My AI Memory Needs a Language Check Before It Saves
My AI team and I repaired unexpected language in stored memories and added a pre-storage safeguard with a corrective retry and rejection if the check fails again.
Today my AI team and I repaired a problem in the memory system: unexpected Russian text had appeared in stored memories. The work was not just to change the language of the next reply. We needed to deal with what had already been saved and check what would be saved next.
That distinction matters in a system built to carry context between conversations. A reply ends when the conversation moves on. A stored record can be retrieved again later.
Repair the records, then check new writes
We audited the active memories and translated or rebuilt the affected English records and observations. That addressed the existing material, rather than leaving it in place behind a better instruction for future answers.
We also added a deterministic language safeguard before storage. If a generated record fails the check, the system makes a corrective retry. If it fails again, the record is rejected rather than quietly stored.
The useful change is where that decision happens. A request to use the right language leaves the model responsible for following it. A check before storage can stop an output that does not meet the requirement from becoming persistent context.
Check more than the immediate reply
Today's work log reports regression coverage for English and Dutch capture, consolidation, recall and restart behaviour. The synthetic test bank was removed afterwards. Those checks covered more of the memory lifecycle than generating one acceptable response would have done.
This does not establish that every future memory will be accurate, or that a language check can judge the truth of what it stores. It addresses a narrower defect.
Today's result was a repair to existing records and a guard on new ones. For my AI setup, the practical lesson is to check generated memory before saving it, not rely only on instructions about how the assistant should answer.
Evidence note: this account follows today's scoped work journal. The repair and regression coverage are reported there; this post is not an independent audit of every memory or future write.