AIDE2 reconciliation

Type: agentic-system-analyses/types/agentic-system-reconciliation-report.md

Reconciliation

Evidence and status alignment

All four reports share the boundary's Source register. SRC-1 supplies doctrine/design and reported operation, not inspected implementation, raw observed runs or independently inspected causal experiments. The runtime and memory routes assign separate design and operation conclusion statuses of claimed and implementation conclusion status of uninspected. The epistemic ledger uses doctrine only for architectural status under that same evidence boundary. These fields answer different questions; they do not conflict. The workflow account traces the documented nested procedure rather than an inspectable individual proposal. Agreement based on the same capture does not independently confirm execution or strengthen any status.

Duplicate identities and material parts

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-candidate-summary is superseded by MEM-OBJ-candidate-summary. Both identify the compact root/recent candidate summary consumed by AIDE85 draft/improve. Both retain the same SRC-1 §3.5 passage and locate the payload in prompt/context state with unresolved production rules. The epistemic inventory, summary-transformation ledger row and bounded conclusion concern this same object, not an additional summary. Their semantic-fidelity assessment remains intact. Memory leaves exact fields and possible code excerpts uninspected; epistemic leaves exact mixed encoding uninspected. The supersession therefore supplies identity without resolving format or fidelity. The epistemic declaration's statement that no supplied object counterpart exists does not describe the current memory member; the duplicate is accounted for here without rewriting either declaration.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-error-signatures is superseded by MEM-OBJ-error-signatures. Both identify deduplicated final error lines of recent buggy candidates supplied to AIDE85 draft/improve, with the 15% bug-rate gate and three-signature cap. Their SRC-1 §3.5 passages identify the same payload, lineage and consumer. The epistemic inventory, error-text transformation row and bounded conclusion concern the memory-declared object. Epistemic's non-ampliative classification of selected text and loss of diagnostic context coexist with memory's distinction between fragments and causal explanations. Neither asserts reliable error avoidance or component benefit. The epistemic declaration's no-counterpart statement is resolved as duplicate identity, not evidence of another error store.

Whole-record identity is ruled out between MEM-OBJ-review-feedback and EPI-OBJ-reviewer-feedback. Memory contains both the symbolic score and relevant feedback, distinguished by consumer. Epistemic declares the natural-language interpretation alone. The shared SRC-1 §2.2 reviewer passage identifies that feedback as an operative part of the combined memory object, not a separate independently produced feedback payload. The combined record remains a valid container; its findings do not become wrong when that part is separated, so no split supersession is warranted.

EPI-OBJ-evaluation-scores overlaps the score part of that memory container but also includes public measurements, private task scores and aggregate harness grades. Whole-record identity with either feedback record is ruled out: its scope spans distinct evaluators and consumers, which the epistemic ledger separates. EPI-RTE-reviewer-extraction is a transformation within RT-RTE-inner-search, not a replacement for the entire search route. It separates reviewer interpretation from measurement and selection. No supplied record declares an identical extraction-only route.

The memory objects MEM-OBJ-candidate-code, MEM-OBJ-execution-output and MEM-OBJ-strategy-state are material parts of inner search, not identities of RT-OBJ-agent-code. Task scripts, raw outputs and selector metadata differ from outer harness code in lineage and consumers. MEM-RTE-summary-delivery and MEM-RTE-failure-injection also remain distinct parts: root/recent summary delivery and bug-gated signature injection have different inputs, predicates and budgets. Their containment does not invalidate or supersede the runtime search container.

Task-code correction and admission boundaries

The current epistemic inventory, inner-generation ledger row, short-code check and disposition rows, and bounded conclusion all identify MEM-OBJ-candidate-code as the task-solution object. This agrees with the memory distinction between task scripts and RT-OBJ-agent-code, and with the workflow's separate task-search and harness-rewrite stages. SRC-1 §§2.1–2.2 and the safeguard passage retained in RT-RTE-robustness-controls support these boundaries. Re-prompting after a task-code output shorter than 40 characters is not outer successor admission. Private-grade comparison in RT-RTE-harness-admission remains the separate harness-admission mechanism. No dependent finding in the supplied reports requires the short-code guard to act on a harness successor.

The epistemic member reports correction reads and cites a supplied memory fragment. No correction-answer file or declined objection is an input to this attempt, so no analyst answer is treated as establishing a repair or defect. The connection above rests on the current pinned findings.

Authority and comparison connections

MEM-BAP-history-context, RT-BAP-robustness-prompt and RT-BAP-incumbent-code are not identical. Derived history supplies advisory model context within a task; the fixed reminder supplies recurring advisory instructions; accepted executable harness organization governs later editing and execution across outer rounds. SRC-1 §§2.1 and 3.5, as retained in their linked records, support those different channels and horizons. Memory's annotations add retention and admission limits to the runtime harness and reminder without redefining them.

Harness admission remains a valid container for proposal, private grading, incumbent decision and later reuse. The epistemic ledger separates checking, acceptance, retention and policy adaptation, while the workflow annotations distinguish reviewer inspection, fixed selection and terminal delivery. Neither lens supersedes the runtime route. All retain noisy false acceptance and unavailable restart, reload and rollback semantics. Preserving an incumbent after rejection is selection-level recovery, not verified filesystem rollback.

Whole-record identity is ruled out between EPI-RTE-heldout-comparison, RT-RTE-harness-admission, RT-RTE-terminal-fallback and RT-RTE-ignition-test. External comparison assesses task performance and kernel proxy/downstream behavior; admission selects successors on the selection benchmark; fallback handles early termination; ignition compares outer drivers. Their shared use of grades or returned candidates does not equate their targets or consequences. No report establishes automatic feedback of held-out comparison results into principal rewrite selection, production promotion, or resumable workers from fallback scoring.

MEM-CLM-prompt-compression, RT-CLM-harness-improvement and EPI-CLM-reward-hacking are distinct claims. SRC-1 appendix E concerns prompt reconstruction; §§3.2–3.3 concern whole-harness improvement; §3.4 and appendix A concern separately measured kernel behavior. All retain the lack of component-isolated attribution. Reported compression and reduced measured reward hacking do not identify the contributions of summaries, signatures or reminders. Ignition remains inconclusive about superior self-improver efficiency. These are complementary assessments from one source, not independent experimental corroboration.

Integration dispositions and remaining limits

The memory integration issues require no correction of runtime facts and propose no duplicate with runtime. The retained containers and distinct authority paths above agree with that disposition. It does not rule out epistemic's separately declared duplicate summary and signature objects, which the two amendments reconcile.

No unresolved cross-report finding conflict remains in the supplied members. Summary authorship, exact fields, semantic fidelity, recency window and budget remain unknown in the summary records and delivery route. Bug-rate calculation, recurring-signature selection, withdrawal and cross-run retention remain unknown in the signature records and injection route. These unknowns constrain completeness, agency and benefit conclusions; they do not contradict documented bounded delivery.

Reviewer fidelity and exact later feedback delivery, strategy-state reset and context isolation remain unresolved in the feedback, strategy and inner-search records. The workflow's general feedback handoff and epistemic extraction progression do not supply the full post-summary delivery contract that memory leaves uninspected. Outer archive coverage, rejected/no-grade proposal visibility, rationale retention and reload remain unresolved in the harness object and admission route. AIDE47/AIDEhuman prompt-size comparisons do not establish that they use AIDE85's particular failure gate or full context policy.

RT-CLM-private-signal remains a protocol claim qualified by outer grade exposure and the scorer-repair witness in the robustness route, not a verified information-flow invariant. The reports distinguish operational code reuse from claim-level lifecycle integration and theory-building; none treats numerical selection alone as formulated content-directed criticism. The documented harness-improvement pathway and its reported outcomes remain separate from independently verified component causality or model-weight learning.

This reconciliation used the supplied members and prior reconciliation only. No frozen-source read was needed to resolve an ambiguity, and no analyst finding or status was rewritten.