AIDE2 report verification

Type: agentic-system-analyses/types/agentic-system-verification.md

Verification

I read every pinned member, governing type, the records contract, correction answers, prior verification and structural check. The structural check reports none; the epistemic answer reports a correction, while the other answer files are empty. I independently read SRC-1's frozen capture at §§1–3.6 and §5 and appendices A–E, including the protocol and rejected-proposal tables. These reads checked claim meaning, ordering, scope and evidence strength, not merely quotation occurrence or the analysts' reported checks. The Source register supplies doctrine/design and reported operation only. The complete-artifact/partial-loop boundary remains appropriate: executable interfaces, evaluator code and raw exercised paths cannot be verified from this capture.

Runtime and workflow

SRC-1 §2.2 supports the fixed-model declarations in RT-CMP-gemini3-flash and RT-CMP-claude-opus4, without supplying immutable model versions or provider routing guarantees. RT-OBJ-agent-code identifies the outer harness, distinct from task solutions. RT-OBJ-robustness-instruction identifies recurring advisory prompt text rather than executable correctness enforcement.

I traced all five runtime routes against SRC-1 §§2.1–3.6 and appendix A: RT-RTE-inner-search, RT-RTE-harness-admission, RT-RTE-robustness-controls, RT-RTE-terminal-fallback and RT-RTE-ignition-test. Their endpoints, selectors, return boundaries and recovery qualifications match the documented protocol. Greedy baseline selection is not generalized to evolved agents. Scorer repair establishes evaluator-machinery reach, not access to private data or a general permission envelope. The penalty reportedly changes no selection. Early termination preserves fallback scoring, not successful budget exhaustion or resumability. Ignition remains inconclusive about superior self-improver efficiency. Claimed design/operation and uninspected implementation statuses preserve the source's evidence strength.

RT-CLM-private-signal retains outer grade exposure and unknown information-flow enforcement. RT-CLM-harness-improvement accurately attributes seven incumbent changes and the 0.703–0.778 grade trajectory, separates the unchanged principal outer driver, and withholds component causality. RT-BAP-incumbent-code and RT-BAP-robustness-prompt preserve different consumers, force and horizons.

The workflow account and its annotations faithfully order rewrite proposal, task execution, reviewer extraction, private grading, incumbent selection and terminal return. Reviewer interpretation is not the task oracle or the outer admission decision. Rejection preserves the incumbent at the selection level; filesystem rollback and production delivery remain unestablished. No runtime or workflow correction is required.

Memory and epistemic records

SRC-1 §2.2, §3.5 and appendix E support the six memory objects: MEM-OBJ-candidate-code, MEM-OBJ-execution-output, MEM-OBJ-review-feedback, MEM-OBJ-candidate-summary, MEM-OBJ-error-signatures and MEM-OBJ-strategy-state. Their lineages, forms and consumers distinguish executable task scripts, raw outputs, interpreted feedback, derived summaries, extracted fragments and selector metadata. All six Part of: relations express material containment in inner search, not identity with the outer harness.

MEM-RTE-summary-delivery and MEM-RTE-failure-injection are also valid contained parts. Root/recent selection, the 15% gate, three-signature cap and later advisory consumption in MEM-BAP-history-context match §3.5. Unknown summary authorship does not negate known delivery; recency selection does not establish deletion. MEM-CLM-prompt-compression correctly scopes appendix E's character-based reconstruction and reported nonoccurrence of window errors to evaluated runs. It establishes neither universal window safety nor independently isolated memory-component benefit. Memory annotations, write/read accounts and integration issues preserve the unresolved archive, feedback-delivery, rationale and reload facts.

I checked every epistemic inventory and ledger row, comparison and bounded conclusion against SRC-1. EPI-OBJ-evaluation-scores spans distinct public/private measurements; EPI-OBJ-reviewer-feedback overlaps the feedback part of the combined memory object. EPI-RTE-reviewer-extraction is correctly contained in inner search. Indeterminate reviewer/summary semantics and non-ampliative selection of error text are warranted assessments at this boundary. EPI-OBJ-candidate-summary and EPI-OBJ-error-signatures identify the memory-declared payloads; their duplicate identities are reconciled rather than treated as separate mechanisms.

The prior blocker is repaired. The inner-generation row and both short-code guard rows now identify task solutions through MEM-OBJ-candidate-code. The inventory, bounded conclusion and reviewer-feedback comparison preserve this distinction. SRC-1 §§2.1–2.2 and §3.5's safeguard passage, retained in RT-RTE-robustness-controls, support the corrected associations. Outer successor admission and reuse still identify the harness. No dependent passage restores the erroneous claim that the inner length guard admits harness successors.

EPI-RTE-heldout-comparison and EPI-CLM-reward-hacking correctly retain the separate benchmark domain, 38-pair proxy/downstream criterion and attributed 55%–32% change. They do not identify a responsible component or prove freedom from gaming. Architectural doctrine only is consistent with the registered layers; it does not deny author-reported execution. Checks, disposition, retention and policy adaptation remain separate. No accepted explanatory claim or claim-level lifecycle integration is inferred merely from code selection.

Reconciliation and omission disposition

The two amendments in reconciliation establish identical summary/signature referents without changing their fidelity assessments. The combined memory feedback object, its epistemic feedback part and the broader measurement object remain valid overlapping records. Other containment, route distinctions and authority connections are supported by the linked source passages. No evidenced absences or unresolved cross-report conflicts are declared. The reconciliation's statement that correction answers were not its inputs concerns its own attempt, not this verifier's supplied answer file; its task-code disposition agrees with the corrected pinned text. No objection is sustained on that basis. Agreement among reports based on this one capture is not independent corroboration.

Selected omission questions followed the documented producer/consumer chain and alternate protocols: could evaluator repair defeat the private-signal account; could changed selectors, rejected proposals or early termination alter the main loop; and could appendix-level model differences or prompt reconstruction warrant stronger transfer, context-coverage or component-benefit findings? SRC-1 §3.5, §5 and appendices A–E give supported dispositions at the reports' retained breadth: evaluator reach is qualified, selection is not universally greedy, rejection is not deletion, fallback is not resumption, and whole-harness gains do not isolate memory effects. Appendix C reports cross-model comparisons but no weight-update or component-isolation evidence. Its additional comparison detail is not required for the narrower emitted conclusions. No repository tree or shipped implementation exists in this capture boundary, so omission search does not infer code-path absence.

Further optional expansion stopped because these consequential alternatives have supported dispositions and no identified material challenge remains unresolved. Full prompts, concrete summary/feedback payloads, raw runs and executable evaluators are still needed for stronger lifecycle, fidelity, enforcement or causal conclusions. The reports already withhold those conclusions; faithfully scoped uncertainty does not create an additional verification limit. No structural failure requires routing, and no material semantic defect remains.

Blockers

none

Limits

none