ExpeL reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

The pinned reports share the boundary's Source register: implementation and doctrine/design at one frozen revision, without supplied execution or causal comparison. This reconciliation uses those reports, not new source reads. No analyst correction answers or declines were supplied. The previous reconciliation is not evidence for current connections.

Duplicate supersessions

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-rule-items is superseded by MEM-OBJ-rule-items. Both identify rule_items, the text projection of rule_items_with_count, formatted rules and fold cache_rules: natural-language rule text in agent containers and checkpoints (SRC-1 agent/expel.py). Memory retains cache-copy/load passages; epistemic's proposal and disposition records supply its supporting passages. These are the same operative text, not different objects because their analytical questions differ. Affected findings are the epistemic inventory and its proposal, disposition, retention and integration object links. Actual truth-apt assertions versus imperative tips remain undetermined in epistemic; identity neither replaces that finding nor upgrades memory's content assessment.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-rule-count is superseded by MEM-OBJ-rule-counts. Both identify the integer tuple elements in rule_items_with_count, with fixed updater semantics and saved-list storage (SRC-1 agent/expel.py). Memory and EPI-RTE-counter-disposition retain ADD and filtering/sorting evidence. This affects the epistemic inventory and counter-disposition object connection. Both findings distinguish retention preferences from calibrated correctness. Counters and rule text remain separate objects because their forms, consumers and authority differ.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-critiques is superseded by MEM-OBJ-critiques. Both identify critiques, all_success_critiques and all_fail_critiques: task/group-keyed natural-language lists eligible for dictionary snapshots (SRC-1 agent/expel.py). Memory retains initialization evidence; EPI-RTE-critique-cleanup retains cleanup and template-mapping evidence. This affects the epistemic inventory and cleanup-output connection. These dictionaries are not the rule pool. Actual payloads and consequential later consumers remain unestablished.

Containers, parts and distinct routes

RT-RTE-training-loop remains a valid container alongside EPI-RTE-source-acquisition, EPI-RTE-answer-check and EPI-RTE-outcome-disposition. Those declared parts distinguish observation import, benchmark checking and consequential classification; they also name evaluation overlap. None replaces the container's scheduling, retries and persistence. MEM-OBJ-trial-history and MEM-OBJ-reflections identify retained material, not duplicate routes. EPI-OBJ-observation and EPI-OBJ-answer identify operative text rather than whole histories or reflection guidance. Containment and overlapping storage do not establish identity or require supersession.

RT-RTE-rule-admission likewise remains alongside EPI-RTE-insight-proposal, EPI-RTE-syntax-check and EPI-RTE-counter-disposition. Proposal, protocol checking and membership/order disposition have different evaluators and force. The memory objects identify retained inputs and outputs, including MEM-OBJ-analysis-logs, not replacement routes. No container-to-part supersession is warranted.

MEM-RTE-auxiliary-critique is not identical to EPI-RTE-critique-cleanup. Memory follows caller-to-helper generation and dictionary admission; epistemic isolates output normalization and its possible qualifier deletion. Both retain absent shipped template keys and no established consequential reader (SRC-1 agent/expel.py, prompts/templates/human.py). Memory's implementation status is afforded for helper invocation; epistemic's is wired for the cleanup body, with implemented ledger status. Epistemic expressly conditions dictionary production on successful dispatch. These scoped statuses do not disagree about successful default-driver operation. Neither is operation-based rule admission; no supersession or stronger-status selection is made.

MEM-RTE-log-inspection is not identical to EPI-RTE-log-summary. Memory traces caller-selected persisted-text visualization; epistemic traces textual outcome classification into summaries consumed by drivers as well as visualization (SRC-1 tools/visualize_logs.py, utils.py). Shared helpers do not make their endpoints identical. Neither replaces checkpoint restoration or benchmark checking. Epistemic's WebShop score-marker witness distinguishes reporting from full-reward judgment, while memory leaves aggregation helpers incompletely audited; that uncertainty is not a contrary finding.

Fold-selection connection and remaining discrepancy

The previous extraction disagreement no longer describes the pinned mechanism findings. RT-RTE-rule-admission now explicitly distinguishes driver subtraction of evaluation IDs, compare-branch idx2task lookup, success-group dictionary enumeration, and resumed reuse of saved groups. Its selection predicate and evidence limits retain the insertion-order/task-index alignment condition. Memory's rule-admission annotation and integration issue 1, and EPI-RTE-insight-proposal, give the same success-group qualification. Their retained loop passages support that connection (SRC-1 agent/expel.py, insight_extraction.py). None establishes actual leakage. No supersession follows: epistemic's proposal part does not replace the broader runtime admission route.

Unresolved conflict: EPI-RTE-insight-proposal still characterizes its qualification as needed beside the supplied runtime finding and says it qualifies runtime's “unconditional held-out-ID wording.” The pinned RT-RTE-rule-admission, however, expressly carries that condition in its account, selection predicate and evidence limits, supported by the enumeration and lookup passages (SRC-1 agent/expel.py). Both records agree on the underlying selection mechanism; the discrepancy concerns epistemic's characterization of the current peer finding. It prevents treating that characterization as a current cross-report mechanism objection. Reconciliation does not rewrite the epistemic record or adjudicate its correction disposition; no supplied answer explains whether that wording was retained deliberately.

The separate retrieval qualification now also appears explicitly in RT-RTE-evaluation-context, as well as MEM-OBJ-retrieval-docs and memory's evaluation annotation. The candidate pool comes from the full restored success history plus shipped examples; current-task and duplicate-task filters are not fold filters (SRC-1 agent/expel.py, eval.py). Thus conditional extraction holdout and retrieval exposure remain separate paths. This is convergence, not an unresolved disagreement or evidence that a held-out trajectory was delivered in a run.

Independent convergence and integration dispositions

The workflow training annotation, RT-RTE-training-loop, memory's training annotation and EPI-RTE-answer-check distinguish driver scheduling, code retries/admission, model proposal and adapter outcome judgment. Workflow selects the README HotpotQA command with testing disabled; runtime separately retains caller-supplied testing responses. The selective workflow does not claim extraction and evaluation automatically follow training. No workflow record duplicates another declaration.

Outcome-classified retention does not approve every trajectory statement. Runtime's syntactic admission, memory's counters and epistemic's separate checking, disposition, retention and integration findings are compatible. A wired update-and-delivery route does not contradict the epistemic finding that no separate per-rule evidence-consuming truth/transfer acceptance is established. The independent theory-builder, learning, reflection and dispositional self-change limits remain those of RT-RTE-rule-admission and RT-RTE-training-loop; convergence does not establish exercised or successful improvement.

Memory integration issue 1 is substantively carried by the current runtime qualifications; its request to qualify supplied statements is no longer evidence of the earlier unconditional finding. Issues 2 and 3 remain bounded limits: auxiliary critiques are not an additional working default maintenance route, and retained reflection documents or past_reflections do not establish supported reflection retrieval or a direct archive reader. RT-RTE-evaluation-context also retains unsupported reflection_similarity dispatch. Issue 4 rules out duplicates against memory's supplied runtime records; the three object supersessions above concern independently declared epistemic and memory referents, not a reversal of that comparison.

Memory issue 5 and the members' operation limits remain evidence needs rather than disagreements. Logs may retain inputs and proposals without a demonstrated per-rule rationale model or actor delivery. RT-RTE-checkpoint-restore, memory's checkpoint annotation and the workflow checkpoint annotation agree that restoration can bypass content transformation and does not establish exact replay, transactional recovery or automatic semantic rollback. No declined objection is supplied, and no correction answer independently establishes repair or acceptance.