A Copilot coding agent session created a draft pull request for issue #412. The PR timeline shows that Copilot already changed the retry policy after a reviewer rejected the first approach. A second developer wants Copilot to continue the work after a failed check. The developer is worried that a new prompt may repeat the rejected design and overwrite the accepted direction. Which action should the developer take first? Select one answer.

The correct action is to review the session log and prior decisions. This allows the developer to understand the context of the previous rejection, the rationale behind the accepted retry policy change, and how Copilot adapted. By understanding the existing state and the reasoning for past modifications, the developer can then craft a more informed prompt that builds upon the accepted direction, preventing Copilot from reverting to the rejected design. Starting a new issue with the same summary would lose all the previous context and work, forcing Copilot to start from scratch and potentially re-introduce the rejected design. Rerunning all jobs and approving the merge is premature and dangerous without understanding why the check failed and ensuring the code is correct. Asking Copilot to regenerate the full solution without reviewing the history risks overwriting the accepted changes and repeating the initial mistake.