giziroku wo yomikaesitara, watasi ga kaigi de ittakoto ga haitte imasendesita.

読み返したら comes from 読み返す, which means to read again / reread / look back over.

The 〜たら form here means something like:

• when I reread it
• after I reread it
• upon rereading it

So this is not really a hypothetical if in English. It is more like a trigger for discovery:

• When I reread the minutes, I realized/found that...

This pattern is very common in Japanese:

• ドアを開けたら、猫がいた。
  When I opened the door, there was a cat.

So 読み返したら sets the scene for what was discovered next.

読む just means to read.

読み返す means to read again, often with the nuance of:

• rereading carefully
• reviewing what you read before
• going back over something

In this sentence, 議事録を読み返したら suggests the speaker checked the meeting minutes again, probably to confirm the contents.

Because 議事録 is the direct object of 読み返す.

• 議事録を読み返す = to reread the minutes

The particle を marks what is being read.

If you used が, it would not fit naturally with 読み返す in this sentence.

議事録 means minutes or meeting minutes: the written record of what was said and decided in a meeting.

So:

• 議事 = proceedings / business discussed
• 録 = record

Together, 議事録 = record of the meeting.

This is a very common question.

Here, 私が会議で言ったこと is a relative clause modifying こと:

• the thing that I said at the meeting

Inside that clause, 私 is the one who performed the action 言った, so が marks the subject of said.

So:

• 私が会議で言ったこと = what I said at the meeting

If you used 私は, it would sound more like setting I up as the overall topic, which is not what this part is doing. Here, the sentence is specifically identifying which thing was missing: the thing I said.

Because they belong to different parts of the sentence.

1. 私が marks the subject inside the embedded clause:

   • 私が会議で言ったこと
   • the thing that I said at the meeting

2. 言ったことが marks the subject of 入っていませんでした:

   • what I said ... was not included

So the structure is roughly:

• [私が会議で言ったこと] が 入っていませんでした
• [what I said at the meeting] was not in / was not included

This is completely normal in Japanese.

Here, こと turns the verb phrase 言った (said) into the thing said or what was said.

So:

• 言った = said
• 言ったこと = what was said / the thing said

In this sentence:

• 私が会議で言ったこと = what I said at the meeting

This use of こと is very common when talking about an action or content as a noun-like thing.

で marks the place or setting where the action happens.

So:

• 会議で言った = said at the meeting

Here, 会議で means in the meeting / at the meeting as the location or occasion where the speaking happened.

Compare:

• 学校で勉強する = study at school
• 会議で話す = speak at a meeting

入っていませんでした is the past negative of 入っている.

In this context, 入っている does not literally mean only is inside. It often means:

• is included
• is contained
• is entered in
• is listed

So 入っていませんでした means:

• was not included
• wasn’t in there

Why this form?

• 入っている describes a resulting state: something has been put in and is now included.
• 入っていない = is not included
• 入っていませんでした = was not included / when I checked, it turned out not to be included

This fits meeting minutes very naturally.

入りませんでした would usually mean did not enter / did not go in, which sounds more physical or event-based and is less natural here.

Not grammatically, no.

It is not the passive form like 入れられていませんでした.

Instead, it is an intransitive expression:

• 入る = to enter / to be included
• 入っている = to be in / to be included

Japanese often uses this kind of intransitive wording where English prefers a passive:

• 名前が入っていない = the name isn’t included
• 私の意見が入っていない = my opinion isn’t included

So even though English might say was not included, the Japanese is not a formal passive construction.

No, it does not.

The sentence only says that what I said was not included in the minutes. It does not directly state:

• who wrote the minutes
• who omitted the comment
• whether it was intentional or accidental

This kind of omission is very normal in Japanese when the agent is unknown, obvious, or not important.

A helpful breakdown is:

• 議事録を読み返したら、 when I reread the minutes,
• 私が会議で言ったことが what I said at the meeting
• 入っていませんでした。 was not included.

So the full flow is:

When I reread the meeting minutes, what I had said at the meeting was not included.

Or more natural English:

When I reread the minutes, I saw that what I said at the meeting wasn’t included.

Yes, depending on nuance.

For example:

• 私の発言が入っていませんでした。
  My remarks/comment were not included.

• 私の言ったことが入っていませんでした。
  What I said was not included.

The original 私が会議で言ったこと is a little more explicit and carefully spelled out. It clearly identifies:

• who said it
• where it was said
• what kind of content is being referred to

So it sounds precise and natural in a context like discussing official meeting minutes.

Yes.

The combination of:

• 読み返したら = when I reread it
• 入っていませんでした = it turned out not to be included

creates a natural sense of noticing or discovering something.

So the sentence does not just state a fact mechanically. It suggests:

• the speaker checked the minutes
• then realized their comment was missing

That is why a natural English translation often includes something like:

• I found that...
• I noticed that...
• it turned out that...