LLM Project Wiki report verification

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

Verification

The reports support a bounded design account. I independently read the complete frozen SRC-1 README.md and SETUP_PROMPT.md, traced their producers and later consumers, and compared the submitted findings with those instructions rather than relying on the analysts' checks. HEAD matches the reviewed revision; the tracked tree contains exactly those two files, and neither differs from that revision. The boundary correctly covers the whole shipped prompt package without including an unavailable generated installation or the host runtime. Source evidence remains doctrine/design and attributed example operation, not installed implementation, observed execution or causal benefit.

Runtime and workflow

I checked all runtime declarations and annotations. RT-CMP-claude-code correctly leaves provider state, model version and routing unresolved. RT-OBJ-setup-prompt, RT-OBJ-schema and RT-OBJ-wiki-ingest distinguish current supplied guidance from specified future files and their consumers.

Step 0 and Phases 0–6 support the progression in RT-RTE-vault-bootstrap. Phase 4 supports RT-RTE-wiki-lookup, including source fallback, stale marking and optional status/milestone callers. Phase 2 supports the separate RT-RTE-source-sync and RT-RTE-diff-ingest routes: shell copying does not compile pages; Git selection, dependency grep, source/page interpretation and open gaps supply distinct later inputs. The reports correctly preserve error suppression, one-comparison selection and dry-run's stopping before page mapping. G0–G7 support RT-RTE-gap-audit as later surgical repair, not automatic failure recovery.

The source passages support the qualifications in RT-CLM-wiki-first, RT-CLM-sources-immutability and RT-CLM-audit-completeness. Manual copying, audit/source fallback and incomplete example predicates defeat literal immutability, universal source exclusion and automatic completeness. The separate future-session channels in RT-BAP-project-rules and RT-BAP-maintenance-rules have intended policy force, not demonstrated host enforcement.

The audit's theory conditions and independent learning, reflection and self-improvement assessments remain appropriately qualified. G1/G2/G6 request evidence-responsive repair of the installation's own scripts and rules for future use. They do not establish exercised self-improvement, successful learning or criticism-dependent theory iteration. The workflow account and annotations faithfully trace the same bootstrap, including model-owned prerequisites, domain checks, logging before final self-audit and user committing afterward. Parallel reading does not establish delegated agents. No new workflow records require separate disposition.

Memory and epistemic findings

All memory object records match specified surfaces: MEM-OBJ-sources, MEM-OBJ-wiki, MEM-OBJ-page-metadata, MEM-OBJ-index, MEM-OBJ-log, MEM-OBJ-templates and MEM-OBJ-health. Their storage, mixed forms, lineage and intended consumer authority are supported by Phases 1–4 and G0–G5. Memory annotations preserve the distinction between copying, semantic curation, task-derived gap reports and later pull-based lookup. No unspecified token budget, embedding search, context isolation or host compaction is inferred. MEM-CLM-retention-limits is a bounded specification finding: the copy example lacks deletion propagation, and page creation/link repair does not establish withdrawal of obsolete content.

I checked the epistemic inventory against EPI-OBJ-sources, EPI-OBJ-wiki-pages, EPI-OBJ-index and EPI-OBJ-log, and checked every function in the authority-route ledger. Its doctrine-only architecture is consistent with the runtime's claimed design and uninspected operation. Acquisition does not certify source warrant; absent source/page pairs do not support a definite entailment or non-entailment classification. Model admission and retention are correctly separated from recorded epistemic acceptance and post-acceptance integration.

Both diagnostic declarations have valid Part of: relations to the audit route. EPI-RTE-schema-check accurately bounds the three grep predicates: body key strings can pass without valid frontmatter or sources. EPI-RTE-link-check accurately bounds prefix orphan matching and substring index matching. These source-text deductions do not require target execution and do not imply that broader model review is impossible. EPI-CLM-compiled-knowledge and EPI-CLM-answer-coverage correctly separate artifact growth and task sufficiency from warranted knowledge and correct answers. The bounded conclusion preserves source reconciliation and stale-aware status fallback rather than claiming that the design never checks anything.

Reconciliation, omissions and stopping decision

I checked every declaration's local source anchor, retained passage and evidence strength against SRC-1; no semantic mismatch requiring correction was found. No evidenced-absence records are declared. Empty correction-answer files contain no outstanding correction arguments, and report-check reports no structural findings.

The two supersessions in reconciliation preserve identity: Sources snapshots and log.md have the same referents across memory and epistemic declarations. The Wiki-content/frontmatter container and the index/health container are not exact duplicates of their narrower memory records. Their parts and consumption differences remain exposed, so retaining the containers does not conceal an incompatible finding. Diagnostic parts do not supersede their repair container. Claims concern different operations. The memory integration issues receive dispositions, including inconsistent ingest step references inside the source; these are not unresolved disagreements between reports. I found no unmarked cross-report conflict.

Omission questions were selected from the complete tracked tree and the producer/consumer chain, not just listed record anchors. I checked whether existing-vault repair bypasses immutable-source and wiki-only assumptions; whether status, milestone and memory-sync callers add later consumption or admission; whether open gaps extend diff selection; and whether deletion, stale rejection or audit predicates support stronger freshness, acceptance or coverage conclusions. The first three have explicit coverage in the records. The last group supports only the narrower conclusions already emitted: ordinary lookup has no general stale-rejection gate, the special status caller does have stale fallback, and withdrawal/path consistency remain unspecified. No executable alternate shipped path or supplied run artifact changes the design-only classification.

Further omission expansion stopped after complete inspection of both shipped files and disposition of these consequential alternatives. Generated installations, excluded host behavior and external plugin implementations cannot settle additional claims within this source boundary. Their uncertainty is already faithfully scoped in the reports, not an unsupported absence or a new unresolved defect. No material challenge remains without disposition.

Blockers

none

Limits

none