llm-context-base reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Shared boundary and evidence limits

The reports concern the shipped knowledge-base substrate, not an enclosing model runtime. The boundary includes prompts, templates, configuration, integrations as recipes, and the metadata utility. Its Source register supplies SRC-1. The reports consistently distinguish prescribed assistant behavior from the utility's inspected implementation and from unobserved activation or benefit. No source reread was needed for this reconciliation; supporting passages are in the pinned members.

The runtime's claimed design statuses and the epistemic ledger's doctrine only architectural statuses describe different fields, not competing judgments. Likewise, the converter's wired implementation status and implemented architectural status coexist with uninspected operation. The optional compaction route's afforded design status does not imply installed hooks. These distinctions remain local to RT-RTE-metadata-migrate, EPI-RTE-metadata-transform, and MEM-RTE-compact-reload.

Duplicate identities and distinct parts

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-sources is superseded by MEM-OBJ-sources. Both identify the same original documents retained in _sources/, not the derived article. Their SRC-1, _sources/README.md, immutability passage identifies the same policy-governed reference copies. The epistemic record adds the preservation default from SRC-1, _config/config.md; the memory record distinguishes storage, optional preservation, reprocessing affordance and unavailable deployed wiring. Supersession records identity only: source truth, immutability enforcement and reprocessing fidelity remain unestablished. The epistemic inventory, retention ledger and bounded acquisition conclusion continue to concern this same object; both declarations and their findings remain available.

Amendment: EPI-RTE-pattern-capture is superseded by MEM-RTE-pattern-capture. Both identify conversation-established rules/preferences/details being selected by the foreground assistant, immediately written to context/config/modules, and requested as inputs to later sessions. Their common ambiguity-question passage in SRC-1, _meta/instructions/general.md, identifies the same admission branch. Memory also describes training-phase controls, templates, structure, trace lineage and separately bounded theory properties; these additions do not create a different conversation-pattern route. The epistemic behavior-adaptation ledger and bounded behavioral-use conclusion retain their policy-versus-personal-assertion distinctions. This supersession establishes neither evidence-consuming factual acceptance nor successful learning or self-improvement.

Other overlaps do not establish duplicate identity:

  • EPI-OBJ-knowledge-article covers template-shaped knowledge articles, a narrower content class than MEM-OBJ-knowledge, which also covers projects, journal/private content and specialized publishing. The wider container's findings remain valid; no supersession or split replacement is warranted. EPI-OBJ-blog-post separately covers the draft/visual/social material with a publishing consumer, rather than all working knowledge.
  • EPI-OBJ-decision-outcome identifies the Outcome part, while MEM-OBJ-decision includes context, options, rationale, rejected alternatives and outcomes. SRC-1, _meta/templates/decision.md, supplies the shared later-outcome passage. A valid rationale-and-outcomes container need not be replaced by its outcome part.
  • EPI-OBJ-context combines personal context with profile/conventions in configuration. MEM-OBJ-context identifies _config/context.md alone; MEM-OBJ-config separately covers profile, settings, conventions and the Training Log. The combined epistemic object and either memory object are not identical. Its facts-versus-preferences assessment remains compatible with the memory parts; no wrong combined finding requires split supersession.
  • EPI-OBJ-metadata covers legacy fields/frontmatter affected by conversion. MEM-OBJ-metadata additionally covers navigation summaries and README indexes. Their intersecting file metadata does not make the wider access-state container identical to the converter's target. Neither is RT-OBJ-instruction-modules, whose referent is operating guidance.
  • EPI-OBJ-lint-report is the prescribed evaluation report and logged counts, not all MEM-OBJ-logs. The latter includes structural/operation logs, the optimization date and a read-path recipe. Producing a report and retaining selected log summaries are connected but not interchangeable identities.

The explicitly declared completion parts—EPI-RTE-completion-check, EPI-RTE-completion-status, and EPI-RTE-completion-links—separate checking, disposition and organization inside RT-RTE-capture-file. Their parent remains the valid larger capture/filing invocation. None replaces the parent or another completion function. Related links can be a completion prerequisite; the epistemic report expressly does not infer that every connection follows factual acceptance.

EPI-RTE-lint-check and EPI-RTE-lint-action separate evaluation from cleanup within the broader MEM-RTE-lint-maintenance account. Neither alone is identical to that container. The container's statements about reports, proposals, lifecycle edits and later selection remain compatible with the parts, so split supersession is unnecessary. All differ from RT-RTE-context-review, whose consequence is approval-controlled instruction restructuring.

EPI-RTE-metadata-transform is explicitly part of RT-RTE-metadata-migrate. It elaborates the rewrite and a static loss witness; the parent additionally covers dispatch, scan, skip/error handling and printed counts. The parent already warns about omitted leading material and lack of validation. Neither its memory annotation nor the epistemic witness contradicts that warning; no supersession is warranted.

MEM-RTE-pattern-capture is not RT-BAP-instruction-load: the former describes production/admission across several retained destinations, the latter the future instruction consumer/channel/force/horizon. MEM-RTE-compact-reload adds a documented trigger around host compaction, not the RT-RTE-session-start progression itself. MEM-BAP-linked-context addresses an assistant in a linked code repository, not the wiki-operating consumer of instruction-load. These identities are ruled out rather than superseded.

The epistemic claims EPI-CLM-decision-learning, EPI-CLM-standard-enforcement, and EPI-CLM-knowledge-memory concern distinct assertions about experience reuse, universal metadata checking, and institutional memory/adaptation. They do not duplicate the review-policy or host-permission claims. EPI-RTE-blog-review and EPI-RTE-blog-publish add presentation evaluation and publication/tracking, not another generic capture invocation. The workflow declares no new records; its annotations add sequencing and delivery distinctions to runtime identities.

Integration-issue dispositions and convergence

The memory integration issues add source contradictions, not corrections to supplied runtime findings:

  • Discard timing: MEM-OBJ-inbox and MEM-OBJ-sources retain the conflict between SRC-1, _sources/README.md (discard after seven days), _inbox/README.md (nudge, ask before deletion), and _meta/instructions/agent-write.md (default disposal after filing). RT-RTE-capture-file states filing-conditioned disposal, not automatic TTL. The workflow filing account also preserves conditional source handling. No report requires the contradictory source sentence to establish an implemented deletion timer. Exact uniform disposal timing remains unavailable; the documentation discrepancy is not a cross-report disagreement.
  • Metadata and links: MEM-OBJ-metadata, MEM-RTE-lint-maintenance, and RT-RTE-knowledge-query preserve YAML-versus-bold-field query wording and Markdown-versus-wikilink lint criteria. EPI-CLM-standard-enforcement and EPI-RTE-lint-check elaborate the same limited type-presence check. Selection remains prescribed; consistently enforced discoverability and complete schema validation do not follow.
  • Specialized publication: memory retains published outside the canonical lifecycle list. The epistemic publishing route describes the same requested status/URL updates and does not infer factual acceptance or automatic invalidity. This discrepancy prevents a uniform lifecycle account, not the existence of the specialized prescribed route.
  • Opaque alternatives: compaction payloads, installed hooks, journal sync/encryption and linked-code deployment remain locally unknown. No report depends on their observed operation. Those limits preserve known file routes without supplying hidden-state lineage or activation evidence.

The workflow adds a distinct template discrepancy: SRC-1, _meta/templates/knowledge-article.md, defaults to active while agent-write requires new agent files to begin as drafts. Its account requires adjustment for faithful draft admission and leaves actual resolution unobserved. This does not contradict RT-CLM-review-policy, which already treats review as a policy opportunity with bypasses, or the epistemic completion routes, which distinguish requested status from factual warrant. Blind template copying cannot establish completion.

Across runtime, memory and epistemic records, immediate rule capture differs from approval-gated optimization. The shared instruction-load path requests future behavior; no report establishes exercised update-to-consumer causal dependence. Decision outcomes are offered as precedent rather than an independent oracle. The workflow's parked draft, completed article and later cited answer are different delivery outcomes, consistent with the capture and query records. A later query is a separate invocation, not automatic continuation. Independently unestablished learning, reflection, autonomy, theory-builder criticism/iteration and self-improvement properties remain separate rather than collapsing into a system-wide verdict.

No unresolved disagreement between these pinned reports was identified. No correction answers or declined objections were supplied to this invocation. Source-level contradictions and evidence gaps above remain limitations of the connected account, not settled defects or invented operational routes.