MCMA-OpenMemory reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Boundary and evidence limits

The reports share the revision and whole-system functional scope of boundary.md. Their implementation accounts are not execution traces. The Source register supplies no observed run or causal experiment. Accordingly, implementation wiring, actual operation, model compliance and benefit remain separate conclusions. No source reads were needed for this reconciliation; the cited analyst records supply the supporting passages. No correction answers or declined objections were supplied.

Duplicate identities and valid containers

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-canonical-memory is superseded by MEM-OBJ-explicit-memory. Both identify the encrypted explicit-save object under user references, including original text, organized content, classification and organization metadata. Their matching source-original passage from SRC-1, packages/core/src/Memory/ExplicitMemoryService.php, establishes the same retained referent, not merely similar labels. The epistemic capture and canonical-recall assessments concern this object; its independently attempted knowledge mirror remains distinct. Neither record establishes post-organization human approval.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-interaction-answer is superseded by MEM-OBJ-interaction. Despite the shorter label, the epistemic declaration includes question, answer, route, provider, validation and relation metadata in the same encrypted interaction archive. The memory declaration identifies that same archive object and its write passage in SRC-1, packages/core/src/Interaction/InteractionArchiveService.php; both connect to RT-RTE-web-request. This is not supersession of the web route. The epistemic retention and approval findings remain about archived content, not about knowledge capture or a raw provider reasoning trace.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-thematic-summary is superseded by MEM-OBJ-thematic-summary. Both declare independently revisioned topic/interaction-derived encrypted objects with answer excerpts, validation and source hash/ref metadata. Their evidence in SRC-1, packages/core/src/Interaction/ThematicSummaryService.php, identifies the same derivative. The epistemic excerpt-fidelity assessment and the memory browsing-consumer finding concern this shared referent; neither turns its trust flag into a proven model-consumer route.

Amendment: EPI-RTE-thematic-summary is superseded by MEM-RTE-thematic-sync. Both identify archive/validation-triggered ThematicSummaryService synchronization: topic selection, deterministic excerpt construction, per-topic persistence and supersession of obsolete paths. Both retain the same excerpt and supersession mechanisms in SRC-1, packages/core/src/Interaction/ThematicSummaryService.php. The memory account additionally traces where catalog labels can originate; that does not make the summarizer generative. The epistemic non-ampliative-extraction assessment and concrete qualification-loss deduction remain local to excerpt construction. The separately declared EPI-RTE-catalog-classification is not superseded: its model proposal, cleaning and fallback have a different evaluator and output from deterministic summary construction.

The combined EPI-OBJ-knowledge-record remains a valid container alongside MEM-OBJ-knowledge-answer and MEM-OBJ-knowledge-metadata. The records identify the same intent-addressed stored record at different granularity, not three competing whole-object declarations. The memory parts distinguish interpreted answer content from machine-consumed eligibility fields and retained reasons. Their SRC-1 passages in packages/core/src/Knowledge/KnowledgeRecord.php and packages/core/src/Knowledge/KnowledgeService.php agree with the epistemic count-of-provenance-entries finding. No split supersession is required: the container's finding is not made wrong by the declared parts. Its ledger must be read with these part-specific authorities, not as one homogeneous form or truth check.

MEM-RTE-knowledge-editing covers direct capture, validation, replacement and display renaming. EPI-RTE-knowledge-validation isolates validation-state updates; EPI-RTE-answer-replacement isolates the web replacement route. These are narrower mechanisms, not identities with the entire memory route. Their matching verified/0.95 replacement passage in SRC-1, packages/core/src/Knowledge/KnowledgeService.php, is independent convergence on an overlapping operation, not grounds to replace the broad record. Neither is identical to RT-RTE-memory-mutation, which changes canonical memory, or RT-RTE-interaction-approval, which starts from an archived interaction.

EPI-RTE-knowledge-assessment isolates a reusable check exposed by CLI and direct APIs as well as consumed within RT-RTE-ask-answer. It is not coextensive with the enclosing ask progression. WF-RTE-request-recovery is an explicitly declared part of RT-RTE-web-request; EPI-RTE-catalog-classification is an explicitly declared part of RT-RTE-interaction-approval. These valid containers need no supersession.

MEM-RTE-thematic-sync spans archive and validation triggers rather than replacing either runtime route. MEM-RTE-inspector-snapshot spans result diagnostics and later inspector-driven catalog maintenance; it is not identical to web asking or RT-RTE-context-supply. The diagnostic catalog, context traces, conversation index, semantic vectors, library index and vault objects have no competing whole-object declarations in the other reports. EPI-OBJ-interaction-catalog identifies a distinct classification part within archived metadata, not the archive as a whole or the separately persisted thematic derivative. No additional duplicate identity is established.

Independent convergence and integration dispositions

Direct answers and reference context have different authority. MEM-BAP-knowledge-reuse, EPI-RTE-knowledge-assessment and RT-RTE-ask-answer converge on deterministic eligibility gates and answer copying. RT-BAP-memory-reference instead concerns model-interpreted reference data. They are distinct consumers/channels, not duplicate authority records. The memory annotation on RT-RTE-context-supply and the epistemic ledger agree that context eligibility can be weaker than direct-answer eligibility. Delivery does not establish reliance, obedience or benefit.

Canonical recall qualifies strict-knowledge policy without contradicting it. EPI-CLM-knowledge-policy concerns metadata-gated knowledge reuse. RT-RTE-ask-answer retains a canonical route that maps confirmed maturity to verified/0.95, bypasses knowledge assessment and receives no currentRequired. The memory account preserves this distinction. A current-data request therefore cannot be generalized into a system-wide freshness guarantee. Knowledge-only retraction also does not establish withdrawal of related canonical content. The epistemic comparison notes that the document's “exact miss” diagram is narrower than semantic fallback after a nonreusable exact hit; this is an attributed design/implementation distinction within the supplied account, not a disagreement between analysts.

Admission mechanisms remain separate. RT-RTE-ask-answer retains default unverified generated capture and existing-exact preservation. RT-RTE-explicit-capture retains software acceptance of structurally valid organization, confirmed canonical storage and a separately attempted verified mirror. EPI-RTE-knowledge-validation, MEM-RTE-knowledge-editing and RT-RTE-interaction-approval retain caller-directed promotion, editing or withdrawal. These differences are route-specific policies, not contradictory statuses. Owner-role invocation establishes neither an actual human review nor an evidence-consuming factual acceptance of every transformed item. The epistemic indeterminate classification for model organization does not deny the runtime's implemented preservation instruction.

Thematic trust metadata does not supply a missing consumer. The memory integration issue is a qualification of RT-RTE-interaction-approval, not a correction: runtime already says summaries retain derived views, not that they necessarily enter generation. MEM-OBJ-thematic-summary establishes browsing and canonical-recall exclusion. The epistemic summary route preserves that exclusion while leaving wider readers unexhausted. Those are compatible scopes; no system-complete negative about every potential reader follows.

Diagnostic cache validity is not live answer eligibility. MEM-OBJ-context-catalog and MEM-RTE-inspector-snapshot retain hash-based incremental refresh and the possibility of time-stale reusable flags. EPI-RTE-knowledge-assessment assesses current record metadata with time/current inputs. These are distinct consumers, so differing results are not a conflict. Inspector counts cannot substitute for live reuse assessment or be inferred to alter answer policy.

Delivery and recovery do not imply durable completion. WF-RTE-request-recovery supplies browser polling and archive reconstruction detail for RT-RTE-web-request. Both retain best-effort persistence, no proven exactly-once concurrency guarantee, and recovery keyed to conversation/request identity rather than renewed freshness evaluation. The workflow qualification that reconstruction omits original context/decision fields narrows what recovery returns; it does not contradict the runtime's reconstructed-answer finding. A pending lookup is not proof of an executing job, and a delivered answer need not be archived. This also explains why remember=false is not a universal no-persistence switch.

Independent object revisions remain independent. The memory report's unresolved operational coherence issue is already carried by RT-RTE-explicit-capture, RT-RTE-memory-mutation, RT-RTE-interaction-approval and MEM-RTE-thematic-sync. Mirror, semantic and derivative failures do not invalidate a supported canonical-write path, but prevent inferring a cross-object transaction or uniform later-consumer state from a success message.

Permission, secret and model boundaries remain local. RT-OBJ-permission-policy and its memory annotation concern retained symbolic access rules, consumed through RT-BAP-policy-decision. RT-CLM-permission-scope limits enforcement to actor-aware protocols rather than process isolation. MEM-OBJ-vault concerns secret payloads delivered to trusted callbacks, not an established model-memory route. MEM-RTE-semantic-maintenance distinguishes retained index updates from changes to the runtime-declared external embedding components. Provider IDs do not pin weights. None of these limitations cancels the supported local persistence, access or indexing mechanisms.

No unresolved inter-report disagreement is established by the supplied records. The operational unknowns above remain limits rather than conflicts. No dependent finding requires a supplied record to say something it no longer says. The reports' separate limits on observed review, semantic fidelity, model compliance, improved capacity and exercised self-improvement remain separate; reconciliation neither strengthens them into absences nor promotes implementation into demonstrated benefit.