Archie report verification

Type: agentic-system-analyses/types/agentic-system-verification.md

Verification

The runtime, memory, epistemic, workflow and reconciliation members support the bounded account. I independently inspected source behavior before comparing the reports' conclusions. The checkout HEAD matched the reviewed commit and its short status was empty. Evidence remains SRC-1 implementation and doctrine/design under the boundary; no target code was executed. The structural report supplied no findings, and all four correction-answer inputs were empty.

Records, evidence and consequential conclusions

  • RT-RTE-shell-load: inspected the complete shell loader and .zshrc, the override template, and installer deployment/main sections. SRC-1, deployment-packages/local/lib/zsh/commands.sh, deployment-packages/home/.zshrc, deployment-packages/local/lib/zsh/overrides.dist.sh and scripts/install.sh support deployment requests followed by conditional sourcing. The record correctly separates code delivery from accumulated memory, and wired loading from observed installation. External shell initialization and local overrides prevent treating this as a universal execution guarantee.
  • RT-RTE-default-update and RT-OBJ-model-roles: the complete helper in SRC-1, deployment-packages/local/lib/zsh/commands-agents.sh, supports symbolic JSON read/modify/write. Its retained minimum passage supports assignment to .default, not backend durability or validation. For ordinary object input, non-default fields survive the transform; whole-object writes do not establish concurrency isolation. The helper checks pipeline/assignment status and setter status, not independently the getter's success. No helper-local pipeline-failure setting, read-after-write verification, lock or compensating restore appears. Runtime's qualifications are necessary and preserved in memory's write-side and read-back accounts. A later helper transformation is a concrete wired consumer request; downstream model use of the default remains an external contract.
  • RT-RTE-profile-launch, RT-RTE-direct-handoff and RT-BAP-role-arguments: checked every profile and alias against the complete module, including all selector strings, separate thinking flags, helper gating and appended arguments. SRC-1, deployment-packages/local/lib/zsh/commands-agents.sh supports the table and the ordinary/Qwen passages. The local alias requests nonlocal auxiliary selectors; this does not establish their invocation or data export. Setter completion precedes launch, so launch failure has no wrapper rollback. Direct executable invocation bypasses presets, and duplicate-option precedence remains external. The authority record correctly limits force to configuration/argument delivery rather than model compliance. The workflow account preserves the distinction between a wired launch sequence and an unestablished agent task through delivery; helper-status gating is not answer verification.
  • RT-CMP-model-services: SRC-1, deployment-packages/local/lib/zsh/commands-agents.sh establishes symbolic endpoint requests, not inspected weights. The grouped service record explicitly preserves parameter-change, exact-version and endpoint-mutability uncertainty separately for every selector. Neither memory nor epistemic converts a selector update into numerical learning or demonstrated improvement.
  • RT-CLM-assistant-guide: complete reads of SRC-1, docs/epics/assistant.md and docs/work-items/assistant-03-agent-backed-documentation-guide.md confirm Planned status and decisions still to define. The retained passages support intended documentation guidance, context injection and restrictions, not an implemented permission envelope or acceptance procedure. Memory, epistemic and workflow consistently withhold those implementation claims.
  • EPI-CLM-profile-contract: SRC-1, deployment-packages/local/lib/zsh/README.md, agent-profile section, supports the quoted operational contract. Its documented GPT selectors differ from executable selectors. The epistemic comparison keeps that discrepancy and the conditional preservation domain instead of endorsing unconditional persistence. Its ledger separates non-truth-apt transformation, retention request and operational continuation. No inspected answer object, evaluator or evidence-consuming acceptance decision licenses stronger truth-apt conclusions.

All nine declarations and their supporting anchors were considered above, together with every memory/workflow annotation and the epistemic overlay. The source passages support the claims at their stated evidence layers. Wired implementation and afforded direct invocation are not upgraded to observed operation. No evidenced-absence records, Part of relations or supersessions were declared. The two claim records have different referents, and ledger rows reuse existing routes rather than duplicate their identities. The reconciliation preserves these distinctions, disposes memory's integration issues without inventing repairs, and identifies no conflicting report findings. Independent source inspection found no unresolved contradiction requiring a conflict entry.

Consequential omission questions and stopping decision

I selected omission questions from the frozen tracked tree and producer/consumer dependencies, not only the reports' listed anchors:

  1. Could another shipped caller, maintenance path or store change the configuration-memory conclusion? Commit-tree inspection and tracked-content searches for omp, modelRoles and commands-agents across deployment, scripts, Python source, shared library, packaging, templates, tests, Archinstall and CI located the shell module, loader and reference. The complete helper/caller read establishes the selected write and subsequent helper-consumer chain. A directly called helper can update configuration without launching; it is covered by the existing update route and does not create an answer-consumption route. No material alternative surfaced that would require revising the selected subsystem's account. This is not a repository-wide absence finding.
  2. Could a shipped assistant entry point turn the design into an implemented guide or answer-checking workflow? I inspected SRC-1, src/archie/cli.py and pyproject.toml, traced the CLI registrations, searched shipped implementation areas for assistant/agent-backed operations, and compared the complete assistant plans. These checks support the reports' narrow distinction between executable shell profiles and planned assistance. Unrelated desktop subcommands and contributor workflows remain outside the declared target; their behavior is not classified as absent.
  3. Could loading order or an alternate profile invalidate failure gating, locality or authority claims? Complete source reads of the profile module, loader, shell initialization and override template, plus scoped option searches, support the reports' existing qualifications. Neither a universal read-failure barrier, an all-local guarantee nor a task-quality gate is emitted.

Further optional omission expansion stopped because these material challenges have supported dispositions, and no identified alternative remains likely to change the retained conclusions at their present breadth. The records already express the external storage/parser/model uncertainty, missing executions and design-only assistant status. These are faithfully scoped uncertainties, not defects to relocate into publication caveats. Internal runtime scheduling, model-visible context, successful retention, task delivery and causal benefit remain unestablished; this judgment does not enlarge those claims.

Blockers

none

Limits

none