ReasoningBank reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Boundary and evidence basis

The members share the run identity and revision established by boundary. Its Source register supplies SRC-1 implementation and doctrine/design, not observed runs or causal experiments. The workflow's selective coding trace does not narrow the whole-system boundary. Memory and epistemic ancillary inspection limits prevent all-entry-point conclusions without excluding those paths from the run. This reconciliation uses only supplied members; no source reads were needed. No correction answers or declined objections were supplied. The previous reconciliation is not evidence of current disagreement: connections below are reassessed against the current inputs.

Duplicate identities and retained containers

Amendment: EPI-RTE-query-selection is superseded by MEM-RTE-web-retrieval. Both identify the WebArena runner/selector chain: current query and prior cache, instruction-aware similarity, top IDs, first bank match, selected memory text and system-message delivery. Their SRC-1 WebArena/memory_management.py first-match passages describe the same operation. Both distinguish current-query append from ranking the old cache snapshot; both have wired implementation and uninspected operation. The epistemic relevance-versus-truth finding and memory delivery/budget findings remain attributable to their members. Identity does not replace either finding. Neither record is identical to the larger RT-RTE-web-pipeline.

Amendment: EPI-RTE-legacy-induction is superseded by MEM-RTE-standalone-induction. Both identify the direct script in SRC-1 third_party/src/minisweagent/memory/induce_memory.py, consuming web artifacts and reward-selected guidance, generating advice and appending task/query/trace/status/template metadata to a configurable path. The memory record's log-extraction and generation passages and the epistemic record's reward/append passages describe complementary steps of that script, not different routes. Both now have afforded implementation and uninspected operation, retain unresolved launch/import context, and leave an automatic later consumer unestablished. Supersession records identity, not a completed invocation or stronger status.

The object overlaps are not duplicate identities. EPI-OBJ-web-memory is a bank-row container spanning content in MEM-OBJ-web-advice and web fields in MEM-OBJ-lineage-ledger. EPI-OBJ-swe-memory similarly spans MEM-OBJ-coding-advice and coding ledger fields. The containers distinguish prose from keys/status and do not attribute web trace fields to coding rows. Their findings remain valid when the parts are separated; no split supersession is warranted. Neither container is identical to its producing admission route.

EPI-OBJ-autoeval identifies saved web verdict/explanation fields; MEM-OBJ-feedback spans those signals, summary reward, coding Boolean feedback and re-evaluation reports. The shared web fields do not make their complete referents identical. EPI-OBJ-web-trajectory identifies the bounded extracted evidence view used for feedback, whereas MEM-OBJ-trajectory inventories retained web/coding artifacts and their extraction/display consumers. Bounded captions and omissions distinguish the view from the retained artifacts. Neither pair warrants supersession.

MEM-RTE-coding-retrieval remains distinct from web retrieval: it uses a model-named coding bank, a separate selector and initial system-message delivery. It is part of RT-RTE-swe-task, not the whole task loop. Web retrieval is likewise part of its pipeline. EPI-RTE-web-check, EPI-RTE-swe-check and WF-RTE-action-recovery isolate checks or recovery within runtime containers; none replaces its parent. A task-completion check is not identical to subsequent advice admission.

EPI-RTE-benchmark-check produces configured outcome predicates, whereas RT-RTE-web-admission imports saved reward in gt mode. EPI-RTE-answer-regrading is a separate diagnostic CLI, not ordinary pipeline feedback. Standalone induction is distinct from ordinary web and coding admission because its extraction, entry point and output routing differ. The three epistemic claim records have no counterparts in other members, which declare no claims. Model components, MEM-OBJ-query-cache, MEM-OBJ-delivery-text, RT-RTE-context-control, RT-RTE-client-selection and RT-BAP-system-memory respectively identify computations, cached outputs, delivery state, context controls, configuration dispatch and consumer authority. Their related functions do not establish duplicate referents. No further supersession or required missing part is identified.

Disagreement disposition

The previous standalone implementation-status conflict does not persist in these inputs. EPI-RTE-legacy-induction now describes intended append behavior, afforded implementation and unestablished ordinary return, agreeing with MEM-RTE-standalone-induction. Its SRC-1 third_party/src/minisweagent/memory/induce_memory.py import passages and package/dispatch passages retain the unresolved launch context. The epistemic ledger uses architectural status not determinable for end-to-end legacy retention while acknowledging the append body. That vocabulary and scope differ from the records' afforded implementation conclusion; neither asserts an executable complete invocation. No dependent current finding requires the former wired status or an established return. No unresolved cross-report conflict remains on this comparison. The launch and later-consumer limits remain; agreement does not resolve them.

Convergence and integration dispositions

Ordinary admission and authority. RT-RTE-web-admission, RT-RTE-swe-admission, their memory annotations and the epistemic ledger agree that task feedback selects guidance before advice generation. Host code admits returned blocks without advice-specific semantic review. The ledger separates checking, disposition and retention rather than asserting claim acceptance. RT-BAP-system-memory grants advisory, model-mediated system-message influence, not symbolic action authorization. Architectural implemented and conclusion-status wired are separate vocabularies; neither implies observed operation.

Learning and transfer. EPI-CLM-memory-learning, EPI-CLM-memory-scaling and EPI-CLM-advice-transfer register doctrine, not independent results. The claim comparison connects them to ordinary supply and scaling intent without claiming accepted novel propositions or measured gains. Runtime's separate theory-builder and self-improvement limits and memory's unknown generated rationale converge with this account. Missing outputs leave actual transformation relations indeterminate; missing downstream dependence and comparisons independently prevent activation and benefit attribution. These uncertainties are not disagreements.

Scaling additions and scope. The memory annotation on RT-RTE-web-scaling adds the un-unpacked client tuple to the runtime's class invocation, repeated-directory and shared-state limits. It supplements the afforded status. The epistemic ledger's doctrine-only assessment targets claimed distinct-trajectory synthesis while acknowledging trial launches and repeated-input construction. Its qualification that the zero-reward success variable is not inserted into assembled trajectories does not contradict runtime's account of the variable's value. No member establishes that the generator receives an explicit inverted label, usable combined advice or a successful contrast.

Blocks, index and cleanup. The advice objects and epistemic row containers agree that blank-line blocks need not correspond to requested items. Retrieval bounds records, not item count or tokens. MEM-OBJ-query-cache and the web selection records connect query-key admission before advice admission with possible unmatched keys and first-record lookup. The memory cleanup distinction supplements runtime destination/redo behavior: removing predictions or trajectories does not withdraw bank/cache content. Initial content control, exact embedding provenance and optional vector compatibility remain unknown without negating known subsequent writes.

Context and ancillary paths. Memory's context annotation refines runtime context control with scratchpad flags and reconstruction from episode lists; it establishes neither semantic compaction nor full restoration. Optional response memoization lacks established task-loop activation. The feedback object's regrading-output description is bounded to the inspected main body; EPI-RTE-answer-regrading adds the missing module-level import binding. Reporting-body code and a blocked ordinary launch coexist. Neither asserts observed new scores, automatic bank revision or advice withdrawal. Standalone induction's web-log input is retained rather than inferred to be coding input from its package location.

Workflow delivery and recovery. Workflow annotations on RT-RTE-swe-task and RT-RTE-swe-admission add ordering and continuation limits: prediction delivery precedes judging/advice, ordinary restart skips existing prediction keys, and the coordinator does not automatically resume missing admission. This converges with runtime's nontransactional recovery account. WF-RTE-action-recovery establishes local format/timeout feedback, not semantic verification or rollback. Submission marker, delivered prediction and transcript judgment remain distinct from external benchmark acceptance.

All memory integration issues are connected or bounded above. No correction answers establish additional dispositions, and no declined cross-report objection was supplied. Current reports retain their own findings and faithful uncertainties; no unresolved disagreement requiring an Unresolved conflict paragraph is identified. This member supplies neither a public synthesis nor a support judgment.