Eigenius reconciliation
Type: agentic-system-analyses/types/agentic-system-reconciliation-report.md
Reconciliation
Shared boundary and evidence
All four analysts retain the boundary's partial-loop scope and its Source register. Added inspections extend coverage within SRC-1; they do not convert the boundary into whole-system coverage. Runtime and memory describe implementation as wired with operation uninspected; epistemic ledger entries describe implemented architecture without observed activation; workflow traces a shipped caller without claiming successful delivery. These are different fields, not competing statuses. No member supplies observed-run or causal evidence. This reconciliation uses only the supplied members and makes no additional source reads.
Record identity and containment
No exact duplicate requiring supersession was identified. The following overlaps are ruled out as identities; the containers and material parts can remain without amendment.
- MEM-RTE-draw-retention is the declared write/read-back part of RT-RTE-document-formalize, not another complete task. EPI-RTE-verdict-disposition similarly isolates institution-result disposition within RT-RTE-resource-admission. EPI-RTE-prompt-interpolation isolates deterministic prompt supply within RT-RTE-program-execution. Their endpoints and scope differ from their parents; none replaces a parent finding.
- MEM-OBJ-proposal-draw is the stored envelope, not the formalization route. Its declared MEM-OBJ-selection-record, MEM-OBJ-rank-record, MEM-OBJ-proposal-record and MEM-OBJ-kind-record payload parts have different keys, content and consumers. They are neither four duplicate envelopes nor counterparts of the provider components.
- MEM-OBJ-layer-resources is a valid corpus container. RT-OBJ-program-resource and MEM-OBJ-notebook-cells distinguish executable and editable-source contents. RT-OBJ-formalization-artifact instead identifies the emitted result blob before optional admission. Shared possible content does not make these the same stored object. EPI-OBJ-completion-template is the program's separately consumed text part, not a replacement for its symbolic body.
- MEM-RTE-query-resources covers query selection, returned results and optional INTO persistence. EPI-RTE-fiber-retention covers that same handler's narrower INTO write/read-back operation. The records independently converge on WithRetroactive and no institution admission context, using SRC-1,
kernel/src/server/query.rs. Their full referents are not identical: ordinary retrieval and similarity selection belong to the broader memory route, not the epistemic retention record. The broader account remains a valid container; superseding either whole record would lose its distinct scope. Neither duplicates Load or RunProgram merely because they share persistence infrastructure. - MEM-RTE-index-refresh, MEM-BAP-institution-refresh and RT-RTE-runtime-registration respectively describe post-commit maintenance, retained declarations' later dispatch authority, and host admission of available implementations. A shared eventual dispatcher does not establish identity. MEM-OBJ-vector-segment is derived ranking state, not a provider model or proof result.
- EPI-RTE-lean-check and EPI-RTE-statistical-decision supply domain results to admission and can have other callers. They are not the generic Load route. EPI-RTE-witness-consumption is a later semantic consumer, not program execution or result storage. Its EPI-OBJ-proof-inputs, EPI-OBJ-verification-trace and EPI-OBJ-statistical-result are distinct from an unlanded formalization artifact. The reports establish no generation lineage joining all these objects.
- EPI-RTE-file-verification and EPI-RTE-layout-validation check different properties of material described by EPI-OBJ-pinned-file. Neither is RT-ABS-program-typecheck, whose absence finding concerns only the inspected ValidateProgram handler.
- RT-CLM-formalize-claims, EPI-CLM-verifiable-platform, EPI-CLM-epistemic-categories and EPI-CLM-lean-correspondence concern different claimed operations or warrant scopes. None supersedes another merely because all discuss verification.
Workflow declares no additional records. Its annotations add completion and rejection-propagation fields to the runtime routes rather than duplicating their identities.
Integration-issue dispositions
Replay horizon. Memory's first integration issue qualifies, rather than contradicts, the runtime and workflow accounts. RT-RTE-document-formalize says old draws are read before rebuilding and does not guarantee indefinite retention. MEM-RTE-draw-retention supplies the reset/live-only-recording countercase from SRC-1, kernel/src/dcg/pipeline.rs, crates/eigenius-encoding/src/formalize.rs and kernel/src/dcg/draw.rs. Workflow's encoding account requires only that recordings can influence a subsequent request, not that every later request replays. No dependent finding requires the old draw set to survive an all-replay round. Other roots, base contents and concurrency remain local limits.
Question keys and retained reasons. Memory's second issue does not contradict RT-RTE-reading-selection: that record's contextual key belongs to selection. MEM-OBJ-kind-record instead uses sentence/gloss, while MEM-OBJ-selection-record retains the broader selection context. The runtime does not assert one full-context key across every seam. Retained rationales and returned choices do not establish criticism or revision; unresolved sense/proposal rationale consumers remain unresolved, not absent.
Additional admission and retrieval routes. Memory's third issue and EPI-RTE-fiber-retention independently extend runtime's selected-route inventory. Both preserve its rejection of universal AutoOnLoad coverage. Read-side institution dispatch does not imply write-side AutoOnLoad. Memory's fifth issue adds that MEM-RTE-index-refresh is non-gating: successful admission need not produce complete retrieval state. MEM-RTE-state-maintenance separately limits erasure, historical reconstruction and cross-session task-root conclusions. These are additional bounded findings, not corrections of a runtime completeness claim.
Delivery, publication and admission. Workflow's optional admission account independently traces SDK Outcome rejection propagation, consistent with RT-RTE-resource-admission. MEM-RTE-notebook-reopen concerns publication and reconstruction of editable source, not asynchronous formalization-result delivery. It therefore does not duplicate workflow's terminal-task/result criterion or contradict separately persisted artifacts and traces. Neither route supplies mandatory human review or automatic repair after rejection.
Scoped acceptance versus retention. Memory and runtime do not infer general truth acceptance from recording, loading or replay. Epistemic adds a scoped formal-check acceptance and later witness-dependent use through EPI-RTE-lean-check, EPI-RTE-verdict-disposition and EPI-RTE-witness-consumption. This does not contradict memory's unresolved broader institution coverage. Nor does it give statistical runnability, Declared/Observed attribution or ProgramTrace the same proof license. The frozen README/implementation discrepancy in EPI-CLM-lean-correspondence is a source claim-versus-route mismatch, not a disagreement between analyst records or a record supersession.
Remaining scope questions. Memory's fourth integration issue is disposed by the identity comparisons above. Its sixth issue and the other analysts' coverage limits remain compatible: bootstrap/imports, broader institutions, reflection, durable recovery and alternative callers are not collectively certified merely because individual analysts inspected additional seams. None establishes a system-complete negative about learning, reflection, theory building or self-improvement. No correction answers or declined objections were supplied to this attempt.
Cross-report disagreements
No disagreement between the supplied reports was identified. Their remaining uncertainties limit distinct conclusions rather than assigning incompatible findings to the same record. No supersession or unresolved-conflict paragraph is required for these scoped overlaps. This leaves their support and completeness for report verification; it does not accept, correct or strengthen any analyst finding.