A customer service team lead at a local council drafts replies to residents' questions about bin collections, parking permits and council tax. For three weeks she has pasted each new query into one long conversation, and recent drafts have started quoting a parking rule she corrected in the first week. The council's current policy documents and reply style apply to each query. What should she do?
- AKeep the long conversation going and restate the corrected parking rule above each new query she pastes in.
- BSet up a Project holding the policy documents and reply-style instructions, then start a fresh chat per query. Correct
- CAsk Claude in the current conversation to list the rules it is applying, then check that list for mistakes.
- DTurn on Memory so the corrected parking rule carries over, then carry on using the same long conversation.
Why A is wrong: Restating the correction is tempting because it fixes the symptom she noticed. It leaves her in a conversation long enough to blur earlier detail, so other corrections and the reply style can drift in the same way.
Why B is correct: This is recurring work with stable context. A Project gives each new chat the same instructions and the current policy documents from the start, so no single conversation grows long enough to lose earlier detail.
Why C is wrong: Reviewing Claude's own list feels like a verification step, but it asks the same degraded conversation to report on itself. It does nothing to stop the next drafts drifting and adds a manual check to each query.
Why D is wrong: Memory can carry some context between chats, which makes this sound like a fix. It is not where reference policy belongs, and keeping one very long conversation is the cause of the problem rather than a cure for it.