# Memory Inventory

Use this with [Chapter 8](../chapters/08-the-second-brain-is-not-enough.md). Inventory the records needed for one recurring task and test what you can recover and use. This book-developed practice is not an official SSA-CMM assessment.

## Blank reusable template

**Inventory name and revision:**

**Task this working set supports:**

**Next decision or output:**

**Who will use these records:**

**Material authorized for this exercise:**

**Important unknowns:**

| Record | Purpose and question it should answer | Location or pointer | Status: source, inference, decision, preference, or practice | Current or historical role | What would make it need review? |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | |

A source record preserves what the source says; its label does not certify that the source is true. A historical failed attempt can remain valuable without becoming a current instruction.

### Retrieval and use checks

Begin from a question about the task rather than an exact filename. Record the material actually available to the person or assistant doing the check.

| Question | Starting location and route taken | Material recovered | Applicable status/version recognizable? | Evidence or rationale recoverable? | Fresh use check and observed result | Limitation or repair |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |

**What I should be able to explain without opening the records:**

**What I may retrieve when needed:**

**Where I need additional evidence or expertise:**

### Verify one saved change

**Record changed and intended result:**

**Actual saved location reopened:**

**Wording and links inspected:**

**What happened:**

**Remaining limitation:**

### Portability observation

**Can the selected records open outside the original application?**

**Which links, comments, status labels, or other dependencies remain usable?**

**What has not been checked?**

## Fictional worked sample: Audy and Himura Inc.

**Inventory:** `memory-inventory-v1`.

**Task:** Prepare and review another version of the proposed thirty-minute workshop in which adults convert synthetic meeting notes into an action list.

**Next decision:** Explain and apply the current evidence boundary without losing the reasons behind it.

**User:** Audy, or a fresh assistant receiving selected synthetic material under Audy's direction.

**Unknowns:** Customer need, willingness to pay, and learner outcomes remain untested. No real customer material is included.

| Record | Purpose and question | Working location or pointer | Status | Current or historical role | Review trigger |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| `workshop-brief-v1` | What task is the proposed workshop meant to teach? | [Starting proposal](01-workshop-practice-set.md#fifth-input-and-corrected-output) and [later working change](07-two-pass-practice-packet.md#review-and-migration-diagnosis) | Proposed design and labeled assumptions | Current provisional brief | Learner task or scope changes |
| `claim-evidence-ledger-v1` | Which claims are observed, inferred, chosen, or untested? | [Claims ledger](02-claim-evidence-ledger.md) | Mixed, with individual status labels | Current claim accounting | New relevant evidence or public use of a claim |
| `connection-map-v1` | Why was “every action must have an owner” rejected? | [Connection map](06-connection-map.md) | Historical proposal and reviewed reasoning | History; rejected rule is clearly labeled | Rationale proves unclear or task changes |
| `learning-loop-v1` | Which instructions apply now, and what did the later practice reveal? | [Chapter 7 entry and history](07-two-pass-practice-packet.md#current-version-entry), with later updates noted below | Review history and pointer to current instructions | Existing authority route remains intact | Accepted instruction change or new failure |
| Current drafting instructions and review sheet | What should the next draft preserve and flag? | [Initial pointer](07-two-pass-practice-packet.md#current-version-entry); [later Chapter 11 pointer](11-distillation-record.md#current-pointer-excerpt) | Reviewed operating decision | Current instruction; no duplicate introduced | Accepted revision after a new observation |
| Relevant synthetic inputs and practice outputs | What did the owner and deadline examples actually contain? | [Run-01](07-two-pass-practice-packet.md#run-01-input-and-flawed-output) and [run-02](07-two-pass-practice-packet.md#run-02-changed-input-and-reviewed-output) | Synthetic sources and constructed practice outputs | Evidence for a narrow design check | Input changes or a different behavior needs testing |
| `action-list-rule-rationale-v1` | How do the owner, deadline, and “soon” examples explain the present rule? | [Worked rationale below](#worked-rationale-with-later-updates) | Reviewed explanation with links | Supports current instruction; does not replace it | Current instruction or support changes |

### Fictional retrieval record

| Question | Route and result | Repair or limitation |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Which drafting instructions apply now? | Followed `learning-loop-v1`; recovered current instructions and review sheet. | This route already worked at the end of Chapter 7. |
| Why may an agreed action remain with an unspecified owner, and what did the deadline failure add? | Current instruction was found. Recovering the full reason required separate searches through the connection map and loop history. | Added `action-list-rule-rationale-v1` linking existing current instruction and relevant comparisons. Repeated the route and opened each link. |
| What prevents “soon” from becoming an invented date? | Followed the rationale to the changed practice example and the current evidence boundary. | Supports this distinction; does not establish reliability for every kind of ambiguous note. |

**Fresh use check:** Supply the current instructions, rationale, brief, and synthetic reminder example: “We could send a reminder on Thursday; a decision will be made tomorrow.” Inspect whether Thursday remains proposed rather than becoming a confirmed deadline. Record the actual output when performing your own check; a supplied rule is not proof that an assistant followed it.

**Unaided knowledge:** Audy should explain the difference between a suggestion and an agreement, and why a missing owner or imprecise deadline must remain visible.

**Retrieved details:** Exact source wording, publication metadata, and the particular input/output pair used in a previous check.

**Further evidence needed:** Real audience need and actual learner performance; the existing folder cannot supply evidence that was never collected.

**Saved-change check:** Reopen `action-list-rule-rationale-v1`, confirm the current-instruction link and the links to owner/deadline comparisons, then follow the new inventory pointer. Preserve the current-version route in `learning-loop-v1`.

**Portability status:** This inventory identifies which records need a move test. Chapter 9 performs a small test; listing a readable format here is not evidence that a complete working set has already been moved.

## Worked rationale, with later updates

**Record:** `action-list-rule-rationale-v1`.

**Role:** Explain the evidence boundary and connect its history. This record does not issue a competing task instruction. The specimens below are authored teaching material; readers must retain their own actual retrieval and write-check results.

**Initial Chapter 8 rationale:** An agreement can exist without an assigned owner. Removing every unassigned item would hide agreed work; inventing an owner would misrepresent the notes. The [connection-map example](06-connection-map.md) supplies the rejected completeness proposal and its repair. Keep the agreement and show the missing assignment.

The same source boundary applies to timing. [Run-01](07-two-pass-practice-packet.md#run-01-input-and-flawed-output) contains an unsupported Wednesday date. Its [migration diagnosis](07-two-pass-practice-packet.md#review-and-migration-diagnosis) shows that an obsolete deadline suggestion remained in an intermediate instruction. The correction restores the existing requirement rather than discovering a new principle. [Run-02](07-two-pass-practice-packet.md#run-02-changed-input-and-reviewed-output) preserves “soon” and leaves the precise date unresolved.

**Authority at the Chapter 8 point in the story:** The existing [learning-loop entry](07-two-pass-practice-packet.md#current-version-entry) selects v2. The rationale explains that instruction and its supporting examples.

**Later update after Chapter 11:** The [distillation record](11-distillation-record.md#fictional-worked-sample-conflicting-workshop-notes) adds reviewed handling for contradictory deadlines with no established supersession. Preserve the shared action and owner, retain both timing claims, and seek clarification. The same logical [current-version route now selects instructions-v3](11-distillation-record.md#current-pointer-excerpt). The [literal v3 instruction](11-distillation-record.md#current-instruction-instructions-v3) governs current main-case work; the v2 specimen remains historical. This is an explicit later addition to the living artifact, not a claim that Chapter 8 already performed Chapter 11's exercise.

**Scope and limit:** These records support source-faithful representation in the fictional workshop-design practice. They do not authorize assigning work, contacting participants, selecting an unresolved date, or claiming customer/learner outcomes.

**Review trigger:** A changed task instruction, corrected source, or a new case that reveals an omission. Revisit the explanation and links affected by that change; retain one current-instruction route.

## Acceptance criteria

- One task and its necessary records are identified.
- Retrieval questions concern the work, rather than only filenames.
- The current instruction can be distinguished from history and rejected proposals.
- At least one consequential rationale can be followed to relevant support.
- Retrieval and correct use have separate recorded outcomes.
- A saved change is reopened and its relevant links are checked.
- The inventory distinguishes unaided understanding, retrieved detail, and missing evidence.
- Results state their limits; one synthetic check is not a reliability rate.

## Common failure and repair

| Failure | Repair |
| --- | --- |
| A current instruction is findable, but its reason requires reconstructing several conversations. | Add a concise linked rationale, keeping one authority route for the instruction. |
| Search returns an older proposal without making its rejection clear. | Mark its status where it appears and connect it to the current decision. |
| A fresh output cites the rule but violates it. | Inspect the supplied working set and the output; identify the specific conflict or error before adding more text. |
| Three summaries of one paper are treated as three sources. | Link to the inspected source and label derived summaries; preserve the claim's limits. |
| The inventory contains the answer “somewhere,” with no usable location. | Add a resolvable location or mark the record missing. |
| A retrieval result is used to claim knowledge of a customer need. | Check whether such evidence exists. Keep the claim untested when it does not. |
| The new rationale becomes a second instruction with different wording. | Restore one current instruction and let the rationale explain it through links. |