beads_rust reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Boundary and evidence

The four reports share the frozen revision and implementation/doctrine evidence in the boundary Source register. None supplies observed host operation or causal benefit. Their different inspection coverage is not a disagreement: memory adds retained parts and consumers, epistemic separates checking from disposition, and workflow follows one caller-led protocol. This reconciliation uses the supplied members only; no additional source reads were needed. No correction answers or declined objections were supplied.

Duplicate supersessions and distinct scopes

Amendment: MEM-OBJ-gate-result is superseded by EPI-OBJ-gate-result. Both identify the same local, transition-scoped gate verdict/history, with symbolic scope/provider/pass fields and optional prose notes. The memory record's gate-module passage establishes local, non-JSONL storage; the epistemic record and its reporting route distinguish the enforcing history from the current-state mirror. This is one retained object, not two evaluator outputs. Memory's portability and note-consumption findings remain attached to their original declaration; supersession does not replace them with a stronger correctness claim.

Amendment: MEM-RTE-gate-report is superseded by EPI-RTE-gate-report. Both trace caller-supplied verdict/provider/note through issue/revision/target resolution into retained scoped results and later listing or transition consumption. Their common gate-report passage and the epistemic history-insert passage establish identity. The memory record's downstream effects connect to the separately declared EPI-RTE-gate-check and EPI-RTE-gate-admission; reporting itself does not perform the transition. Both reports retain wired implementation and uninspected operation, with external assessment veracity unresolved.

No supersession is made between MEM-OBJ-issue and EPI-OBJ-issue-text. The former is a valid broader prose container including comments and close reasons; the latter names four body fields used by closure checks. Their shared fields independently converge on natural-language content without making their full referents identical. Neither report's findings require replacing the broader container with a split.

Likewise, MEM-OBJ-dependency includes priority, defer and labels as well as status, assignee and typed dependencies; EPI-OBJ-issue-state selects status, assignment and dependency state. These overlapping scopes remain valid together. They are objects consumed by RT-RTE-ready-query, not duplicate declarations of that route.

MEM-RTE-state-withdrawal is a valid maintenance container covering deletion, export omission and history restore/prune. EPI-RTE-delete-state traces the selected deletion loop only. Neither supersedes the other: the epistemic record's uninspected cascade/purge internals do not contradict memory's additional storage inspection, and memory does not claim complete recovery or permanent erasure. MEM-OBJ-history-backup denotes retained recovery bytes, not their admission through RT-RTE-jsonl-import.

Cross-report connections and integration dispositions

Memory's ancestor guidance is an addition, not a correction of an asserted runtime absence. MEM-OBJ-agent-context, MEM-RTE-inherited-context and MEM-BAP-inherited-guidance concern mutable per-issue ancestry-selected content. RT-OBJ-agent-blurb, RT-RTE-agents-update and RT-BAP-agent-instructions concern shipped project-file instructions. Different content, admission and delivery channels rule out identity. Text start-work enrichment connects to RT-RTE-claim-issue, but structured update and MCP detail delivery do not inherit a universal enrichment guarantee. The workflow's structured show/claim sequence therefore must not be read as proof of ancestor delivery on every step.

MEM-RTE-state-read adds detail, event and scheduler selections rather than redeclaring ready selection or RT-RTE-mcp-request. The MCP wrapper owns request mutation/export handling; endpoint-specific projection owns what the reader receives. MEM-RTE-guided-context covers the other three MCP prompts, explicitly excluding RT-RTE-triage-prompt. These are distinct routes with common infrastructure. Memory's additional proxy/count findings do not conflict with the epistemic report leaving those upstream computations uninspected.

The gate records connect retained evidence to closure without duplicating RT-RTE-close-issue. Gate checking and admission span configured status edges; close additionally covers closure evidence, bypass and post-commit metadata. Epistemic's effective-history selection qualifies how reports count: later same-provider verdicts replace earlier effective verdicts within scope, while another provider's pass can satisfy a named gate despite a fail. Memory does not assert a universal fail veto or authenticated reviewers. Both retain bypass/import limits, so no inter-report disagreement is established.

RT-CLM-explicit-sync retains the source-native mismatch between the skill's never-automatic wording and automatic export in RT-RTE-create-issue and the MCP mutation wrapper. Memory, epistemic and workflow agree on that mismatch; it is not an unresolved disagreement between reports. Workflow's explicit final export remains a prescribed step, not a denial of auto-flush.

Memory's portability qualification also stands independently: MEM-OBJ-event and the gate-result object retain DB-local evidence, while withdrawal selects export omissions. Nothing in the runtime import record promises complete local-evidence reconstruction. MEM-OBJ-audit-entry and MEM-RTE-audit-record establish explicit recording and label lookup, not a demonstrated semantic learning consumer. MEM-CLM-compaction-scope preserves candidate activation and semantic-compression limits already distinguished by the boundary. These additions do not contradict the other reports' bounded unestablished-learning findings.

WF-CLM-session-delivery adds an external Git publication criterion, distinct from RT-CLM-work-cycle. EPI-CLM-issue-tracking is the broader product claim, not an alias for either protocol. Workflow's tracker closure, export and publication boundaries agree with epistemic's separation of operational acceptance from task correctness and runtime's separate mutation/export effects. No instruction or status return establishes actual publication.

Remaining limits and disagreements

No unresolved inter-report conflict is established by these pinned members. Their uninspected auxiliary provenance, recovery, instruction-distribution and prompt branches remain local coverage limits, not absences. The integration questions prevent complete trace-learning, uniform installation-admission, full local-evidence portability and universal recovery conclusions. The independent positive records remain available without promoting delivery to compliance, retention to semantic acceptance, or implementation to exercised improvement. No supplied finding requires an undeclared corrective part or a split of an invalid combined record.