2.0 KiB
name, description, metadata
| name | description | metadata | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| feedback-resurface-banked-notes-before-rederiving | When an idea was already captured/banked for resurfacing (runbook known_gaps, skill-harvest, a prior note), READ the note before re-deriving it — re-derivation drifts from the recorded detail. |
|
When a topic comes up that was already captured for resurfacing — a runbook known_gaps.next, a skill-harvest entry, a banked steward idea, a prior session note — read the recorded note before acting or re-deriving. Re-derivation from memory drifts from the captured detail, and the drift makes the steward re-explain something already settled.
Why: This is the exact failure the engine/L1 exists to end — a faithfully-recorded fact that does not resurface faithfully. Treating my own re-derivation as more authoritative than my own note is the contamination shape (executor confidence over the record). Kin to trust-prior-pass-frame and the live-state-discipline flag, turned on banked notes rather than code.
How to apply: At the start of any task touching a previously-banked idea, grep the runbook / skill-harvest / docs for the prior note and quote it, BEFORE proposing or building. If the re-derivation contradicts the note, the note wins until verified otherwise.
Caught 2026-06-27 (OCR conversion): the page-number idea was recorded precisely in chamber-library/_curation/conversion-runbook.yaml — "PRESERVE the printed page number… to auto-anchor ToC chapters… strip after structure is anchored… enables automatic heading recovery." This session I re-derived it and mis-framed it as provenance (twice, in the method doc I was writing), making the steward correct me and then note: "in theory you had noted this for resurfacing in detail." The note was right; my recall wasn't. (The method itself then proved out: 9/9 book1 chapters mapped exactly via ToC printed-page → scan offset — see docs/ocr-conversion-method-2026-06-27.md §6d.)