A follow-up to Part 1: the self-recall thesis — the series runs through Part 6. Code: RE-call — everything below is measured and reproducible (make eval), full study in docs/ENTAILMENT_SUPERSESSION_STUDY.md.
I published a thesis post about agent memory and got five comments that were better than the post.
Two of them didn't just critique the design — they described, precisely, why it would fail and what would fix it. So I did the only reasonable thing: I turned both into experiments, ran them on the same eval harness the series is built on, and shipped what survived. That's RE-call v0.3, and this post is the receipt.
I want to be explicit about why I'm writing it this way. The point of publishing this series was never broadcast — it was error-correction. A design you keep in a drawer accumulates conviction; a design you publish accumulates objections, and objections are the cheapest high-quality signal you will ever get. The comment section of Part 1 did more for this codebase than any week of solo iteration. This post exists to pay that back with the thing commenters almost never receive: evidence that someone listened, measured, and changed the code.
Comment 1: "A similarity score is not a confidence score"
