Qiju reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Record identities and containment

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-body-md is superseded by MEM-OBJ-body-md. Both identify the same record field: the host-authored Markdown process narrative carrying decisions, reasons and artifact anchors, persisted through capture and returned by retrieval. Their SRC-1 evidence in src/qiju/init_cmd.py describes complementary requested contents of that field, not different objects. The epistemic record also mentions its staging representation; this does not distinguish a second narrative payload. The epistemic inventory and route-ledger citations retain their declarations and their truth-apt-content and warrant assessments; supersession establishes identity, not a stronger factual status or a claim that rationale was actually authored or received.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-next-steps is superseded by MEM-OBJ-next-steps. Both identify the same stored string list, requested as agreed plans and consumed by retrieval/actions. SRC-1 src/qiju/init_cmd.py, src/qiju/search.py and src/qiju/cli.py supply the agreement instruction and string-rollup/unchecked-rendering evidence. The epistemic inventory and action-rollup assessment concern that same list; neither record establishes current completion status. This identity does not equate the list with the separate action-rendering route.

EPI-OBJ-record-metadata overlaps MEM-OBJ-address-metadata, MEM-OBJ-search-descriptors and MEM-OBJ-redaction-metadata, but equals none individually. Its declared inventory combines identity/provenance fields, descriptors and redaction metadata. The memory records distinguish their fixed selection rules, authored display content and substitution metadata, with evidence in SRC-1 src/qiju/capture.py, src/qiju/schema.py, src/qiju/search.py and src/qiju/redact.py. Retain the epistemic record as a valid aggregate alongside the differentiated memory records: its parseability-versus-authentication finding is not invalidated by separating those fields. No split supersession or missing required part is established by this comparison. The aggregate does not give every constituent one form, factual warrant or consumer.

MEM-OBJ-staging-record is the transient file carrying input before capture, not another identity for the retained narrative or metadata. MEM-OBJ-redaction-log is a separate audit file, not the per-record redactions list. Their respective immediate consumers and absence of a normal search/show consumer distinguish them from retained history fields.

EPI-RTE-shape-check and EPI-RTE-shape-admission are declared parts of RT-RTE-record-capture: the first evaluates shape; the second permits storage or existing-ID return. They neither duplicate one another nor replace the valid end-to-end capture route. EPI-RTE-action-rollup similarly isolates a field-specific part of RT-RTE-record-retrieval, not a competing identity for the entire retrieval route. These containers retain their broader progression and limits.

EPI-RTE-store-withdrawal is distinct from RT-RTE-store-maintenance: explicit deletion of home long/archive differs from age/size-based placement and copy removal. Its discussion in RT-CLM-lossless-records does not make the route and claim duplicates. Likewise EPI-CLM-verified-history and EPI-CLM-review-improvement state warrant/outcome claims, not duplicate identities for their instruction channel or retrospective mechanism.

MEM-BAP-record-history and RT-BAP-host-guidance reach the external host through different payloads and channels: retrieved use-written history versus installed instructions. The latter requests privileged treatment of the former. Neither supersedes the other or RT-OBJ-qiju-skills, the installed instruction object. The workflow member declares no new records; its annotations add delivery and recovery roles to the existing capture/retrieval routes rather than creating identities requiring supersession.

Cross-report connections and integration dispositions

Capture and trust. The workflow's producer handoff and the memory capture annotation agree with RT-RTE-record-capture: the host composes selected history; code checks routing, redacts selected fields, validates and persists it. The epistemic check/admission distinction makes explicit the same limit: no artifact-evidence input licenses historical truth. The mismatch between EPI-CLM-verified-history and that check domain is a source claim-versus-mechanism discrepancy, not a disagreement between analysts. Requested anchors and decision-status discipline qualify composition without establishing compliance or completed verification. A user checkpoint request and a manual source label do not establish per-content human approval.

Retrieval and rationale reach. The workflow retrieval annotation, memory retrieval annotation and epistemic ledger all use RT-RTE-record-retrieval. They agree that two-phase search/show is guidance with executable full-search/direct-show alternatives. Summary and IDs can omit narrative reasons while preserving locators; actions omits reasons and exact IDs. MEM-OBJ-search-descriptors supplies authored display text, not a guaranteed semantic summary. Host timestamp/project checks, widened fallback and full-ID recovery remain requested conduct. These findings jointly prevent assuming that all retained reasons reached a consumer or that Qiju enforces final-answer correctness. They do not conflict with wired CLI delivery, and they establish neither host compaction nor isolated worker contexts.

Open actions. MEM-OBJ-next-steps and EPI-RTE-action-rollup independently converge on the same SRC-1 string-deduplication and unchecked-rendering mechanism. The epistemic completion counterexample spells out the memory report's risk: later body text does not suppress an older plan. Both distinguish implementation deduction from observed failure. The integration issue therefore remains a limit on interpreting the display as verified pending work, not a cross-report conflict.

Lineage, preservation and withdrawal. MEM-OBJ-address-metadata and EPI-OBJ-record-metadata agree that repaired timestamps and caller labels do not authenticate origin. The memory report retains unknown legacy provenance while relying on RT-RTE-store-migration for known transformations. The epistemic migration counterexample gives a concrete consequence of the same global rebranding code; it does not contradict those provenance limits. Likewise RT-RTE-privacy-repair rewrites content without factual judgment, while the audit reason has no normal history-search consumer.

The memory maintenance annotation adds that short rotation does not verify a surviving copy after possible partial capture. This is compatible with the runtime's nontransactional append account and its refusal to infer universal losslessness. The epistemic archive assessment preserves the same row-count/ID-set check domain, not field-equivalence or factual validation. Marker removal after uninstall further qualifies addressing without claiming all records are deleted. RT-CLM-lossless-records and EPI-RTE-store-withdrawal retain explicit purge and surviving-copy limits. These additions do not require correcting a supplied preservation guarantee: no analyst asserts the universal guarantee they would defeat.

Review and method changes. The memory review annotation and epistemic ledger rely on RT-RTE-skill-review as an afforded host procedure, not an executed review engine. The epistemic architectural label “doctrine only” describes requested host functions; it does not contradict the runtime's afforded procedure or wired installation. Recommendations, optional user-requested application, and possible later loading remain separate steps. No retained review instance, applied content or later dependent operation closes that chain. Requested user authorization is policy, not software enforcement or factual acceptance.

RT-RTE-skill-install independently replaces installed bytes with bundled text and can displace local revisions while retaining backups. It is not an automatic consumer of retrospective findings. Thus the memory report's applied-method integration issue and EPI-CLM-review-improvement comparison preserve the runtime's separate learning, reflection, theory-builder, autonomy and self-improvement assessments. Missing operation/benefit evidence does not erase the afforded proposal/edit path, and installation does not establish activation.

Disagreement boundary

No unresolved disagreement between the supplied reports is established. The memory report explicitly requires no supplied-record correction and identifies no duplicate against its supplied runtime; the object supersessions above concern identities independently declared by memory and epistemic. No correction answers or declined objections were supplied. All reports remain within the source-only limits in boundary and its Source register: implementation and requested conduct are not observed operation or causal benefit. No additional source reads were needed to resolve these connections. This reconciliation judges neither individual support nor acceptance of the reports.