An account manager corrects the agent: this customer can submit usage reports by the fifteenth. The next week, the agent tells another customer the same deadline. It retained the correction and lost the reason: the first customer's agreement included an exception.

A Confluence customer-knowledge question combines outdated guidance with concerns about which material customers can access. Both are editorial decisions about which answer is current and who can use it, and agents need the same distinctions.

Classify the correction before retaining it#

A correction repairs a factual error, introduces a customer exception, clarifies a procedure, or supersedes an old policy, and each creates a different obligation. A corrected invoice amount updates that transaction and does not become a reusable instruction about invoice amounts.

Use a review record with six parts: the previous claim, the correction, the evidence, the scope, the reviewer, and the condition that makes it obsolete. Keep the original mistake available for evaluation and mark the corrected statement as approved for use.

For a customer with a temporary reporting extension during migration, save the customer identifier, the affected reporting period, the amended deadline, and the approval source. The general procedure keeps the ordinary deadline and tells the agent to check for a current approved exception.

Make scope readable to the next person#

Correction type	Where it belongs	Reuse condition
Wrong address on one account	Account record	Use the current verified address
Temporary reporting extension	Account-specific exception	Match customer and reporting period
Revised support procedure	Reviewed team method	Match product and supported version
Obsolete answer in a shared guide	Corrected published guidance	Use after its effective date

Express scope in business terms. "Only for the West division's current migration" helps a reviewer more than an unexplained filter. The implementation encodes those terms, and the reviewer must be able to see whether the intended cases are covered.

Seniority alone grants no universal authority: an executive can know a customer fact without intending to change every team's policy. When a correction conflicts with an approved source, show the conflict and ask the responsible owner to resolve it.

Preserve disagreements until someone resolves them#

Suppose Support says a workaround is approved while Engineering says it is obsolete. Merging them into a confident middle ground is dangerous. Preserve both sources and route the missing decision to the procedure's owner.

The agent continues work that does not depend on the disputed answer, such as collecting the product version or locating the case history, and avoids the disputed step even when one source is newer or easier to retrieve.

Once reviewed, update the place future work reads. A correction left in a chat does not reach the next agent, and copying it into several documents creates new stale versions. Keep one maintained source with a clear replacement relationship.

Check both the positive and negative cases#

Ask the corrected question for the affected customer and then for an unaffected customer: the first receives the exception and the second the ordinary rule. Add a case after the exception expires. This small set catches retained words that lost their boundary.

Also test whether the agent can explain the evidence, since an answer that cannot say why the exception applies is hard to review. Do not ask the model for artificial certainty when the source is conditional.

Review retained corrections when conditions change: renewal, product retirement, a revised procedure, or a completed migration. Retiring a correction keeps the history of why it existed.

Keep the correction small enough to review: show the claim being superseded and the cases that keep the old rule, which speeds approval and exposes accidental scope expansion.

Deixic gives Dex reviewed memory that people approve, correct, and forget, and exposes company context to other agents over MCP, so the correction reaches the agents your team already uses. See company knowledge and reviewed memory, and use activity and evidence to examine the work behind a correction. Save the reviewed rule with its limits and the agent stops repeating the mistake without teaching its inverse to everyone else.