RSIAgent reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Boundary and duplicate identities

All four reports use the revision and source declared in boundary. Their implementation findings concern shipped wiring; none supplies an observed run or causal comparison. This reconciliation uses the pinned members only, with no additional source reads. No analyst answers or declined objections were supplied.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-memory is superseded by MEM-OBJ-memory. Both denote the guest ~/.memory and canonical host bank consumed by future Actors, rather than the terminal control result or its publication route. Identity evidence is their shared SRC-1 anchor explore/charter.py and the terminal-learning passages retained by EPI-RTE-memory-proposal and RT-RTE-learning-admission. The epistemic inventory and proposal, admission and retention findings concern this same bank. The supersession connects their references; it does not replace the epistemic findings about unknown truth-apt content or the memory findings about arbitrary byte payloads, unresolved initial provenance and fallible downstream authority. Neither record supplies an actual generated bank.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-worklog is superseded by MEM-OBJ-work-log. Both identify the model-written summary held in the Actor's live summary state, saved as host summary artifacts and delivered to later Actor calls. Identity evidence is SRC-1, core/loop.py, including the folding passages retained by EPI-RTE-worklog-fold and the rendering account in RT-RTE-task-execution. The epistemic folding and inventory findings refer to this retained log, not a second product. The memory record additionally describes deterministic fallback and fresh restart handoffs; those alternatives remain in its account, without making every handoff a folded log or upgrading summary fidelity.

Containers, parts and distinct records

No supersession is warranted between RT-OBJ-loop-result and the retained log, journal, bank or EPI-OBJ-verifier-report. The runtime object is a valid control/result container. Its report text and worklog fields have different consumers and transformations; the reports do not make the container's findings wrong by distinguishing them. MEM-OBJ-memory-journal stores bank snapshots and lineage metadata, not the complete result interface or raw action history. The workflow annotation on the result adds the distinction between local verdict and phase completion rather than redefining that object.

MEM-RTE-worklog-fold and EPI-RTE-worklog-fold overlap but are not identical routes. The memory route includes stalled restart, synthesized handoff and optional strategy review; the epistemic route isolates older-turn folding and its content relation. Both are parts of RT-RTE-task-execution, which also covers action execution, callbacks and task return. None replaces that valid container. Their shared SRC-1 anchor core/loop.py supports the common folding mechanism, while their stated endpoints rule out whole-route identity.

MEM-RTE-verifier-replay is a working-context recovery part of RT-RTE-candidate-verification, not another declaration of verification. EPI-RTE-probe-check, EPI-RTE-candidate-check and EPI-RTE-verdict-admission separate probe checking, model judgment and report-token disposition inside that same valid runtime container. Their targets, evaluators and return values differ; no pair is superseded. MEM-OBJ-verifier-scratch is retained private bytes, not replayed conversation or a correctness certificate.

EPI-OBJ-observation is the general turn-evidence object. MEM-OBJ-durable-images identifies the archived image attachment representation and later rehydration, not all text, callback or image observations. Their overlap does not establish identical referents. Nor does either duplicate the report, scratch or terminal result.

EPI-RTE-memory-proposal, EPI-RTE-memory-admission and EPI-RTE-bank-retention are separate functions within RT-RTE-learning-admission. Proposal changes candidate content; the host gate checks corpus boundaries; journal/install retains admitted bytes. MEM-OBJ-learning-diagnosis is a separately delivered product of learning, not the whole update route. MEM-OBJ-curriculum-notes is Curriculum-authored retained material, not that Actor diagnosis or RT-RTE-curriculum-search. The memory annotations add their consumers and admission limits without replacing runtime fields.

WF-RTE-phase-transition spans task, learning and curriculum outputs. It is a host protocol gate and aggregation route, not an identical task-execution or lesson-admission route and not a part of exactly one of them. EPI-RTE-official-score separates ALE's post-worker grading function within task execution. EPI-RTE-score-report is a separate CLI consumer of archived scores. The workflow's OSWorld aggregation is not the same operation as ALE cohort reporting. EPI-OBJ-evaluation-score likewise differs from the ungraded local verdict/result interface.

EPI-CLM-knowledge-feedback isolates a content/warrant claim within RT-CLM-training-free; it does not supersede the broader fixed-parameter improvement thesis. EPI-CLM-reported-scores concerns attributed numerical outcomes and is distinct from both architectural claims. No specialist declares duplicate provider components or behavioral-authority paths. No evidenced-absence records are declared in these reports.

Convergence and integration dispositions

The runtime and memory independently inspect terminal learning and converge on same-Actor authorship, host boundary admission, complete-tree publication and later Actor-selected reads. The epistemic proposal/admission/retention parts preserve that progression while separating local task judgment from semantic acceptance of a lesson. The workflow connects it to fresh target retry and frozen evaluation. These connections do not turn requested criticism, installed bytes or delivered files into observed knowledge production, reliance or benefit.

The runtime's rejection and freshness account in RT-RTE-candidate-verification and the epistemic parser limit in EPI-RTE-verdict-admission are not an established disagreement. The runtime describes distinct legacy/full-Agent modes, current-candidate requirements and transport/control vetoes; it does not assert that the full-Agent token parser mechanically verifies evidential adequacy. The epistemic member distinguishes that parser from the model's instructed requirement-level investigation. Neither account supports extending lexical transport admission into a semantic correctness guarantee. The affected passages cite SRC-1, core/verifier.py, core/loop.py and explore/charter.py.

The workflow's accepted final post-STALLED FAIL in WF-RTE-phase-transition does not conflict with verdict routing or official scoring. It marks completed development and bank lineage, not target correctness. Its account distinguishes the generic loop's live-environment return from the OSWorld adapter's ungraded Phase-2 result and later Phase-3 measurement. The runtime's task route and the epistemic ALE score route retain their separate grading boundaries.

The memory member's integration issues require no central runtime correction. Its containment questions are resolved above. Initial-bank provenance remains unknown despite known subsequent transformations; this prevents classifying all attached content as autonomously trace-derived. Missing bank, note and scratch instances prevent content-level conclusions, not the supported storage and consumer routes. Additional verified-memory recovery detail annotates RT-RTE-lineage-recovery; it does not contradict the runtime's explicit partial inspection or establish every variant's reconstruction guarantees.

The epistemic architectural status not determinable for post-acceptance lifecycle integration is compatible with the runtime's wired publication route: the former requires a particular evidence-consuming claim acceptance before integration, while the latter establishes bank update and delivery. The reports also keep theory conditions, reflection, learning and dispositional self-change separate. None establishes exercised or successful self-improvement from endpoint labels, persistence or README scores.

No unresolved cross-report disagreement or required undeclared part was identified in these pinned members. The carried limits remain limits of the connected account: unavailable execution and causal evidence, opaque generated payloads, unresolved initial provenance, external evaluator/provider internals, and available but partially inspected recovery variants. This disposition neither judges individual record support nor settles a declined objection; none was supplied.