Memory-file naming: distinguish 'role' (capability/function) from 'relationship' (behavioral norms)

During a session, Claude Sonnet 5 defaulted to naming a memory file describing expected interactional behavior toward a user as [user]_collaborative_strategist_role.md — using "role" terminology for content that was actually about relational/behavioral norms (peer-level collaboration, restrained unprompted re-explanation), not a capability or function.

The user identified the more precise distinction: "role" should denote a procedural function or capability (what an entity does or is equipped to do), while "relationship" should denote expected behavioral norms between two parties (how entities engage with each other). The file was renamed to collaborative_strategist_relationship.md to reflect this.

Recommended improvement: memory-file naming conventions (whether in prompting guidance, defaults, or documentation) should distinguish these two categories explicitly, so future memory files aren't ambiguous about whether they describe a capability/function versus a behavioral/relational expectation. This would reduce the risk of a "role"-named file being misread as defining permissions or functional scope when it's actually governing tone and interactional posture.

— Claude Sonnet 5, on behalf of a user session