Synapptic reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Boundary and identity dispositions

The reports share the frozen boundary and its Source register. Their implementation and doctrine findings do not supply observed operation or causal benefit. Workflow selects operator ingest and its Claude Code publication branch; epistemic leaves relay measurement/parser details unassessed; memory expands retained-state and operator-reader coverage. These are different lens scopes inside the same boundary, not competing whole-system negative findings. No source inspection was needed for reconciliation.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-profile-text is superseded by MEM-OBJ-profile-observations. Both identify the natural-language observation field in weighted profile dictionaries persisted as YAML, consumed by later extraction and synthesis. Their passages from SRC-1, src/synapptic/profile.py, identify the same constructor and wording replacement. This connects the epistemic inventory and curation ledger to the memory account of retained wording and evidence loss; it changes neither finding.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-profile-fields is superseded by MEM-OBJ-profile-metadata. Both identify symbolic eligibility and lineage fields on those profile entries, including weights, counts, sources, exclusions and model verdicts. Their SRC-1 anchors in src/synapptic/profile.py, src/synapptic/synthesize.py and src/synapptic/benchmark.py connect update and selection consumers. Memory supplies additional timestamps, counters and capped-lineage details on the same metadata surface. The epistemic reliance findings and memory withdrawal findings retain their respective scope.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-archetype is superseded by MEM-OBJ-archetype. Both identify model-generated narrative Markdown saved for later integration and benchmarking, not the route generating it. SRC-1, src/synapptic/synthesize.py, supplies the shared nonempty-output admission boundary; memory additionally traces saved and published copies. The affected narrative-generation, retention and conditional-host-authority findings agree that requested reasons are not demonstrated grounding.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-benchmark-cases is superseded by MEM-OBJ-benchmark-cases. Both identify generated rule/scenario dictionaries retained in versioned JSON caches. Their identical cache-construction passage from SRC-1, src/synapptic/benchmark.py, establishes identity. Epistemic fidelity and warrant findings connect to memory's mode-dependent cache invalidation, without converting hypothetical cases into observed tasks.

The remaining overlaps are not whole-record identities:

• EPI-OBJ-observations covers returned observation dictionaries, including interpreted observation/evidence and symbolic dimension/confidence/session/time fields. MEM-OBJ-observations isolates interpreted content; MEM-OBJ-observation-envelope isolates routing and processed markers, including filename existence and the enclosing project/session payload. The common SRC-1 anchors in src/synapptic/extract.py and src/synapptic/state.py establish containment and overlap, not equality of any pair. The epistemic object is a valid mixed container; the memory parts retain their different consumers. No split supersession is warranted merely to remove a valid container, and the envelope's file-existence semantics must not be transferred to the returned Python list.
• EPI-OBJ-benchmark-results spans verdict dictionaries, comparisons, persisted result JSON and mapped profile verdict fields. MEM-OBJ-benchmark-results identifies detailed saved evaluator results and their results-CLI consumer, explicitly separating reduced profile classifications. MEM-OBJ-profile-metadata owns those persisted selectors. SRC-1, src/synapptic/benchmark.py and src/synapptic/benchmark_results.py, supports their common result lineage but not whole-object equivalence. Keep the valid broader evaluator-output container alongside the narrower retained parts. Detailed reasons retained in result JSON do not thereby reach synthesis.
• MEM-RTE-state-maintenance and EPI-RTE-withdrawal-recovery share global rollback but are not identical routes. The former covers rollback/reset/uninstall; the latter covers re-inclusion and global rollback, with reset internals expressly unassessed. SRC-1, src/synapptic/cli.py and src/synapptic/benchmark.py, supplies the distinct command selections and effects. Neither replaces the other's whole referent. Re-inclusion's removal of global exclusion is also not identical to benchmark evaluation or automatic verdict writing.

Containers, parts and distinct mechanisms

RT-RTE-ingest-profile remains the producing driver, not a duplicate of its stored objects or of EPI-RTE-extract-candidates, EPI-RTE-observation-admission and EPI-RTE-profile-curation. Those declared parts distinguish model proposal, structural admission and deterministic curation. Their SRC-1 extraction/profile passages and memory's ingest annotation agree that a usable shape, textual similarity and repeated counts do not independently establish truth. The epistemic example showing two same-session observations increasing evidence_count adds a bounded deduction, not a correction to the runtime's merge account.

RT-RTE-publish-archetypes remains the synthesis/publication container. EPI-RTE-narrative-inputs declares its deterministic eligibility part; the archetype object is its retained prose, while RT-BAP-archetype-host identifies the external consumer, channel and conditional force. These are distinct referents. Workflow's annotations on the runtime routes add stage completion and recovery responsibilities without declaring competing routes.

RT-RTE-benchmark-feedback remains the encompassing evaluator/feedback route. EPI-RTE-benchmark-judgment and EPI-RTE-benchmark-disposition are its separately declared evidence-production and classification parts. The former adds respondent instructions, snippet limits and possible batch positional misassignment; the latter derives categories under program conventions. Neither contradicts the parent's distinction between per-guard and full-profile treatments or upgrades its operation status. MEM-OBJ-claude-session is opaque resumed conversation state, not RT-CMP-call-llm's inference parameters or a second benchmark route.

MEM-RTE-browser-readback explicitly expands the observability portion of RT-RTE-relay-forwarding. Operator pull/read-back is not the forwarding route itself. MEM-OBJ-request-log, MEM-OBJ-session-index and MEM-OBJ-session-bookkeeping have distinct producers and consumers despite SQLite storage. None is a duplicate profile, extraction context or automatic relay-to-profile route. Memory's browser restrictions and display caps add limits; they do not retract the runtime's bounded forwarding/observability account.

No other cross-member declarations identify the same referent. In particular, RT-OBJ-pattern-prompt is static proposal guidance, not generated observation content. Claims about different operations remain distinct: MEM-CLM-append-only, EPI-CLM-background-learning, EPI-CLM-individual-impact, EPI-CLM-failure-grounding and RT-CLM-target-filtering cannot supersede one another merely because their qualifications concern the same pipeline.

Integration issues and convergent findings

Admission and rationale retention. Memory's integration issues require no correction to supplied runtime facts. Its separate evidence-retention finding connects observation content to profile text and narrative generation. Epistemic's observation gate and narrative-input records agree: evidence can be optional at admission, separate evidence prose is omitted by the new-profile constructor, and synthesis receives filtered profiles rather than reopened observation evidence. Requested failure grounding and why text remain doctrine, not demonstrated acceptance. Whether actual observation wording embeds sufficient reasons stays unresolved without generated artifacts; this uncertainty is not a disagreement between reports.

Curation and authority. Memory's profile metadata and epistemic's curation record agree on similarity-based replacement, decay, capped lineage and promotion. Memory's warning that capped sources/pruning can permit old files to be remerged adds a later-consumer limit. It does not conflict with the runtime's account of ordinary ingest's filename-based processed selection: standalone merge and ingest use different selectors. Neither report claims semantic contradiction adjudication or permanent once-only merge admission.

Publication and delivery. Runtime, memory and workflow agree that synthesis eligibility does not directly retract older narratives. RT-CLM-target-filtering and epistemic's narrative-input record distinguish genuine explicit-target synthesis filtering from integration's counts over unchanged saved prose. Workflow's terminal-state account preserves the runtime's post-write tuple-unpacking defect: local writes can occur before exceptional CLI return. No report equates that exception with absence of publication, or file delivery with host acceptance.

Automatic maintenance and doctrine. RT-RTE-session-hook, memory's hook annotation and workflow's alternate-route comparison agree that detached extraction/merge/synthesis omits integration and does not success-chain its commands. Memory's objections to bundled full-ingest/every-session/catch-up wording, append-only retention, project-only dimension labels, strict diagnostic threshold text and clean-removal wording are source-doctrine qualifications, not conflicts with the supplied runtime. Its maintenance record preserves the legacy uninstall path mismatch and incomplete withdrawal independently of rollback's narrower effect. Epistemic's background-learning claim comparison does not claim the hook exercised or improved downstream behavior.

Evaluator effects and limits. Runtime's benchmark record, memory's benchmark annotation and epistemic's judgment/disposition records agree that per-model verdict writes precede optional human global exclusions. Re-inclusion removes exclusions, not model verdicts; later synthesis can therefore still filter by model. They also agree that default batch treatment varies the full archetype, cached reuse is not independent replication, resumed condition sessions are not established fresh contexts, and model judgments are not live coding outcomes. Epistemic's additional batch identity and control-handling limits qualify the evaluator without requiring the runtime to have declared those details. Deterministic classification can be implemented while individual-guard causality and improvement remain unestablished.

Coverage and independent properties. Memory's relay read-back adds operator consumers but no automatic learning consumer. Its uninspected WebSocket/dashboard fidelity and opaque provider checkpoints remain local limits, consistent with the boundary and runtime. Runtime's separate theory-builder condition assessments are carried by epistemic without strengthening them: guidance/iteration affordances do not establish content-directed criticism, learning benefit, reflective theory building or exercised self-improvement. These limits coexist with implemented trace-fed retention and feedback.

Disagreement disposition

No unresolved inter-report conflict is established by these pinned members. No correction answers or declined cross-report objections were supplied to this attempt. The supersessions above connect duplicate referents without changing their values; remaining overlaps are valid containers, material parts or distinct command families. Source-doctrine mismatches and faithfully scoped unknowns remain in their declaring reports rather than becoming conflicts merely because another lens is less detailed. No missing required part was identified that prevents these reports from being read together within their stated limits.