Tortoise reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Shared scope and evidence

All four reports retain the boundary's complete-artifact, partial-loop qualification. They describe inspected implementation and attributed design under SRC-1, not observed operation or causal benefit. Additional analyst inspection does not change that boundary into whole-system coverage. No correction answers or refusal were supplied. This reconciliation uses the pinned members only; no source ambiguity required a new source read.

Duplicate identities and supersessions

Amendment: EPI-RTE-hook-context is superseded by MEM-RTE-hook-volunteer. Both identify the same prompt-triggered volunteer-turn.sh → CLI volunteer → canonical reflex → harness-shaped context output, with the same nonempty-block condition, supported additionalContext/contextModification channels and unknown-harness limitation. Both retain the identical hook-output passage from SRC-1, tortoise/claude-hooks/volunteer-turn.sh; the epistemic record also supplies the CLI block-printing passage in tortoise/__main__.py. Its endpoint routing and advisory-force findings supplement rather than contradict the memory record. The epistemic ledger's hook-consumption assessment concerns this same route, not a second selector or delivery mechanism. Neither declaration nor its findings are rewritten by this supersession.

Amendment: EPI-RTE-point-withdrawal is superseded by MEM-RTE-point-retraction. Both identify caller → SDK retract_point → guarded terminal mutation, with retained tombstone, optional validity-window check and no append-confirmation veto. The memory record quotes the lifecycle guard, event emission and retracted-status write in SRC-1, tortoise/sdk.py; the epistemic record quotes the same operation's message-invalidation and dirty-marking tail. That tail is an additional effect of this withdrawal, not a distinct entry or independently admitted transition. The epistemic ledger and correction-rejection route therefore refer to the same withdrawal mechanism that the memory report connects to later reader eligibility. Neither establishes physical erasure, automatic proof of falsity or repair of every downstream belief.

  • Capture route and retained products: RT-RTE-session-capture, MEM-OBJ-session-turns, MEM-OBJ-derived-points and RT-OBJ-event-emission are not duplicate identities. They name progression, retained episodic material, derived graph material and emission envelopes respectively. The memory annotations add lineage and storage qualifications without replacing the runtime declarations.
  • Payload versus admitted graph content: EPI-OBJ-extracted-points overlaps MEM-OBJ-derived-points, but is not an exact replacement. The epistemic record identifies execute_embed payload parts, including source-span and initial confidence fields, and follows them toward storage. The memory record identifies the admitted entities/events/Points/operators and their retained relationships. Transient payload availability and durable admission are different milestones; neither object fully substitutes for the other. No supersession is made.
  • Numerical state: MEM-OBJ-belief-state and EPI-OBJ-belief-state overlap on retained confidence, but have different scope. The former includes freshness timestamps and warm-start EP messages; the latter includes posterior/fallback parameter pairs and measurement/baseline markers as well as confidence. Their fields and provenance limits remain local. They are not identical objects, and neither is an exact replacement for the other.
  • Maintenance progression and its functions: MEM-RTE-dream-writeback includes window selection, EP invocation and write-back. EPI-RTE-belief-evaluate identifies numerical evaluation and its distinct downstream consumers; EPI-RTE-belief-retain isolates the write-back function. Evaluation and retention are not identities. The retention function is narrower than the memory route's selection-to-write progression, so no whole-route supersession is made. The shared convergence-stamp evidence in SRC-1, tortoise/dream.py, supports connection, not interchangeability.
  • Canonical selection versus delivery seams: RT-RTE-context-delivery and RT-BAP-framework-block retain the framework path. The hook route above shares canonical selection but has a different caller and delivery channel. MEM-RTE-start-digest and MEM-BAP-start-digest instead describe recency-selected session-start excerpts. None is an alias for the others.
  • Extraction subroutes: WF-RTE-gap-review, EPI-RTE-source-address, EPI-RTE-vet-check and EPI-RTE-vet-disposition are declared parts of RT-RTE-session-capture. Their handoff/merge, occurrence checking, judgment and candidate-disposition functions differ. The parent remains a valid container; no split supersession is needed.
  • Additional admission and correction routes: MEM-RTE-checkpoint-diary composes RT-RTE-direct-point, adding checkpoint dedup and diary selectors rather than duplicating the primitive door. EPI-RTE-review-disposition and EPI-RTE-review-integration separately describe correction decisions and subsequent prior wiring. They are neither the direct-write door nor the internal S4 review. Similar review terminology does not establish identity.

Integration-issue dispositions and convergence

Storage compatibility remains unresolved, not a disagreement. The memory report's first integration issue connects MEM-OBJ-session-turns, RT-OBJ-event-emission and MEM-RTE-source-expansion. Record-capable turn writes coexist with a graph-only expansion query. The runtime's broad graph language cannot establish graph-only persistence or expansion completeness; its emitter already denies all-store atomicity. Missing record-reader and graph-population facts prevent a parity conclusion, not the supported existence of either path.

Withdrawal is reader-specific. The second memory issue connects MEM-RTE-point-retraction, RT-RTE-context-delivery and MEM-RTE-start-digest. Canonical current-view terminal exclusion and the local digest's missing terminal predicate concern different selectors. The epistemic withdrawal record's ordinary-reader wording is bounded there by its explicit lack of an every-reader audit; it does not establish terminal exclusion in the digest. These reports do not support a universal withdrawal guarantee. No conflict with the runtime's narrowly scoped current-view finding is established.

Delivered justification is narrower than available metadata. The third memory issue supplements RT-RTE-context-delivery and RT-BAP-framework-block. Runtime describes why assembly for confidence even when why output is disabled; memory distinguishes structured why from the injected synopsis; epistemic separates confidence selection from factual warrant. These findings converge without claiming full rationale delivery, mandatory support reading or malicious-text resistance.

Evaluation expansion is not live reflex wiring. The fourth memory issue is retained with MEM-RTE-source-expansion: a shipped evaluation caller establishes expanded candidate-pool wiring, not final reader reliance or production deployment. The epistemic report's bounded judge-tool inspection establishes reference-answer tooling, not an acceptance criterion consumed by these graph routes. Neither extends the runtime framework path into an observed evaluation outcome.

Named inspection frontiers survive integration. The fifth memory issue and each report's coverage limits leave M2, complete remote commit consumption, imports/packs, full replay/recovery, other harnesses/UI writers and complete evaluators unresolved. RT-RTE-production-commit and MEM-OBJ-capture-spool do not close those gaps. There is no all-surfaces consent, durability, deletion, learning or self-improvement conclusion to reconcile into a stronger status.

The workflow's WF-RTE-gap-review independently supports the runtime's separation of model proposal from code-owned effects: merge and failure continuation can deliver candidates without certifying truth. The epistemic source-address and VET records further distinguish occurrence, suitability and actual disposition. The correction threshold in EPI-RTE-review-disposition is a distinct opt-in acceptance mechanism; it does not contradict missing per-proposition human review in ordinary capture. Likewise EPI-CLM-evidence-authority is a target-authored universal claim compared against conditional implementation, not another analyst's endorsed guarantee. The claim-route mismatch is not an inter-report conflict.

No unresolved disagreement between the supplied reports is established after these scope distinctions. The retained unknowns limit integration rather than selecting a stronger status from another lens. The two duplicate identities above require supersessions; the other connections preserve distinct referents and bounded findings.