Incremental self-improvement reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Duplicate supersession

Amendment: EPI-RTE-getp-read is superseded by MEM-RTE-getp-read. Both declare the same GetP operation: an addressed current probability is scaled into a work-cell integer for possible later computation. Their source evidence is SRC-1, §3.2 and Table 1; the minimum GetP passage is retained in the memory record and EPI-OBJ-getp-values. Both give design as claimed, implementation and operation as uninspected, and preserve staleness, quantization and the absence of an exercised-use trace. This is identity of a read route, not a selection of a stronger status. The affected findings are the epistemic coverage row, GetP transformation ledger entry and reflection assessment: their producer route connects to the memory declaration while their epistemic fields remain in the epistemic member. Both IDs remain declared. The different parent links identify general instruction execution in memory and the broader self-modification account in epistemic; neither record makes GetP itself a probability-write admission step.

Distinct records and valid parts

EPI-OBJ-getp-values is the read route's output, not another identity for the route or for RT-CMP-probability-distributions. Its work-cell snapshot differs from the live source policy and can become stale. It and EPI-OBJ-input-cells remain material parts of RT-OBJ-work-area, not superseding replacements. The container's arbitrary remaining integers retain unresolved meanings. The memory annotations distinguish input, register and other work cells without declaring competing objects.

EPI-RTE-input-supply is an input-delivery part of RT-RTE-instruction-cycle, not its duplicate. Its producer and encoding scope distinguish it from GetP. Its inclusion of variable Read overlaps MEM-RTE-variable-readback, but does not establish identity: the memory route traces agent Write, external retention and later Read, while input supply also covers task/runtime observations and payoff delivery.

MEM-OBJ-variable-array is external task state, distinct from internal work storage. MEM-RTE-variable-readback remains a part of the general instruction cycle. WF-RTE-variable-cycle is not a duplicate of that memory route: the workflow route includes periodic scoring, payoff delivery and array reset, rather than the Write-to-later-Read memory chain. It overlaps both instruction execution and RT-RTE-credit-assignment without replacing either. SRC-1, §5.1 and Table 2 supply their retained Write, Read, scoring and reset evidence.

EPI-RTE-rate-comparison is the checking part of credit assignment. EPI-OBJ-rate-comparison is its transient predicate, not the saved baselines in RT-OBJ-stack or the evaluator machinery in RT-CMP-top-level. Their SRC-1 §3.2 passages distinguish comparison, disposition and restoration. The valid credit-assignment container remains; separating its check does not make its keep/restore finding wrong.

EPI-CLM-future-usefulness concerns forward reliance, not the historical invariant in RT-CLM-usefulness-invariant or the attributed outcomes in RT-CLM-experimental-comparison. Its SRC-1 §4 passages explicitly permit future harmful consequences. No claim supersession follows.

Convergence and integration dispositions

The reports converge on immediate live policy change followed by delayed retention checking. The memory annotation on RT-RTE-self-modification, the epistemic retention/adaptation ledger entries and the workflow policy-change account distinguish primitive admission, stack saving and later keep/restore. RT-BAP-probability-selection identifies their downstream sampler. These are compatible functions, not duplicate declarations. The shared SRC-1 evidence means this convergence is not independent corroboration of execution.

The memory annotation on RT-OBJ-stack distinguishes saved distribution payloads from evaluation metadata and agent-visible current policy. Its SRC-1 §4 comment 19 passage states that additional stack-inspection primitives were not yet implemented. Neither the runtime nor epistemic account requires the agent to interpret saved history: the fixed top-level consumes it. GetP and the stack-pointer input do not establish that stronger history-access route.

The workflow reset and failure account, memory read-back account and RT-RTE-instruction-cycle agree that internal state survives run halts while the external array has its own periodic reset. They also agree that probability restoration does not undo work-cell or environmental effects. Persistent storage therefore does not conflict with task reset, and operational rejection does not imply all-state rollback.

The memory integration issues propose no factual corrections or replacement records. Their Read-destination ambiguity is also retained by the runtime, epistemic input account and workflow route; it prevents an exact operand formula, not the supported transfer capability. Proposed instruction reuse, teacher protection and circular history remain qualified alternatives in the records concerned, not established active routes. Unfinished-program halt handling remains an implementation uncertainty rather than a report disagreement.

No analyst correction answers or declined objections were supplied to this attempt. No unresolved cross-report conflict is identified in the pinned findings. The distinction between claimed operation, uninspected implementation and epistemic architectural status of doctrine only remains intact under the boundary Source register. Attributed task benefit does not establish GetP exercise, a particular memory chain, update-specific causation or accepted explanatory knowledge. The reports retain those limits separately from documented policy adaptation and introspection capacity; reconciliation does not strengthen or negate either finding. No direct source reads were needed.