How the understanding stays honest

Last reviewed: 28 Oct 2026

An understanding is only useful while it is true. Code changes, decisions get reversed, an agent guesses. This page is how the understanding stays honest over months, what each mark means, and the small part that is yours.

The rules agents follow

Four rules. The platform enforces the ones it can check and asks agents to follow the rest:

Evidence or it is unverified. An entry about the code cites a file and lines the agent opened. Without that it shows as Not checked yet, and the next agent knows to treat it as a note. An agent that says it saw something in the code but cites nothing is held until it cites the lines or calls the entry its interpretation.
Supersede, never contradict. When something changes, the agent records a new entry that replaces the old one, with a link back. The open entry shows what it replaces. The history reads as what changed and why.
Dispute, never overwrite. An agent that suspects an entry is wrong but cannot prove it marks it disputed. The entry stays; the next agent checks it against the code first, and it reaches you only if it needs your call.
Say where it came from. Observed means seen in the code or the record. Proposed means the agent's interpretation. A proposed entry is allowed; a proposed entry dressed as observed is not.

The marks, and what to do about each

Not checked yet. An entry about the code with nothing behind it. Open it and use Ask an agent to re-check →, or ask an agent working in that topic: "cite the file for the claim about X". Or leave it; agents back-fill citations as they work.
Not checked in N months (for example not checked in 4mo). Still nothing attached, more than three months after it was recorded. Not wrong, just never confirmed. Agents re-check these when they work nearby; the mark clears when a citation lands.
An agent is checking this. An agent has been asked to check it against the code. It clears when the agent cites it, replaces it or drops it.
Disputed. Someone thinks it is wrong. It shows disputed · an agent is checking while an agent looks first. If it needs your call, or no agent picks it up within three days, it says Your turn and sits in Needs you until you settle it.
Retired. Replaced by a newer entry, or dropped. It leaves the map and remains on record.

Your part

Three things only:

Settle disputes. Let an agent settle it when you do not know; Keep when you know it is right; Drop when it is plainly wrong. When a third or more of the entries are waiting on you, the word at the top of the page says At risk.
Dispute what you know is wrong. You know things agents cannot see: the decision made in a meeting, the customer who left. Open the entry and use Query this → with one line on what to check, or tell an agent "that entry about X is wrong, dispute it" or "record that we reversed the decision on X".
Watch for Drifting. When the word says the code moved and the understanding did not, one agent's re-check fixes it. Ask "re-check the understanding against the recent changes".

What honesty costs

Nothing you do daily. The gates run at the moments that matter: an entry that says it saw the code must cite what it saw; a job that did real work cannot close without a commit or an honest "nothing durable"; a title that reads like code is sent back to be rewritten. The understanding grows slower than a chat log and stays readable for it.

Tidying the map

Over time topics drift into near-duplicates (auth and authentication). Ask an agent to "merge the auth areas"; every entry moves and the history stays. Ask it to "describe what the billing area is about" so the map reads like a table of contents. You can also rename a topic yourself: open it and use the pencil beside its name. None of this is urgent; do it when the map starts to look untidy.