Tardigrade profile verification

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

Verification

I checked all ten axes of the memory profile, including positive findings, evidence bases, unit boundaries and coverage assessments, against the handed runtime, memory, epistemic and workflow members. I applied the supplied reconciliation: workspace object and route classifications use the memory declarations, as does current compaction. The epistemic summary-text part remains distinct from the mixed compaction state. No source reread, new evidence, quotation or replacement classification was needed.

The profile's boundary is accumulated content and its later consumers. It excludes unchanged shipped instructions and external weights without excluding retained opaque continuations, attachment bytes or caller-selected storage. Its partial axis assessments preserve those unresolved alternatives rather than using inspected witnesses as complete system inventories.

  • Storage substrate: local runtime memory, configured SQLite journals, the example's Map workspace, legacy KV/SQLite spills and persisted actor files have supporting records. Unknown byte backends and custom storage remain unresolved. KV access and its inspected database backing are not competing claims about encoding. See RT-OBJ-journal, MEM-OBJ-workspace-text, MEM-OBJ-spill-values, MEM-OBJ-content-parts and RT-OBJ-actor-artifact.
  • Representational form and lineage: the profile separates prose consumption from symbolic control, executable artifacts and decoding envelopes. It does not classify opaque continuation contents from their reasoning display or file bytes from metadata. Known summary/projection, checkpoint serialization, import and build derivations coexist with unresolved initial provenance. Claimed candidate authorship and trace-derived revision are not upgraded to implemented production. See MEM-OBJ-provider-continuation, MEM-OBJ-trajectory, MEM-OBJ-effect-checkpoint, EPI-RTE-resource-import and RT-RTE-optimization-guidance.
  • Behavioral authority: context supply, summary-update consumption, corrective system guidance, permission vetoes, replay criteria and executable composition have different consumers and effects. Their cited routes support the positive findings. Summary learning authority at the update consumer does not turn downstream user-role summary text into standing instruction. Installed executable artifacts do not establish exercised optimization. See MEM-RTE-atom-compaction, MEM-RTE-legacy-compaction, EPI-RTE-response-check, RT-RTE-governed-tools, RT-RTE-code-execution and RT-BAP-executable-actor.
  • Write agency and curation: subsequent automatic admission is distinguished from unknown generic caller control. User authorization alone supplies no per-content human decision. Summary consolidation/revision, keyed replacement and repair-history reliance withdrawal have implemented witnesses; optimizer revision/promotion remains claimed. Semantic fidelity is not required to classify consolidation, and possible summary errors do not establish synthesis. See MEM-RTE-text-workspace, MEM-RTE-state-adoption, both compaction records and RT-RTE-optimization-guidance.
  • Read-back direction and signal: requested workspace/event delivery is pull; automatic context preparation, compatible continuation substitution, file resolution and recovery supply retained parts without a fresh request from the later consumer. Coarse windows and actual identity matches have separate support. Requested substring search is not lexical push. The partial inventories have the local omission retained below. See MEM-RTE-content-replay, MEM-RTE-spill-readback, MEM-RTE-event-inspection and RT-CLM-request-before-execution.
  • Trace learning and source: both retained summary generations satisfy the automatic trace-fed write and later-context test. The conditional rejection-to-correction route also retains feedback for a subsequent model invocation; it is not asserted to rewrite the standing actor. Session/tool sources for summaries and claimed rollout experience for optimizer revision are supported. Attachment provenance, validator-feedback categorization and arbitrary writers remain unresolved rather than negative. See both compaction records, MEM-OBJ-trajectory, EPI-RTE-response-check and RT-RTE-optimization-guidance.

All emitted implementation bases remain wired; none claims observed activation or causal benefit. The workflow account confirms that the selected Bun example has no output contract, so the profile correctly treats correction as conditional rather than active in that example. Current versus legacy summary acceptance, current code recovery versus legacy spill hydration, and actual CLI inspection versus advertised model log reload retain their distinctions. No unsupported emitted value or material system-level coverage assertion was established. Faithfully scoped opaque/custom-path uncertainty does not itself require another finding.

Blockers

none

Limits

  • The read_back_direction and read_back_signal inventories in the profile do not separately classify the retained output-rejection feedback delivered as corrective system guidance. EPI-RTE-response-check establishes the later consumer and attempt-dependent delivery, and the profile already includes this mechanism under authority and trace learning. Consumers should withhold a complete route-by-route account of corrective-guidance delivery and its selection alongside the enumerated context/recovery routes. Both read-back axes are partial, their positive findings remain supported, and this omission neither changes their supported system unions nor implies absence; it does not require blocking publication.