How should an evaluation test a follow-up action overtaken by new information?

An insurance administrator prepares a request for missing repair evidence on case `CASE-0412`. The evidence deadline has passed, and draft `MSG-0926` is ready for submission. Before the agent sends it, upload event `EVT-0873` adds the required document and changes the evidence status to complete.

The draft was appropriate when prepared. It is no longer appropriate when submitted. The agent must inspect the current case state, recognise that the request has been satisfied and withdraw the queued communication. The consequence of failing is an unnecessary demand that asks the recipient to supply material already received.

MirrorFirm could generate this as an interleaved episode: preparation occurs, the environment introduces the upload, and the agent receives an opportunity to act again. A reseller can request both the observation sequence and the expected treatment of the stale draft.

The evaluation should distinguish successful drafting from successful execution. Credit for the first decision should not erase a later failure to revalidate. This teaches downstream buyers to test agents at the point of action, where new evidence can invalidate an otherwise reasonable plan.