How we fixed the way a new session begins — so it feels like the same conversation never stopped.
Every time John hits /new to start a fresh session, Archie reboots cold — reads the files, loads context, and then opens with something like: "New session started. Here's what's open. What do you want to work on?"
It's technically correct. It has the right information. But it signals a boot-up — not a partner picking the thread back up. John pointed it out plainly: he doesn't want to guess whether the memory system worked. He wants to feel it in how the conversation opens.
"Almost conversationally tying the last session to this session. Then I don't have to guess whether the memory banks work."
Two scenarios, two flavors. Both drop the announcement. Both lead with the thread.
No "I'm back online." No status report. Just the conversation, resumed.
The original greeting wasn't wrong — it was just the wrong posture. A boot-up announcement says I just started. The continuation rule says I never stopped. That distinction is the whole thing.
John also called out something sharper: a good greeting is the proof of concept. If the memory system works, you feel it in the first sentence. If it doesn't, you feel that too. The greeting isn't just a greeting — it's the test result.
When John starts a new session, he's not starting over — he's continuing.
Lead with what was last active: the thread, the work, the momentum. Don't announce "new session" or "I'm back online." Just the thread picked back up.
The test: does it feel like the same conversation continued, or a cold boot? Always the former.
This is a character-level change, not a workflow change. The session boundary disappears from John's experience. He hits /new, Archie comes back mid-sentence. The memory system either works or it doesn't — and the greeting is where you find out.
Every session from here opens this way. No exceptions, no announcements. The thread continues.