MDCP reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Boundary and evidence agreement

The reports share the frozen identity in boundary. They distinguish host-interpreted documentation work, deterministic CLI transformations and checks, and a maintainer evaluation plane. The registered implementation and doctrine/design evidence does not establish observed host adherence or causal benefit. The epistemic member additionally retains reported static corpus measurements without treating them as an observed agent run. These evidence distinctions are compatible, not competing system-wide statuses.

Duplicate supersession

Amendment: EPI-RTE-peer-fix is superseded by MEM-RTE-peer-fix. Both identify the explicit CLI fix action, dispatching Prettier with --write . and markdownlint with --fix under the documentation root. Their retained passages cite the same SRC-1 packages/mdcp-cli/src/cli.ts calls; both give implementation status wired and operation status uninspected. Matching endpoints, selector, executor and effects establish one route, not independent mechanisms. The epistemic declaration adds the wrapper's exit-code handling and an indeterminate content-relation assessment; those remain that analyst's findings, not replacements for memory's fields. The amendment connects the memory coverage/write-side findings and the epistemic coverage, authority ledger and bounded conclusion as accounts of the same mutation route. Both IDs remain declared and addressable.

This route is not RT-RTE-compile-check or RT-RTE-doc-review. Shared peer infrastructure does not identify direct source mutation with derivative compilation/checking, and mechanical fixes do not constitute semantic action selection. No supersession of either broader route follows.

Distinct identities and valid containment

MEM-RTE-shard-authoring groups bootstrap, doc-only and architecture authoring. RT-RTE-feature-work includes product implementation/tests and feature submission; RT-RTE-doc-review starts from whole-set diagnosis. Shared host-agent write agency does not make their triggers and progressions identical. No supersession connects them. The workflow account and its annotations elaborate the feature and compile/check records without declaring duplicate routes.

RT-OBJ-mdcp is vendor skill/workflow policy; MEM-OBJ-shards is mutable caller documentation. RT-OBJ-config is symbolic selection/gate policy. The current epistemic inventory and feature/peer-fix ledger rows preserve these boundaries. EPI-OBJ-document-body identifies selected and intermediate body strings through compilation, not an enlargement of vendor policy. It overlaps the output stage of MEM-OBJ-compiled, but the latter identifies persisted guide/monolith artifacts and their publication consumers; the former distinguishes the compile-body transformation and transient replacement path. Their differing lifecycle scopes do not establish identity or require supersession. Both remain alongside the valid RT-RTE-compile-check container.

MEM-OBJ-refs is persisted heading/access metadata, while MEM-OBJ-shard-cache is process-local raw/processed snapshots. Neither is identical to compiled prose, source shards, configuration, or the route that creates/consumes it. The cache is not cross-invocation memory merely because it is named a cache.

EPI-OBJ-evidence-links, EPI-OBJ-insert-body and EPI-OBJ-path-claims identify material state/targets within compile/check. Their different content and consumer rules distinguish them from configuration, whole compiled artifacts and heading metadata. EPI-RTE-code-evidence and EPI-RTE-inline-inserts are concrete hook parts of RT-RTE-hook-extension; EPI-RTE-path-probe is a narrower check within compile/check. These declared part/container relations are not identities. The general routes remain valid containers, so no split supersession is required.

EPI-OBJ-skill-description is candidate policy within RT-RTE-skill-evaluation, not installed vendor policy. A candidate's capacity to replace a description does not establish identity with the installed skill. RT-CMP-host-model and RT-CMP-claude likewise distinguish production-host and evaluator inference roles; a shared deployed endpoint is not established.

MEM-OBJ-research identifies retained observations, positions and clauses; EPI-CLM-research-warrant identifies their prescribed evidence lineage. These are an artifact family and a claim about its treatment, not duplicates. EPI-CLM-structure-truth concerns check authority, while RT-CLM-context-discipline concerns reading policy. EPI-CLM-context-size is a conditional quantitative benefit claim, distinct from that normative policy; EPI-OBJ-context-size is its reported dataset and EPI-RTE-context-size its measurement implementation. Neither measurement nor claim duplicates trigger/task evaluation or generic project contracts. No further identity amendment is warranted.

Convergence and integration dispositions

The runtime feature route, memory annotations and workflow account converge on task-selected shard reads, docs-first edits, implementation, as-built reconciliation and review submission. Human review is conditional, not universal per-content approval. Optional host isolation does not establish MDCP-managed worker visibility, numeric budgeting, compaction or eviction. Workflow delivery ends at submission, not acceptance, merge or deployment.

The compile/check account, memory derivative objects and workflow orphan-rejection trace agree that some rejection precedes compilation while later failure can follow output and refs writes. Epistemic separation of evidence production from disposition introduces no transaction guarantee. Refs-list and site generation are wired later deterministic consumers, not observed agent recall. EPI-RTE-path-probe evaluates narrowly recognized existence claims; EPI-RTE-code-evidence derives lexical occurrence locations. Those limited truth-apt results are compatible with no general prose-truth license. Default assembly's reshaping classification is scoped separately from arbitrary hooks, insert acquisition and external peer mutation, so it does not contradict their indeterminate or unknown-warrant findings.

Memory's research-record and superseded-ADR retention qualify current-document withdrawal without contradicting runtime's scoped replacement/deletion account. The research warrant claim and doc-review account both retain evidence-sensitive prescriptions without establishing a completed claim-level acceptance event, criticism-led theory iteration or lifecycle integration after acceptance. The memory integration section explicitly treats these as additions, not supplied-fact corrections.

The memory annotation and epistemic ledger on RT-RTE-skill-evaluation connect labels/outcomes, score/history, subsequent proposals and candidate selection. Wired bounded feedback is compatible with unobserved exercise, separate production installation and independently unestablished general learning or exercised production self-improvement. RT-RTE-release-admission adds repository gates, not evidence that an optimizer result entered production or mandatory merge protection operated.

The static size claim adds evidence for a conditional corpus-size comparison to the context-discipline account; it does not contradict the reports' limits on actual selection, total context, recall or causal savings. The reported CSV's availability does not establish which route produced it on the frozen commit or how an agent behaved.

Disagreement disposition and remaining limits

No cross-report disagreement remains in the supplied current members. The previous reconciliation's object-boundary objection no longer applies: the current epistemic inventory distinguishes vendor policy from project shards, uses the shard record for feature retention/transformation and peer-fix targets, and declares separate compile-body and candidate-description objects. The former conflicting attribution is not carried forward after its dependent evidence changed. No analyst correction answers or declined objections were supplied; this disposition rests on the current reports rather than inferred answers or independent source adjudication.

The remaining integration questions are scoped uncertainties: uninspected complementary archetypes and UX/tutorial details, evaluator helper artifacts, precise site/backup policy, host storage/permissions and fork envelopes, actual human approval, rationale consultation, optimizer installation, publication withdrawal and later activation. They prevent exhaustive or exercised conclusions, not the positive routes established by the records. The selective workflow account does not close those gaps; a whole-system functional boundary does not establish exhaustive inspection. No required undeclared part is established by these comparisons, and no split is proposed. No source reads were needed for this reconciliation.