JEPA-Anything reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Duplicate supersessions

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-variance-tracker is superseded by MEM-OBJ-online-variance-tracker. Both identify the same OnlineVarianceTracker count, mean and M2 registered buffers. Both retain the same buffer-write passage from SRC-1 jepa-anything-core/src/jepa_anything_core/losses.py. Numerical sufficient statistics, checkpointability and subsequent consumption describe one referent, not separate epistemic and memory objects. The affected epistemic inventory and variance-history ledger rows therefore concern the memory-declared object. This identity does not replace either report's findings about numerical form, provenance or durable-reload limits.

Amendment: EPI-RTE-variance-history is superseded by MEM-RTE-streaming-monitor. Both cover caller-supplied factor samples, Welford history updates, later combined variance and the differentiable standard-deviation penalty, including optional updating, wrapper training-mode defaults and reset. Both retain the same streaming-function passage from SRC-1 jepa-anything-core/src/jepa_anything_core/losses.py. The epistemic ledger's retention and operational-consumption rows distinguish functions within this same route; they do not establish another route. The affected epistemic bounded conclusion and ledger retain their separate function assessments. Both declarations state implementation wired and operation uninspected; supersession establishes no optimizer execution, learning or benefit.

Containment and distinct identities

MEM-OBJ-compiler-assumptions and EPI-OBJ-claims are distinct parts of RT-OBJ-design-config, not duplicates of one another or replacements for the container. The former identifies natural-language task assumptions, with no established later semantic consumer; the latter identifies planned claim/experiment mappings checked for reciprocal coverage. Their declaring records retain the relevant Skill instruction and validator status predicate, respectively. Neither part requires superseding the valid configuration container.

EPI-RTE-template-specialization is a declared part of RT-RTE-scaffold-admission. Its literal-substitution passages identify the transformation within rendering. EPI-RTE-design-diagnostics overlaps the validation stage of that route but also covers standalone validator output. It is not identical to the enclosing admission/emission route: producing diagnostics and consuming report.valid to permit generation are different functions with different endpoints. No supersession applies to either comparison.

MEM-CMP-target-encoder is distinct from RT-CMP-orthogonal-factor-projection and RT-CMP-host-model. Its initialization, EMA and later encoding passages identify a separate local module, not projection-basis state or the enclosing compiler model. Its update is already covered by RT-RTE-core-projection; the memory annotation adds lineage, admission and subsequent encoding details without declaring a duplicate route.

MEM-OBJ-checkpoint-manifest is not RT-OBJ-scaffold-manifest. The former is maintained publication/provenance metadata consumed by the verifier portion of RT-RTE-structural-checks; the latter is a generated package containing a file-list manifest and other outputs. The retained checkpoint-guide passage establishes that the current publication entry has no files and no executed training. A future local-file integrity check is not a generated-package manifest or a weight-loading route. No supersession applies.

EPI-OBJ-evidence-envelope and EPI-OBJ-audit-measurements are downstream caller inputs, not the planned declarations in EPI-OBJ-claims or the generated checking programs in RT-OBJ-scaffold-manifest. EPI-RTE-evidence-envelope and EPI-RTE-measurement-checks identify local generated checks, not the repository fixture/provenance drivers in RT-RTE-structural-checks. Their declarations retain distinct comparison targets, call paths and passages; no identity supersession applies.

EPI-OBJ-audit-reports and EPI-RTE-numerical-audits concern computed tensor-geometry reports and their producers. They are distinct from the assessed projection component, its mutation route and the fixture/provenance checks above. The retained matrix-rank and reconstruction passages establish those distinct operations. The memory report's discussion of supplied-value activity checks does not identify them with these computed reports.

EPI-CLM-world-model-compiler concerns the requested task-to-design workflow. RT-CLM-validation-scope concerns the validator's narrower declared-completeness claim. Their scopes connect but are not identical; neither supersedes the other. The workflow member declares no records and instead annotates the existing task-compilation and scaffold-admission routes.

Independent convergence and integration dispositions

The runtime, memory and epistemic accounts agree on the generator CLI/direct-render distinction. RT-RTE-scaffold-admission retains the validity branch; the memory annotation confirms that current configuration is revalidated rather than admitted from an older report; the epistemic ledger separates diagnostic production, CLI admission, specialization and retention. The workflow account independently retains the same distinction and explains that skipping standalone validation does not bypass the generator CLI check. This is convergence on bounded paths, not an unresolved disagreement about a universal gate.

The memory report's additional numerical history is accommodated by the two supersessions above. RT-RTE-core-projection did not claim to exhaust all numerical retention. The memory report's warning against a system-wide no-retained-state conclusion therefore adds coverage rather than correcting a runtime negative. Neither the host-owned session-context limit nor current-call horizon selection in RT-RTE-state-consumption conflicts with later streaming-statistics consumption.

RT-BAP-generated-contract, the memory annotations and EPI-RTE-evidence-envelope agree that imported constants and invoked checks can affect execution without authenticating caller-supplied measurements. The epistemic record's copied-metadata test passage connects directly to the workflow account's fabricated-input testing. Local exceptions, a successful structural check and scientific acceptance remain different conclusions. The dispatcher does not acquire an audit prerequisite merely because the same package contains audit helpers.

The workflow annotations add requested test execution and final reporting to RT-RTE-task-compilation, without changing its instruction-claimed and operation-uninspected findings. Renderer completion is an intermediate handoff, not demonstrated host delivery. Likewise, the separate runtime theory assessment is not strengthened by memory persistence, requested repair or numerical mutability. The epistemic bounded conclusion preserves these independent limits.

The remaining memory integration issues are provenance and deployment limits: original encoder/sample lineage, durable checkpoint reload, callback persistence and actual adoption remain uninspected; published-artifact verification is only an integrity alternative. These limits agree with the affected component and route findings. They are not disagreements and do not erase implemented transformations. No analyst correction answers or declined cross-report objections were supplied to this attempt.

Unresolved operative-part conflicts

Unresolved conflict: RT-OBJ-design-config combines the candidate configuration with its diagnostic report, while the memory annotation explicitly distinguishes their consumers and shows that standalone validator output persists even for rejected designs. EPI-RTE-design-diagnostics separately establishes report production and its valid bit, but no analyst declares the diagnostic report as its own operative-object part. Evidence is the runtime disclaimer passage, memory's retained report-write passage and epistemic's report-validity predicate, all from SRC-1 jepa-anything-skill/scripts/validate_design.py. The required diagnostic-report part is missing; a route declaration does not supply an object declaration. This prevents treating the combined object as a fully separated account of candidate content versus derived rejection/repair feedback. The configuration container can remain; its declaring analyst must address the missing part rather than reconciliation allocating an ID.

Unresolved conflict: RT-OBJ-scaffold-manifest combines generated executable contracts, copied configuration, validation feedback and the file-list manifest. The memory annotation says these are materially distinct persisted parts, with executable constants consumed by imports/calls but report and file list lacking an automatic import-driven admission role. RT-BAP-generated-contract and EPI-RTE-template-specialization identify the program consumer and transformation, not declarations separating these output-object parts. Evidence includes memory's whole-config serialization and template-write passages from SRC-1 jepa-anything-skill/scripts/generate_scaffold.py, together with the runtime dispatcher branch passage. The generated executable-contract part and generated file-list-manifest part remain undeclared separately. This prevents assigning the container's mixed contents a single consumer, authority or invalidation account. This is a missing-parts conflict, not a supersession of the valid package container or a claim that the reports disagree about the observed code.

All connections above use the supplied members and their retained evidence. No additional frozen-source reads were needed. Neither missing-part conflict is settled here; the report verifier determines the required declaring-analyst corrections. Other scoped uncertainties remain limitations rather than conflicts.