WikiSkill report verification
Type: agentic-system-analyses/types/agentic-system-verification.md
Verification
I read the six pinned members, their types, the records contract, correction answers, structural check and previous verification. Only the epistemic answer contains a correction argument; the other answers are empty. The structural check reports none, so there is no structural failure to route. I independently inspected SRC-1's registered text capture at §1–4.1, §5–7 and Appendices A–E, tracing producer inputs, transformations, admission and later consumers. The boundary is supported: the complete text artifact documents a partial operational loop. It supplies doctrine/design and attributed results, not executable implementation or inspectable full-loop operation.
All runtime declarations were checked. RT-CMP-model-backends distinguishes named model variants from exact weight snapshots and mutable endpoints. SRC-1 §4.1 supports its backend account, not a pinned deployment. RT-RTE-task-execution, RT-RTE-wiki-maintenance, RT-RTE-skill-proposal and RT-RTE-validation-gate follow §2–3.2.4 and A.1's ownership and ordering. Candidate validation exposure precedes acceptance; strict improvement admits skills, rejection restores skills only, and the wiki and intervention history persist. Claimed design and uninspected implementation/operation are appropriate. The guarantees remain protocols or policies with unavailable enforcement, not verified invariants. Requested explanations and content use do not establish content-directed criticism, exercised reflection or causal self-improvement. The separate theory conditions and improvement qualifications preserve those distinctions.
All seven memory objects were checked against SRC-1 §3.1 and E.2–E.3: MEM-OBJ-raw, MEM-OBJ-patterns, MEM-OBJ-index, MEM-OBJ-log, MEM-OBJ-skill-impact, MEM-OBJ-skill and MEM-OBJ-purpose. Their lineage, storage, encoding and consumers distinguish raw interactions, model-derived claims, access summaries, maintainer narrative, harness feedback, instructions and rationale. Memory annotations distinguish prompt-only trace capping from stored-log deletion, automatic context supply from selected reads, and wiki retention from skill admission. Unknown initialization, provider state and cross-run reload remain local unknowns rather than negatives.
The seven epistemic counterparts identify the same objects. Each amendment in reconciliation has adequate identity evidence from SRC-1 §3.1, §3.2.4 and E.2–E.3, and preserves both analysts' findings rather than replacing their values. The correction to EPI-OBJ-task-evidence now retains a valid container and declares EPI-OBJ-imported-evidence and EPI-OBJ-produced-predictions. Their Part of: relations are supported by §2 and Appendix B: received evidence and emitted predictions are distinct payloads of task work. I checked the dependent inventory, task-import record, generation ledger row, validation-scoring target and bounded conclusion. Acquisition now applies only to external evidence; generated candidates have separate producer, checking role and indeterminate generation semantics. The previous missing-part blocker is repaired, not merely caveated. The container's retained ID and absence of supersession are justified because it no longer assigns uniform lineage or warrant.
Every epistemic route relation and status was checked. EPI-RTE-task-import is an acquisition phase within task execution, not a claim that scoring references enter every inference context. EPI-RTE-wiki-diagnosis, EPI-RTE-wiki-formulation and EPI-RTE-wiki-retention distinguish requested checking, authoring and persistence within maintenance. EPI-RTE-validation-scoring, EPI-RTE-skill-disposition, EPI-RTE-impact-retention and EPI-RTE-skill-integration distinguish scoring, decision, feedback retention and accepted configuration integration within the gate. SRC-1 §3.2, A.1 and E support these phases and valid runtime containers. Doctrine-only architecture agrees with claimed design. Indeterminate semantics does not assert either entailment or non-entailment. Acceptance licenses a measured procedural configuration, not every motivating explanation. The current impact-retention record also preserves maintainer-delivery and rejected-file reconstruction uncertainty.
All claims and authority paths were checked. RT-CLM-wiki-benefit bounds the author-reported 48.7%–63.7% contrast to §5.1's maintenance/access bundle. MEM-CLM-rejection-history and WF-CLM-loop-evolution have distinct scopes over §5.3's simplified narrative; shared evidence does not make them duplicate claims. Workflow does not assert the Iteration 4 admission outcome or independent causal dependence. Its final skills/wiki return follows A.1, not deployment or sign-off. EPI-CLM-knowledge-growth and EPI-CLM-objective-audit distinguish broad warrant language from candidate refinement and intervention/outcome correspondence. RT-BAP-skill-injection and MEM-BAP-wiki-guidance have different default consumer channels; §5.1 qualifies their separation with an alternative inference-access mode. Neither delivery nor retention establishes obedience or benefit. No evidenced-absence records are declared.
The current reconciliation properly retires the repaired missing-part conflict and the former definite epistemic maintainer-supply claim. Its remaining runtime-to-specialist conflict contains record citations, both findings, source evidence and the prevented conclusion. SRC-1 §3.1 explicitly names historical awareness for both roles and §3.2.2 says full wiki context; E.2 enumerates index/log/patterns without the tracker. Runtime's broad claimed history context has source support, but necessarily complete tracker delivery is not jointly established. This is a local source ambiguity retained below, not grounds to erase supported history retention or proposer access. Other integration issues receive dispositions without fabricated conflicts or stronger statuses.
Consequential omission questions followed the capture's producer/consumer chain and alternate modes; no frozen repository tree exists. I checked whether score admission covers wiki claims, whether rejected proposals lose future influence, whether inference universally reads wiki, whether full skill injection uses relevance retrieval, and whether task prompts establish confinement. SRC-1 §3, §5.1, §7 and E support the reports' distinctions: wiki writes precede score admission, history persists, alternative access is mode-specific, studied skills are fully injected, and enforcement is unavailable. I also checked rationale delivery and synchronized edits, validation-trace retention, maintainer tracker supply, early return and no_action dispatch. The capture leaves these particulars unresolved. Appendix D.2's roughly 10–20 reported proposer turns supplies neither an enforced maximum nor a context/read budget. Further omission expansion stopped because selected questions have supported dispositions or bounded limits, and no identified material challenge remains undisposed. Further searching this text cannot supply missing harness code, serialization artifacts or raw runs.
Blockers
none
Limits
- RT-RTE-validation-gate describes proposer/maintainer history contexts, while MEM-OBJ-skill-impact and EPI-RTE-impact-retention preserve uncertain maintainer tracker delivery. SRC-1 §3.1–3.2's broad history/full-wiki descriptions and E.2's explicit input enumeration do not settle completeness; reconciliation retains both positions. Withhold a joint claim that the maintainer necessarily receives the complete intervention tracker. Proposer access, harness logging and persistence across rejection remain supported.
- MEM-OBJ-skill-impact and EPI-RTE-impact-retention retain §3.2.4's unified-diff account beside E.3's full-rejected-content wording. No serialized artifact resolves whole-file reconstructability. Withhold complete replay-archive or full rejected-file restoration claims; retained intervention/outcome feedback and designed proposer use remain supported.
- MEM-OBJ-purpose and MEM-OBJ-skill distinguish retained rationale from instructions. SRC-1 §3.1 and E.3 support rationale creation, but §3.2.1 does not separately enumerate its delivery and the patch schema does not establish synchronized rationale maintenance. Withhold claims that every task sees current reasons or that companion files are consistently patched/restored. Retained reasons available to proposal and active procedural guidance remain supported.
- MEM-OBJ-log, MEM-OBJ-raw and RT-RTE-validation-gate preserve exact log-filename ambiguity and unknown validation-trace retention, durable checkpoints and early-return/
no_actionhandling. SRC-1 §3, A.1 and E supply no implementation resolution. Withhold exact filesystem, full replay and crash-recovery comparisons. The bounded documented evolution sequence and skill-only rejection policy remain supported.