From Agent Memory to Portable Skills reconciliation
Type: agentic-system-analyses/types/agentic-system-reconciliation-report.md
Reconciliation
Boundary and evidence alignment
The four reports concern the documented skill-building and governance subsystem, not all of NAMS or its host agents. The boundary and Source register limit their evidence to SRC-1's frozen article, with doctrine/design and reported operation. The runtime's claimed route implementations and uninspected operation agree with the epistemic ledger's doctrine only architectural status; these are different status vocabularies, not conflicting findings. Memory and workflow likewise describe documented responsibilities without claiming observed activation. No source reread was needed for this reconciliation.
Record identities and containment
No duplicate identity requires supersession. The following overlapping records retain distinct scopes or valid container/part relationships; none is treated as an alias.
- EPI-OBJ-scoped-memory groups the input classes separately described by MEM-OBJ-memory-text, MEM-OBJ-tool-call and MEM-OBJ-memory-graph. The common evidence is the raw-input passage retained in the scoped-memory and memory-text records. The epistemic record remains a valid input container: the memory records distinguish text, fixed-role tool fields with opaque payloads, and ontology/grounding identities. Neither the aggregate nor any one part is identical to another part. Their findings do not require replacing the aggregate by the parts.
- EPI-OBJ-claims and EPI-OBJ-step-annotations explicitly identify themselves as parts of RT-OBJ-skill-package. The synthesis passage in RT-RTE-skill-distillation distinguishes claims from names, descriptions and completion criteria. The package also includes provenance and reference material. It remains a valid container; neither part supersedes it. RT-OBJ-procedure-graph separately describes symbolic topology and bindings, not the natural-language annotations sharing its storage.
- EPI-RTE-source-check, EPI-RTE-quality-check and EPI-RTE-pending-admission are declared parts of RT-RTE-skill-distillation. They isolate source filtering/reference checks, quality-result production and the decision permitting or withholding pending persistence. The parent still describes the larger request-to-pending-product progression. The parts are not duplicates of the parent or each other. Separate ledger functions on the source-check record distinguish checking from dropping unsourced claims without asserting two identities.
- RT-CLM-admission-controls states the documented control mechanisms and their coverage. EPI-CLM-actionable-knowledge states the broader product/warrant claim; EPI-CLM-graph-validity states graph-governed validity and improvement claims. Shared mechanisms do not make those claims identical. Their retained passages concern different assertions, so supersession is ruled out.
Cross-report convergence and integration dispositions
Construction, retention and publication remain separate. RT-RTE-skill-distillation ends at a pending retained product. EPI-RTE-pending-admission gives this operational admission to review, not acceptance of procedural knowledge. RT-RTE-review-delivery, its memory annotation and its workflow annotation place a human veto before initial publication. The epistemic ledger's unresolved substantive acceptance criterion does not deny that human publication decision. Pending evidence links therefore do not establish post-acceptance lifecycle integration.
Generation form and later authority are bounded consistently. The graph/prose alternative in RT-RTE-skill-distillation is retained by memory, epistemic and workflow. RT-OBJ-procedure-graph attributes topology to deterministic processing; the epistemic ledger leaves the truth-apt transformation indeterminate because no implementation or input/output instance establishes semantic preservation or entailment. Those findings address different questions. RT-BAP-skill-consumption and the reports' delivery accounts agree that a package can guide a later host without proving mandatory graph execution, tool permission, activation or benefit.
Detection and repair are not one guaranteed recovery chain. RT-RTE-drift-check compares expected/current tool status even when grounding edges survive. MEM-OBJ-tool-call leaves status-update provenance and payload encoding unknown; this qualifies the check's interpretation rather than contradicting its stated comparison. RT-RTE-step-repair changes surviving grounding and revalidates, or refuses and flags full re-distillation. Its memory and workflow annotations and the epistemic ledger agree that this does not establish restored tool success, automatic invocation, mandatory patch approval, withdrawal or installed-copy refresh.
The memory integration issues remain local limits, not disagreements. Memory's integration issues require no correction to the supplied runtime and identify no duplicate runtime record. Its upstream admission/trust unknowns qualify the input objects; fallback shape, cluster retention, snippet omission and rationale delivery qualify construction; alternate writers, rejection persistence and patch release qualify control coverage; flag consumption, version selection and withdrawal qualify downstream effects. The runtime, epistemic and workflow accounts retain these same limits. No dependent finding requires a peer record to say more than it currently says.
Warrant and benefit claims retain separate evidence limits. EPI-CLM-actionable-knowledge and EPI-CLM-graph-validity record source claims, not established analyst conclusions about knowledge or improvement. Their route comparisons converge with RT-CLM-admission-controls: source existence, structural checks and publication permission do not alone establish truth, transfer or causal benefit. The attributed AIP comparison is not a NAMS component experiment. The theory assessment beside RT-RTE-step-repair, memory's limitations and the epistemic bounded conclusion separately leave theory-builder conditions, learning, reflection and exercised self-improvement unestablished within the supplied evidence. RT-CMP-llm independently leaves parameter lifecycle and model pinning uninspected.
No unresolved cross-report disagreement was found in the supplied members. No correction answers or declined peer objections were supplied. The remaining uncertainties limit synthesis; they are not settled by selecting a stronger status, superseding a valid container or treating unavailable execution evidence as absence.