auto-harness reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Boundary and duplicate identity

The pinned reports describe the shipped improvement plane, not the external coding-agent runtime. The boundary and Source register establish one frozen repository supplying implementation and doctrine/design evidence. No execution trace or causal experiment was supplied. This reconciliation uses only the pinned members; no source reread was needed. No analyst answer files or declined objections were supplied. Corrections described within the current reports are considered below against their current declarations.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-learnings is superseded by MEM-OBJ-learnings. Both identify workspace/learnings.md, local Markdown initialized during preparation and prescribed for appending hypotheses, outcomes, patterns and human requests. Both retain the program's same instruction to append after every iteration. These are the same object, not different objects created by different analytical perspectives. The memory record supplies initialization and read-back details; the epistemic inventory, ledger and conclusion assess the explanatory content of that same log. Requested diagnosis, retention and possible later use concern this identity. Supersession neither changes either analyst's findings nor promotes requested reading to observed consumption or accepted truth.

No other whole-record identity is established:

• EPI-OBJ-evaluation-state spans transient runner mappings and retained measurements and policy membership. MEM-OBJ-train-results, MEM-OBJ-results and MEM-OBJ-suite identify narrower retained surfaces, not alternative names for that whole aggregate. Its ledger separates reward import, arithmetic, retention, membership adaptation and consumption. No split supersession is asserted: the aggregate is not assigned one uniform warrant or admission state.
• EPI-OBJ-task-content includes current task/session content; MEM-OBJ-traces identifies selected diagnostic copies and adjacent result files. Shared text does not make the objects identical: their consumers, selection, fidelity, storage and lifetimes differ. Neither duplicates static RT-OBJ-agent-instructions, executable RT-OBJ-agent-code, or the outer RT-OBJ-program.
• MEM-OBJ-task-split retains baseline-derived train/test membership. It is not MEM-OBJ-suite-tasks, which retains post-check regression membership. Their creation, replacement and selection roles differ.
• MEM-RTE-trace-retention isolates copying/extraction across RT-RTE-terminal-task and RT-RTE-bird-session; neither complete task loop is its unique container or duplicate. EPI-RTE-output-filter is explicitly part of the Terminal route, not a replacement for it or for trace retention. Filtering, persistence and model-directed revision are distinct stages.

The workflow member declares no records. Its annotations add workflow roles to runtime declarations without creating identities. The four epistemic public-claim records concern different assertions from each other and from RT-CLM-timeout-failure; none supersedes another.

Part corrections and dependent findings

The previous reconciliation's missing task-content parts are now declared. EPI-OBJ-task-input, EPI-OBJ-tool-output, EPI-OBJ-assistant-content and EPI-OBJ-task-actions explicitly belong to EPI-OBJ-task-content. Their inventory, authority ledger and bounded conclusion now distinguish imported assertions with unknown source warrant, filtered tool observations, generated assertions with indeterminate entailment, and executable actions with operational rather than truth authority. The declarations retain the Terminal message construction, tool insertion, assistant-content and dispatch passages, with other task-family behavior bounded by the supplied runtime routes. The container remains valid; no part supersedes it. The earlier missing-part conflict is not retained because its premise no longer holds in the pinned report.

The suite's previously missing parts are also declared: MEM-OBJ-suite-tasks, MEM-OBJ-suite-threshold and MEM-OBJ-suite-last-results explicitly belong to MEM-OBJ-suite. The initialization and comparison passages distinguish a carried-forward configuration parameter from experience-derived membership and diagnostic outcomes. RT-RTE-gate-admission supplies the promotion passages and pre-admission diagnostic-save account. The parts preserve those distinctions: diagnostics can survive rejection; promotion follows both successful checks; rerun experience does not tune the threshold. No supersession of the valid container is needed, and the earlier missing-part conflict no longer applies.

These corrections do not invalidate the workflow's dependency on RT-RTE-gate-admission: its account and annotation already separate diagnostic persistence from membership promotion. Nor do they contradict the functions separated in the epistemic ledger for EPI-OBJ-evaluation-state. Loading diagnostics as part of a container is not a historical-diagnostic decision dependency; memory establishes merge/serialization but no separate later diagnostic consumer. The gate's fixed decisions use membership, threshold, fresh results and other retained inputs, not a uniformly authoritative suite object.

Integration dispositions and independent convergence

The memory freshness issue qualifies rather than contradicts the runtime task routes. MEM-RTE-trace-retention says copying updates only encountered items, leaves missing items in latest, and suppresses baseline recopy when a first-seen directory exists. Runtime describes per-task overwrites and first-copy preservation; workflow does not independently claim a complete current-run snapshot. Consequently, their shared use of “latest” supplies no complete invocation-matched evidence set. No route replacement or status change follows.

The current epistemic source-and-claim boundary additionally retains a non-default Harbor dataset comparability limit: it reports that preparation omits the configured dataset in baseline constructors while the gate forwards it. RT-RTE-prepare-baseline and RT-RTE-gate-admission do not establish identical baseline/gate populations for custom datasets. Workflow selects a prepared Terminal iteration without separately establishing that identity. This is a retained limitation, not conflicting affirmative findings between reports. It prevents generalizing the ordinary workflow or conditional gate arithmetic into a same-population custom-dataset comparison. No source reread or new record is introduced here, and the epistemic report's reference to prior refusal evidence is not treated as an independently supplied answer or judgment.

The reports converge on three different authority channels. RT-BAP-program-coder requests procedure from the external coding agent; RT-BAP-candidate-runtime carries executable imports and model-facing instruction text; RT-BAP-history-gate carries fixed-predicate evaluation inputs. Memory identifies retained objects and their admission/read-back mechanisms. Epistemic separates their operational force from warrant. Workflow places those channels in one selected Terminal iteration. Agreement is cross-lens source interpretation, not independent observation of successful execution.

The gate and recorder findings agree. RT-RTE-gate-admission implements conditional numerical checks and subsequent promotion. RT-RTE-iteration-record admits caller numbers without consuming a gate certificate. Memory retains their provenance limits, epistemic compares them with EPI-CLM-gate-everything, and workflow distinguishes instructed gate→commit→record sequencing from a transaction. The public claim versus mechanism mismatch is not an analyst disagreement. Likewise, EPI-CLM-eval-curation distinguishes deterministic membership promotion from the claimed direct coding-agent decision without denying indirect influence through candidate edits.

The remaining claims retain separate scopes. RT-CLM-timeout-failure covers zero scoring for present null entries, not universal restoration of absent tasks or inclusion of baseline timeouts. Workflow's empty-result forcing case agrees with this limit. EPI-CLM-structural-cheating is compared with stock trace suppression/copying and the requested train-only diagnosis rule, not established filesystem confinement. EPI-CLM-score-improvement remains attributed reported operation without inspectable run or causal support. None licenses a stronger whole-system guarantee.

Finally, RT-RTE-candidate-revision separately assesses afforded reflection and standing self-change pathways, uninspected learning, claimed autonomous theory building and unestablished exercised causal link 4. Epistemic's doctrine only classification concerns requested diagnosis, explanatory retention and model-directed editing; runtime separately identifies the wired candidate-import channel. These labels address different functions and evidence levels rather than conflicting statuses. MEM-OBJ-learnings has no wired reader, while executable adoption and deterministic gate reads remain supported paths. Unknown readers, actual evidence-responsive edits, external tau trace retention, BIRD callback transformations and ADK context assembly remain shared limits, not evidence that local retention or dispatch is absent.

No unresolved cross-report disagreement is established in the supplied current members. The two prior missing-part conflicts have current declarations and corresponding assessments; other integration issues remain qualifications or complementary accounts. This connection states neither report acceptance nor a public synthesis.