AI Agents in Depth reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Shared boundary and evidence limits

The four reports concern separate workflows in the teaching suite, not one shared runtime. Their common revision and implementation-only findings fit the boundary and its Source register. Runtime selects context execution and retry-policy admission; memory adds user-memory maintenance and sequential checkpoints; epistemic adds tool-content and numerical-check assessment; workflow traces the retry-policy campaign through delivery. Their differing inspection coverage does not establish disagreement. No report supplies observed campaign operation or causal benefit. No additional source reads were needed for this reconciliation.

Record identities and containment

No duplicate supersession is required. The following comparisons rule out identity between declarations; shared mechanisms already receive citations, overlays or annotations rather than replacement IDs.

The context history remains a valid mixed container, RT-OBJ-conversation-history. Its declared parts EPI-OBJ-pdf-result, EPI-OBJ-currency-result and EPI-OBJ-final-answer separate imported assertions, conditional arithmetic and terminal replies. They are not duplicate containers. Their different checks and consumers do not invalidate the parent's history, filtering or reset findings, so a split supersession would be unwarranted.

Likewise, EPI-RTE-pdf-import and EPI-RTE-currency-conversion are declared subroutes of RT-RTE-context-task, not alternative identities for that entire loop. EPI-RTE-grounding-check and EPI-RTE-grounding-report separate assessment from advisory report consumption inside RT-RTE-context-ablation. The parent continues to describe arm construction and context restriction. None of these containment relations requires supersession.

Memory's MEM-OBJ-conversation-turn is persisted user-memory dialogue, not the context-agent history. MEM-OBJ-memory-note, MEM-OBJ-memory-cards and MEM-OBJ-categories have distinct source-native storage and replacement/display semantics. MEM-OBJ-memory-states is the separate sequential campaign's state/checkpoint container, not any interactive manager schema or RT-OBJ-retry-policy. Similar JSON storage does not make these objects identical.

Memory routes also remain distinct. MEM-RTE-trace-maintenance mutates retained user facts; MEM-RTE-conversation-reload reloads those facts into answers; MEM-RTE-offline-maintenance edits and consolidates through local callers; MEM-RTE-history-search exposes local/remote search without an established model consumer; MEM-RTE-sequential-campaign replaces checkpointed state and grades a memory-only answer. They do not duplicate the context-task, context-ablation or policy-candidate routes. Memory instead annotates the existing context history and policy-candidate records where their referents are shared.

MEM-CMP-analysis-model, MEM-CMP-conversational-model, MEM-CMP-writer-client and MEM-CMP-judge-client denote different client roles from RT-CMP-context-model and RT-CMP-coding-model. This rules out client-record supersession, not possible use of the same opaque underlying weights. All retain unpinned model identity and provider-internal uncertainty.

The authority records distinguish consumers, channels and horizons: RT-BAP-system-prompt is static context-agent guidance; MEM-BAP-memory-context carries dynamically retained facts to analysis and answering models; MEM-BAP-campaign-state carries derived state to later campaign calls and symbolic resume controls to the host; RT-BAP-candidate-policy is executable authority inside bounded evaluation. None is a duplicate of another.

The claims are also distinct. EPI-CLM-current-rates isolates the conversion schema's live-rate wording already discussed in runtime prose; it does not duplicate a runtime claim declaration. EPI-CLM-grounding-source concerns an evidential license, whereas RT-CLM-context-purpose states teaching intent. RT-CLM-canary-decision concerns shadow eligibility, and MEM-CLM-backstory-confusion concerns requested entity-disambiguation content. These subjects prevent claim supersession. Workflow declares no additional records and annotates the runtime campaign and validation identities.

Connected findings and integration dispositions

Context visibility and grounding. Runtime's RT-RTE-context-ablation leaves assessor internals uninspected in that report and declines to infer task correctness. Epistemic's EPI-RTE-grounding-check fills that local gap: it assesses extracted quantities against sent observations/task text, not actual derivation or task truth. EPI-RTE-grounding-report establishes advisory warnings and report labels, not answer rejection or repair. Memory's annotation preserves the same distinction between stored history and delivered context. The additional assessment does not contradict the earlier report's scoped inspection limit or require changing its record.

Source wording versus implemented warrant. Epistemic's current-rate mismatch connects EPI-CLM-current-rates to EPI-RTE-currency-conversion; runtime already describes the fixed-rate implementation in its account. The stronger grounding wording is compared with the arithmetic counterexample in EPI-RTE-grounding-check. These are source-claim/route mismatches reported by the analysts, not conflicts between reports. Likewise, memory's MEM-CLM-backstory-confusion remains attributed design rather than measured effectiveness.

Candidate checking, acceptance and delivery. RT-RTE-policy-candidate owns generation and manifest admission; RT-RTE-candidate-validation owns bounded checks. The epistemic ledger separates policy proposal, checking, shadow-eligibility acceptance, retention and unestablished stable integration. Workflow's account adds the complete driver's aggregate gates, receipts, canonical artifacts and terminal-return conditions. Candidate manifest acceptance and campaign aggregate acceptance are different decisions, not competing statuses for one decision. Both accepted and rejected candidates can be written; artifact presence alone establishes neither acceptance nor completed terminal delivery. Direct manifest callers can substitute checks. No member promotes eligibility into deployed canary traffic or installed stable authority.

Rejected-history feedback and independent improvement limits. Runtime's RT-RTE-policy-candidate, memory's annotation and workflow's annotation connect the software-authored rejected control's summary to a later coding request. Workflow specifies that this handoff supplies hash, failed checks, reason and fixed failure description, not rejected source or raw trajectories. That refines visibility without contradicting the runtime summary. One subsequent coding request and no re-prompt after rejection of the model proposal are compatible with runtime's afforded condition 4 and unestablished content-dependent iteration. The reports do not infer learning benefit, a complete reflective loop, autonomous fulfillment of all conditions or exercised self-improvement from summary delivery. Epistemic's bounded conclusion preserves those independent limits.

Recovery boundaries. Workflow's validation annotation adds host continuation after sandbox failures while keeping provider and filesystem errors outside that recovery. Runtime's container protocol and shared-process oracle-integrity limits remain intact. Context-agent exception handling, memory persistence errors and campaign output failures belong to different routes; none supplies a suite-wide recovery guarantee for the others.

Memory-specific integration issues. The memory integration issues request no runtime correction or duplicate supersession. Their local consequences stay with their declared routes: MEM-RTE-trace-maintenance can mutate despite empty update summaries and marks turns before successful analysis; MEM-RTE-history-search does not establish a dispatched model-search route or external user isolation/deletion contract; MEM-RTE-offline-maintenance does not turn newest-version selection into semantic adjudication; MEM-OBJ-categories does not guarantee rationale retention; MEM-RTE-sequential-campaign does not use its grade to roll back or revise memory. These are findings and unresolved coverage limits, not objections declined by another report.

Epistemic leaves user-memory acceptance and conflict handling unassessed in its own coverage, while memory supplies a local mechanism account. That does not convert epistemic's selected-route conclusion into a suite-wide negative or authorize transferring the retry-policy acceptance criterion to user-fact writes. Other memory backends, retrieval variants, skills, training paths and retained run evidence remain unresolved within the boundary; none is classified absent by reconciliation.

Cross-report conflicts

No disagreement between the supplied reports was found requiring an Unresolved conflict: paragraph. No analyst correction answers or declined objections were supplied to this attempt. The reports retain compatible scoped findings, distinct identities and valid parent/part relations; no required missing part was identified in those cross-report connections. This disposition neither judges each report's support nor removes its inspection, activation or benefit limits.