KHMS memory report verification
Type: agentic-system-analyses/types/agentic-system-verification.md
Verification
The handed reports support a bounded implementation account. The earlier generator-classification blocker is repaired; the local ledger-repair inventory limit remains. I reviewed all declared records, their supporting passages, statuses and annotations, the epistemic ledger and conclusions, the workflow account, and reconciliation's identity and integration dispositions. Source traces below independently check consequential behavior rather than treating analyst checks or correction answers as proof. The supplied report check has no structural failures. Only epistemic supplies a correction answer; no declined objection requires disposition.
The frozen checkout's HEAD equals the revision in boundary, and its status is clean. The tracked top-level tree agrees with boundary's coverage table. Shipped drivers, prompts, maintenance, integration and evaluation remain included responsibilities, not an excluded host's work. All source inspection below is SRC-1 at that pin. No target code, tests, examples, model services or providers were executed. Implementation and doctrine support capacity and requested behavior, not observed operation or causal benefit.
Production, correction and admission
The repaired first two rows of Authority-route ledger distinguish imported source packets from model-authored generated findings. Direct reads of SRC-1 tools/prompts/nightly-generate.md and tools/generated_marks.py, including parse/build, confirm that the model selects and expresses reusable findings while software admits lines using shape, status-kind, source-span and duplicate checks. Those predicates do not assess semantic equivalence between finding and source. The generated-finding relation is now indeterminate, with acquisition restricted to the packet. The inventory, bounded conclusion and reconciliation preserve this distinction. The correction does not suppress the supported generation or grounding mechanism, or misclassify the later per-MARK transformation. This resolves the previous blocker.
For RT-RTE-nightly-proposals, I traced the generated-line commit, queue/evaluator invocation, postprocess, ready carry commit and publication branches in SRC-1 tools/nightly_distill.sh. Durable output can publish without another consolidation call; the legacy model-call branch remains distinct. Publication conflicts retain work instead of silently treating an existing unit as this batch's output. Quote-check failure is tolerated, relation preparation can fail, and header quarantine precedes the separate publisher. Consequently the workflow's account of checked progress does not imply that every check passed or that publication established truth.
Direct SRC-1 tools/permark.py reads of build_packet, format_gate and run support RT-RTE-mark-evaluation and its memory/workflow annotations. Packet construction selects retained cards and earlier candidates; trimming removes lower-ranked material, then source-excerpt prefix, then distant journal context without deleting the MARK's own line. Mandatory material can exceed the packet target. The executable run path permits checker disablement, initialization failure and unchecked continuation; failed repair can retain the first parsed decision. Retries, quota stops and durable document updates support resumability, not successful recovery or semantic reliability. Isolated tool-less calls are not foreground conversation compaction.
For RT-RTE-card-admission, I traced validation before allocation, duplicate-label refusal, receipts, remapping, writes, review markers and the subsequent builder call in SRC-1 tools/approve_inbox.py. The importer authenticates neither human identity nor evidence-consuming semantic review. Its mark_superseded implementation supports EPI-RTE-supersession-link, including repair of an already-superseded target lacking its pointer; the report's generally non-live-target qualification is warranted. These are separate mechanical and operational decisions, not proof of epistemic acceptance. The wider Write/Edit tool policy in nightly and weekly command construction supports the protocol reading of RT-CLM-review-boundary, not a demonstrated bypass. Host permissions and actual model behavior remain unresolved. Local locks and single-file atomic replacement do not establish an all-files or cross-host transaction.
Objects, selectors and actual consumers
I checked the object distinctions in memory's shared records and epistemic's shared records against their retained evidence and producer/consumer traces. Raw records, lossy digests, generated findings, staged card proposals, card bodies, symbolic metadata, operational coverage, hook state, views, vectors and retractions have different consumers and authorities. SRC-1 tools/preprocess_transcripts.py confirms omission of ordinary successful tool results and selective error/text retention. SRC-1 tools/embed_index.py confirms clipped card text, inference-derived float16 vectors, content/model-name hashes and NPZ-before-manifest writes. The encoder records RT-CMP-qwen and RT-CMP-bge correctly distinguish numerical output from parameters and leave exact artifact fixity unestablished. RT-CMP-agent-model likewise establishes configured inference calls, not provider immutability or training.
For RT-RTE-recall-return, direct SRC-1 tools/khms_search.py, tools/khms_pending.py, tools/precheck.sh, tools/khms_hook.py and tools/khms_select.py reads confirm distinct loaded-card, pending-evidence, tagged-warning and hook paths. The supplied CLI evidence supports history and separately labelled pending rendering; history does not add archived files to load_cards. The pending and precheck records are genuine parts of the recall container, not competing whole-route declarations. Precheck's refuted/challenged warnings qualify current-approved-only readings.
Hook main returns from SessionStart after operational reminders, dispatches status/Agent/report handling separately, and performs risky-command precheck before ordinary budget selection. The settings example omits Agent/Task and Stop. Selector rendering bounds correction pointers and can drop one on construction failure; its cap exception is explicit. These support EPI-RTE-hook-gates and memory's qualifications without converting conditional denial into universal filesystem control. The receiving model's interpretive force in RT-BAP-context-delivery remains distinct from code's permission-decision channel. Delivery establishes neither reading nor compliance.
Direct SRC-1 tools/build_views.py, write_memory_md, confirms navigation, counts and search duties rather than bootstrap-card preload. MEM-OBJ-views and MEM-RTE-index-bootstrap correctly distinguish this implementation from runtime's explicitly prescribed AGENTS channel. No unresolved report contradiction follows from quoting that doctrine. Direct tombstone rendering and export-copy reads support MEM-RTE-retired-lookup and MEM-RTE-export-copy: retired assertions have labelled historical presentation, while export copies filename-selected files without renewed semantic approval or proof of remote use. SRC-1: tools/tombstone_lookup.py, tools/khms_export.sh.
Maintenance, warrant and workflow
The separate mechanisms under RT-RTE-maintenance-admission remain supported. SRC-1 tools/weekly_synthesis.sh, run_proven, tests transcript read coverage and output presence, not correctness. Its prompt requests principles, discriminating experiments and criticism of recurring mistakes, supporting EPI-CLM-synthesis-review as guidance rather than performed criticism. SRC-1 tools/card_validity.py, check_answer and proposal_row, supports EPI-RTE-validity-check: reproducible evidence and aggregation do not validate command relevance, complete decomposition or all subclaims. A holds label can coexist with offline uncertainty; know-how-only is not validity checking.
SRC-1 tools/apply_triage.py, decide and main, confirms EPI-RTE-triage-verdict: absent verdicts reject ordinary application, quote/conflict guards constrain it, and assume-apply cannot write. Its separate mirror-contradicts mode does not make that row-verdict claim false; the reports do not claim an exhaustive maintenance inventory. SRC-1 tools/khms_erratum.py, apply, and tools/khms_archive.py confirm MEM-OBJ-tombstones: explicit corrections can replace live wording while retaining history; archive can make optional local prewrite copies. These are counterexamples to unqualified immutability or external-backup-only claims, neither of which the reconciled account requires.
EPI-RTE-quote-check and EPI-CLM-grounding-check retain the correct distinction between textual occurrence and truth/entailment. The nightly consumer's tolerated exit independently confirms non-universal gating. The complete SRC-1 tools/eval/run_eval.py read supports EPI-RTE-retrieval-eval and MEM-CLM-evaluation-scope: expected card IDs supply a retrieval oracle; only gated source=miss failures determine failure exit. Neither that oracle nor the attributed measurement narrative in EPI-CLM-measured-injection establishes downstream benefit or component causality. Missing deployment evidence is not architectural absence.
The workflow account traces connected producers and consumers, with code owning progression, the reviewer owning semantic disposition and the foreground host owning final action. It does not invent a successful run. The learning, reflection, autonomy, theory-builder and self-improvement discussion keeps requested/dispositional pathways separate from missing concrete criticism, live causal dependence and demonstrated improvement. RT-RTE-operational-change also separates operator-managed release from private prompt replacement; SRC-1 tools/khms_prompt.py confirms default-block replacement and malformed-placeholder refusal, not autonomous code rewriting.
Relations, omissions and stopping decision
All declared Part of relations have supported containment: pending/precheck within recall, supersession within import, validity and triage within maintenance. There are no supersession amendments. Reconciliation correctly leaves valid overlapping containers and operative parts intact, rather than treating shared substrates or different prefixes as identity evidence. Its dispositions cover every memory integration issue: bootstrap, SessionStart, history/archive, bounded correction pointers, backup alternatives and semantic/deployment uncertainty. No unresolved disagreement requiring a reconciliation blocker remains. Its statement about not receiving analyst answers concerns its own inputs; the current epistemic correction answer was assessed here, not assumed accepted by reconciliation.
Omission questions were selected from the frozen tree and producer/consumer dependencies: whether model generation changes the acquisition classification; whether initialization provides an unreviewed content-install path; whether maintenance preview/backup alternatives defeat gate or recovery claims; and whether ledger coverage has another repair mechanism. The first is repaired. SRC-1 tools/khms_init.sh, tools/new_card.sh and tools/khms_snapshot.sh inspection supports infrastructure/bootstrap-through-review, allocation rather than content installation, and a retired snapshot entry point. Triage preview, archive copies, pending evidence and actual hook event branches have supported scoped dispositions above. Legacy ledger repair remains the limit below.
Further optional omission expansion stopped because these questions have dispositions and no identified material challenge remains without one. The reports already withhold exhaustive evaluator/maintenance correctness, deployed content semantics, actual review adherence and exercised benefit. Uninspected helper internals and unavailable deployment artifacts do not establish absence; neither do they require weakening supported mechanisms merely to equalize coverage.
Blockers
none
Limits
- MEM-OBJ-mark-ledger and the coverage of EPI-OBJ-mark do not separately characterize the shipped lexical repair of older unquoted already-carded verdicts. Direct SRC-1
tools/mark_ledger.py, cmd_recheck_carded, confirms selection of that narrow legacy subset, distinctive-term comparison with card text and reopen-event application under explicit apply. The epistemic coverage and reconciliation now acknowledge the unassessed helper. The partial inventory and operational-coverage conclusions hold, but readers should withhold a complete comparison of coverage-check/repair mechanisms or per-event human decision control. This is software-selected ledger repair, not semantic truth checking or direct card revision. Its operative write is:
if a.apply and reopen: append_events(paths, [{"ts": _now(), "ev": "reopen", "id": mid, "by": a.by, "cards": [], "reason": f"#209 A1 lexical re-check: {h}/{n} distinctive terms " f"of the mark in {cid} (missing {', '.join(miss[:6])})"} for mid, cid, h, n, miss in reopen])
---
tools/mark_ledger.py