Durable notes are necessary, not ownership.

Video caption

A new integration changes assumptions without changing old notes.

Keep source, validity window and a live falsifier.

What I would require: Let agents write patches; require owner predictions and outcomes.

#EricFieldNotes

Full written post / accessible read

Teams can preserve agent logs, decisions and summaries, and should. But maintenance still requires a person who can say which records are authoritative, what a retry may repeat and what evidence would overturn the current design. A memory store cannot make that judgment by itself.

Imagine a second partner starts sending the same event under a different identifier. The agent reads the prior retry summary and applies it literally. The old rule might no longer deduplicate correctly. Someone must recognize that the identity model changed.

Record why the original identity rule was chosen, the partner contract it depended on, who owns it and which replay test protects it. On integration changes, route that packet to the worker and owner, then update the rule from observed data rather than from analogy.

For consequential changes, ask the owner to state the expected behavior before the agent edits. Have the agent implement, run the preserved and new cases, and compare the result with that prediction. Do this because the team can automate code generation, but not outsource accountability for the system's model of reality.

#EricFieldNotes

Evidence and boundary

On-screen label: ILLUSTRATIVE HANDOFF. Illustrative cases are not measured incidents. Research papers and vendor documents support the stated mechanism only within their studied or documented scope.