Starting every image refinement or wording change in another conversation requires explaining earlier choices again. I preferred continuing the existing ChatGPT or Gemini conversation for the same work, while keeping explicit new-conversation requests and reuse of an old result as different intentions.
Same tab and same conversation are different conditions
One tab can open another conversation, while another tab can display the same conversation. Preserving tab count alone does not establish continuity of context. The current service conversation and any ongoing response still need inspection.
Plugin guidance uses the existing tab and conversation for the same work and an explicitly requested new conversation in that tab. Starting anew also differs from deleting history. The request determines continuity or restart, and the adapter must compare that intention with the actual conversation surface.
The final use of an asset must not redirect the conversation
A request to refine a caption in ChatGPT for an image eventually used on a blog mentions both services. Confusing eventual use with the immediate destination could move work into a blog editor. The actual target here is the conversation receiving the refinement.
Routing tests check that an explicitly named existing conversation or precise tab ID outranks incidental site mentions. Historical language-routing tests nevertheless differ from current MCP's explicit context. Today's caller must read and bind the actual existing conversation rather than assume an embedded model chooses everything.
Distinguish a tool requiring a new conversation
Some service tools can show a new-chat confirmation. Current Gemini guidance preserves the existing conversation by default and reports the requirement, starting anew only through an explicit option. Conversation movement must not be a hidden side effect of making the task pass.
That preserves which work the caller is waiting for even during long generation or tool changes. Opening another conversation also does not establish cancellation of an earlier generation. Conversation location, remote generation and local run records have different lifetimes.
Reading a checked result differs from asking again
Reusing a verified result for identical input can avoid resending a question after uncertain waiting. A user can also deliberately ask the same words again. That needs an explicit execution distinction and current intent; equal text is not permanent permission to return an old answer.
Plugins use inspected current-input contracts and run history. They separately establish a new response, generation ending and stable body. Continuing a conversation must not mean counting an earlier response as a new success. Identify whether the reused object is the conversation or the result.
Do not describe download replay as another full generation
The version-0.1.109 evidence records generation and saving in an existing conversation, then a notebook replay of the download alone. Matching hashes and zero internal model calls did not establish replay of the whole generation. That narrow scope deliberately avoided duplicate creation.
Current plugin registration and guidance also do not establish live verification of every advanced menu. I read the relevant documents and tab-reuse tests without sending another question or image request now. Web generation usage and local internal-model calls remain different cost boundaries.
Build continuity on explicit state
Customers want to continue without repeating every explanation. Makers need to know which conversation, account and result were retained. I connected those needs by prioritizing continuity of work over the smaller metric of fewer windows.
Consultation, report writing and image revision can use the same rule: preserve earlier choices, honor an explicit restart and never relabel an old result as a new achievement. Convenient continuation begins with knowing exactly what is being continued.