Echel report verification

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

Verification

The current reports support a bounded source-grounded account. The three previous epistemic blockers are repaired in the object inventory, ledger and dependent conclusions. No material unsupported claim or unresolved cross-report contradiction remains. This judges the supplied members afresh; the correction answers and previous judgment were not treated as evidence that a repair succeeded.

I read all supplied reports, their types, the record contract, correction answers, report-check and previous verification. Report-check contains no structural findings. I assessed every declared record and source anchor for semantic support, route conditions and ordering, operative objects and consumers, evidence strength, annotations, behavioral-authority paths, explicit Part of: relations, supersessions and possible conflicts. There are no evidenced-absence declarations. Deterministic quotation occurrence and link resolution are not substitutes for these semantic checks.

Independent source tracing

All additional inspection is SRC-1 implementation or doctrine/design within the Source register. Checkout HEAD equals the reviewed revision; Git status reported no changes. No target code, tests, examples, models or services were executed. The stored local benchmark result remains attributed reported operation, not independently observed execution or causal evidence.

  • Runtime and workflow. I read SRC-1, src/echel/cli/main.py, src/echel/workflow.py, src/echel/model/records.py, src/echel/storage/files.py, src/echel/context/compiler.py, src/echel/runtimes/base.py, src/echel/runtimes/hermes.py and src/echel/verification/runner.py. The component, compiled-context object, legacy write, compile/run, verification and prompt-authority records match their producers and consumers. Knowledge membership is explicit-ID selection without accepted-status filtering; text omits source references while JSON preserves selected dictionaries. Preview and execution have different effects. Missing Hermes can fail before Run persistence, whereas a returned nonzero process result persists a failed Run without changing the CLI's ordinary zero return. Verification executes separately, retains an outcome/hash rather than output bytes, and does not schedule repair or accept knowledge. The workflow account and its three annotations preserve these boundaries; its caller-controlled sequence is not represented as autonomous orchestration or an observed successful delivery. Supporting passages remain in RT-RTE-file-workflow, RT-RTE-compile-run and RT-RTE-verify-work.
  • Canonical authority and eligibility. I followed SRC-1, src/echel/initialization.py, src/echel/storage/layout.py, src/echel/storage/records.py, src/echel/authority.py, src/echel/methodology/clarification.py, src/echel/findings.py, src/echel/lifecycle.py, src/echel/profiles.py, src/echel/relationships.py and src/echel/schemas/v1/record.schema.json. Canonical initialization and legacy execution use different envelopes and collections; the legacy Project constructor does not accept the canonical envelope. Human-labelled capability and rationale checks support a review protocol, not authenticated identity or universal approval enforcement. Proposed claim kinds suppress clarification gaps; maturity instead requires accepted kinds and checks active findings linked to selected required IDs. Duplicate kinds can leave another claim's finding outside that assessment. Advance apply checks project transition metadata/preconditions without reassessing the complete supporting evidence set. Stale propagation changes accepted eligibility and retains reasons, without establishing falsity, replacing statements or recalling legacy prompts. The narrower qualifications in RT-RTE-knowledge-decide, MEM-RTE-policy-revision, EPI-RTE-maturity-advance and EPI-RTE-stale-propagation are supported.
  • Retrieval, retention and maintenance. I traced SRC-1, src/echel/queries.py, src/echel/storage/index.py, src/echel/storage/transactions.py, src/echel/portability.py, src/echel/migrations.py and src/echel/integrity.py. Projection, lexical/graph selection, canonical reload and final freshness checks support the query route, not semantic endorsement or automatic agent delivery. Disposable cache and recovery artifacts have different consumers and deletion semantics from product knowledge. Import validates structure and transfers supplied metadata without origin authentication. Migration can replace statement fields; its unrestricted content relation is appropriately indeterminate rather than universally lossless or ampliative. Recovery rolls forward durable commit intent, while guarded migration rollback restores earlier bytes. These checks support MEM-OBJ-canonical-records, the index/run/evidence/recovery objects, MEM-RTE-canonical-query, MEM-RTE-storage-maintenance and their epistemic counterparts. Their wording does not promise cross-record read isolation or crash-tested durability.
  • Claims and evaluators. I compared the claim and guidance records with SRC-1, README.md, docs/architecture.md, docs/hermes.md, docs/product/evaluation-metrics.md, examples/first-product.md, skills/implementation/SKILL.md, skills/validation/SKILL.md, skills/operations/SKILL.md, CONTRIBUTING.md, .github/workflows/quality.yml, Makefile and pyproject.toml. Runtime ownership, trustworthy/minimal context, approved discoveries and future measurement criteria remain distinct claims. Static implementation guidance is conditional on loading, not automatically compiler-delivered or enforced. The epistemic bounded conclusion distinguishes structural checking, human-labelled dispositions and conditional post-acceptance linking from evidence-consuming semantic acceptance. It does not infer universal absence of learning, reflection or hidden inference from missing traces. SRC-1, benchmarks/kernel/gate.py and benchmarks/kernel/evidence/2026-07-15-local.json support the narrow synthetic SQL evaluator account, not achieved agent benefit or full QueryService latency.

Correction and reconciliation dispositions

All three epistemic correction answers are supported by independent source reads, including dependent ledger rows and bounded conclusions:

  1. EPI-OBJ-knowledge-record, EPI-OBJ-work-item and EPI-OBJ-legacy-project now identify the actual retained legacy inputs/outputs. Their Part of: relations to RT-RTE-file-workflow describe objects produced or consumed by that route, not subroutes or replacements for compiled context. Workflow acquisition, retention and stage-selection rows no longer assign the later rendered prompt to those operations. SRC-1, src/echel/workflow.py, src/echel/model/records.py, src/echel/storage/files.py and src/echel/context/compiler.py support the corrected chain.
  2. EPI-OBJ-kernel-report identifies KernelGateReport and nested timing results, serialized to stdout and consumed through report.passed for exit status. Its Part of: relation to EPI-RTE-kernel-gate is supported by SRC-1, benchmarks/kernel/gate.py. The ledger no longer conflates this output with legacy work-verification Evidence or implies their common retention chain.
  3. EPI-OBJ-contribution identifies the patch/PR artifact of RT-RTE-source-admission, not canonical project maturity. Its Part of: relation is supported. The ledger now separates implemented CI checking from doctrine-only maintainer disposition. SRC-1, CONTRIBUTING.md and .github/workflows/quality.yml support those different evidence strengths; neither actual human acceptance nor automatic merge is inferred.

I checked all six duplicate supersessions: Run, Evidence, clarification, canonical query, finding maintenance and stale propagation identify matching referents. Their different lens fields remain applicable; supersession strengthens no status. The canonical family container and finer-grained operative families can coexist. Grouped policy and storage routes remain valid alongside finer epistemic operations, without a false whole-container supersession. Different read-back descriptions address retained inputs versus nonpersisted results, not competing persistence claims. The current reconciliation appropriately removes the previous object-assignment conflicts after the changed declarations and preserves the canonical/legacy separation, preview/apply limitations and conditional authority. No remaining disagreement requires an unresolved-conflict paragraph.

Omission questions and stopping decision

I selected omission questions from the frozen tracked tree, command dispatch and producer/consumer dependencies: whether another shipped caller bridges canonical initialization to legacy execution; whether alternative writes establish universal approval; whether retained traces, canonical learnings or a query hook reach an agent through an omitted consumer; and whether evaluator assets establish broader achieved outcomes. I enumerated tracked source, benchmark and test paths and searched SRC-1 src/echel, pyproject.toml and Makefile for subprocesses, runtime requests, query/authority callers, summary/learning, compaction, hooks and registration. The production dispatch and two subprocess sites support the bounded execution account; storage, import and maintenance paths do not acquire authority-service guarantees merely by sharing the repository. No additional source-visible agent delivery chain was established by these searches.

I also read SRC-1, tests/unit/test_core.py, tests/integration/test_cli.py and benchmarks/scenarios/index.json, and searched the scenario manifests and metric catalog for evaluator/result alternatives. The unit consumer constructs legacy state directly; the integration consumer checks canonical initialization's two records rather than the combined execution journey. Test source is contract evidence, not passing execution. The scenario index selects six manifests; this does not supply scenario-run evidence. The inspected evaluation specification explicitly withholds achieved-success claims until downstream benchmark work supplies evidence.

Further optional omission expansion stopped because the selected questions have supported bounded dispositions and no identified material challenge remains unresolved. Specialized canonical consumers, external runtime behavior, exhaustive evaluator coverage and helper-level security/concurrency audits remain explicitly unestablished, not emitted as absent. Those qualifications already delimit the reports' conclusions; they do not require additional verifier limits. More artifacts alone would not justify an exhaustive inventory or weakening supported positive findings.

Blockers

none

Limits

none