nao reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

The four reports share the frozen revision and implementation/design evidence boundary in the Source register. None supplies observed-run or causal-experiment evidence. The connections below preserve the declaring reports' findings and separate implementation wiring, epistemic architectural status, exercised behavior and benefit. No analyst correction answers were supplied. No additional source reads were needed.

Record identity and containment

Amendment: EPI-CMP-memory-extractor is superseded by MEM-CMP-memory-extractor. Both identify the resolved other/annotation model passed to MemoryExtractorLLM, citing the same service/model paths and quoting the same model-selection call. Both describe provider-hosted weights, no inspected local parameter update, no established weight pin and unresolved endpoint fixity. Identity follows from the call role and implementation, not coinciding configured model IDs. Epistemic extraction and component-fixity findings citing the former concern the latter component without acquiring stronger evidence. Neither is identical to the foreground, compaction or verification model role in runtime.

The other material overlaps do not establish duplicate identity or require supersession:

The containers above remain valid with their identified parts. Their findings do not require replacing a combined record with a split, and no required undeclared part is established by these comparisons.

Integration-issue dispositions

Applied-status issue: the current findings agree. Memory's Integration issues retains an objection to an interpretation associating applied solely with PR opening. The current RT-RTE-context-recommendation instead explicitly retains both producers: a resolve action writes applied, and automatic PR creation separately writes applied after opening a PR. Its quoted resolve branch and PR status assignment support that distinction. EPI-RTE-finding-reconciliation and the epistemic retention ledger likewise name both producers. Thus memory's objection now qualifies an interpretation that the current runtime and epistemic reports no longer require. There is no remaining disagreement about the label: status alone establishes neither a PR nor merge, deployment, model reliance or successful correction. This disposes the cross-report issue without treating the stale description of the parent as its current finding.

Compaction-input issue: the current findings agree. Memory's Integration issues distinguishes the replaced prefix from the summarizer's actual input. The current runtime Working-context control account, RT-CMP-compaction-model and RT-RTE-web-chat now also distinguish the eligible replaced prefix from image-stripped, budget-selected input. The runtime account and MEM-RTE-chat-compaction retain the stripImageParts/selectMessagesInBudget passage. Both allow older material to be dropped before summarization. Consequently, the prior whole-prefix-exposure disagreement no longer holds between the pinned findings. The epistemic retention assessment remains indeterminate about summary faithfulness; agreement on input selection neither establishes preservation nor changes that assessment.

Deletion wording: source mismatch, not report conflict. MEM-CLM-memory-replacement and EPI-RTE-memory-admission independently contrast the prompt's deletion wording with the quoted supersededBy update and active-row query. Runtime does not require physical deletion by extraction. Explicit deletion, disabling and supersession remain different withdrawal operations. Memory's finding that deleting a successor does not automatically restore its predecessor is not contradicted by epistemic's uninspected restore-procedure limit.

Other memory integration issues remain bounded limits. The identity comparisons above rule out replacement of valid containers by their parts and distinguish the extractor call role from other model roles. Fork initialization, dynamic skills, channel-specific policies, story/app-state lifecycle, file cleanup, provider-specific context delivery and feedback filtering remain uninspected alternatives in memory's coverage and issues. The epistemic coverage account likewise retains unassessed skills, compiler/provider and channel/asset operations. The selective workflow account does not purport to cover them. These uncertainties prevent complete enumeration or a system-complete negative; they do not contradict the positive routes or by themselves establish a missing required record part.

Independent convergence and remaining limits

The memory and epistemic extraction/admission records agree that the model proposes compressed directives or profile content from bounded recent text, and software checks shape, normalized emptiness and supersession membership before writing. Default prompt supply is user-scoped despite project enablement, excludes current-chat rows and can be bypassed by a complete prompt override. Memory adds the category/order/token selection budget in MEM-BAP-user-memory. Epistemic's narrower projection description does not require delivery of all active rows, their evidence or reasons. Structural admission and later guidance delivery do not establish factual acceptance or improved capacity.

RT-RTE-test-answer, EPI-RTE-test-comparison and the workflow annotation agree on separate analytics generation, model-authored extraction SQL, execution rejection with one repair opportunity, and reference-row/tool-assertion comparison. Workflow adds the executable safety boundary, report saving, authentication retry and the absence of another analytics retry after comparison failure. It also distinguishes assertions-only and no-verification passes. Those alternate branches do not contradict the reference-SQL branch's conjunctive acceptance criterion. Runtime's uninspected evaluator-report retention and epistemic's untraced later report consumption do not deny workflow's inspected report saving. No account turns that saving into a later model read-back route, or a test pass into validation of all prose or deployment admission.

RT-CLM-context-readonly concerns the ordinary write tool. RT-RTE-context-delivery, memory's write-side account and epistemic's admission ledger all allow distinct synchronization and Git replacement. Fast-forward live pull and hard-reset refresh are separate byte-admission policies. The epistemic public claims EPI-CLM-analytics-answers and EPI-CLM-reliability-visibility are neither duplicates of the write restriction nor observations of successful improvement.

No unresolved cross-report conflict remains in the supplied findings. Retention, prompt supply, administrative resolution, PR creation and live context admission remain distinct transitions. Their connections afford later guidance change without establishing exercised dependence or benefit. The reports' separate limits on learning, reflection, autonomy, theory building and self-improvement remain separate; no stronger shared status or system-wide verdict is selected here.