1. No, people do not remember everything correctly, not even as far back as breakfast in some cases. The ability to recall actual versus "dubbed in" or mangled realities is largely a function of the degree to which the individual is in good shape as a "viewer" -- meaning not overburdened with unresolved "stuff" of various kinds which add up to an unwillingness to see.

2. Serious trials in detecting original memory-recordings from under the layers of overlay, imposed ignoral and other strange beasts of the mind have been done, but not in a process that would satisfy strict disciplinarian clinicians. Despite this, the general tendency of the ones I have studied is that under circumstances where the individual is unthreatened and motivated to do so, accurate original memories of the most silly detailed moments from any past point in time are in fact available. This is debatable because as far as I know no-one has figured out how to do a rigorous clinical trial series in which the highly variable needs for communication, encouragement, and a non-challenging environment is provided while meeting the intentionally skeptical premises of what most people consider to be scientific methodology; it gets even trickier if you want to adhere to the tradition of a single-event, single-framework test pattern (like most physics lab tests) being imposed on the volatile and sensitive and often non-repeatable qualities of human thought itself. They really are fundamentally incompatible premises, these two poles. So p'raps we aren't going to solve it with a physics-based experimental approach.

As for the distinction between experience and the interpretation of experience, there's a lot to be said about it; from one perspective there is a baseline of immediate perception of immediate experience which is actually available without the interposition of judgement, extraneous meanings, etc. From another perspective the whole source of experience IS interpretative in the first instance. Ther eis some truth on both sides. Must folks are a blended compromise between the two extremes.

THis is anothe rproblem with "scientific" procedures approaching this turf: experience of physical objects is measureable and can be translated through meters. Experience is only measurable from the body out. But the delta between set "a" of neural inputs (pressure, light, temperature, sound) and sent "A-prime" of the experience of those inputs is highly significant and results in a huge additional variable which approaches the purely subjective. So who ya gonna call?

A