Agent Skills for Context Engineering reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Evidence boundary

The four reports share the boundary and its Source register: SRC-1, frozen at the revision above, with implementation and doctrine/design evidence but no supplied target execution or causal experiment. Their added inspections do not change the complete-artifact, partial-loop boundary. Differences in inspected breadth do not establish disagreement or whole-system coverage. This reconciliation uses the pinned members only; no additional source reads were needed. No correction answers or declined objections were supplied.

Duplicate identities and retained disagreement

Amendment: MEM-RTE-novelty-check is superseded by EPI-RTE-novelty-check. Both identify the same researcher/scripts/novelty_check.py comparator: proposal sections and accepted/candidate registry/corpus text become token sets, Jaccard overlaps and threshold verdicts. Their owners, top-ten selection, thirty-term limit and implementation/operation statuses agree. The epistemic record additionally traces the research CLI's report retention and the active-readiness consumer. The memory finding that registry text, not rejected-ledger rationale, reaches this comparator remains applicable; supersession does not turn lexical overlap into semantic novelty. The two declarations remain, and neither value is rewritten.

Amendment: WF-RTE-run-readiness is superseded by EPI-RTE-run-readiness. Both identify RunValidator in researcher/scripts/validate_run.py, its research CLI wrapper, run-file inputs, findings/exit status, report storage and recomputation at promotion. Both retain wired implementation and uninspected operation, active-versus-closed branches and the promotion override. The epistemic record adds the explicit missing-closure return. Workflow's rejection and repair account still concerns the same predicate; supersession grants neither semantic source verification nor publication authority.

Amendment: WF-RTE-source-triage is superseded by EPI-RTE-source-review. Both identify the external human/judge applying researcher/rubrics/content-curation.md under researcher/runbooks/autonomous-research-loop.md, producing evaluation evidence and a verdict for proposal work or rejection. The same failed-gate passage, source-suitability criteria, weighted scoring and human override establish identity. Their status disagreement is retained below, not settled by choosing the epistemic ID. Neither report establishes an executed semantic review.

Unresolved conflict: WF-RTE-source-triage assigns implementation conclusion status afforded, whereas EPI-RTE-source-review assigns claimed and describes the architecture as doctrine only. Both ground the same external review route in the rubric/runbook, quote the failed-gate rejection instruction, and state that no implemented semantic judge or executed evaluation is established. Workflow describes a supported evaluator handoff and completed-JSON path; epistemic describes a prescribed review whose evaluator execution is not supplied. The reports therefore disagree on the implementation-status characterization of that same route, not on observed operation. This prevents a single reconciled implementation status for source review; the verifier must assess the two positions. Supersession preserves both findings rather than selecting the strongest-sounding status.

Containers, parts and distinct referents

RT-RTE-mechanism-promotion remains a valid admission/append container. EPI-RTE-run-readiness declares its check portion; MEM-OBJ-registry declares its retained registry/ledger output. Neither is an identity with the entire promotion route. EPI-OBJ-mechanism-proposal names the run-local candidate and the fields projected from it; the memory object names the resulting shared registry and separate review ledgers. Shared fields establish lineage, not identical objects: the latter has different storage, omitted rationale in its novelty consumer, and retained rejection events. No supersession between these objects or their promotion container is warranted.

The novelty comparator is distinct from promotion, readiness and EPI-OBJ-novelty-result. It computes a report; readiness consumes that report and rationale; promotion consumes readiness and caller recommendations. EPI-RTE-rubric-arithmetic is also distinct: its repository-validation computation checks recorded gate/score consistency, rather than running the source evaluator or the promotion predicate. EPI-OBJ-source-evaluation is the completed review artifact, not the deterministic scheduler RT-RTE-research-step. These pairs require connections, not further identity amendments.

RT-RTE-prompt-optimization remains a valid orchestration container. The trace input MEM-OBJ-reasoning-trace, revised instruction/artifact MEM-OBJ-final-prompt, generated output MEM-OBJ-generated-skill, and check subroute EPI-RTE-trace-analysis have different producers, consumers or checks. EPI-OBJ-trace-analysis is the diagnosis/score result, not the captured trace, replacement prompt or generated skill. No split supersession of the valid container is indicated. The generated skill is also not RT-OBJ-skill-body, which identifies the shipped context-fundamentals body.

The remaining memory helpers and objects have no identity with supplied runtime routes. In particular, MEM-RTE-memory-access queries process-local vector/graph state, not the JSONL scaffold consumer RT-RTE-idea-draft. MEM-RTE-file-offload, MEM-RTE-plan-reload, and MEM-RTE-context-selection concern different content, persistence and selectors; none is the static installation route RT-RTE-skill-delivery. MEM-OBJ-artifact-body stores exact bytes with access metadata; MEM-OBJ-public-projection is a selected export product. Neither is the mechanism registry. Their partially traced policy/consumer paths remain limits, not missing identities.

Cross-report connections and integration dispositions

The memory report's registry-consumer enrichment is compatible with runtime's prescribed reviewer read-back. MEM-OBJ-registry and the novelty records add a concrete software reader without claiming a software reader of ledger rationale. The epistemic account independently converges on accepted/candidate registry selection and the separation of retention from acceptance. This resolves memory integration issues 1–2 as enrichment and part relations, not corrections of runtime findings.

Runtime, workflow and epistemic independently converge on the qualified default promotion gate. RT-RTE-mechanism-promotion and the readiness records retain allow-unready, weaker closed-state validation and unauthenticated reviewer text. The epistemic missing-closure passage refines what the closed-state predicate checks: it returns when the closure file is absent. Runtime's close-then-promote account concerns the supported close command that writes closure; neither runtime nor workflow explicitly establishes that a closure file must exist for every closed-state validation. Thus this refinement does not contradict their narrower-than-active-readiness conclusion. RT-CLM-maintenance-guarantees concerns broad README guarantees; EPI-CLM-research-protocol concerns the substantive review procedure. Their related topics do not make them duplicate claims.

Memory integration issue 3 constrains optimizer lineage without contradicting runtime's formatted-artifact finding. The memory trace record distinguishes full in-memory thinking, truncated analyzer tool results and still more truncated saved displays. The final-prompt and generated-skill records distinguish direct generation from artifact reload without iterations. EPI-RTE-trace-analysis adds parser fallback scores. These findings connect to runtime's score/prompt association caveat: saved artifacts, analysis scores and next-round system-text authority do not establish independently tested final-prompt improvement. EPI-CLM-trace-analysis is a request's full-trace claim, not an identity with the optimizer route or trace object.

The reports preserve runtime's independent theory-builder, learning and reflection findings rather than infer them from persistence. Epistemic's wired instruction replacement and unobserved exercised self-improvement are compatible with memory's trace-to-prompt chain. No report supplies an observed qualifying theory, claim-specific criticism or causal capacity gain that another report denies.

Memory integration issue 4 remains bounded to its helper: MEM-ABS-helper-consolidation does not generalize to the corpus. Likewise RT-ABS-effectiveness-executor concerns one runner, not every evaluator. Memory issues 5–6 retain unresolved CAS/export enforcement, withdrawal, admission origins and uninspected included breadth. The other reports' partial-loop coverage does not contradict these limits. No missing required part of a cited container is established merely by their uninspected-path inventories.

Finally, workflow's reviewable-change delivery boundary remains distinct from registry admission, accepted closure, merge and host activation. Its interruption summary is prescribed, not an observed successor handoff. Router fixture scoring and resume reuse remain bounded by RT-RTE-router-benchmark; digital-brain selection remains scaffold construction without source verification or withdrawal filtering. These are compatible cross-report constraints, not additional conflicts or supersessions.