Dense-Mem reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Boundary and evidence alignment

All four reports use the revision and source identity fixed by the boundary and its Source register. Their additional inspections extend knowledge of SRC-1, not the frozen source boundary. Whole-system inclusion is not exhaustive inspection: each specialist retains uninspected implementation detail. None supplies execution or intervention evidence. Implemented routes, host-facing affordances and unobserved operation therefore remain separate; no status is promoted by agreement between reports. No analyst correction answers or declined objections were supplied to this attempt.

Record identity and containment

Amendment: EPI-RTE-recall-feedback is superseded by MEM-RTE-feedback-recording. Both identify the production snapshot-linked caller feedback mechanism through internal/recall/feedback.go: authorized captured snapshot and result references → validated attributed report → repository event → later list/get readers. The memory record also describes snapshot creation, optional resolver wiring and pruning; these extend the route account rather than identify another feedback submission mechanism. The epistemic record's passages establish the captured-snapshot requirement and RecordFeedback handoff; the memory record supplies content-free reference and production-composition passages. The affected epistemic retention-ledger row and bounded feedback conclusion continue to concern imported caller judgments, not independent scoring or automatic semantic adaptation. Supersession selects a common route identity only: the epistemic fields, its narrower downstream inspection limit and both declarations remain available. The feedback assessment object is not superseded by this route.

The remaining overlapping records are not interchangeable identities:

• EPI-OBJ-evidence-content describes the assertion-bearing content class from caller/process input into retained evidence, including the session-segment intake. MEM-OBJ-evidence-fragments describes retained evidence occurrences with canonical/source/revision/lifecycle lineage. Their shared evidence text does not make the whole referents identical. The epistemic acquisition/acceptance distinction and the memory eligibility history remain separate findings. Neither supersedes the other or MEM-OBJ-session-events, which is raw staged session input.
• EPI-OBJ-relationship-proposals covers submitted proposals and resulting grounded semantic decisions. MEM-OBJ-relationship-records covers retained relationships, observations, effective supports and transitions. They overlap at admitted decisions but differ at proposal and retained-history stages. No supersession equates an unaccepted proposal with an active supported relationship.
• EPI-OBJ-organization-metadata covers organization item results, definition references and pair decisions at assessment/publication. MEM-OBJ-ontology-records covers retained operational revisions/heads, while MEM-OBJ-organization-receipt covers provenance, outcomes and accounting. These are connected stages and operative parts, not equivalent complete objects. No split supersession is required: none of the supplied findings becomes wrong merely because the operational records and receipt are distinguished.
• EPI-OBJ-feedback-assessment is the report payload, not the feedback route or RT-RTE-evaluation-suite. Caller quality judgments and deterministic qrels have different origins and licenses.
• MEM-RTE-lifecycle-changes validly groups caller correction and withdrawal. EPI-RTE-relationship-correction and EPI-RTE-evidence-withdrawal separately trace those operations and their reliance effects. The combined record retains both branches; it is not superseded by its already-declared parts. Neither part is an alternative identity for ordinary Remember.
• MEM-RTE-trace-export explicitly groups trace and independent pack assembly. EPI-RTE-trace-lineage and EPI-RTE-pack-export trace the respective branches. The valid container remains alongside its parts without supersession. JSON pack export is not RT-RTE-skill-export, whose host drafts proposed instructions.
• RT-OBJ-assessment-session is temporary provider working history, not durable evidence, session raw storage or extraction checkpoints. MEM-OBJ-extraction-checkpoints and MEM-OBJ-session-events are explicit parts of RT-RTE-session-intake, not competing intake routes. The organization receipt and conflict derivation likewise remain explicit parts of their runtime routes.
• RT-CMP-openai-embedding, MEM-OBJ-search-documents and MEM-OBJ-search-vectors identify respectively a provider component, readable projection and retained numerical output. No shared embedding label establishes identity. MEM-RTE-derived-projections covers vector repair and deterministic community projection, not ontology assessment.
• MEM-BAP-organization-selection acts through retained definitions and symbolic grouping before context delivery. RT-BAP-discovery-guidance acts through advisory prose after selection. They have different consumers, channels and force.
• WF-CLM-client-delivery establishes caller ordering, ignored returns and failure boundaries. It neither duplicates RT-RTE-remember-intake nor RT-RTE-recall-context. Its workflow annotation adds repair detail to the former without declaring another intake route.

EPI-RTE-boundary-markers and EPI-RTE-recall-hydration are explicitly declared parts of runtime intake and recall respectively. Their local presentation and final-selection findings do not replace those larger routes. The three epistemic claims address semantic proposal scope, final recall gating and correction lineage; none is an identity for the runtime's transaction/replay claim, RT-CLM-commit-fences. MEM-RTE-private-erasure and MEM-RTE-administrative-views have no counterpart in the other supplied declarations; physical erasure is not lifecycle withdrawal, and historical display is not active generation.

Anchored disagreement

Unresolved conflict: RT-RTE-recall-context, as annotated in the memory report, and EPI-RTE-recall-hydration differ on the evidence text reaching the caller. The memory annotation says returned evidence contains original fragment content and contrasts it with derived semantic/community material. The epistemic record says ordinary evidence context is byte-bounded by truncateRecallContext, explicitly not a complete evidence dump. Both cite SRC-1, internal/recall/postgres/recall_repository.go; the epistemic record also traces selection through internal/recall/recall_ontology.go. “Original” could mean source-derived rather than complete, but the memory annotation does not state that distinction or the truncation limit. The reconciler does not decide whether that wording is merely provenance shorthand or a conflicting completeness claim. The records cannot jointly license an unqualified conclusion that the full retained fragment reaches the caller. Verification must address this delivery-scope discrepancy without discarding their shared source-lineage finding.

Integration-issue dispositions and convergence

Conflict-derived audit payload versus semantic resolution. MEM-OBJ-conflict-derivation qualifies RT-RTE-conflict-review: its fixed deletion-only fragment is audit/recovery input without a required vector and is excluded from ordinary evidence hydration. The record supplies both the deletion-only text and repository comment; MEM-OBJ-evidence-fragments supplies the recall exclusion. Runtime says resolved semantic state and derived evidence tasks reach later knowledge consumers, but does not expressly assert that the derived fragment is recalled factual support. These positions need not disagree: the changed relationship eligibility, durable task recovery and fixed audit payload have different effects. Preserve the qualification, not a new claim of factual support. The epistemic report's uninspected derived-text limit on RT-RTE-conflict-review is a local inspection limit, not a competing content classification. It does not erase the memory record's positive witness.

Public final-support gate versus implementation. EPI-CLM-support-gating records a source-native README claim; EPI-RTE-recall-hydration records an ordinary lexical-path counterexample using optional relationship attachments and final selection. This is a claim-versus-route mismatch within the epistemic report, not automatically a disagreement with runtime or memory. RT-RTE-recall-context expressly leaves detailed support filters unaudited. MEM-OBJ-relationship-records discusses eligibility of returned relationships, not a universal requirement that every evidence hit have a relationship. Other lifecycle, quarantine and source/space filters can coexist with the stated counterexample. The reconciler neither verifies that deduction nor upgrades it to an observed incident.

Admission and evidence lineage. RT-RTE-remember-intake, EPI-OBJ-relationship-proposals and the memory annotation on that route distinguish caller proposals, model interpretation, software validation and database admission. Evidence-relative acceptance in the epistemic account does not contradict runtime's refusal to guarantee factual truth. EPI-OBJ-evidence-content additionally distinguishes safe evidence retention from relationship acceptance. RT-CLM-commit-fences concerns accepted direct Remember writes, not exactly-once provider work or identical staging across all intake paths.

Session grounding and retained context. MEM-OBJ-session-events and MEM-OBJ-extraction-checkpoints extend RT-RTE-session-intake with prior-event selection, recovery reload and raw-to-derived lineage. Exact retained source spans are a positive witness, not universal semantic entailment. The epistemic report's indeterminate extraction relation and its uninspected validator/commit limits therefore coexist with the memory findings. Security-bearing checkpoints need not be accepted semantic knowledge. Caller-supplied session text is only conditionally an interaction trace; the framework label does not authenticate origin.

Correction, withdrawal and erasure. The correction branch of MEM-RTE-lifecycle-changes and EPI-RTE-relationship-correction converge on owner/version/support controls and supersession. The latter adds that copied support plus server-policy entailed metadata does not establish a semantic re-check of changed endpoints. That additional assessment does not contradict the memory record. EPI-RTE-evidence-withdrawal and the withdrawal branch of the memory container agree that other support can keep a relationship active. Neither is MEM-RTE-private-erasure: queued/completed, logical withdrawal/physical deletion and in-database/external copies remain distinct.

Organization, freshness and reasons. RT-RTE-ontology-maintenance and RT-RTE-manager-publication have distinct admission principals. Memory's operational records and receipt extend those routes without imposing manager approval on automatic publication. Current/stale checks in MEM-OBJ-ontology-records and source-change handling in MEM-RTE-derived-projections do not establish complete transactional race prevention or universal undo. These are compatible inspection limits, not disagreements. Receipt reasons, checkpoint citations, lifecycle reasons and assessment diagnostics also do not establish that later models receive all rationale; MEM-OBJ-organization-receipt expressly separates receipt provenance from recall's operational input. Historical Dream display in MEM-RTE-administrative-views establishes neither current generation nor reflection.

Recall/trace workflow and delivery. WF-CLM-client-delivery makes the shipped consumer sequence more precise than the runtime overview: recall output is discarded, and trace handles come from the original Remember splits. Trace output is also discarded. This does not contradict runtime's description of calling recall and tracing returned handles; it rules out inferring that the example verifies every recalled discovery. The trace/export records establish bounded provenance access, not an enforced acceptance decision. Successful Remember return and successful completion of the whole example remain different delivery boundaries; cancellation or later-call failure does not prove rollback.

Feedback, evaluation and export limits. The feedback supersession above does not turn caller judgments into the qrel oracle of RT-RTE-evaluation-suite. Memory's additional retention/resolver observations and epistemic's uninspected broader analytics limit are compatible. Neither establishes automatic feedback-driven adaptation. Runtime's afforded skill-export conclusion and the epistemic ledger's doctrine only host transformation use different status vocabularies for the same inspected prompt boundary: prompt serving exists; host drafting, review and installation are not observed. Both preserve RT-RTE-skill-export as guidance, not installed capability. Evaluation artifacts/gates are likewise not automatic product installation. Across these routes, architecture, activation, improved capacity and causal benefit remain independent conclusions.

No source reads beyond the supplied members were needed for this reconciliation. Remaining uninspected helpers, browser projections, historical provenance, rollback transactions, external copies and unavailable run artifacts stay beside their reports' bounded conclusions rather than becoming system-wide negatives.