llm-wiki report verification

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

Verification

The five supplied members support a bounded account of persistent Markdown maintained by an external agent, with implemented scaffold, retrieval and diagnostic helpers. I read every report, declaration, annotation and reconciliation disposition, independently traced their supporting source paths, and checked claim scope, ordering, consumers and evidence strength. The structural report-check says none; all four correction-answer inputs are empty. There are no correction arguments to adjudicate. HEAD matches the reviewed boundary and the source checkout reports no changes. Evidence remains SRC-1 in the Source register; no target code, tests, examples or external services were executed.

Runtime and workflow. Direct reads of SRC-1 pyproject.toml, docs/ARCHITECTURE.md, src/llm_wiki/cli.py, src/llm_wiki/mcp_server.py, src/llm_wiki/paths.py, src/llm_wiki/bootstrap.py, src/llm_wiki/new_page.py, src/llm_wiki/watch.py, scripts/sync_agents.py and the scaffold instructions support every runtime declaration. RT-CMP-agent, RT-CLM-agent-bookkeeping and RT-BAP-maintainer-instructions correctly locate semantic interpretation and prompt compliance outside the toolkit. The independent model-fixity uncertainties are preserved, not converted to a learning absence.

RT-RTE-project-init and RT-RTE-page-create implement direct scaffold writes and force overrides, without semantic admission or multi-file rollback. RT-RTE-instruction-sync copies canonical text only to its fixed targets. RT-RTE-pending-watch polls coverage and the shipped CLI callback only prints. Their wired implementation and uninspected operation fields are supported. Raw immutability and append-only history are correctly described as protocol guarantees; explicit expansion containment is confined to its resolving helper, not generalized to corpus enumeration, qmd or host tools.

The prescribed ingest, query and repair routes in RT-RTE-source-ingest, RT-RTE-wiki-query and RT-RTE-wiki-lint match SRC-1 src/llm_wiki/scaffold/AGENTS.md. The workflow account preserves full-source reading, bypassable discussion, dependent page updates, conditional synthesis/conflict work and required index/log delivery. SRC-1 scripts/ingest-checklist.sh reports association status and prints an unchecked checklist; it is not a completion verifier. Optional creation errors return to the caller, while force is an override rather than recovery assurance. No independent worker, automatic semantic ingest or successful delivery is inferred.

Memory and retrieval. I checked all nine memory objects against SRC-1 src/llm_wiki/scaffold/raw/README.md, all four templates, all four wiki seeds, the maintainer instructions, and the demo synthesis, contradictions and log. The memory declarations distinguish originals, derived prose, answers, catalog, authored timeline and symbolic access metadata. Reasons and links are available affordances, not mandatory complete evidence or authenticated execution. The answer template lacks updated, and its sources_consulted field is distinct from the sources field consumed by lint.

Direct tracing of SRC-1 src/llm_wiki/search.py, src/llm_wiki/expand.py, src/llm_wiki/links.py, src/llm_wiki/stats.py and both dispatchers supports the query annotations, MEM-RTE-metadata-read, MEM-RTE-log-read and MEM-BAP-wiki-content. BM25 ranks current text including frontmatter; the caller then selects expansion. Result counts and section extraction are not total-token budgets or host compaction. The log regex supports MEM-CLM-log-parser: hyphenated prescribed operations and entry bodies are omitted from parsed delivery, not deleted from retained Markdown.

RT-RTE-qmd-search accurately separates the inspected subprocess adapter from external indexing and retrieval. SRC-1 README.md affords manual collection setup and embedding, not automatic refresh after edits. The adapter's lexical treatment of absolute paths and its lack of the BM25 include_index branch prevent a cross-backend containment or selection-equivalence inference. The reports retain those boundaries.

Epistemic support. All five epistemic objects, five routes and the compiled-knowledge claim were checked against their source anchors. SRC-1 src/llm_wiki/lint.py supports the lexical countercases in EPI-RTE-contradiction-check: marker detection and substring ledger membership do not evaluate proposition compatibility. SRC-1 src/llm_wiki/ingest.py supports EPI-RTE-source-coverage: a filename mapping establishes coverage even without a substantive summary. Catalog and log inspection have only the structural licenses stated in EPI-RTE-catalog-inspection and EPI-RTE-log-inspection. EPI-RTE-project-readiness checks existence, not semantic readiness.

CLI lint's threshold consumes the unfiltered report after inspection; MCP returns filtered diagnostics without that process-exit policy. The authority ledger correctly separates checking, operational disposition, retention and selection from claim acceptance. SRC-1 README.md supplies EPI-CLM-compiled-knowledge as design/product framing, not proof of truth, currentness or compounding benefit. The semantic transformation classification remains indeterminate rather than inferring conjecture from missing entailment evidence. Theory-builder conditions, learning, reflection, autonomy and exercised improvement remain separately bounded. The example open disagreement is not a contradiction between the analysts.

Relations and integration. Both Part of: relations are substantively supported: lexical contradiction diagnosis belongs to lint, and source classification is consumed within pending-watch while also exposed separately. I checked all four supersessions in reconciliation; each identifies the same source-native referent without promoting evidence strength. The retained wiki-page container, narrower metadata object and combined log-consumer route are valid overlapping scopes, not identities requiring supersession. The reconciliation preserves the memory report's six integration issues, the workflow annotations and every independent uncertainty. No unresolved cross-report conflict or missing material part requiring a correction was found.

Omission questions and stopping decision. The frozen tracked tree, complete CLI/MCP registrations, helper dependencies and all five shipped scripts supplied the search basis. I investigated whether another shipped caller performs semantic ingest, enforces semantic acceptance/withdrawal, refreshes qmd, or supplies execution evidence that changes the central conclusions. Direct source reads plus a bounded search across SRC-1 src/, scripts/, tests/, operating documents, Makefile and .github/workflows/ci.yml found only the already-accounted scaffold/sync writers and notification/inspection callers. Search and expansion consume content without a contradiction-status gate, independently supporting MEM-ABS-withdrawal-gate. Both demo drivers consume existing state; the bootstrap wrapper delegates to initialization. The additional .github/mcp.json.example is configuration for the same server, not another execution loop. Sampled MCP, lint, watcher and mocked-qmd test bodies and CI specify structural checks, not supplied successful runs or semantic evaluation.

SRC-1 docs/OBSIDIAN.md affords human browsing and metadata dashboards through external plugins; it does not establish another toolkit semantic producer or acceptance gate. Its external implementations remain excluded as the boundary states. Further example-corpus inspection could refine illustrative content quality but cannot establish the unobserved maintenance loop from availability alone. Optional omission expansion therefore stops: the selected material challenges have supported dispositions, and no identified unsupported consequential conclusion remains. The account does not claim exhaustive corpus quality, host compliance, external-qmd freshness, deployed reliability or measured benefit; these existing scoped uncertainties need no additional publication limit.

Blockers

none

Limits

none