let $(\Omega, \mathcal{A}, P)$ be a probability space and $(N_t)_{t \geq 0}$ a right-continuous counting process with jumps of size 1, $N_0 = 0$ and canonical filtration $\mathcal{F}_t := \sigma( N_u \ | \ u \in [0,t] )$. Consider the first jump $T_1 := \inf \left\{ t > 0 \ | \ N_t = 1 \right\}$ which is a stopping time with respect to $\mathcal{F}_t$. Let $\mathcal{F}_{T_1} = \left\{ A \in \mathcal{A} \ | \ A \cap \left\{ T_1 \leq t \right\} \in \mathcal{F}_t \ \forall t \geq 0 \right\}$ denote its stopped $\sigma$-algebra. Since $T_1$ is $\mathcal{F}_{T_1}$-measurable it follows that $\sigma(T_1) \subseteq \mathcal{F}_{T_1}$.
Is it true that $\mathcal{F}_{T_1} = \sigma(T_1)$?
Intuitively, the information gained up to time $T_1$ is just given by $T_1$ itself, since $T_2$ is activated only when the first arrival happens.
This statement seems to be so natural, that I assumed it to find in in the literature or by googling around. But I haven't found any proof for that and I also can't create a proof on my own.
Take for example $A = \left\{ T_2 \leq s \right\}$ and try to contradict that $A \in \mathcal{F}_{T_1}$. Then $A \in \mathcal{F}_s$ and consider the set $S = \left\{ t > 0 \ | \ A \not\in \mathcal{F}_t \right\}$. Assume that $0 \in S$ and take $t_0 := \sup S$ such that $t_0 < s$. If $\left\{ T_2 \leq s \right\} \in \mathcal{F}_{T_1}$ then $\left\{ T_2 \leq s \right\} \cap \left\{ T_1 \leq t \right\} \in \mathcal{F}_t$ for all $t < t_0$ but $\left\{ T_2 \leq s \right\} \not\in \mathcal{F}_t$, which seems a little bit strange but does not leed to a contradiction so far. Translated verbally, this means that at all times $t < t_0$ I can observe whether $T_1 \leq t$ and $T_2 \leq s$ simultaneously, but I can't observe $T_2 \leq s$. If quantifying with probability measures then the probability of $\left\{ T_2 \leq s \right\} \cap \left\{ T_1 \leq t \right\}$ given $\mathcal{F}_t$ can be less then 1.
Maybe it is necessary to consider $\Omega$ as the space of right-continuous functions $D([0, \infty), \mathbb{R})$, since the claim is a statement on the level of $\sigma$-algebras and not a statement of an "almost surely" kind.