EchoWiki reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

The four reports concern the same frozen shipped system and use SRC-1 implementation and doctrine/design, with no supplied execution or causal experiment. The boundary owns this evidence identity. No source reads were needed for reconciliation. No correction answers or declined objections were supplied to this attempt; the connections below are assessed from the pinned members themselves.

Identity and containment

Amendment: EPI-RTE-page-consume is superseded by MEM-RTE-retained-selection. Both identify the same compile-triggered progression: enumerate concept/entity descriptions or previews for planning, let the model select update names, sanitize paths and deliver selected prior bodies without frontmatter to update calls. Their evidence is SRC-1 src/wiki/briefs.ts and src/wiki/compiler.ts; both retain the description-resolution passage, and memory retains the longer selected-body read passage. This connects the epistemic ledger's operational consumption finding to the memory report's read-back finding without changing either status or authority assessment. Both retain wired implementation and uninspected operation; neither establishes factual endorsement, activated response dependence or benefit. Both IDs remain declared.

The combined RT-RTE-document-compile remains a valid container. MEM-RTE-retained-selection and MEM-RTE-page-maintenance are declared parts, not replacements. The epistemic summary generation, page generation, summary rewrite, structural check, disposition, link check, link reshaping, page retention and source-lineage routes are also declared parts of that container. Their functions separate transformation, checking, disposition, persistence and lineage; they do not invalidate the parent's finite compilation account. In particular, MEM-RTE-page-maintenance contains several functions distinguished by EPI-RTE-plan-check, EPI-RTE-plan-dispose, EPI-RTE-link-check, EPI-RTE-link-reshape, EPI-RTE-page-retain and EPI-RTE-source-lineage. These are not identities with the whole maintenance route, so no supersession of that valid container follows.

The output-object overlaps do not establish whole-record identities. EPI-OBJ-summary spans current-call draft, description and persisted summary; MEM-OBJ-summaries identifies persisted summary pages and their later consumers. EPI-OBJ-concept-page and EPI-OBJ-entity-page span prose, descriptions and symbolic page fields; MEM-OBJ-concepts and MEM-OBJ-entities identify the bodies, while MEM-OBJ-page-metadata distinguishes frontmatter. These valid combined accounts remain alongside the operative parts; a different granularity is not a reason to supersede them. Their findings do not become wrong merely because bodies and metadata are assessed separately.

EPI-OBJ-source-metadata overlaps MEM-OBJ-page-metadata, but includes related path links and omits the latter's natural-language description interface. Neither replaces the other's entire referent. EPI-OBJ-source-content identifies the compile input string, including CLI/API content; MEM-OBJ-raw identifies vault acquisition files, including audio not read by the compiler. These also are not whole-record identities. EPI-OBJ-plan has no memory-object counterpart: symbolic current-call task selection differs from the retained queue, page prose and metadata.

The memory index, log and utility-payload objects are not duplicates of EPI-RTE-source-lineage or EPI-RTE-helper-access: those routes describe operations over the objects. The helper route also is not the compilation route. EPI-RTE-probe-check and EPI-RTE-probe-notice distinguish response checking from informational presentation; neither duplicates compilation or voice acquisition merely because a common client performs requests.

RT-OBJ-agents and RT-OBJ-pending-queue receive memory annotations rather than duplicate declarations. RT-BAP-retained-pages identifies a consumer/channel/force/horizon, not the bodies or metadata themselves. Its overlap with selection and consumption routes is therefore not identity. The workflow declares no new records and annotates the runtime routes; no workflow supersession is needed.

The three epistemic claim records concern knowledge compilation, cross-document synthesis and summary preservation. None duplicates RT-CLM-conflict-policy, which concerns manual edits. Likewise MEM-ABS-feedback-consumer and EPI-ABS-quality-gate are not identical absences: the former concerns operation-log/quality-result feedback into later guidance; the latter concerns factual acceptance, post-acceptance integration and refutation-directed withdrawal. Their searched boundaries overlap, but their missing functions differ.

Independent convergence and integration dispositions

The source-copy issue is a convergent qualification, not a disagreement. MEM-OBJ-sources, MEM-OBJ-page-metadata and EPI-RTE-source-lineage distinguish emitted full_text paths from an implemented archival write. Their SRC-1 src/wiki/page-writer.ts passages show pointer production; their compiler/caller inspections report no source-copy step. The boundary's inclusion of the declared layout and standalone helpers does not assert that the short compiler populates it. External prepopulation remains unresolved, so pointer existence cannot establish recoverable evidence.

The entity/concept create asymmetry also qualifies rather than contradicts the runtime. MEM-OBJ-entities, MEM-RTE-page-maintenance and EPI-RTE-page-retain retain the entity existence check from SRC-1 src/wiki/compiler.ts. Entity metadata-update handling can preserve source fields even when create generation lacked the old body. Concept metadata handling follows the plan branch. This distinction leaves intact the runtime's semantic replacement warning and RT-CLM-conflict-policy; it does not license identical metadata-loss claims for both types.

The runtime, memory and workflow account converge on code-owned sequencing, explicit per-task message arrays, sibling-output isolation and full-source delivery to each task. MEM-RTE-retained-selection connects that current-call isolation to later page reloads. No report establishes an agent stack, saved conversation, aggregate context budget or model-controlled tool loop.

RT-RTE-document-compile, MEM-RTE-page-maintenance and the epistemic check/disposition routes converge on structural eligibility rather than factual acceptance. Malformed page JSON may become raw text; failed page tasks can be skipped while the caller completes. EPI-RTE-link-check agrees with the runtime's planned-target forcing case: whitelist membership is not eventual page existence. EPI-RTE-summary-rewrite agrees with runtime, memory and workflow that target names, not final generated page bodies, reach the rewrite. The doctrine/implementation mismatches in these records are not disagreements between analysts.

The operator instruction route and RT-BAP-compiler-instructions retain requested model behavior, not verified obedience. The memory annotation and epistemic ledger agree that edits change later prompt supply without an automatic compiler-authored method revision. Provider mutability, utility caller identity, initial page provenance, human review, host durability and actual outcomes remain bounded unknowns. These unknowns do not conflict with wired read-back or the separate bounded absence findings, and neither absence licenses a system-wide denial of inaccessible provider learning.

Unresolved conflict

Unresolved conflict: RT-RTE-watcher-approval, the memory annotation on RT-OBJ-pending-queue, and the workflow annotation differ on the scope of failure retention. Runtime says thrown compilation leaves the pending item, and memory says failure leaves a path for retry. Workflow retains a concurrent-approval exception: compileRawPath returns normally when the path is already in flight, allowing compilePendingItem to remove the queue entry without waiting for the active compilation. Its SRC-1 obsidian-plugin/src/main.ts passages show both the early return and the wrapper's unconditional removal after return. The sequential failure-retention account and this exception can coexist only with an explicit non-overlap condition; runtime and memory do not state that condition beside their retention findings. The disagreement prevents treating a thrown active compilation as guaranteeing that its queued path remains available for retry, or queue removal as universally witnessing completed delivery. Reconciliation selects neither position and does not revise either report. The verifier must assess whether the runtime and memory retention statements require the workflow's qualification. Actual occurrence of the overlap remains unobserved.