Better information should erase the old memory. Why not?

A clear current answer matters

Someone asking for today's meeting time should receive the current answer. They need not inspect every earlier proposal. Deletion can also be appropriate when information belongs to the wrong person, has no continuing purpose, or should not be retained. Preserving history is not a reason to keep everything indiscriminately.

Two kinds of correction

Imagine a meeting agreed for three o'clock and later moved to four. Replacing the original entry may leave today's schedule correct while removing, from that record, the earlier agreement a participant relied upon. Other records might still explain it; this one no longer does.

Now imagine the meeting was always at four and an entry mistakenly said three. That is a recording error, not a changed appointment. Keeping the correction distinguishable helps avoid inventing a rescheduling that never occurred.

Neither sequence alone tells us who received the update. If someone arrives at three, we need evidence about what they were told before explaining their mistake.

Pause here: Did the event change, was the earlier record wrong, or has its meaning been reconsidered?

Preserve what the purpose requires

The Memory specification describes later corrections and interpretations as separate capsules, with explicit links where their relationship is retained. Current views can change without rewriting the earlier capsule.

Where retention is justified and permitted, this can preserve the minimum history needed to explain an error, a revision, or a changed circumstance. It does not mean presenting superseded information as today's instruction.

Storage alone is insufficient: a linked correction that never reaches the next answer has not repaired that answer. Appropriate retrieval and use must follow. The specification's non-editing rule also does not establish a complete deletion or retention policy. Those decisions require their own stated purposes and authority.