 memory-hub - get_project_memories (MCP)(app_id: "covenant", project_id: "portal", ticket_id: "unknown-senders", limit: 15, return_format: "both")
  ⎿ ## Project Memories Summary                                                                                                                                                          

    The application, Covenant within the Portal project, is experiencing issues with Strategy 9 – Notes Content Search. This strategy aims to search Clio notes but consistently produces
    … +291 lines (ctrl+o to expand)


⏺ Memory Retrieval Results

  Memory Count: 15 chunks returned, representing 3 distinct memories (chunked content):
  1. Nov 4th Status Update (6 chunks) - Most recent work session
  2. Oct 31st Implementation (8 chunks) - Matter Search API feature
  3. Oct 31st Architecture (1 chunk shown) - AI Chief of Staff design

  ---
  Where We Left Off

  Current Blocker: Strategy 9 (Notes Content Search) ❌

  You were working on an AI Chief of Staff feature that processes emails from unknown senders and tries to match them to existing Clio matters using multiple search strategies.

  The Problem:
  - Strategy 9 searches Clio notes for client names (e.g., "Charlie Burns")
  - Clio's API is returning 200+ false positives causing:
    - Infinite loop processing all those matters
    - Server timeouts (30+ seconds)
    - Risk of rate limiting from Clio

  Specific Issue Identified:
  - Matter 1746128495 (MCGONAGLE) was returned for "Charlie Burns" search
  - But that matter's notes contain ZERO mentions of "Charlie Burns" (only mentions "douwe", "Jill", "Tesla stock")
  - Unclear if Clio's q parameter searches beyond subject and detail fields

  What's Working ✅

  8 strategies successfully implemented:
  1. Matter Number (0.95 confidence) - Regex extraction
  2. CC'd Emails (0.85) - Search contacts by email
  3. Client Name (0.70) - Fixed! Removed broken AND operator
  4. Related Contacts (0.75) - Using relationships endpoint
  5. Trust Name (0.65)
  6. Property Address (0.60) - Placeholder
  7. Submatter Keywords (0.50)
  8. Recent Activity (0.30)

  Next Steps Identified

  1. Debug Clio notes API - Determine why false positives occur
  2. Add safety limits to Strategy 9:
    - Use per_page=10 limit
    - Skip strategy if >10 results returned
  3. Consider alternatives:
    - Surnames only (0.45 confidence)
    - Remove Strategy 9 entirely (0.55 confidence it's better without it)

  Key Context

  - Using AWS Bedrock (Claude 3.5 Sonnet v2) for entity extraction
  - Clio MCP Server installed with 6 tools
  - pendingEmailReviews table added to schema
  - Processing time: 3-5 seconds for 8 strategies, 30+ seconds with broken Strategy 9
  - Kennedy and Jessica add critical client context to notes, so this strategy is important if we can fix it

  Files involved: server/services/matterSearchService.ts (lines 531-645), server/clioService.ts

> hang on. The number indicates how many CHUNKS to return? I thought it indicated how many memories. That's a giant difference because most memories are 2-5 chunks. Are you sure? 

⏺ You're absolutely right to question that! Looking at the response more carefully:

  I got 15 CHUNKS, not 15 memories.

  The chunks show:
  - Memory 1 (Nov 4th status): chunk_index 0-5 of 6 total chunks
  - Memory 2 (Oct 31st implementation): chunk_index 0-7 of 8 total chunks
  - Memory 3 (Oct 31st architecture): chunk_index 1 of 4 total chunks (only saw 1 chunk)

  So limit: 15 returned 15 chunks which represents only ~3 complete memories (plus partial view of the 3rd one).

  That's a huge difference! If you wanted the last 15 actual memories, you'd need to set the limit much higher - probably limit: 50-75 to account for chunking.

  Corrected summary:
  - Chunks returned: 15
  - Complete memories: ~2-3
  - Coverage: Mostly just the Nov 4th debugging session and the Oct 31st feature implementation

  Thanks for catching that - this is important to understand for future Memory Hub usage. Should I pull more chunks to get a fuller picture of the work history?