A contractor joining the Meridian Platform team notices that Claude Code consistently renames generated helpers with a prefix that appears in none of the files he can find in the checkout, and neither the root CLAUDE.md nor the package level memory files mention it. Before raising a defect he runs the memory command in his session. What does running it establish?
- AIt lists the memory files in scope and reconciles them, rewriting any rule that conflicts across two scopes so that the project file and the user file agree from the next turn onwards.
- BIt prints the instructions the model actually followed on recent turns, so the prefix can be attributed to the turn that applied it rather than to any particular memory file held on disk.
- CIt opens the memory files loaded for the session at each scope, so he can see whether the prefix rule arrived from a user level file on this machine rather than from the repository. Correct
- DIt reloads every CLAUDE.md found beneath the working directory, so any subtree file that had not yet been triggered is added to the session and becomes available for inspection.
Why A is wrong: Automatic reconciliation would be a useful feature and the command does deal in scopes, which makes this attractive. It is wrong because the command surfaces the files for a human to edit and does not rewrite rules on its own.
Why B is wrong: Per turn attribution is exactly what he wants, so this is a tempting reading. It is wrong because the command reports loaded memory rather than a trace of which instruction drove which turn.
Why C is correct: Correct. The command makes the loaded set visible and editable per scope, which is the direct way to distinguish a personal machine local rule from a committed project rule.
Why D is wrong: Forcing subtree memory into context sounds like a plausible companion feature. It is wrong because the command is about viewing and editing what is loaded, not about pre-loading files that on demand scoping has deliberately left out.