Archie reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Identity and supersessions

No supersession is required. Memory and workflow declare no records; their annotations retain the runtime referents. Epistemic declares only EPI-CLM-profile-contract. Its nearest supplied claim, RT-CLM-assistant-guide, concerns a different referent: the planned documentation assistant rather than the shipped shell-profile contract. Their distinct source passages and claimed operations rule out duplicate identity. The operational claim is also distinct from the implementation routes it describes, RT-RTE-default-update and RT-RTE-profile-launch. No combined record is superseded or split here.

The several functions assigned to those routes in the epistemic ledger are analytical views of existing declarations, not additional route identities. Likewise, RT-OBJ-model-roles is the configuration value, while RT-BAP-role-arguments describes its authority channel together with launch flags. Shared implementation evidence does not make an object, a route, a claim and an authority path identical.

Connections and independent convergence

Configuration transformation and later consumption. Runtime's RT-RTE-default-update supplies the helper passage: getter output is transformed by assigning the profile literal to the default field, then passed to the external setter. Memory's object annotation, write-side account and read-back account distinguish the visible subsequent helper consumer from uninspected runtime default interpretation. Epistemic's ledger separates transformation and retention functions on that same route. These accounts converge on a wired configuration request, conditional preservation of ordinary non-default fields, and unobserved durable retention or model activation. Epistemic's architectural status implemented does not upgrade runtime's operation conclusion status uninspected.

Operational gate versus acceptance. RT-RTE-profile-launch follows helper success with foreground external invocation. The workflow account and epistemic ledger independently distinguish helper-status gating from answer evaluation. Both retain runtime's pipeline qualification: a nonzero helper return stops launch, but not every upstream getter failure is guaranteed to produce that return. Neither report depends on a universal acquisition-validity or task-quality guarantee that runtime disclaims.

Failure and authority horizons. RT-RTE-default-update and RT-BAP-role-arguments separate the intended persistent configuration effect from current-process flags. Memory and workflow preserve the consequence that a later launch failure has no wrapper compensating restore. Their accounts also retain RT-RTE-direct-handoff: direct invocation can bypass the profile gate. Thus workflow's wired handoff/return arrangement does not establish task delivery, just as memory's implemented read/modify/write does not establish later inference from the stored default.

Documentation contract versus executable mechanism. EPI-CLM-profile-contract records the reference's persistence, preservation and forwarding claims. Runtime's profile account and epistemic's claim comparison both retain differences between documented model selectors and current executable selectors. This is a source-level doctrine/implementation discrepancy, not conflicting analyst findings. The operational claim remains distinct from the conditional implementation support supplied by the helper and launch routes; reconciliation does not replace it with a stronger durable-preservation guarantee.

Planned assistant versus shipped launcher. RT-CLM-assistant-guide supplies the design passage for constrained documentation assistance. Memory's annotation, epistemic's claim comparison and workflow's planned-workflow account converge on planned context, provenance and restriction decisions. None treats those intentions as implemented permissions, trusted retrieval, answer acceptance or a completed documentation workflow. This preserves the boundary rather than joining design and launch paths into an unsupported loop.

Integration-issue dispositions and remaining limits

Memory's integration issues identify no supplied fact requiring correction and no duplicate declaration. Its persistence issue remains a shared external-contract limit on RT-OBJ-model-roles, RT-RTE-default-update and RT-BAP-role-arguments: backend durability, validation, concurrency and default precedence are not established. Its context-design issue remains a limit on RT-CLM-assistant-guide, not evidence of an implemented selection or trust route. Neither issue conflicts with the supplied runtime findings.

No unresolved disagreement between reports was identified. No correction answers or declined cross-report objections were supplied to this attempt. The reports' uncertainties about external runtime behavior are compatible, not conflicts. In particular, RT-CMP-model-services retains per-selector parameter and version uncertainty; memory and epistemic do not convert symbolic profile changes into weight updates or establish learning from persistence. Workflow leaves internal delegation, verification, recovery and delivered task results unestablished rather than absent.

The common evidence boundary remains SRC-1 implementation and doctrine/design, with no observed-run or causal-experiment evidence, as registered in boundary. The reconciliation uses the supplied members only; no frozen-source reads were needed to resolve an ambiguity. These connections neither establish operation or benefit nor settle the support of an individual report.