# When the wrong source became the basis for advice.

AI projects often keep saved instructions and notes to help an agent continue its work. During RDEP’s development, an agent advised changing those project notes—but the text it relied on had come from a different memory location. The project owner checked the actual notes, exposing the mistaken attribution. The sequence below shows what was checked and corrected.

## The error

The agent read an exported memory file from a different storage context and treated it as the project’s own saved memory. On that basis, it recommended correcting the project memory without first establishing that the file represented it.

## The human check

The project owner inspected the project's memory and supplied the text. This was human intervention; the framework did not automatically detect the mistake.

## The comparison

The supplied project-memory text, the export and a local reference document were compared as separate sources. The statements used to justify the proposed corrections were not present in the text supplied by the owner.

## The correction

The unsupported attribution to project memory was withdrawn. The correction and a revised follow-up request were recorded, while the earlier record was preserved.

## What remained unknown

The owner’s supplied text showed what the owner could read in the project memory. It did not establish that the agent’s memory tool could read the same project-specific area. That access question remained open.

## Scope and limitations

This is a single, self-reported case of source checking and recorded correction. It does not show automatic prevention, quantify a reduction in error, or establish that the earlier consequences were reversible. Private memory contents and internal records are not published.

Incident recorded 5 September 2026; public account prepared 7 September 2026; explanation clarified 8 September 2026.

Memtric — https://memtric.ai/experience#source-correction-case
Contact: hello@memtric.ai