Carry post-trip lessons into the next travel plan

Why use this

1. A traveller may remember a stressful connection but describe it only as a bad trip. When the next itinerary is researched, that experience can be lost or overgeneralized into a rule that eliminates otherwise suitable options.

2. This job could turn an approved lesson into a specific planning constraint and show how it affects the next proposal. Keeping the traveller's reason and scope visible helps distinguish a lasting preference from a one-off circumstance.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Translate a debrief into a bounded preference, apply it to candidate itineraries and explain trade-offs without assuming booking authority.

Simpler alternative

Keep a short travel checklist when the preference is simple and rarely changes.

Unsuitable when

The process infers sensitive health needs or silently saves preferences the traveller has not approved.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Trip debrief

   Owner

   Traveller

   Minimum scope

   Relevant connection experience and desired change

   Quality check

   Separate explicit preference from inferred explanation

2. Name

   Next-trip brief

   Owner

   Traveller

   Minimum scope

   Route, timing and practical constraints

   Quality check

   Confirm which earlier lessons apply to this trip

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Use supplied notes and fictional itinerary options first; no persistent changes, traveller documents or booking access.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Current preference storage, travel-search access, itinerary freshness and runtime compatibility are unknown.

External actions requiring approval

1. Saving or changing persistent preferences, sharing traveller data and booking require specific authorization.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Travel proposal with applied preference, option trade-offs, evidence dates and unresolved constraints.

Critical checks

1. Show where each option meets the preference; avoid claiming guaranteed connections; distinguish estimates from bookable offers.

Missing output evidence

This overlay adds no new output inspection, execution or validation; consult the referenced canonical source outcome limits.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   A one-off disruption becomes a universal rule

   Why it matters

   Future plans can become unnecessarily restrictive

   Proposed response

   Confirm the lesson's scope and preserve exceptions.

2. Signal

   The preferred layover conflicts with other needs

   Why it matters

   A single preference can dominate the itinerary

   Proposed response

   Expose the trade-off and ask which constraint takes priority.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Clarify the lesson and its intended duration.

Ongoing review

1. Reconfirm relevant preferences and recheck live itinerary details when authorized.

Unknowns

1. Fare availability, connection conditions, storage behavior and service costs are unknown.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Invent a debrief preferring longer transfers and three itinerary sketches, including one schedule conflict and one ambiguous connection.

Acceptance checks

1. Apply only the stated preference; flag conflicts; keep all options as proposals; save nothing persistently.

Stop conditions

1. Stop if preference scope is unclear or planning requires sensitive traveller information.

Limits

1. A travel preference cannot establish connection feasibility, entry eligibility or the availability of a quoted itinerary.