A meeting is booked. The invitation has been sent. The assistant has done what you asked.
Before it could help, you shared a calendar, a project summary and a few notes about who should attend. The meeting now has a time and a place. What should happen to the information that made arranging it possible?
Finishing the task is a useful moment to ask again what the assistant should be allowed to retrieve. A successful result does not, by itself, explain why every supporting detail should remain available for the next request.
The result and the working context have different jobs
Consider a fictional research team arranging a review. The final invitation needs the meeting time, the attendees and a short agenda. While finding that time, an assistant may also have been given draft schedules and notes explaining why certain dates would not work.
The team may want to keep the invitation as a record. That does not settle whether the assistant should continue retrieving the scheduling notes. One piece of information documents the outcome; another helped produce it.
Keep a useful result without making every detail behind it permanent context.
A practical review starts with the records themselves: which are needed for follow-up, which belong in an archive, and which should no longer be available to this assistant? A summary deserves the same review. It may preserve a private detail even after the original note has been removed from the next retrieval.
Make the end of access visible
A task could begin with a narrow permission: use these scheduling records to arrange this review, until the invitation is confirmed or a stated deadline is reached. If the meeting needs to be rescheduled later, the assistant can request access again.
That is a design proposal, and it needs an explicit completion rule. A draft invitation is different from a confirmed meeting. An assistant reporting “done” should not be the only evidence that the agreed condition has been met.
A closing view could show the result that was saved, the records still available for follow-up, and the permissions that ended. Any exception should have a reason and a review date. “Might be useful later” is too vague to help someone decide.
Be precise about what “forget” means
Stopping future retrieval from a controlled store is one action. Deleting a record from that store is another. Neither action, on its own, proves that a separate tool has deleted a copy it already received.
An invitation may already be in someone’s inbox. A provider may hold logs or backups under its own retention rules. A person may have exported a summary. A closing screen should identify the systems it covers and leave the status of other copies explicit.
The note on revoking access explores that boundary. An end-of-task review should use equally careful language: say which future requests will be blocked, which records were deleted, and where deletion remains unverified.
A decision to build around
For Vivendur, the question is how to make this review understandable enough to use. Our public access challenge illustrates selected access decisions; it does not connect to an AI provider or demonstrate deletion from external systems.
The design direction is to give the end of a task as much attention as the beginning. Show people what remains available, let them decide what the next task may use, and state the limits of that control plainly.