Project Wiki reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Shared boundary and record identities

The reports use the same frozen source and distinguish helper implementation from host-interpreted procedures. The boundary and evidence and Source register supply no observed run or causal experiment. No analyst correction answers or refusal were supplied to this reconciliation. The connections below use the handed reports; no source reads were needed.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-requirement-evidence is superseded by MEM-OBJ-requirement-evidence. Both identify the same generated traceability/requirement-evidence.yml sidecar, with full atomic requirement-to-chunk edges, a reciprocal integrated-ledger check and deliberate separation from readable requirement prose. Their evidence is SRC-1, assets/requirements-change-templates.md, with the memory record also retaining the document-ingestion policy. Neither denotes the shipped schema or a separate graph. This identity connects the epistemic inventory, canonical-link route and structural-check findings to the memory account's provenance object; it changes none of their findings about authority or semantic adequacy. Both IDs remain declared.

The remaining object overlaps are containment, not identity, and do not warrant supersession:

• EPI-OBJ-chunks describes extracted chunk text and its provenance wrappers within the broader MEM-OBJ-intake-provenance, which also includes source-info, manifest, extraction displays, optional copied source and report. Their SRC-1 evidence in scripts/ingest_document.py, scripts/review_progress.py and references/document-ingestion.md distinguishes text storage from compact routing displays. Neither record replaces the other's full referent.
• EPI-OBJ-review-progress identifies the ledger, including symbolic dispositions and natural-language notes. MEM-OBJ-review-progress groups that ledger with the conditional, separately described blocking review.md. The latter is a valid workflow-state container, not an assertion that the two files have identical checks or authority. Superseding it by the ledger alone would discard the human-decision artifact. The evidence in SRC-1, references/document-ingestion.md and scripts/review_progress.py, supports the narrower-versus-broader distinction.
• EPI-OBJ-requirements, EPI-OBJ-technical, EPI-OBJ-analysis and EPI-OBJ-questions-alerts distinguish content families within MEM-OBJ-canonical-records. The memory container expressly preserves intent versus observed implementation versus non-canonical synthesis and unresolved content. The epistemic records retain those distinctions rather than correcting an undifferentiated authority finding. Their cited SRC-1 procedures and templates support keeping both levels; no combined record is superseded by these non-exhaustive parts.
• MEM-OBJ-audit-history overlaps closed questions and alerts in that canonical container and EPI-OBJ-questions-alerts, but identifies their historical/audit consumption path alongside logs and maintenance reports, not a second identity for all question content. Its SRC-1 common-policy and maintenance evidence supports this distinct scope.

The generated artifacts above are not duplicates of RT-OBJ-project-wiki, which explicitly denotes the shipped machine schema, or RT-OBJ-skill, which denotes the shipped instruction driver. MEM-OBJ-wiki-routing, MEM-OBJ-source-registry and MEM-OBJ-project-controls likewise have no separately declared counterpart in the other supplied members. Their paths and consumers distinguish access metadata, source lifecycle and preferences/exclusions from retained project claims.

Connected routes and independent convergence

RT-RTE-source-intake remains the end-to-end route. The workflow account and its annotation explicitly reuse it rather than declare a duplicate. EPI-RTE-extract-source, EPI-RTE-ledger-check, EPI-RTE-skip-audit, EPI-RTE-content-compare, EPI-RTE-content-admit, EPI-RTE-canonical-retain and EPI-RTE-canonical-link declare different subfunctions, not replacements for the whole intake route. The container's wired implementation finding includes executable helpers; the semantic subroutes retain claimed implementation and uninspected operation. These findings concern different units, not competing estimates to combine into a stronger status.

EPI-RTE-structure-check is the shared evaluator invoked or prescribed across RT-RTE-initialize-wiki, intake and RT-RTE-explicit-reconcile. It is not identical to any one caller. EPI-RTE-semantic-lint and EPI-RTE-claim-withdraw separate checking from disposition within explicit reconciliation. No route supersession follows from shared implementation or containment.

The runtime forcing case, memory intake annotation, epistemic ledger/structure records and workflow finalization account converge on bounded checks: complete dispositions and reciprocal edges do not establish reading or source entailment; audit can return zero with review-incomplete; its digest does not atomically commit or lock the host's final lifecycle mutation. The workflow adds that a processed raw source can precede integrated intake. That lifecycle distinction does not contradict the memory source-registry account or runtime's separation of extraction from canonical admission.

The memory intake annotation resolves its own integration clarification: the loader reads all chunks before selecting returned section/chunk output. This does not contradict runtime's selective context-delivery account, which expressly disclaims a token budget or host eviction guarantee. The epistemic optional skip diagnostic adds a separately bounded advisory route, not an omitted mandatory semantic veto.

RT-RTE-note-update and RT-RTE-coding-cycle retain independent write paths outside the document ledger. Memory's trace-fed update account describes a prescribed retained-text chain; epistemic's indeterminate semantic relation for synthesis concerns what concrete claims that chain produces. Neither finding requires the other report to establish an observed output, learning benefit or accepted ampliative claim.

Integration dispositions and remaining limits

The memory report's no-runtime-duplicate disposition remains valid for the runtime records it received. Its request to compare later generated-artifact declarations is addressed above by one sidecar supersession and narrower-part/container distinctions. No unsupported identity is inferred from a different prefix, and no new record ID is allocated.

RT-CLM-project-memory, EPI-CLM-provenance-rule and EPI-CLM-active-governance are distinct claims about persistence/usefulness, canonical admission and correction respectively. Their connections to the same routes do not make them duplicates. The epistemic account's conditional reading of continuous governance agrees with runtime's host-owned continuation and explicit maintenance path; it does not assert absence of semantic review.

The memory integration issues concerning host activation and content-instance quality remain limitations, not cross-report conflicts. RT-BAP-project-protocol, memory's annotation on it and the epistemic coding-consumption ledger agree that generated instructions prescribe later consultation without proving loading, compliance or behavior change. No supplied populated wiki establishes rationale completeness, accurate source support, successful review resumption or improved future capacity. Workflow delivery is a prescribed completion criterion, not evidence of a delivered instance. These gaps prevent exercised-recall, semantic-quality and benefit conclusions without negating the described architecture.

No disagreement between the supplied reports was identified that requires an Unresolved conflict: disposition. No report depends on a supplied record saying something its current declaration no longer says. The reconciled connections preserve each analyst's status and uncertainty; they neither judge support nor promote implementation or doctrine into observed operation.