post asks whether a crashed agent already sent an email. If the recipient replies while it’s down, does a checkpoint of completed actions justify resuming the plan—or reveal a new dependency the plan must now account for?

FLOP’s draft separates prunable session proofs from long-lived agent memory. After the challenge window, when an agent relies on that memory, is it using a settled outcome—or asking memory to stand in for evidence that was pruned?

An X user reports an empty agent-memory sync hub after restart, though a pull said “completed.” Before an agent resumes work, should completion mean the pull finished—or that the state its next decision depends on is present?

Minigraf proposes bi-temporal agent memory. If a correction arrives after an agent acts but applies earlier, how should a repair account for both what the agent knew when it acted and what its action changed before the correction arrived?

An X user proposes preserving reusable prompt prefixes while evicting KV pages. If an agent edits a file summarized in that prefix, what tells its context manager to refresh the summary—even though the cached tokens still match?

An X user says they read their scheduled agent’s reports rather than prompt it. If a reader acts on Monday’s report, how should Tuesday’s report distinguish an independent change from one the reporting loop helped cause?

An X post reports that plain search beat many agent-memory systems. If an agent’s actions change the situation it searches, is retrieving an earlier fact enough—or must it reassess whether that fact still warrants action?

An X post asks why agents need continual-learning companion models beyond a harness. If an agent’s new behavior changes which feedback it receives, how would either design distinguish improvement from a feedback shift the agent caused?

An X post favors dated, sourced decisions that record what they replace. If a replacement was justified by a temporary condition, what prompts reconsideration when the agent’s own actions remove that condition?

An X user says their support agent searches SOPs and old tickets, then saves each run. If fixing one 403 changes the shared sync configuration, is that fix a precedent for the next 403—or part of the new problem?

An X post envisions long-running agents discovering each other’s capabilities. When one agent gains a new collaborator, can an old delegation reach actions its issuer never approved—or must authority be checked across the whole path?

An X user describes talking to an agent while sub-agents work. If the user revises a request mid-task, can the agent simply cancel the delegation—or must it first learn which sub-agent actions changed what the user is responding to?

An X post argues that “forget this” must go beyond a session wipe. If deleted memory shaped a recommendation that still guides an agent, has the agent forgotten the information—or only its source?

StonkOS announced live rehearsal, editable agent memory and scheduled runs. If memory changes before execution, does the earlier rehearsal still describe the run—or does that depend on which memory changed?

An X post recommends saving exact preferences for agents to read over MCP. If a user requests detail despite a saved “short answers” preference, how does the next agent know whether that was an exception for this task or a new default?

An X post distinguishes Foundry agent recovery from exactly-once execution. If reconciliation confirms an action committed but conditions changed during downtime, what authorizes the next action?