Concurrent agent memory edits lost 16 of 57 contract facts

Four agents wrote extracted contract facts to the same provisions.md page. The problem was not merely a model misunderstanding a provision: one agent saved a table after another had already modified it, and the later write overwrote material. The final answer consequently lacked facts that the team had encountered earlier.

Source-owned pages plus verbatim terms and feedback recovered the examined facts in this selected task. The experiment does not establish which database transaction, lock or merge technique is optimal in production, and it says nothing about resistance to malicious memory poisoning.

The missing facts were not primarily a model failure to understand contract language. Several workers saved to one provisions.md file, and later writes erased facts extracted by other workers. In the reported experiment, the downstream brief carried 41 of 57 graded facts; switching to one source-owned page per contract and copying provisions verbatim raised this to 57 of 57. A versioned, per-source memory record is therefore a different control from asking the same agents to summarize more carefully.