pm-llm-wiki reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Shared boundary and evidence

The reports share the boundary: the shipped prompt-and-Markdown knowledge system, including the fictional pilot, but not its external coding-agent host. The Source register supplies doctrine/design and reported operation. Runtime's claimed design and uninspected operation fields agree with epistemic's doctrine-only architectural classifications; these are different fields, not competing strengths of evidence. Workflow likewise traces a fictionally reported sequence rather than observed execution. No source reads were needed for this reconciliation.

Duplicate identities

The following supersessions identify independently declared objects, not replacement findings. Both declarations remain available with their respective evidence and lens-specific assessments. The direction retains the memory object's handle for the shared referent; it does not prefer memory's conclusions over epistemic's.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-source-files is superseded by MEM-OBJ-sources. Both identify the curated sources/ corpus instantiated by pilot/sources/, on local Markdown, including the already-derived readout and digest. Epistemic's unknown source warrant and memory's heterogeneous upstream lineage concern the same corpus; neither claims authenticated original measurements.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-problem-pages is superseded by MEM-OBJ-problems. Both identify the adaptivity and price/value problem pages under pilot/wiki/problems/. Memory distinguishes the page mention counter from digest items; epistemic distinguishes conditional arithmetic from the interpretation mapping cancellation reasons to a problem. These findings assess different properties of the same pages.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-assumptions is superseded by MEM-OBJ-assumptions. Both identify pilot/wiki/assumptions.md, A1–A4, with beliefs, statuses, evidence and history. Epistemic's A2 causal limitation and A1/Q2 qualification concern the same register whose retained reasons and downstream consumers memory traces.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-decision-page is superseded by MEM-OBJ-decisions. Both identify pilot/wiki/decisions/2026-06-30_q3-retention-focus.md, its rationale and reversal conditions. Neither establishes an executed roadmap reversal or supersession event.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-open-questions is superseded by MEM-OBJ-open-questions. Both identify pilot/wiki/open-questions.md, including the open research queue, Q4's answer and Q6's continued monitoring. Proposed discovery and reported closure remain distinct from executed research or general answer acceptance.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-prd is superseded by MEM-OBJ-prd. Both identify pilot/wiki/prd-adaptive-plans-v1.md, draft-v0.1, the filed exploration for Dana and Omar. Epistemic's qualifier-loss finding and memory's lineage/file-back account apply to the same artifact. Supersession does not remove the epistemic finding or make filing into acceptance.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-index is superseded by MEM-OBJ-index. Both identify pilot/index.md, its descriptive summaries and page links used before relevant-page reads. Memory's lossy access-metadata account and epistemic's categorical price-summary example describe the same selector input, not separate retrieval components.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-overview is superseded by MEM-OBJ-overview. Both identify pilot/wiki/overview.md, a maintained natural-language synthesis. Its preserved A2 qualification and sampling blind spot coexist; neither makes it independent corroboration of its upstream sources.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-gymjoy is superseded by MEM-OBJ-gymjoy. Both identify pilot/wiki/competitors/gymjoy.md, including snapshot, timeline and strategic implications. Memory traces its admission and update consumers; epistemic separately assesses the inference from offered price to willingness to pay. This is one product-content object, not the governing competitor specification.

Containment and distinct records

MEM-RTE-digest-admission and EPI-RTE-problem-confirmation are distinct parts of RT-RTE-source-ingest. The first admits a high-volume derived source; the second assesses evidence and assigns problem reliance status after source admission. Their targets, criteria and decision owners differ: PM source approval versus agent-interpreted problem thresholds. Neither supersedes the valid ingest container, and they do not supersede each other. No missing part requiring a split is identified in the supplied findings.

MEM-OBJ-digest is a particular derived source within MEM-OBJ-sources, not a duplicate of the corpus or its admission route. MEM-OBJ-log is the operation journal, not source evidence, a raw execution trace or the PRD. The other memory objects are distinct files or page families, rather than duplicate declarations of their producer/consumer routes. No further object supersession is warranted.

MEM-BAP-wiki-synthesis supplies retained product state to later synthesis. RT-BAP-schema-agent supplies operating policy from RT-OBJ-schema. These paths can reach the same external agent, RT-CMP-llm-agent, but carry different content and force; identity is ruled out. The schema contains product context alongside instructions without becoming identical to the overview or competitor page.

RT-CLM-evidence-control owns the citation/unsupported-label policy. EPI-CLM-defensible-claims owns broader defensibility, ground-truth, availability and payoff rhetoric. Their overlap in source-linking does not make them identical claims. Workflow declares no new records; its annotations connect the existing ingest, stage-upgrade and query routes rather than introducing another copy of that sequence.

Integration dispositions and convergence

Approval ambiguity remains a shared limit, not a disagreement. MEM-OBJ-assumptions, RT-RTE-source-ingest, the epistemic authority ledger and the workflow account retain the unchanged-status evidence exception, the broader final prohibition and underspecified new-entry admission. The pilot's conservative A4 approval does not settle the universal rule. All four accounts distinguish direct PM permission from evidence-consuming epistemic acceptance and from host-enforced authorization.

Stale instruction context and incomplete normalization qualify delivery, not route existence. Memory's Integration issues contrasts the waitlist description retained in RT-OBJ-schema with shipped-state content in MEM-OBJ-gymjoy and MEM-OBJ-overview. It also notes repeated intel despite the new linking instruction. Runtime's RT-RTE-stage-upgrade claims a prescribed update and a visible addition, not complete normalization or synchronized context. No report asserts the stronger finding that these memory observations would contradict. A claim that every later task receives one current product picture remains unavailable.

Warrant can differ within one retained answer. EPI-OBJ-prd identifies categorical price wording that exceeds the open hypothesis retained in EPI-OBJ-open-questions; EPI-OBJ-index exposes similar preframing. Runtime and workflow identify preserved A2 uncertainty, not universal qualification of every sentence. Memory traces retained reasons without claiming every derived statement preserves every qualifier. These findings converge on inspectable but nonuniform qualification, rather than contradicting one another. Citation, optional retention and named audiences do not establish warranted inference or later acceptance.

Counter and provenance uncertainty stay local. Memory's MEM-OBJ-problems and MEM-OBJ-digest prevent interpreting four page mentions or fourteen digest mentions as independently verified sample sizes. Epistemic's EPI-RTE-problem-confirmation does not equate those counters with independent sources or causal replications. The missing exports limit fidelity assessment without erasing the known digest-to-page-to-deliverable design.

Delivery, reversal and adaptation remain separate. The workflow annotations connect held proposals, direct-approval resumption and two delivery endpoints. They agree with RT-RTE-query-fileback: in-message delivery precedes optional filing, and no later PRD-consuming invocation is supplied. RT-RTE-wiki-lint and the decision objects agree that early launch alone does not meet the early-and-strong reversal predicate, and even a triggered predicate creates a question rather than automatic reopening.

Runtime's route-local theory assessments and the epistemic bounded conclusion agree on independently supported localized belief content and doctrine-level criticism/retention, while leaving improved capacity and exercised self-improvement unestablished. Stage progression's claimed self-representation path does not establish reflective theory criticism, computational ownership of PM admissions or later causally dependent operation. Memory's retained instruction-change account supplies persistence and an intended consumer, not the missing activation or benefit evidence.

No unresolved disagreement between the supplied reports was identified. The source tensions, inferential mismatches and unknowns above remain with the declaring reports; they are not settled by choosing a stronger status. No correction answers or declined objections were supplied for this reconciliation.