What is everyone's impression of how pensieve mechanics work? For instance, concrete question: Person A hides in a way that person B, who crosses the room, cannot physically see, e.g. behind a couch. Person B now examines his memory in the pensieve. If inside the memory, he walks around the couch, what will he see? We have contradicting evidence, as far as I know. At the outset, there is Rowling's Leaky interview. That much is fairly uncontroversial. In the pensieve, you can see anything you could have potentially seen, had you paid attention to it at the time. But what about things you could not have seen? Behind the couch? Behind the wall? Somewhere ridiculously far away? In OotP, Harry fears that That's just Harry, or can we decide this is author comment? In all other memories, we do stay close by, so the question never arises -- except for Hokey's memory, where Clearly, Hokey leaves the room and we stay inside of it. Hokey could not have seen the boxes etc. until she returned. So what do you think? Any other Canon instances that I missed to shed a light on this? Ultimately, if we're talking about FF and writing, it's more of a plot mechanics issue -- clearly, you can't have the memory of one person encompass the entire happenings in the world. And even my example from the beginning starts to push into overpowered territory, if you can use memories to fully reconstruct attacks from behind, say. Given that the memory reflects reality, you'd use it in court all the time, yet we never see it used. But I'm curious what the fairest Canon interpretation is.