Testing whether an approved vendor correction carries into an agent's next run

A corrected answer does not automatically affect future agent runs, so the article argues that integration tests must trace the correction from approval through persistent storage into the next run's context and output. The example follows a misspelled vendor name, "Cobolt Cloud," which a user corrects to "Cobalt Cloud" and approves, causing an alias to be saved in the client's vendor namespace. The alias is retrieved in a later extraction step, where a matching vendor raises confidence, and the author provides commands to reproduce the walkthrough using the published Areev package. The tests use synthetic fixtures and mock integrations, so they show persistence and output changes in a controlled setup rather than extraction accuracy on real invoices or evidence of model learning. The article recommends applying the same boundary checks to other workflows, since a memory write can succeed while a later step still fails.