Pi Posthorse reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Boundary and evidence agreement

All four reports retain the extension boundary fixed by boundary and its Source register. Pi owns model execution, final compaction commitment, journal persistence and scheduling. The reports describe extension implementation and evaluator design, not supplied execution or causal experiments. Runtime's wired implementation and uninspected operation fields agree with epistemic's implemented architectural ledger: those fields answer different questions. Neither status licenses observed restoration or benefit.

Identity comparisons and supersession dispositions

No duplicate supersession is required. The following comparisons rule out identity between overlapping declarations; the valid containers remain alongside their declared parts.

Independent convergence and consequential distinctions

Runtime, memory and epistemic independently inspected automatic recovery. They agree that projection and provenance govern selected inputs, that bounded receipts do not certify progress, and that old nonautomatic checkpoints can survive. Epistemic's small-limit truncation example qualifies semantic completeness; it does not contradict memory's account of excerpting or runtime's bounded-evidence finding. The non-ampliative reshaping assessment is not a promise that truncated statements preserve every qualifier. See RT-RTE-automatic-recovery, MEM-OBJ-recovery-record, EPI-RTE-recovery-reshape. Evidence: SRC-1, src/recovery.ts, src/recovery-results.ts, src/message-text.ts.

The reports also preserve the same no-summary qualification. The reached supported custom automatic path makes no summarizer-model call; manual and unsupported routes leave native behavior available. Epistemic compares README's broad opening with its manual-compaction qualification rather than disputing runtime's already-qualified RT-CLM-context-continuation. Memory's possible native/model-authored checkpoint input is compatible with deterministic custom construction. Evidence: SRC-1, README.md, src/rollover.ts; see epistemic claim comparison and MEM-OBJ-recovery-record.

Independent callback/settlement reads in runtime, epistemic and workflow agree on foreground origin, error, abort and capacity checks. Workflow's failed-sibling scenario concerns rejection of an explicit draft, not a global ban on all compaction. Runtime's later-handler abort countercase and workflow's separate automatic-fallback caveat therefore coexist. Neither rejection rolls back already-completed sibling writes or synchronizes background work. See RT-RTE-explicit-reset, RT-RTE-automatic-recovery, and workflow rejection and recovery. Evidence: SRC-1, src/context-tools.ts, src/rollover.ts, test/official.test.mjs.

The three lenses distinguish publication, operational admission and semantic acceptance. Memory's unchecked caller text, epistemic's lack of evidence-consuming task-claim acceptance in the inspected dispatches, and workflow's scripted Recovered. delivery describe different stages, not conflicting judgments. Guidance requests live-state verification; the selected evaluator does not perform it. Reopening assertions concern journal/context mechanics, not real task truth or an observed passing run. See RT-RTE-note-admission, MEM-OBJ-notes, EPI-RTE-reset-evaluator, and workflow restoration. Evidence: SRC-1, src/notes.ts, src/budget.ts, test/official.test.mjs.

Integration issues and conflicts

No unresolved cross-report conflict is identified in these pinned members. No corrected/declined analyst answers were supplied to this invocation. Memory explicitly requires no runtime correction; epistemic's manual/native comparison likewise requires no supersession. The workflow annotations depend on runtime findings that still support the described sequence.

Memory's integration questions remain limits, not disagreements: initial note provenance and external-editor approval prevent universal authorship/approval claims; native checkpoint generation and host persistence prevent fidelity certification; late hooks and surviving sentinels prevent transaction guarantees; missing execution prevents demonstrated reliance, restoration or learning. See memory integration issues, MEM-OBJ-notes, MEM-OBJ-recovery-record, and MEM-BAP-recalled-content. Runtime and epistemic retain compatible limits. Memory's additional retrieval inspection does not establish exhaustive prefilter equivalence or override the other analysts' inspection boundaries.

This reconciliation used only the supplied members and contracts. No frozen-source ambiguity required a new source read. It changes no analyst finding, declares no records, and makes no synthesis or verification judgment.