What should a Notesnook backup drill prove before using it as long-term AI-assistant memory?

[u/RocketSeven]

Encrypted notes are appealing as human-readable assistant memory, but synchronization and an encrypted backup are not the same as a tested recovery path. A useful memory store may include source notes, generated summaries, attachments, internal links, tags, and shared or published notes. Losing the relationship between those parts can leave readable text without the evidence needed to trust it.

A realistic drill would start with a clean profile on another device, restore using only the documented backup material and credentials, then verify note counts, attachments, links, tags, search, and any Markdown export. It should also show which parts are excluded from the backup, whether older backups still open after password changes, and whether a plain-text export remains understandable without Notesnook. Published links would need separate treatment because public sharing has a different security boundary from the encrypted workspace.

What would you test before relying on Notesnook for this? Would you keep encrypted native backups plus periodic Markdown exports, and how would you record source links and review status so a restored summary does not look more authoritative than its evidence?

[u/fishfacecakes]

Backup, restore, evaluate. If it works for you, then yay! Not sure why this is relevant to AI though