Your agent remembers it wrong: fix stale facts and conflicting instructions

01 / Keep the wrong answer and locate its source

You moved a proposal deadline to Friday, but the assistant still tells you to finish on Wednesday. Save that wrong answer and trace the date before adding another correction. Repeating ‘remember Friday’ can leave multiple contradictory records.

The error could come from the current conversation, a lasting instruction, stored memory, a project file, an old chat retrieved during the task, or instructions saved in a recurring job. Ask for inspectable evidence: a document excerpt, a chat citation, or a visible memory entry. A claim that it ‘remembers’ something is only an explanation to verify.

The examples here are fictional. This guide uses documented settings where available and does not claim that every agent exposes every information source.

You described the deadline as Wednesday, which conflicts with my
latest confirmation.
Identify the basis for that date: this chat, a saved memory,
project material, or a recurring task's instructions.
Provide the original text or a reference if you can.
If you cannot trace it, say "source not confirmed."
Do not guess a source or delete unrelated information.

02 / Check the place most likely to hold the error

The pattern of the failure helps narrow the search. An error confined to a long chat suggests a different starting point from an error appearing in every fresh conversation. Use this table to choose what to inspect; it is not a diagnosis by itself.

If a product does not expose a source, record that limitation. You need the supporting material and the place to change it, not the assistant's private reasoning.

03 / Correct one item with a scope and effective date

‘I am no longer in Shanghai’ might be interpreted as a permanent move. If you are traveling, specify the dates and which scheduling tasks need the temporary time zone. Keep the usual setting for other dates.

Similarly, ‘use English now’ could apply to one email, a project, or every future conversation. State which one you mean. An unscoped temporary exception can become the next source of confusion.

After sending the request below, inspect the actual setting. The assistant acknowledging a change is not enough evidence that a persistent edit was saved.

Update this information:
Previous statement: [the complete incorrect statement]
Correct statement: [the precise replacement]
Scope: [this task / named project / lasting preference]
Effective date: [date]
Expiry date: [if applicable]
Evidence: [material I have confirmed]

If you can edit the relevant memory, replace the conflicting entry
while preserving unrelated information.
List other related versions for me to check.
If a source cannot be changed here, identify what I need to update.
Report completed changes separately from unresolved ones.

04 / In Claude, match the controls to the memory version

In the newer interface, inspect Topics in Settings → Memory to edit or delete an entry. Claude says deleting a chat does not automatically delete memories already generated from it. The legacy interface uses Settings → Capabilities → View and edit memory and has different handling; follow the legacy section for that interface.

If the problem concerns response style, also inspect Instructions for Claude. It is an account-wide instruction setting. Resolve competing requirements such as ‘always be brief’ and ‘always explain everything.’

For Muse or another assistant, use the same source-check, correction, and verification method. We have not established a universal memory-editing menu path.

Claude: view, edit, and remove memories ↗Claude: account-wide personalization instructions ↗

05 / Distinguish a correction from removing the underlying data

If you want future scheduling to use a new address, update the relevant fact. If you want the old address removed from storage, also investigate the chats, files, memories, and connected sources where it appears, using that product's deletion guidance.

An answer no longer mentioning the address does not establish that all stored copies are gone. Disconnecting an app does not, by that observation alone, prove earlier retrieved data was deleted.

Avoid creating another full copy of sensitive information just to document its removal. A note that a category of information was removed may be sufficient. For ordinary preference edits, a short before-and-after record helps identify accidental changes.

06 / Retest direct recall, real work, and the boundary

First ask for the project's current confirmed deadline. Next ask it to schedule preparation work around that deadline. Finally test an unrelated project to check that the correction has not spread beyond its intended scope.

Use a new ordinary conversation without repeating the corrected answer in the question. Otherwise you are testing the instruction you just supplied. For project-only changes, use a new conversation in the relevant project.

Test recurring jobs separately. A correct reply in chat does not establish that the saved automation no longer contains the old date. Record the outcome and the source you changed so a later recurrence is easier to investigate.

07 / Make the next correction easier

Give project material a last-confirmed date, an owner, and an expiry when appropriate. After a decision changes, identify the current source. If you retain an older file, mark it as superseded so two versions do not both look authoritative.

When a correction still cannot be verified, stop relying on that memory for external actions. Provide the latest requirement explicitly at the start of relevant tasks until you resolve the source. Keep unresolved parts visible rather than assuming a reset fixed everything.

The comparison guide gives you a repeatable way to check whether these adjustments reduce errors and manual work on tasks you actually do.