ModularRSI reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Connections and identity dispositions

The reports share the boundary: an improvement plane including the solver and shipped callers at one frozen revision. They establish implementation and requested model behavior, not an inspected successful evolution episode. No correction answers or declined objections were supplied. This reconciliation assesses the current pinned members, including the epistemic disposition qualification, rather than carrying forward the previous disagreement unchanged. No source files were newly read; supporting passages remain in the cited records.

No duplicate supersession is established. The following overlaps are distinct referents or valid container/part relationships, not identities requiring an Amendment.

• RT-RTE-generation-change encloses diagnosis through admission and subsequent confirmation. MEM-RTE-evidence-brief follows retained evidence through routing, proposal selection and delivery to an implementer. MEM-RTE-history-contrast reconstructs an earlier passing comparison. The epistemic segments are EPI-RTE-summary-extraction, EPI-RTE-semantic-checks, EPI-RTE-finding-disposition, EPI-RTE-review-decision and EPI-RTE-paired-confirmation. Their endpoints, checks and consumers differ; the memory brief route spans several of these segments rather than duplicating any one. The enclosing route remains valid alongside its parts. The workflow account specializes runtime referents through narrative and annotations, without new declarations.
• MEM-OBJ-finding-record is the parsed finding envelope and provenance. EPI-OBJ-contrast-finding isolates causal assertions and follows them into proposal hypotheses and briefs. They overlap in content but are not interchangeable objects. MEM-OBJ-proposal-record includes both prescription and rationale; EPI-OBJ-behavioral-delta isolates prescription. Separating these operative parts does not invalidate the memory containers' findings.
• EPI-OBJ-trial-summary is extracted task evidence, not a causal diagnosis. EPI-OBJ-routing-judgment isolates responsibility, equivalence and coverage judgments. MEM-OBJ-proposal-state covers broader eligibility, disposition and lease machinery. A disposition encoding a judgment does not make the judgment identical to all control metadata.
• MEM-OBJ-implementation-record, MEM-OBJ-archive-entry and MEM-OBJ-editor-memory retain build metadata, admitted-variant selection state and outcome journals respectively. None duplicates RT-OBJ-module-library's executable strategies or RT-OBJ-module-description's catalog text. MEM-RTE-progress-resume spans scheduling and recovery even when no candidate is built, so is not another declaration of candidate admission.
• MEM-BAP-backlog-control describes upstream symbolic control and advisory evidence delivery. Its archive-filter overlap with RT-RTE-bundle-selection does not identify that authority path with the entire selection route. It also differs from RT-BAP-module-execution's Python execution and RT-BAP-description-selection's catalog interpretation. MEM-ABS-editor-readback is a bounded caller absence with no duplicate absence declaration. RT-CMP-lite-llm and RT-CLM-harness-improvement remain the sole component and public-claim declarations.

Convergence and integration-issue dispositions

The workflow account and MEM-RTE-evidence-brief independently inspect lane brief construction and retain its isolation, missing-finding warnings and truncation. Selected proposal/support reaches each editor, not complete investigator histories. The per-finding display cap qualifies the source's complete-evidence language without denying delivery.

RT-RTE-generation-change, EPI-RTE-review-decision and the workflow agree that structured rejection can veto, timeout/exception can pass as skipped, and sanity repair can change reviewed bytes. The epistemic distinction between substantive bounded acceptance and operational permission does not strengthen the gate into universal reviewer approval. Forced activation, ordinary routing and improved task reward remain separate conclusions. Review of a proposed executable change is also distinct from acceptance of its underlying causal diagnosis as warranted knowledge.

The earlier retry disagreement is no longer present in the pinned findings. EPI-RTE-finding-disposition now explicitly agrees with MEM-RTE-evidence-brief and MEM-OBJ-proposal-state: ingestion returns records from the supplied snapshot, and the online caller supplies a newly generated window snapshot. Retryable status leaves an unattached finding nonterminal but does not schedule its resupply. Re-supplying it could permit reconsideration; automatic next-window reconsideration is not established. Both reports preserve the separate positive mechanism of selecting still-open proposals across windows. This resolves the cross-report discrepancy without deciding that either nonterminal status or proposal reuse is absent.

MEM-OBJ-archive-entry, RT-RTE-bundle-selection and EPI-RTE-paired-confirmation agree that retirement affects ordinary dynamic selection best-effort, rather than deleting Python or universally revoking static/cache/forced replay. Memory's resume/confirmation sample qualification limits historical coverage, not the epistemic arithmetic over the samples supplied to confirmation. No report establishes randomized component attribution.

Memory's annotation on RT-RTE-context-handoff distinguishes installed and released baseline fallback behavior. The runtime explicitly describes the installed baseline; the epistemic overlay cites that scoped route. The released fallback difference therefore adds a qualification, not a conflicting finding. Memory's observation and editor-file annotations similarly add bounded selection and reload details to RT-RTE-solver-task, without asserting a uniform policy across all variants. The epistemic coverage limitation leaves optional solver skill injection and subsequent body consumption uninspected. That uncertainty prevents a complete instruction-discovery account; it is not a disagreement with the local compression findings or memory's editor-skill reads.

The remaining memory integration issues distinguish a produced cross-module handoff from a receiving driver, primary persisted diagnosis from secondary efficiency results, and durable progress from full historical confirmation coverage. EPI-RTE-finding-disposition likewise leaves automatic receiving-run consumption unestablished. Neither runtime nor workflow asserts an efficiency-only durable update or a cross-module importer. These qualifications leave the primary proposal-to-brief chain intact.

The theory accounts in RT-RTE-generation-change, MEM-RTE-evidence-brief and EPI-RTE-review-decision retain their separate condition assessments and limits on observed formulation, criticism and benefit. The epistemic ledger's lack of an established lifecycle-integration phase after acceptance of a causal claim does not contradict runtime reflection or improvement-directed self-change: retaining candidates and installing executable policy are different functions. No inspected trace establishes later behavior causally depending on a particular edit and benefiting from it. RT-CLM-harness-improvement remains attributed rather than independently reproduced.

Disagreement retained for verification

Unresolved conflict: the boundary account's statement that editor memory records outcomes and exposes a compact history for editor use is challenged by MEM-OBJ-editor-memory and MEM-ABS-editor-readback. The boundary describes editor use; memory preserves the formatter capability but reports no compact-index invocation or evolution-log injection in searched SRC-1 src/ and scripts/ callers. Memory also distinguishes the archive action from journal reads and describes editor file-read roots. If the boundary means display capability alone, these findings are compatible; if it asserts shipped delivery, they disagree. The pinned boundary leaves that consequence ambiguous, preventing a joint conclusion of automatic journal-to-editor delivery. EPI-RTE-paired-confirmation's reference to parent-recorded editor-memory outcome use must retain this distinction: recording an outcome and changing archive status do not themselves establish journal read-back. This conflict does not affect the separately wired proposal briefs or confirmation's archive-mediated selection consumer. The reconciler does not settle it.