Tell sequence from cause in agent notes

"I changed X, then Y broke" gives you an order to read. It can also tempt you to undo X before you know what made Y break. Pause at that gap: something happening next is not the same as something happening because of the change.

Fictional Jane Doe is the person receiving these invented notes. Her folder and the events described in it are made up. Your task as the reader is to decide what the wording supports before you act on its explanation.

Read after without adding because

I changed the title of Jane Doe's draft. After that, the opening paragraph appeared twice.

The note places the title edit before the repeated paragraph. Nothing here explains how changing a title could duplicate a paragraph. You can accept the stated order while leaving that explanation open.

Now compare a stronger claim:

Changing the title caused the opening paragraph to appear twice.

This sentence assigns a cause. Before undoing the title edit, ask what the agent observed that connects that edit to the duplicate paragraph. A confident sentence is still only a claim if the answer repeats that the duplication came afterward.

The distinction belongs to the words, not to the file's appearance. Read about the format in the .md file introduction. Saving the note as Markdown does not add evidence to its explanation.

Keep the second change in view

I shortened Jane Doe's title and pasted in a revised opening. Then the opening appeared twice, so the title edit caused it.

Here two changes precede the duplication. Pasting in the opening could explain the duplicate without any effect from the title. Undoing the title alone might leave the repeated paragraph untouched.

Ask for one observation with different implications for those explanations: "Was the paragraph already duplicated after the title edit but before the paste?" An observation from that interval would separate the title explanation from the paste explanation. Merely hearing that both edits happened before the duplication would not.

Leave the draft untouched while asking whether the agent already has that observation. If it cannot establish what the draft contained between the edits, treat the cause as unsettled rather than approving an undo on that basis.

When discussing two drafts, make clear which file each observation concerns. Distinct names are the subject of Markdown file naming; a different name alone says nothing about why their text differs.

Consider what affected both events

Jane Doe's older draft became readable again after I replaced its title, so the new title restored the text.

Suppose the note also says the folder finished syncing during the same interval. The sync could have brought in both the new title and the missing text. Both arrivals would then share an influence, rather than one causing the other.

Ask for the observation that separates those accounts: "Was the missing text present in the incoming copy before its title changed?" If so, the restored text was already there without the title edit. That would challenge the claim that changing the title restored it.

If the agent has only the final copy, it may not be able to answer. Do not fill that gap with the explanation that sounds tidiest. A preference for the new title can justify retaining it without treating it as a remedy for missing text elsewhere.

Tie the extra observation to your decision

After I revised Jane Doe's totals paragraph, its total matched her expected amount.

The match describes what followed the revision. Before asking for the same revision in another draft, ask what changed within the paragraph. Was an omitted amount added, or did new figures arrive while the wording was being revised?

Choose the extra observation around that difference. "Did the figures stay unchanged while only the wording changed?" bears on whether the wording revision explains the match. Another assurance that the final total matches would leave the cause question unanswered.

A useful answer may support one explanation, weaken it, or leave both open. Match your next action to that answer. Do not repeat a change to get the same effect while you still do not know what caused that effect.

A brief reading routine before acting

Read the note once for event order, then reread the sentence that assigns a cause. Consider a second change or a shared influence that could also explain what followed. Ask the agent for one observation whose answer would differ between those explanations. You are asking about evidence it has, rather than taking on new work yourself.

Keep the short note lines in ordinary prose during that discussion. For another way of presenting literal text, read Markdown code blocks; these sentences need no fence around them.

End the discussion with a bounded decision: act on the supported explanation, or leave the cause open and hold the action that depends on it. Knowing what came next can be enough to describe events without being enough to explain them.

Where Sashmark fits

Development of Sashmark continues toward a planned desktop app: people could read and edit Markdown produced by their AI agents. Still in development and without AI, it leaves judging causes to you.