Graphiti reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Boundary and evidence

All handed members share the run and revision fixed by boundary. The Source register supplies implementation and doctrine/design, not observed runs or causal experiments. Runtime's wired implementation and uninspected operation fields coexist with epistemic's implemented architectural fields: they describe different dimensions, not competing statuses. No correction-answer files or refusal were supplied. This reconciliation assesses the current members afresh against the supplied previous reconciliation; no source rereads were needed.

Duplicate identities and retained parts

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-episodic-node is superseded by MEM-OBJ-episodic-node. Both identify graph-retained EpisodicNode.content and source descriptors. Both retain the same content-field passage and now describe the same mixed-origin notebook producer. Epistemic's acquisition, retention and provenance-read findings concern this memory object; its source-warrant assessment remains unchanged. Memory's path-specific raw-retention findings also remain unchanged.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-entity-node is superseded by MEM-OBJ-entity-node. Both identify the textual and attribute portions of EntityNode: name, summary and attributes on graph storage, consumed by identity resolution, later summarization and graph readers. Memory's summary-assignment passage and epistemic's candidate-summary passage locate production and consumption of the same fields. Epistemic's identity and summary ledger findings concern this shared object. EPI-OBJ-entity-attributes and EPI-OBJ-entity-summary remain separately assessed parts, with typed overlay admission distinguished from text appending or synthesis. These parts do not replace the valid container.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-community-node is superseded by MEM-OBJ-community-node. Both identify generated CommunityNode summary and name, symbolic membership organization and separate embedding selection material. Memory's entity-summary input passage and epistemic's summary truncation/name-generation passage connect the same derived object to its producer. Epistemic's transformation and retention findings concern this object; indeterminate semantic fidelity does not contradict memory's implemented reduction account.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-saga-node is superseded by MEM-OBJ-saga-node. Both identify persisted SagaNode.summary and ingestion/event-time watermarks, consumed by subsequent summarization. The summary assignment and cursor-update passages establish the shared referent. EPI-OBJ-saga-watermarks remains a distinct symbolic part. The supersession connects epistemic's synthesis/freshness findings to memory's budget and loss findings without replacing either assessment.

No whole-record identity is asserted between MEM-OBJ-entity-edge and EPI-OBJ-entity-edge. Memory identifies fact text, relation name and attributes; epistemic's valid container additionally covers timestamps, episode references and embedding. EPI-OBJ-edge-validity and EPI-OBJ-edge-episodes overlap parts of MEM-OBJ-graph-metadata, whose scope also includes node identities, groups and membership. EPI-OBJ-edge-embedding overlaps the edge-vector portion of MEM-OBJ-graph-embeddings, which also includes entity/community vectors. Their extents differ. No split supersession is warranted: separating the declared parts does not make a container finding wrong, and none of these parts replaces an entire broader record.

Other object-to-route and object-to-component connections are not identities. MEM-OBJ-graph-embeddings is stored output, not its producer RT-CMP-openai-embedder. MEM-OBJ-memory-saver is checkpoint state consumed by RT-RTE-conversation-loop, not graph memory or another conversation route. MEM-OBJ-graph-results is the retained comparison artifact, not RT-RTE-evaluation-comparison. EPI-OBJ-edge-duplicate is transient comparison indices, not fact text or retained source metadata.

MEM-RTE-saga-summary and EPI-RTE-episode-removal are distinct operations within RT-RTE-maintenance-writes, not replacements for its valid multi-operation container. EPI-RTE-fact-extraction, EPI-RTE-fact-comparison, EPI-RTE-fact-disposition, EPI-RTE-entity-summary and EPI-RTE-attribute-extraction assess different production, comparison, disposition and field-update parts of RT-RTE-episode-ingestion. None duplicates that enclosing route. EPI-RTE-provenance-read uses UUID/recent-group selectors, unlike hybrid query/ranking in RT-RTE-context-retrieval; shared formatting does not establish route identity. Workflow declares no records and annotates the existing conversation route.

Independent convergence and integration dispositions

Notebook origin: previous conflict no longer applies. RT-RTE-conversation-loop, MEM-OBJ-episodic-node, memory's conversation annotation, EPI-OBJ-episodic-node and the workflow account now agree on admission after each successful model response, including tool-call responses. The latest state message can be human input, a post-tool result or a model message in supplied state; its unconditional user-name prefix does not authenticate origin. The retained episode-body and tools-to-agent passages establish these cases. Memory explicitly records its trace-origin correction in Integration issues. The earlier reconciliation's human-input-versus-tool-input disagreement is therefore not carried forward. This agreement does not establish successful ingestion, faithful provenance or one write per completed human turn. Tool-returned graph facts can recirculate into extraction; that is a wired trace-fed path, not observed benefit.

Raw retention: previous integration wording is no longer applicable. MEM-OBJ-episodic-node and memory's Integration issues correct the previous generalization of final suppression to bulk ingestion. Single ingestion clears content when configured; bulk passes unchanged episode content to both its initial and final writes. Memory retains the bulk serializer and final-write passages. RT-RTE-episode-ingestion scopes suppression to single ingestion; RT-RTE-bulk-ingestion describes staged writes without asserting bulk suppression. The reports do not disagree. This is a path-specific policy discrepancy, not merely temporary raw prewriting before a suppressed final write. Epistemic's retention ledger says raw content can be dropped and that suppression degrades source access; neither statement requires suppression on every admission path. Bulk-retained content can remain available to later extraction, saga summaries and getters, conditional on persistence.

Admission, queues and delivery. RT-CLM-schema-boundary, memory's Write side and epistemic's Bounded conclusion distinguish software/model representation admission from factual acceptance. Human per-content approval remains unresolved for generic callers. RT-CLM-write-envelope does not promise whole-invocation atomicity. RT-RTE-service-admission and RT-CLM-queue-completion separate process-local acceptance from graph completion, consistently with memory's timing limits. Workflow distinguishes displayed model text, no-tool termination and asynchronously scheduled memory persistence. These are separate outcomes; display checks do not establish answer correctness or completed storage. External tool-error policy and deployed execution remain uninspected.

Display and provenance. MEM-CLM-display-lineage and EPI-RTE-provenance-read independently establish richer MCP delivery as a countercase to generalizing RT-BAP-facts-context. The memory claim, direct-read route and notebook authority path have different referents and are not duplicates. EPI-CLM-temporal-provenance assesses public temporal-truth/full-lineage wording, not the runtime schema or transaction claims. Temporal metadata and source UUIDs can support inspection without certifying truth; source availability and delivered lineage remain channel- and admission-dependent.

Withdrawal. MEM-CLM-withdrawal-scope, EPI-RTE-episode-removal, EPI-CLM-cleanup-contract and RT-RTE-maintenance-writes agree on core/MCP first-reference edge deletion rather than a sole-support test. Memory and runtime also distinguish REST's direct episode-node deletion from core cleanup. The memory claim covers broader withdrawal, derived-summary/checkpoint and temporal-filtering limits; the epistemic claim isolates the MCP documentation promise, and its route traces executable deletion. These different extents rule out whole-record supersession. The documentation mismatch is not a cross-report conflict. No member establishes global forgetting or restoration of a prior version.

Saga and summaries. MEM-CLM-saga-losslessness challenges no-loss/all-episodes doctrine using capped batches, truncation and truncated-input cursor advancement, with tied creation times unresolved. MEM-RTE-saga-summary still establishes wired incremental read-back. Epistemic's EPI-OBJ-saga-node and EPI-OBJ-saga-watermarks describe submitted-input watermarks, not completeness or fidelity of submitted text. These findings coexist with the runtime maintenance account. Likewise, memory's MEM-OBJ-entity-node and EPI-RTE-entity-summary agree that literal append and model synthesis differ; implementing the latter does not establish semantic preservation.

Evaluation and retained experience. MEM-OBJ-graph-results, RT-RTE-evaluation-comparison and epistemic's Bounded conclusion connect retained model-built references to judgment and score output, not automatic production successor installation. Character-sliced context is a shared limit; epistemic adds non-strict pairing and default not-worse interpretation without contradicting runtime. Neither scores nor memory writes establish learning benefit, reflection or exercised self-improvement. The runtime component records' inference-only adapter findings do not rule out retained-content effects or settle opaque provider-side changes.

Remaining unknowns. Memory's Integration issues retain backend metadata roundtrips, driver-native filtering/deletion, bulk semantic equivalence, other consumers/evaluators, attribute lineage and community completeness as local inspection limits. Epistemic's coverage account remains selective, not a system-complete negative. RT-BAP-memory-instructions and memory agree that host loading/compliance and the search_facts/search_memory_facts naming mismatch remain unresolved. These limits prevent global guarantees, not the established local paths. They are neither cross-report disagreements nor evidence of absent behavior.

Cross-report disagreements

None identified in the handed members. The previous notebook-origin conflict is no longer supported by their corrected findings, and the previous raw-retention integration wording is replaced above. No required undeclared part was identified from these record connections. Source doctrine/implementation mismatches and faithful inspection uncertainty remain beside their affected records; this reconciliation neither settles source truth nor judges the reports' support.