AI-Context-OS reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Identity and duplicate dispositions

The reports share the frozen boundary and Source register. The connections below use the supplied records and their evidence, not new source inspection. Supersession resolves duplicate identity only; it does not replace either analyst's findings or upgrade implementation evidence to observed operation.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-usage-store is superseded by MEM-OBJ-memory-usage. Both identify the ID-keyed last-access/count map in .cache/memory-usage.json, supported by SRC-1 src-tauri/src/core/usage.rs and src-tauri/src/core/paths.rs. Their distinctions from canonical prose and their scan-overlay consumers agree. Findings about exposure records, fallback values and future ranking concern the same retained object.

Amendment: EPI-RTE-usage-feedback is superseded by MEM-RTE-access-feedback. Both span MCP selected loads, skill/required-dependency reads and desktop reads through count/date persistence, scan overlay and later scoring/decay. Their SRC-1 evidence in src-tauri/src/core/usage.rs, src-tauri/src/core/index.rs, src-tauri/src/core/scoring.rs, src-tauri/src/core/mcp.rs and src-tauri/src/commands/memory.rs identifies the same progression. Both retain wired implementation and uninspected operation, optional-dependency accounting omissions and the distinction between access and successful use. The epistemic ledger's adaptation finding concerns this same route, not a second feedback mechanism.

Amendment: EPI-RTE-inbox-capture is superseded by MEM-RTE-inbox-capture. Both cover caller text/link/file acquisition, preview and manifest persistence, editing and normalization in SRC-1 src-tauri/src/commands/inbox.rs. The epistemic record's preview deductions and source-warrant limits and the memory record's attachment/extraction distinctions concern the same upstream route. Neither equates normalization with extraction, canonical promotion or truth acceptance.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-memory-metadata is superseded by MEM-OBJ-memory-meta. Both identify symbolic memory-control metadata consumed by fixed indexing, scoring, dependency and protection rules, evidenced in SRC-1 src-tauri/src/core/types.rs, src-tauri/src/core/scoring.rs and src-tauri/src/core/mcp.rs. The epistemic record includes the runtime usage overlay; the memory record explicitly separates that overlay's backing store from serialized YAML and path-derived roles. These are compatible storage distinctions for the same operative control metadata, not competing truth assessments. Confidence and provenance remain assertions or policy fields rather than factual acceptance.

No other same-referent identity is asserted. The following overlaps retain separate records rather than imply additional supersessions:

Cross-report connections and integration issues

Ingestion handoffs converge without establishing acceptance. RT-RTE-ingest-proposal, its memory annotation, the epistemic ledger and the workflow account agree on heuristic fallback, optional provider replacement, duplicate-discard precedence, persisted candidates and caller-owned apply/reject. Workflow's successful command-return boundary does not conflict with epistemic refusal to treat Applied as truth acceptance: these concern operational delivery and epistemic license respectively. NeedsReview/UpdateMemory are status-only actions; apply does not enforce Pending. Model delegation supplies candidate text, not admission authority or a semantic oracle. Rationale/provider information persists in proposal storage but is not automatically co-delivered with canonical retrieval, as the memory annotation on RT-OBJ-ingest-proposal specifies. Partial writes and attempted router refresh do not establish transactional delivery or synchronized adapters.

Protection is API-scoped. Memory integration issue 1 adds the journal date-tag write and alternate restore/onboarding admissions. MEM-RTE-journal-derive does not contradict RT-RTE-workspace-write's guarded-path finding: runtime already declines universal isolation, and journal uses a different low-level path. RT-CLM-protected-edit remains generated guidance, not proof of universal immutability. The additional paths prevent strengthening the API finding to all mutations; they do not erase its executable guards.

Parsing and authoring contracts differ. Memory integration issue 2 assigns missing-type defaults and unknown variants to MEM-OBJ-memory-meta. Neither RT-OBJ-memory nor the supplied boundary asserts a universally enforced complete authoring schema. The memory issue's reference to a boundary scan-comment quote about type is not present in this pinned boundary; the pinned boundary quotes root-inbox exclusion instead. That comparison therefore does not establish a disagreement with the boundary. The parser-versus-generated-contract distinction remains a memory finding and agrees with the epistemic limit on shape checks versus factual warrant.

Selection has consumer-specific limits. Memory integration issue 3 supplements RT-RTE-context-query: forced L0-only items can remain scored without entering either package branch, and budget-exhausted items can be unloaded references but absent from scored output. This is compatible with runtime's lack of dependency-budget reservation. RT-OBJ-context-result and the memory annotations distinguish scored simulation metadata, chat bodies/headings and MCP bodies/prelude/unloaded summaries. Consequently simulation is not a complete delivery inventory. RT-RTE-skill-load independently provides one-hop ID-directed bodies without this budget allocator. Static adapters and connector L0 exports are different again. No report establishes a system-wide token-window bound, guaranteed dependency delivery or host compliance.

Operational read-back is not one unified episodic pipeline. Memory integration issue 4 and EPI-RTE-governance-checks agree that MEM-OBJ-session-log is not MEM-OBJ-daily-log, which supplies consolidation. A stored session summary has no established later reader in the reported search. The recent-context API discussed under RT-RTE-ingest-proposal's memory annotation selects operational proposals/daily entries, but supplies no established provider-context or review-screen wiring. Workflow's callable apply/reject chain does not depend on such UI wiring. These are bounded consumer gaps, not a denial of storage or the callable workflow.

Maintenance labels do not unify effects. Memory integration issue 5 agrees with EPI-RTE-governance-removal: archive invokes deletion, scratch list clearing does not prove successful file removal, and protection can reject deletion. EPI-RTE-importance-boost changes canonical priority, whereas RT-RTE-optimization-status changes only suggestion status. EPI-RTE-health-score supplies more direct health-formula inspection than memory's coverage; memory reports that implementation as less inspected, not absent or unknowable. These are complementary inspection boundaries, not conflicting findings. They license no merged automatic consolidation/compression route.

Parts and coverage limits remain local. Memory integration issue 6 is disposed by the identity and overlap decisions above. Issue 7 retains less-inspected rename/move/duplicate, full template, vault-isolation and restore/database-consistency branches. Epistemic explicitly leaves journal/task/template/restore bodies uninspected in its own lens; memory's additional records do not silently turn that lens into a system-complete epistemic assessment. Conversely, epistemic health inspection need not be weakened to memory's narrower coverage. MEM-RTE-backup-restore establishes an overlay capability, not exact rollback or consistent live-database recovery. Unknown external-vault origin and opaque RT-CMP-inference-provider behavior remain independent limitations.

Conflict disposition

No unresolved disagreement between the pinned reports is identified. No analyst correction answers or declined objections were supplied, so none is treated as a repair or an established defect. The reports independently converge on wired routes with uninspected operation, advisory model/host consumption, operational rather than epistemic disposition, and exposure-driven priority feedback without demonstrated improvement. The proposal-only governance claim, code checks and absent execution evidence retain their separate meanings. These agreements do not settle empirical relevance, answer truth, provider compliance, causal benefit or exercised self-improvement; the shared boundary supplies no run or experiment establishing them.