LLM Wiki Coordination reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Boundary and independent convergence

The four reports share the frozen revision and external-host boundary in boundary. They distinguish an implemented, read-only audit from agent/user-operated discussion, semantic review, editing and approval. RT-ABS-runtime-orchestration, memory's read-back account, epistemic's bounded conclusion and the workflow account converge on that distinction. Missing operation and causal evidence are common limits, not conflicting findings. This reconciliation uses the supplied records and their retained passages; no source read was needed.

Workflow declares no competing records. Its annotations place RT-RTE-thread-participation, RT-RTE-canon-admission and RT-RTE-audit-invocation within a prescribed delivery chain. Memory annotates those same identities with retained inputs and later-consumer limits. Neither annotation establishes that delivery or read-back occurred.

Same-referent supersessions

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-anchor-form is superseded by MEM-OBJ-anchor-form. Both identify the persistent manifest/identity anchor in SRC-1 concepts/persona-manifest-ontology.md, distinct from model parameters. Their retained passages concern modification/recognition and conditional continuity checks on that same object. Memory's lineage and admission account and epistemic's undetermined operational test of subjectivity remain findings on the shared referent. Neither intended signed artifacts nor recognition establishes implemented authentication, startup loading or observed continuity.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-consensus-block is superseded by MEM-OBJ-consensus-block. Both identify revision-specific endorsement metadata in page frontmatter, interpreted against the document revision. SRC-1 protocols/multi-ai-consensus.md supplies their agreement/status and same-session-review passages. The epistemic record's associated lifecycle and available asserted endorsement instance remain contextual findings; they do not establish a review trace. This identity does not equate endorsement metadata with page content or the admission procedure.

Amendment: EPI-RTE-zhat-update is superseded by MEM-RTE-profile-refinement. Both identify past agent-attributed contribution vectors being summed and normalized into a working orientation estimate, represented in preferred-direction metadata for later guidance. SRC-1 protocols/rolespace-coordination.md supplies their observation/refinement passage; protocols/dialogue-thread-format.md supplies the metadata anchor. Epistemic's truth-apt descriptive estimate, bounded numeric derivation, indeterminate semantic relation and separate advisory consumption remain findings on this route, alongside memory's unresolved update writer, admission, cadence and delivery. Identity neither selects a status nor establishes actual updates.

Unresolved conflict: MEM-RTE-profile-refinement assigns doctrine conclusion status afforded, while EPI-RTE-zhat-update assigns that field claimed. Both cite SRC-1 protocols/rolespace-coordination.md's working-estimate formula and leave operation uninspected. Both now distinguish cross-thread estimate production from RT-RTE-thread-participation, which consumes preferred directions within an individual thread. The remaining discrepancy is the declared doctrine status, not containment, truth-aptness, an identified physical writer or observed operation. It prevents reporting one agreed doctrine status for the shared route; this reconciliation selects neither. Their common uncertainty about wiring is not a separate disagreement.

Containers, operative parts and adjacent routes

EPI-OBJ-entry-prose spans contribution prose, context/OQ and proposed canon summary. It is not identical to either MEM-OBJ-thread-context or MEM-OBJ-thread-entries, which distinguish files and their write rules. EPI-OBJ-canon-prose identifies resulting page prose, not the entire MEM-OBJ-canon-pages container of page material, revisions, proposal references and optional crystallized output. SRC-1 protocols/dialogue-thread-format.md provides their context-protection, entry-persistence and canon-proposal passages. These overlapping operative parts do not replace the valid containers; no split supersession follows merely from their separation.

EPI-OBJ-rolespace-vector spans evaluation, target/current and orientation material across entries and metadata. It is not identical to MEM-OBJ-thread-meta or the entry-file container. EPI-OBJ-zhat isolates the descriptive orientation estimate and its preference use, not all vector material or all metadata. SRC-1 protocols/dialogue-thread-format.md and protocols/rolespace-coordination.md distinguish intent, attributed evaluation, accumulation and orientation. These broad inventories and narrower parts can coexist without supersession. The symbolic formula does not itself warrant the estimate's descriptive validity; memory's afforded derivation does not assert such validity either.

EPI-RTE-entry-authorship, EPI-RTE-peer-judgment, EPI-RTE-entry-retention and EPI-RTE-archival-import separate functions within the valid participation container. They are not four duplicate whole routes. Historical import admits retained prose by doctrine; RT-RTE-archival-audit instead implements an audit bypass. Their SRC-1 protocols/dialogue-thread-format.md and tools/llm-wiki-audit.py evidence supports that distinction, including incomplete historical evaluation lineage and the checker's failure to restore entry checks automatically after reopening.

EPI-RTE-canon-review and EPI-RTE-canon-integration separate review and conditional integration within the valid admission container. SRC-1 protocols/multi-ai-consensus.md and protocols/dialogue-thread-format.md distinguish recognized closure from revision-specific page admission. Workflow's approved-page delivery predicate and memory's canon-lineage limits agree with that separation. Conditional, doctrine-only integration does not assert an actual accepted proposition or a completed synthesis. No supersession of the complete admission route is warranted.

The five checker records—EPI-RTE-hygiene-graph, EPI-RTE-vector-check, EPI-RTE-consensus-check, EPI-RTE-crypto-check and EPI-RTE-cross-check—are distinct parts of the audit invocation, not duplicate invocations. Their SRC-1 tools/llm-wiki-audit.py passages distinguish predicate diagnosis from terminal HARD-count disposition. EPI-OBJ-audit-findings identifies transient result dictionaries and stdout, not RT-CMP-generic-wiki-audit, the invocation, or externally retained MEM-OBJ-audit-reports.

EPI-RTE-semantic-review covers the semantic-review/escalation phase also described within MEM-RTE-audit-retention. The latter additionally covers external technical-audit initiation, saved reports and log summaries. SRC-1 protocols/integrity-audit.md separates these duties. A phase and its valid persistence/follow-up container are not identical; neither is the executable audit route. MEM-RTE-page-withdrawal and MEM-OBJ-cemetery-log are a separate deletion/tombstone operation and its product, not automatic audit repair or established later read-back.

Claims, absences and integration dispositions

RT-CLM-peer-evaluation, RT-CLM-canon-enforcement, MEM-CLM-context-economy, EPI-CLM-integrity-warrant and EPI-CLM-recognition-warrant concern different claims: peer independence, canonical enforcement, token scaling, audit integrity and crystallization as validation. Their common underlying routes do not establish identity. Partial consensus diagnostics coexist with absent full admission enforcement. User recognition and agreement coexist with no supplied evidence-consuming acceptance of a concrete claim. No stronger status is substituted across these scopes.

EPI-ABS-source-check concerns absent baseline/authorization and semantic evaluators, whereas the runtime absence concerns agent orchestration and write interception. Their searched SRC-1 tools/llm-wiki-audit.py scopes overlap but their absent mechanisms differ; no supersession is warranted. Memory's audit annotation independently retains the missing source baseline. These absences do not deny external semantic review or the implemented structural checks. RT-BAP-protocol-guidance and RT-BAP-audit-exit likewise remain distinct interpreted-guidance and current-process-result channels.

Memory's integration issues declare no correction to supplied runtime facts. Its closure-sum ambiguity now also appears explicitly in epistemic's bounded conclusion and workflow's participation account: SRC-1 protocols/rolespace-coordination.md says contribution/reopen only, while protocols/dialogue-thread-format.md and the implemented calculation include closure. The reports agree about this source disagreement. It prevents a uniform-instruction conclusion for external agents, not the narrower conclusion that the checker includes closure evaluations. The prior reconciliation's orientation containment and non-truth-apt classification descriptions no longer describe the supplied epistemic record; those connections are not carried forward.

The remaining memory issues retain unresolved profile wiring, canon reason preservation, report/tombstone consumers and manifest reconstruction. The epistemic and workflow accounts preserve corresponding limits without contradicting the specified participant/page-review reads. RT-RTE-package-revision and its memory annotation distinguish retained repair rationale from actual later consumption; epistemic likewise does not infer learning or exercised self-improvement from reported formula repair. No supplied correction-answer or declined-objection file authorizes an attributed correction disposition. Apart from the doctrine-status discrepancy above, no cross-report disagreement or required undeclared part was identified. The other comparisons rule out same-referent supersession rather than allocating new identities or rewriting findings.