Hyperagents reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Boundary and connection basis

All four reports share the run identity and revision of the boundary. Its Source register supplies implementation and doctrine/design only. Connections below concern the pinned records, not observed execution or causal corroboration. No correction answers or declined objections were supplied. No additional source reads were needed.

Identity comparisons and containment

No duplicate supersession is established. Similar labels and shared files do not make the following referents identical:

• MEM-OBJ-predictions covers the persisted CSV with task/input rows and answer payloads. EPI-OBJ-predictions isolates the candidate prediction cells and their current task return. Their overlap is the retained answer part, not identity of the complete referents. Both declare containment in RT-RTE-task-evaluation, whose referent is the producing/scoring progression rather than its output. Retain all three; no replacement of the route or CSV container is warranted.
• MEM-OBJ-report covers saved evaluation reports across tabular and specialized domains. EPI-OBJ-report isolates label-agreement measurements, including the grading error statistic. EPI-OBJ-outcome-reports isolates BALROG progression and Genesis fitness summaries with separate aggregation rules. These are narrower operative parts of the broader report account, not equivalent replacements for it. The broader container's findings remain valid when those parts are separated, so no split supersession is required. None is identical to RT-OBJ-metadata: measured outcomes and access/lineage flags have different consumers and force.
• EPI-OBJ-proof-grades concerns downstream grader judgments and mapped points, not the proof candidate in the prediction objects. CSV transport alone does not establish identity. EPI-RTE-proof-grading supplies the distinct external-grader route; it does not supersede the ordinary reference-label comparison in RT-RTE-task-evaluation.
• MEM-OBJ-episode-log, MEM-OBJ-reward-function and MEM-OBJ-cfgs declare material parts of RT-RTE-domain-effects. Persisted episode/test artifacts, extracted executable reward code and serialized configuration are not interchangeable with that route or with RT-CMP-policy-runner. The latter concerns numerical policy parameters and their checkpoint consumer. No supersession is warranted between these different retained forms.
• MEM-OBJ-chat-history spans editor and task interactions. It is distinct from the executable result RT-OBJ-model-patch, the instructions RT-OBJ-readme, and the specialized artifact container above. Shared logging locations do not make raw interaction traces, code and guidance identical.
• MEM-RTE-archive-delivery is the copy/prune/delivery subroute of RT-RTE-generation-cycle, not the enclosing cycle or code-admission gate. MEM-RTE-prediction-reuse isolates the no-new-call branch of RT-RTE-task-evaluation. MEM-RTE-dgm-diagnosis produces an alternative editor instruction from selected failure evidence; it is not RT-RTE-editor-admission's downstream code-admission process. None replaces its related runtime route.
• EPI-RTE-label-normalization and EPI-RTE-label-scoring separate transformation from checking within RT-RTE-task-evaluation. EPI-RTE-outcome-summary separates measured-result aggregation within RT-RTE-domain-effects. These valid subroutes do not supersede their containers or each other. Proof grading remains a separate evaluator path.

The workflow annotations declare no additional records. The memory annotations likewise attach memory-specific findings to runtime identities rather than redeclaring them. Neither annotation surface requires supersession.

Convergence and integration dispositions

Executable authority versus model-readable evidence. RT-BAP-code-replay, the memory annotation on RT-OBJ-model-patch, the epistemic ledger and workflow delivery account agree that saved patches enter later executable behavior. Historical logs and README contents instead need a model/tool read. MEM-RTE-archive-delivery has wired filesystem delivery but afforded model consumption; that is compatible with the runtime's wired editing/replay route and uninspected operation. No status is promoted across these different edges.

Retention, eligibility and warrant. RT-OBJ-metadata, RT-RTE-parent-selection, the memory integration issues, the epistemic bounded conclusion and workflow recovery account converge on their separation. Archive membership is not successful-evaluation admission. Starting-node exceptions, first-node fallback and the non-None meta-patch condition prevent a universal successful-score prerequisite. Label agreement and environment fitness remain bounded measurements, not acceptance of an explanation of improvement.

Saved-answer consumption. MEM-RTE-prediction-reuse explains the cached branch, while the workflow task-evaluation annotation locates it in the staged-to-full handoff. RT-RTE-optional-consumers supplies a different saved-answer consumer: the default ensemble selects a scored archive node and retrieves its existing answer. The epistemic ledger preserves the split-selection limit. These are compatible branches, not competing accounts of a fresh task-model call.

Recovery qualifications. The malformed retry in MEM-RTE-dgm-diagnosis limits recovery after diagnosis extraction failure. The runtime's DGM account establishes the initial diagnosis/editor path but does not promise that recursive retry succeeds. Thus the memory integration issue adds a branch-specific limit without invalidating the downstream RT-RTE-editor-admission account. Similarly, the workflow's cleanup and outer plotting/selection limits qualify the normal-return archive progression of RT-RTE-generation-cycle; archiving ineligible nodes is not a promise that every exceptional execution reaches append.

Independent property limits. RT-CLM-recursive-improvement supports a dispositional improvement-directed self-change path, not exercised or successful improvement. The memory report's explicit DGM instruction delivery and checkpoint read-back coexist with the epistemic report's uncertainty about explanatory acceptance, criticism and benefit. Its DGM semantics were uninspected, not denied. The positive Genesis training/checkpoint path in RT-CMP-policy-runner is not provider-weight adaptation or evidence of improved capacity. No learning, reflection or theory-builder conclusion follows merely from these connections.

Carried limits. Unknown bootstrap approval and reference provenance, opaque provider/checkpoint internals, incomplete environment-context and transfer-consumer inspection, and missing execution/comparison evidence remain the limitations stated in the memory integration issues and epistemic coverage. They prevent stronger trust, provenance, activation and benefit conclusions; they do not contradict the implemented readers and transformations. No required missing part is established by the comparisons above.

Disagreement disposition

No unresolved cross-report disagreement is established by the supplied versions. The DGM recovery qualification, workflow normal-return qualification and specialist inspection limits do not require a dependent report to rely on a finding its declaring record no longer supplies. The reconciliation neither settles source-level defects nor strengthens any analyst finding; judgment of support remains with the report verifier.