Filing what you drop (v2.1)
The filing proposal after Vee's review and the design session that followed — page links instead of pills, no hedging, pages that update like a wiki, and no source marker on the page at all, because the trace is kept underneath where the agent reads it and you never have to.
What changed in v2.1 — two corrections to the draft. Nothing about the promise moved.
A · There is no source marker on the page at all. v2 kept the compact 📄 / 🔗 / 💬 marker "for now, so we can debug the filing." It was dropped instead. A page carries nothing: no marker, no file name, no footnote — it reads exactly like a page a person wrote. Every line's trace, and where in the source it came from, is recorded underneath on the change itself, where the agent reads it and a person never has to. This settles the v2 draft's open question 1 the way the product brief already had it: you read the synthesis, the agent keeps the receipts. A fold-away "show sources" panel is still possible later, if people ask for it. Section 14 now shows the pages as they actually look.
B · Page links, not pills — built, 5 September. A page reference now reads as an understated hyperlink wherever prose is read: a chat bubble (yours and everyone else's), a page's body, its history, a channel's About, an agent's answer. It is the same link style an ordinary link already had, from one shared definition, so the two cannot drift apart. Two things kept their pill on purpose: a standing list of pages (the related rows, the filed group) — a pill is right for a list — and an @mention of a person or agent, which is a ping, not a reference, and needs to stay scannable in a busy channel. The mockups below now draw what the product does.
C · A document the page names links to the document. Note A takes the marker off every claim. It should not take the link off the one row that is a document: under Documents, Renewal terms is the quote itself, so its name opens the quote — a new tab, or a simple preview, whichever is cheaper to build first. Naming a thing and citing a claim are different acts, and only the second one was ruled out. Also not built: the design session allowed exactly this shape — a visible labelled link the agent writes as content — but the filing rules that shipped forbid a source link outright, and the product has no way to render one yet. Owner's call, 5 September.
Today, after Snoopy reads a file, that is where it ends. The file is searchable, but nothing on any page changed — the next person still has to know the file exists to find it.
This proposal makes one promise: whatever you drop, Snoopy files it onto the right pages — a short, readable summary where one is worth having, and a line on the pages it concerns. If it is not sure which page, it asks in one line. If it cannot file it, it says why. And a page never becomes a dumping ground: it reads like something a person wrote, and it stays current — the agent keeps each page up to date the way a wiki does, not by piling lines on forever.
Read it as a script.
What changed since v1 — the short version, each expanded in place below.
1 · Page links, not pills. A page reference is a plain hyperlink, like Obsidian and like
the message composer — the pill-shaped chip is gone. (built 5 September — v2.1 note B.)
2 · Sources are for the agent, not for you. The point of a page is that you can trust it
without opening the sources. (settled in v2.1: they are not shown on the page at all — note
A.)
3 · No hedging. When it files, it says what it did, plainly. It does not narrate its
doubt — you will tell it if it got a name wrong, and that correction is cheap.
4 · Pages update, they are not append-only. A newer fact updates the line it replaces; the
old version is kept in the page's history. "Add only, never rewrite" from v1 is dropped.
5 · A specific instruction can override "nothing to file." If you tell it to save
something, it saves it where you say, even a shop link.
6 · "File" as a word is under review. We are not sure a person reads "filed" the way we
mean it. (settled: the bare word never appears in what you read — the replies say "Made a
page", "Noted on Acme Corp", "Nothing new". "Filing" stays our word for it, not yours.)
How pages are organised
Every page belongs to one of five collections, or to none (a plain page — a topic, a how-we-do- things, anything a person names). Five is the starting set; the team can add more later, and the filing rules follow whatever collections exist. A collection may later hold folders for pages that need grouping — noted here as a direction, not built.
| Collection | What it is | Sections the agent files under |
|---|---|---|
| Company | A customer, supplier, or partner | Overview · Current status · People · Projects · Meetings · Documents |
| Person | Anyone the team works with, inside or outside | Overview · Working with · Meetings · Notes |
| Project | Any bounded effort — a deal, a pilot, a launch, a product | Overview · Current status · Decisions · People · Meetings · Documents |
| Meeting | One meeting, from its notes, transcript, or recording | Attendees · Summary · Decisions · Actions |
| Document | Anything else dropped that is worth its own page — a report, a long article, a proposal | Summary · Key points · Related |
| Plain page | A topic, a way of working, an idea — whatever a person names | free-form |
A section only appears once it has something in it. A new company page with one quote on it has an Overview line and a Documents line, not six empty headings.
Two things are deliberately not collections. A decision is a line under Decisions on the project or meeting page — a page per decision would be a filing card, not a page. A topic is a plain page; the agent never invents one on its own.
Idea, not decided: a starting template for a fresh workspace — PARA (Projects · Areas · Resources · Archive) is the obvious candidate — so the knowledge base is not an empty room on day one.
What gets its own page, and what gets a line
The agent makes a summary page (a Meeting or a Document) when the source carries more than a line or two worth keeping, or when it touches more than one page — a meeting nearly always does. A single quote, a contract, a company profile usually do not: they become one line on the page they are about. The examples below are the guide; there is no rule about line counts.
It makes a Company, Person, or Project page when the source is about them — or when they took part: a meeting's attendees each get a page. A name that merely passes by in the text does not; it stays as text, and earns a page the second time it appears, when the agent finds the earlier mention. Extraction starts simple — the attendees, and the people, companies and projects the source is about — and is written so it can be improved later without the pages changing shape.
A fact is written once, on the page it is most about; the other page shows it as a backlink. "Priya — point of contact from October" is written on Acme Corp under People, and Priya's page lists Acme Corp among its backlinks. The meeting page names its attendees, so each attendee's page shows the meeting as a backlink without a Meetings line ever being written on it.
The five outcomes
Every drop lands in exactly one of these, after the reading step you already know.
1 · Meeting notes, about pages that already exist
Made a meeting page, Acme pilot kickoff · 14 Aug — launch 15 Sep agreed, three success measures, four actions — and noted it on Acme Corp and Acme pilot. Tap any of them to check, or tell me if something's wrong.
2 · A quote for a company that has no page yet
There was no page for them, so I made Ferrous Supply Co and noted the quote on it — warehouse racking, ฿184,000, valid until 30 Sep. Rename the page if you'd call them something else.
3 · Two pages could be the right one
Which Acme is this — Acme Corp (logistics) or Acme Studio (design)? Or a new company? Reply to this message with the one you mean and I'll file it.
4 · A name it reads as one page — no hedge changed in v2
Noted on Acme Corp — renewal terms, 12 months from 1 Dec, 8% uplift.
5 · It is already on the page
Nothing new for Acme pilot — the launch date and the success measures are already there from the kickoff notes.
6 · Nothing worth filing — unless you say otherwise changed in v2
7 · Dropped in a private channel or a DM
I don't file from a private channel — pages are shared with the whole workspace. It's kept and searchable here; drop it in a shared channel if it should be on a page.
8 · A note you ask it to file
9 · An ordinary message
10 · The same file, dropped again — or a newer version of it changed in v2
11 · You correct it
12 · Several files at once changed in v2
• Q3-expenses.pdf — read all 10 pages, filed as Q3 2026 expenses: ฿2.4M across 6 categories, marketing up 18% on Q2
• Acme-pilot-kickoff.pdf — read all 6 pages, filed as Acme pilot kickoff · 14 Aug and noted on Acme Corp
• payroll.pdf — needs a password, not filed
Can you re-save payroll unlocked?
13 · A name that only passes by
14 · What the pages look like afterwards changed in v2
This is the part we most want a reaction to. Two pages after case 1. A page reads like an ordinary document — headings, bullets, a table where one fits — written so you can trust it without opening a single source. That is the point of the page: the synthesis is what you read day to day; the sources are what the agent keeps so it (and, when something looks wrong, you) can trace any line back.
A page reference is a plain hyperlink, like Obsidian and like the message composer — the pill-shaped chip is gone — built on 5 September, and drawn that way below. A source never appears as a marker hung off a claim — but where the page names a document, that name is a link to the document itself (v2.1 note C — built 5 September: it opens in a new tab).
The one place a source is visible is where the page is naming it. Under Documents, the row is the document — Renewal terms is the quote, not a footnote about the quote — so its name links straight to it. That is naming a thing, not citing a claim, and it leaves the no-marker rule untouched.
Attendees
Summary
- Kickoff for the Acme pilot — scope confirmed as the Bangkok warehouse only
- Launch agreed for 15 September
Decisions
- Three success measures — on-time delivery above 95%, damage rate under 0.5%, a signed renewal by December
Actions
- Vee to send the SLA draft by 5 Sep
- Priya to confirm warehouse access
Overview
- Logistics company, Bangkok. Our pilot customer since August
Current status
- Pilot launching 15 Sep — see Acme pilot
- Opening a second logistics office in Bangkok
People
- Priya — point of contact from October
Meetings
- 14 Aug — Acme pilot kickoff · 14 Aug: launch date and success measures agreed
Documents
| Document | What it says |
|---|---|
| Renewal terms | 12 months from 1 Dec, 8% uplift |
The page is the synthesis — and the one link out of it is the document it names. No claim on this page points back at a file; that pointing happens underneath, where each line the agent wrote carries the source it came from and the spot in it. The exception is the Documents row, where the name is the source: tapping Renewal terms opens the quote — a new tab, or a simple preview, whichever is cheaper to build first. The reader gets a clean page with one honest way out of it, and the trace loses nothing.
Changed from v1: the page stays current. The agent no longer only adds — it edits the line that is now out of date, the way a wiki page is kept up to date rather than grown forever. When the launch date moves, the "15 Sep" line becomes "22 Sep"; it does not sit next to the old one. Every such change is kept in the page's history, so nothing is lost and any edit can be seen or undone. A line a person wrote by hand is still never silently rewritten — that one holds.
What the agent keeps, even when you never look
Every filing decision — what it changed, on which pages, from which spot in the source, and what happened (filed, asked, nothing new, refused) — is kept, together with the full history of every page: each version of every line, who or what changed it, and when. Not on the page, not in the chat: underneath, so that later you can ask "why is this line here?" or "what did this page say last week?" and get an answer, and so that we can measure how often it filed wrongly, asked when it did not need to, or missed something. This proposal does not add a screen for that; it promises the record exists from the first filing onward.
What we would like you to react to
Settled — in Vee's review, or in the design session that followed it
- How sources show for a person: they do not (section 14, v2.1 note A). The page carries no marker of any kind. The trace is kept underneath, per line, and the agent reads it. A fold-away panel is a later option, taken up if people ask. This was the v2 draft's biggest open question; it is closed.
- The word "file" never appears in what you read. The replies say "Made a page", "Noted on Acme Corp", "Nothing new". "Filing" stays the word we use for the machinery, not the word you are shown.
- No hedging (case 4). One candidate → file and state it. Two → ask (case 3).
- Pages update, not append-only (cases 10, 14). A newer fact replaces the stale line; the old version lives in history. A line a person wrote is refused, not rewritten, and the reply names it.
- Reverts and edits are kept in history (case 11).
- A specific instruction can override "nothing to file" (case 6) — except from a private channel (case 7).
- A plain note is filed only when asked (case 8) — held from v1.
- Page links, not pills — built 5 September (v2.1 note B), across every surface that renders prose. Entity lists and @mentions keep their pill, on purpose.
- A named document links to the document (v2.1 note C) — the Documents row opens the file it names, in a new tab. Built 7 September: Snoopy puts the link where a reader would open the document, usually the Documents row — that placement is a sentence in the filing conventions, not a code rule (
0185). What the filing does refuse is a link naming any source but the one being filed, or a link on a typed note; the no-marker rule (settled point 1) stays a sentence too. The simple preview is the next step.
Still open — the next review
- Reply-and-mention as the way to answer a question or correct a filing (cases 3, 11). This is what got built for the asking half, and it is what the next rung will use for the answering half — so the question is now whether to keep it, not whether to try it.
- A starting template (PARA or similar) for a fresh workspace — worth it, or does an empty knowledge base fill itself fast enough? Untouched since v2.
- Which cases to watch next. Cases 2, 3 and 5 — a brand-new company page with its rename offer, the one-line question between two Acmes, and "nothing new" — are what the rules ask for and have not yet been watched happen end to end. Worth watching in that order?
Not in this proposal, named so it is not assumed: a question card with buttons (case 3 is plain text on purpose); answering a question with a plain next message, no reply and no mention; a "Needs your input" list of open questions; remembering corrections as lessons; a person-facing "why did it decide that" or page-history screen; the team adding its own collections and folders (the rules are written to allow it; the control comes later); a private knowledge space; searching old chat messages; and receipts (they keep their own path). Each is its own later proposal. Also changing from today: the agent stops making the separate "Reference" and "Topic" entries it makes now — pages with links replace them.
Filing what you drop
A proposal for review — after Snoopy reads what you dropped, it files it onto the right pages, tells you what it did, and every line it wrote carries a chip that opens the exact spot it came from.
A page shows its history
One line per change under the page — who made it, what kind of change, when — and a tap to see the text before and after and the source it came from. Built 9 September (documents v1.11).