LLM Wiki reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Boundary and evidence

All four reports share the revision and run identity of the boundary. Their findings draw on SRC-1 implementation and doctrine/design in its Source register. None supplies observed operation or causal experiments. The workflow selects the batch driver; it does not narrow the whole-system boundary or replace the runtime's alternate-path account. No source reads were needed for this reconciliation. Record citations below supply the source passages and analytical limits.

Record identities and containment

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-eval-set is superseded by MEM-OBJ-eval-set. Both identify the retained eval_set/ files and eval_set_index.json, produced by the same builder and consumed by the optimizer's first-ten-fixture evaluation. Their SRC-1 tools/create_eval_set.py and tools/prompt_optimizer.py evidence identifies the same fixture store, not two evaluation corpora. Memory additionally describes overwritten extraction sidecars; neither report treats those as independently adjudicated answers. This identity affects the epistemic inventory and optimizer ledger and the memory fixture account: they concern one retained evaluation store. Supersession changes no finding, oracle assessment or status.

Other apparent object matches have different operative boundaries, so no further identity supersession is made:

• EPI-OBJ-source-text identifies the normalized document body. MEM-OBJ-normalized includes that body and the separate hash/path/domain/timestamp frontmatter. The former is a material part of the latter, not an alternative declaration of the whole mixed object. Their SRC-1 tools/normalize.py and tools/extract.py findings agree that extraction receives the body, not the entire serialized document.
• EPI-OBJ-extracted-claims and EPI-OBJ-evidence-fields separate fields within MEM-OBJ-extracted. Claims/confidence reach integration; evidence/entities/relationships need not. Memory's sidecar remains a valid container. Neither field record replaces the full sidecar's copied source ID, persistence and existence-based checkpoint role.
• EPI-OBJ-wiki-body covers wiki bodies across integration, direct edits, lint and newsletter synthesis. MEM-OBJ-wiki-body identifies integrated destination bodies and their subsequent mutation; MEM-OBJ-newsletters separately identifies newsletter bodies plus their symbolic frontmatter. These records overlap in retained text, but their whole referents are not identical. The broader epistemic body container does not replace memory's producer-specific objects, and the mixed newsletter artifact does not replace a body-only record.
• EPI-OBJ-wiki-metadata covers frontmatter across integration and synthesis producers. MEM-OBJ-wiki-metadata specifies integration-destination metadata and validator feedback; MEM-OBJ-newsletters supplies the distinct newsletter constants. The shared field names do not erase those producer/admission differences. The broad frontmatter container and narrower accounts can coexist without replacing one another's scope.

Route containment is also not identity. MEM-RTE-curated-poll is the table-to-search-to-raw acquisition part of RT-RTE-batch-ingestion. EPI-RTE-claim-projection is the formatting part of RT-RTE-knowledge-admission. EPI-RTE-reinforcement-selection and EPI-RTE-confidence-update separate the predicate and durable write inside RT-RTE-research-maintenance. EPI-RTE-newsletter-context and EPI-RTE-newsletter-admission separate context projection and output admission inside RT-RTE-wiki-consumption. All are valid parts beside broader runtime containers, not replacements for those containers.

MEM-RTE-rss-reset is a distinct deletion helper, not another declaration of the scheduled monitor or API mutation routes. MEM-OBJ-ingested-ids is its retained-state target, not that route. Likewise RT-BAP-wiki-context is a consumer/channel/force account, not an identity match for any stored body. RT-OBJ-metrics stores operational evaluation state, not fixture inputs or page frontmatter.

The epistemic claims also remain distinct: EPI-CLM-knowledge-compilation, EPI-CLM-source-integrity, and EPI-CLM-retrospective-validation concern compilation, trust constraints and old-claim validation. None is identical to RT-CLM-prompt-ratchet. RT-BAP-agent-doctrine describes delivery of governance to an external host, not another declaration of its substantive trust claim. Workflow declares no records requiring supersession.

Convergence and integration dispositions

Admission, checking and delivery. RT-RTE-knowledge-admission, the memory annotations on it, and the workflow annotations independently connect parse rejection, reduced claim delivery, optional merge and direct page writing. EPI-RTE-claim-projection makes the evidence-field omission explicit. These are compatible findings: the requested evidence-rich extraction object is not the merge input. The epistemic distinction between operational file admission and evidence-consuming acceptance does not contradict the runtime's use of “admission.” Nor does its architectural status “implemented” promote the runtime's operation status from uninspected to observed.

The workflow's completion message and post-write review catalog concern delivery, not global success or prior human acceptance. This agrees with RT-RTE-batch-ingestion. Alternate daemon, watcher and API paths retain the different destinations, checkpoint rules and failure handling of RT-RTE-scheduled-drivers and RT-RTE-api-mutation. The selected workflow supplies no conflicting universal recovery guarantee.

Count-based confidence feedback. Memory's integration issue about repeated integration connects MEM-OBJ-wiki-metadata, RT-RTE-batch-ingestion, and the two epistemic reinforcement parts. Their SRC-1 integration/validator evidence agrees: the count can increase without source-ID uniqueness, and the validator's predicate can permit confidence increments without additional source text or status exclusion. The workflow independently notes repeated sidecar admission. This is convergence on a possible code path, not an observed failure or corroboration result. It qualifies the source's retrospective-validation claim without creating an analyst disagreement.

Synthesis labels and re-entry. MEM-OBJ-newsletters and the two epistemic newsletter routes add detail to RT-RTE-wiki-consumption: the context formatter omits collected status, the length gate admits fixed verified/high-confidence metadata, and the resulting wiki page is eligible for later reads. The status-field omission does not prove that every snippet loses every conflict note. Re-entry does not supply independent evidence. The source-integrity claim retains its own scope: the minimum-two-independent-sources rule quoted by EPI-CLM-source-integrity explicitly concerns CVEs, not all newsletters. Newsletter verification is assessed at its own admission site rather than by extending that rule.

Prompt feedback and reasons across calls. RT-RTE-prompt-optimization, its memory annotation, and the epistemic bounded conclusion agree that retained metrics influence proposal selection while candidate prompt installation is missing. The real metrics-to-proposal path is not erased by the missing candidate-to-extractor path. Neither the keep label nor Git reset establishes installed improvement or safe content restoration. The reports also agree that paper critique requests do not establish retained content-directed criticism: memory identifies projection of insights, possible review removal, and long-form critique bypass within RT-RTE-wiki-consumption. Learning, theory-builder conditions and exercised self-improvement remain separate bounded conclusions, not a single negative status.

Remaining local uncertainties. Memory's unresolved curated-table authorship, per-item source authenticity and incomplete metric-producer provenance limit history reconstruction; they do not contradict known subsequent transformations. MEM-RTE-rss-reset, RT-RTE-api-mutation, and RT-RTE-research-maintenance distinguish admission-state deletion, direct replacement and conflict tagging. Together they do not establish a complete cascading withdrawal mechanism. The memory report explicitly retains that as a bounded unresolved question, not a system-wide evidenced absence.

Cross-report disagreements

No unresolved cross-report conflict is identified in these pinned reports. The memory integration issues are refinements and local limits, and the epistemic report likewise retains the runtime containers. No correction answers or declined objections were supplied. Discrepancies between source claims and inspected routes remain the analysts' claim-versus-route findings; they are not disagreements between reports. Missing deployment, model-output and causal evidence continues to prevent stronger conclusions across all four members.