PrimeScientist reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

The four reports concern the shipped workflow frozen in boundary. Runtime supplies the enclosing control paths; memory adds retained inputs and continuity mechanisms; epistemic separates transformation, checking and consequential use; workflow traces the AutoLab path to retained delivery. Their implementation findings do not establish observed operation or causal benefit. This reconciliation uses the supplied members only; no additional source reads or analyst correction answers were supplied.

Duplicate identities and distinct parts

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-prior is superseded by MEM-OBJ-prior. Both identify child prior.json, including the numeric estimate and requested hypothesis/rationale/changes/risks. Their identity evidence is SRC-1, search/reflector.py and run_search.py, cited in both declarations; the runtime's requested rationale and estimate-admission passages supply their shared production/consumption chain. This connects the epistemic inventory and retention ledger to the memory account of retained reasons without changing either report's finding. Neither record is the admitted statistics object RT-OBJ-stats or the execution plan RT-OBJ-skill.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-log-brief is superseded by MEM-OBJ-log-brief. Both identify node log_brief.log, with the same positional head/tail selection passage from SRC-1, search/reflector.py. The epistemic inventory and non-ampliative-transformation ledger concern the same diagnostic excerpt that memory traces through MEM-RTE-log-brief. The excerpt object, its production/read-back route, and the larger RT-RTE-plan-admission container remain distinct; no route supersession follows.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-packet is superseded by MEM-OBJ-packet. Both name the evaluator packet persisted as node packet.json, with symbolic scores and diagnostic text consumed by the driver and reflector. Identity evidence is their cited SRC-1, run_search.py, evaluation/persistence chain, with the write passage retained in the memory declaration and adapter behavior supplied by RT-RTE-score-evaluation. Memory also covers baseline iteration packets; the identity here is the shared node-packet referent, not an assertion that epistemic independently assessed every baseline field. Packet-specific findings, including FIRE-Bench diagnostic omission in EPI-RTE-score-attachment, remain local to that route. The packet is neither aggregate Q in RT-OBJ-stats nor its producing evaluation route.

No other duplicate supersession is established. MEM-OBJ-diff is a proposed executable plan transformation; MEM-OBJ-changes is its optional explanatory delta; neither is the plan or retained sandbox. MEM-OBJ-pruned-children and MEM-OBJ-history-shown are derived outputs of search and baseline routes, not replacement declarations of those routes. MEM-OBJ-reflector-session is access metadata, not RT-CMP-reflector-model or its opaque session payload. MEM-OBJ-insights is separately sourced retained text, not a node plan.

The epistemic evaluation parts also preserve their container: EPI-RTE-conclusion-extraction, EPI-RTE-reference-check, EPI-RTE-score-attachment, EPI-RTE-gaussian-check and EPI-RTE-error-analysis describe different functions or alternate task checks within RT-RTE-score-evaluation. Their different targets, consumers and activation conditions rule out route identity. EPI-OBJ-core-idea and EPI-OBJ-gt-answer are respectively transformed narrative and imported reference, not the packet, plan or one another. The dormant error-analysis helper does not supersede the ordinary evaluator path. EPI-CLM-score-correctness concerns warrant; RT-CLM-budget-stop concerns resource enforcement. The workflow declares no competing records.

Recovery disagreement

Unresolved conflict: RT-RTE-plan-admission and MEM-RTE-session-resume differ in their failed-resume recovery description. Runtime states that a failed resumed process clears saved session state; the workflow repeats this in its recovery account. Memory reports that nonzero resume unlinks state but subsequent failure stdout can save an identifier again, while timeout returns before clearing. Its SRC-1, search/reflector.py passages show resume construction and the later stdout-driven save; its integration issue identifies the timeout exception. Runtime describes clearing as the recovery action; memory denies that clearing covers every failed process or guarantees a fresh next call. This prevents a unified unconditional failed-resume-to-cleared-state conclusion. Both retain unobserved restoration and context fidelity; the disagreement is about recovery coverage, not whether successful continuation was observed. Reconciliation does not decide which wording must change.

Connected findings and integration dispositions

Replay qualification, not a competing retention finding. MEM-OBJ-history-shown and the memory annotation on RT-RTE-vanilla-retention distinguish live conclusion-or-summary formatting from summary-only replay. Their SRC-1, run_vanilla.py passages support missing conclusion-only narrative after restart. Runtime says history is reconstructed from packets, but does not claim byte-identical or complete narrative replay. These findings connect without another conflict: score/action continuity and delivery of the last ten bounded summaries do not entail preservation of every previously displayed conclusion.

Insight producer remains unresolved beside a positive consumer path. MEM-OBJ-insights and MEM-RTE-insight-delivery separate unknown initial authorship/automatic publication from inspected copy/load operations. The epistemic coverage account likewise declines to infer a verified cross-task production loop. The memory's root-touch comment and worker file-filter passage in SRC-1 establish neither accepted insight production nor semantic relevance selection. No report supplies a contrary functioning-loop finding. Stale local copies, wholesale file-filtered worker supply and unobserved model use remain limits of these particular paths, not a denial of delivery.

Retained artifacts and valid pointers differ. MEM-OBJ-packet and memory's integration issues identify packet paths rewritten before pruning renames the node directory, without a subsequent path rewrite in SRC-1, run_search.py. RT-RTE-search-execution and the workflow retain packet/artifact existence and later filesystem access, not a guarantee that every saved pointer remains valid. The failure digest and direct hidden-directory inspection remain alternative inputs. This qualification prevents inferring reliable dereference from retention alone; it does not contradict retained-artifact delivery.

Admission and later force converge across lenses. RT-RTE-plan-admission, the memory write-side account, the epistemic authority ledger and the workflow successor handoff independently distinguish requested diagnosis/provenance from existence/prior bootstrap. Requested diff.py, reasons and materially different hypotheses are not semantic admission criteria. RT-BAP-plan-worker names model-interpreted guidance; RT-BAP-score-selector names fixed computational selection. Neither authority path is identical to the other, and delivery does not settle compliance or theory consumption.

Evaluator specificity connects rather than replaces the runtime oracle. EPI-RTE-reference-check bounds FIRE-Bench to reference-relative model judgments; EPI-RTE-conclusion-extraction identifies heuristic fragment selection and requested loss of concrete details; EPI-RTE-score-attachment withholds reference-derived diagnoses at the packet consumer. These refine RT-RTE-score-evaluation, which already conditions score validity on reference correctness and faithful transformation/attachment. They do not negate numeric force. The Gaussian check is a separately inspected finite-input correctness witness; the workflow's lack of per-task test inspection does not disagree with the epistemic analyst's additional task read. Disabled error analysis is an implemented helper without ordinary CLI activation or an established corrective consumer, not an active repair loop.

Delivery and theory limits converge without a single verdict. The workflow's delivery account, RT-RTE-search-execution and epistemic bounded conclusion describe retained workspaces/packets and aggregate best-Q reporting, not production installation or a finally verified scientific claim. Runtime's separate theory-condition, reflection, autonomy, learning and self-improvement assessments remain as declared in RT-RTE-plan-admission. Memory establishes durable inputs and later consumers; epistemic distinguishes operational acceptance for further search from acceptance/integration of an individuated scientific claim. These connections establish no stronger status. External session payloads, provider parameters, native-skill activation, task-specific workspace forms, unassessed task/preparation paths and missing run/causal evidence remain scoped limitations, not inter-report disagreements or invented missing record IDs.