Kherad reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Duplicate routes and distinct objects

Amendment: EPI-RTE-okf-edit is superseded by MEM-RTE-compiled-edit. Both identify the same permission-checked compiled-document save in SRC-1 apps/api/src/routes/okf-docs.ts: caller Markdown passes path/frontmatter/access gates and is committed on the caller's user branch, not directly published. Their retained passages show the same okfDocGitPath write. The memory record additionally describes editor GET selection; the epistemic record's retention-ledger finding concerns the shared PUT path. This connection does not turn caller admission into factual review or change either record's implementation/operation status.

Amendment: EPI-RTE-version-restore is superseded by MEM-RTE-version-restore. Both identify the same review-authorized local snapshot/restore route in SRC-1 apps/api/src/routes/wiki-versions.ts, invoking the version helper and reconciling raw/OKF search state without a new MR. Their shared reconciliation passage and endpoint identities establish duplication, not two recovery mechanisms. The memory record also inspects packages/core/src/git/versions.ts and retains its raw, legacy wiki and OKF prefix list. The epistemic record calls the route raw-wiki restore and explicitly leaves helper internals uninspected; that limit is not a finding that the helper excludes OKF. Its raw-source ledger row remains a description of one affected part, not a complete restored-tree inventory. The connection neither erases that inspection limit nor establishes exercised recovery. These records must not be counted as separate admission routes, and the raw framing must not be used to exclude restored compiled content.

Exact object identity is ruled out between EPI-OBJ-source-pages and either MEM-OBJ-source-pages or MEM-OBJ-source-mirror individually. The epistemic record is an expressly combined raw-and-mirror inventory; memory distinguishes original source files from copied compiled-tree bytes. The shared mirror-write passage establishes the overlap. Memory's byte-comparison consumer belongs to the mirror, while latest-user-branch selection belongs to raw sources. The combined inventory can remain alongside those parts: it does not assert that every consumer reads both or that raw files and mirrors are the same stored object. No split supersession is required by an identified incorrect container finding.

Exact identity is also ruled out between EPI-OBJ-concept-docs and MEM-OBJ-compiled-docs. The former explicitly excludes reserved index/log and source mirrors and follows concept documents across staging and persistence. The latter includes concepts plus index/log. Neither is identical to RT-OBJ-pending, the ephemeral path/value/deletion map. A document's staged value and its later Git representation connect these records without equating their substrates, lifetimes or entire referents.

EPI-OBJ-session-draft covers drafts and proposed replacements; MEM-OBJ-session-content additionally covers original snapshots and uploads with their distinct consumers. They overlap but are not identical containers. Likewise EPI-OBJ-chat-answer covers streamed answers and optional assistant persistence, whereas MEM-OBJ-message-parts covers stored user/assistant parts across chat and specialist sessions. Neither container replaces the other. MEM-OBJ-chunk-content and MEM-OBJ-chunk-embedding are separately retained readable and numerical outputs, not duplicates of their producing RT-CMP-embedding-model. MEM-OBJ-search-index is durable access state, not the pending proposal map. No further exact object or component identity is established by the supplied records.

Route containment and independent convergence

EPI-RTE-structural-check and EPI-RTE-resource-rewrite declare distinct parts of RT-RTE-indexer-compile. Tool-level shape admission and post-generation source-link rewriting have different targets and effects; neither duplicates the entire compile route or the other part. The epistemic ledger separates checking from disposition even where one tool branch implements both. Its resource fallback passage adds a lineage limit to runtime's postprocessing account, not a correction that the compiler does not write source links.

WF-RTE-conflict-resolution is a declared recovery part of RT-RTE-review-merge, not another ordinary approval route. It adds stored-conflict GET, required-resolution-path checking and the dedicated resolution helper. The parent retains ordinary approve/reject/no-op behavior. Workflow's two delivery boundaries—pollable proposal/no-change outcome, then admitted default-branch content—agree with runtime's distinction between run success and publication.

MEM-RTE-history-replay connects stored parts to the client-submitted history consumed by RT-RTE-bundle-chat; it is not identical to the whole answering route. MEM-RTE-search-read spans search operations used by chat, specialists and HTTP readers, and MEM-RTE-search-refresh spans maintenance after merge, remote import, restore and administrative reindex. Neither is part of exactly one enclosing supplied route, and neither duplicates those full routes. These are the narrower/different chains identified in memory's integration issues, not competing accounts of who produces an answer or admits publication.

The reports independently converge on policy versus enforcement. RT-CLM-reviewed-chat concerns chat grounding and the asserted human-reviewed knowledge input. EPI-CLM-reviewed-publication concerns universal publication review; EPI-CLM-source-fidelity concerns compilation fidelity. These claims are not identical despite related review/source language. Runtime and workflow describe real structural and reviewer gates, while the epistemic account limits what those gates warrant. Workflow's description of model and reviewer verification of meaning does not supply a named factual criterion, reference oracle or observed acceptance episode absent from the declaring records.

Integration dispositions and limits

Memory's additional-admission issue is retained through the restore connection above. RT-RTE-remote-pull and local version restore are distinct routes to default-branch content without a new MR. Manual compiled editing instead writes a user branch. These additions extend runtime's selected forcing routes and workflow's representative compilation chain; neither report claimed an exhaustive list of all shipped admission mechanisms. Remote contents, historical fitness and per-document human approval remain unresolved, not established by admin/review permission alone.

Memory's withdrawal issue is a consumer-specific qualification, not a conflict with runtime's permission rule. Its annotation on RT-BAP-attached-pages identifies the missing page-row deletion filter in attachment assembly. EPI-RTE-page-delete establishes soft deletion and branch writes, with later compilation excluding deleted inventory, but explicitly denies a synchronous global revocation conclusion. These findings coexist: deletion from one inventory does not establish that replayed mentions, published concepts, historical trees or stored answers have all ceased to be available.

Memory's freshness issue similarly qualifies rather than contradicts the publication chain. MEM-OBJ-chunk-embedding and MEM-RTE-search-refresh describe best-effort replacement and possible old chunks after failure. Runtime and workflow describe search synchronization after Git changes without claiming atomic cross-store success or current embeddings on every read. A current keyword projection, matching model string or merged MR status cannot substitute for semantic-payload freshness.

Memory's remaining external/operational questions stay local to their records. RT-RTE-specialist-session does not constrain opaque MCP effects through the local proposal gate; RT-RTE-admin-configuration and RT-BAP-session-skills establish instruction admission and later loading, not trace-driven improvement. The specialist and attachment annotations add selection budgets and temporal semantics without establishing compaction, model obedience or independent unsolicited delivery. Saved history, live attachment reload, fixed edit snapshots and live skill reload are different read-back paths, not one stable checkpoint.

No unresolved disagreement between the supplied reports is established. Their differing inspection depths, function-specific views and bounded operational unknowns do not alone constitute conflicts. No correction answers or declined objections were supplied. All connections above use accepted member records and their retained evidence; no source reread was needed. The shared boundary supplies implementation and doctrine/design evidence, not observed-run or causal-experiment evidence. Consequently these connections add no observation, factual acceptance, causal benefit, learning, reflection, autonomy or exercised self-improvement beyond what the declaring reports support.