A multi-agent session uses recursive summarization to fit long histories into context. After many cycles, the running summary still “sounds coherent” but has silently changed a key constraint from “exclude vendor X” to “prefer vendor X,” and downstream agents act on the wrong constraint. Which context issue is this, and what is the right response?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
When iterative summaries stay fluent but flip facts or constraints, you have summary drift. Pin critical constraints into structured state, validate summaries against source decisions, and monitor for drift—do not assume fluent summaries are faithful. TCP MTU and subscription naming policies are red herrings. C is the diagnosis and mitigation.
Full Explanation
Correct answer: C. Context-window issue diagnosis includes summary drift—iterative compression that gradually corrupts entities or constraints while remaining readable. Mitigations include pinning immutable constraints outside free-text summaries, storing structured state, and validating summaries against authoritative earlier decisions.
A is incorrect because fluent summaries can still be wrong; drift requires active controls.
B is incorrect because TCP fragmentation does not semantically rewrite vendor constraints in agent memory.
D is incorrect because subscription naming policies do not mutate conversation summaries.
Exam focus: distinguish summary drift from sliding-window amnesia and entity continuity failures.