I would keep the capture log and the memory layer as two different things. The capture log is chronological evidence. Memory is a set of derived, revisable claims about projects, people, decisions, and habits. Treating every captured event as memory will make retrieval noisy, while replacing the events with summaries will make the result hard to audit.

Each derived claim should point back to the exact screen or audio spans that support it, record when it was inferred, and say whether it is current, disputed, or superseded. If a meeting moves a launch from Friday to Monday, the Friday record should remain in the history but stop being returned as the current plan. A later answer can then explain both what changed and where the change came from.

Deletion also has to follow that lineage. Removing a sensitive interval should invalidate embeddings, entity records, summaries, and cached agent context derived from it, not just hide the original frames. Otherwise the visible timeline says the data is gone while the useful representation of it remains searchable.

A good memory test would be a correction followed by a deletion. Ask for the current fact, ask why the earlier answer changed, delete the supporting interval, and ask again. The system should answer the first two from traceable evidence and stop claiming the fact after its remaining support disappears.