Wuphf report verification

Type: agentic-system-analyses/types/agentic-system-verification.md

Verification

The reports support publication as a bounded source account, not as evidence of successful deployment, universal approval or knowledge correctness. I read all five submitted members, the boundary, their contracts and the supplied check and answer files. The structural report contains no findings; all four answer files are empty. There is no correction argument to accept or decline. Independent source inspection used only SRC-1 at the registered revision. HEAD matches that revision and the checkout has no reported changes. No target code, tests, examples, services or model calls were executed. The boundary remains complete artifact, partial loop.

Runtime and workflow

I traced notification delivery, queue admission, provider selection and the Claude and compatible-provider execution branches against the runtime account. The office route's division between broker orchestration and external model/tool decisions is supported. Its lane, cancellation, durability and retry mechanisms do not establish filesystem containment or exactly-once effects. The provider components correctly leave weights and immutable parameter versions unresolved. The authoring and runtime-AI components identify different consumption roles rather than treating every model call as one recurrent conversation. See RT-RTE-office-turn, RT-RTE-compatible-turn, RT-CMP-office-model, RT-CMP-author-model and RT-CMP-runtime-ai.

The approval comparisons survive inspection of their alternate paths. Native CLI permission flags differ by posture and provider. Plan approval controls selected task transitions, not all effects. Saved-tool dispatch tests a caller-supplied approval Boolean at two named capability paths; integration mutation deferral is a separate broker decision. Supplied-spec replay instead trusts each step's gate field. These mechanisms do not establish the README's universal promise. App publication checks actor/capability eligibility and admits bytes; it does not establish semantic validation or human content review. I retain RT-RTE-plan-approval, RT-RTE-saved-call, RT-RTE-spec-replay, RT-RTE-app-publication and the bounded challenge to RT-CLM-external-approval.

I independently followed the scheduled producer through the service, routine runner, tool builder, worker settlement and result consumers. The manual build endpoint's model-only persistence condition does not govern routine persistence. Matching a saved tool bypasses fresh authorship; a fallback can be saved. The static scan and simulated smoke/repair loop are real software checks, not business-answer verification. Code and selection metadata persist, without demonstrated retention of the author's rationale. These findings support RT-OBJ-stored-tool, RT-OBJ-tool-schema, RT-RTE-tool-authoring, RT-BAP-tool-execution and RT-BAP-author-guidance.

The workflow account preserves the consequential exceptions in RT-RTE-scheduled-tool: missing outbound bearer authorization, re-arming before asynchronous dispatch, caller/worker deadline mismatch and writes reached only after a returned result. A gate rejection terminates the worker; “paused” is not a saved continuation. A scheduler success can represent a partial outcome, and an integration hold can be ordinary successful result text. Session/artifact retrieval and presentation do not establish human receipt or completion of the requested action. Both workflow annotations concern the shared mechanisms, not an invented traversal of the manual HTTP endpoints.

Memory and epistemic routes

I checked each declared memory component, object, route and authority path against its evidence and consumers. Private notes and remote shared pages have different persistence and admission mechanisms. Promotion copies rather than removes the private note. Automatic briefs select bounded snippets and frame them as reference data; this is neither demonstrated isolation nor reliable instruction rejection. MEM-RTE-scoped-notes, MEM-RTE-memory-brief, MEM-OBJ-private-memory-note and MEM-OBJ-shared-memory-write retain those distinctions.

Learning/index-snippet injection, article-file pointers and dependency-result tails are different selection operations. I followed their launcher callbacks and packet construction. A manifest establishes delivery, not use; a title/path does not establish body delivery. Dense retrieval can change the lexical candidate ordering, without proving an immutable embedding model or retrieval quality. These checks support MEM-RTE-task-knowledge, MEM-RTE-upstream-results, MEM-CMP-retrieval-embedding, MEM-BAP-knowledge-guidance and the narrower provenance assessment in EPI-RTE-knowledge-packet.

The trace-to-memory ordering is important and supported: entity associations and article regeneration precede the passing-verification gate; trusted learning append follows it. Ordinary learning trust depends on the source label, whereas the verified append is a distinct broker path. Newest-key search and confidence decay do not establish truth or universal withdrawal. Artifact extraction sanitizes selected forms, updates the index and then attempts durable fact persistence; sequential store/text updates and later persistence do not create an all-or-nothing transaction. The source artifact and derived fact remain distinguishable within the memory account. See MEM-OBJ-learning-record, MEM-OBJ-typed-fact, MEM-RTE-learning-admission, MEM-RTE-task-distillation and MEM-RTE-artifact-extraction.

Synthesis, compression, archive, deletion and skill registration have different admissions and withdrawal scopes. The reports do not turn fact-preservation instructions into verified preservation, archival into global retraction, or active registry status into actual model use. Compiled procedural wrappers differ from executable JavaScript. Routine transcripts and current-state recovery projections also differ; neither establishes automatic conversational reuse or durable resume installation. I retain MEM-RTE-brief-synthesis, MEM-RTE-wiki-maintenance, MEM-RTE-skill-registration, MEM-OBJ-compiled-skill, MEM-OBJ-session-transcript, MEM-OBJ-session-memory-snapshot and EPI-RTE-playbook-compile.

I checked the epistemic objects and each ledger function, including repeated entries that separate checking from disposition and retention. The source-to-fact, fact-to-brief and source-to-answer semantic relations appropriately remain indeterminate. Citation bounds checking can drop indices without rejecting or rewriting answer prose. The Related-section counterexample follows the actual shape test. Contradiction judging is advisory; caller-selected disposal changes retained metadata without independently authenticating either proposition. The narrow machine checks establish command exit, nonempty matching files or HTTP status, not task narrative truth. Required-check refusal, optional continuation and no-spec continuation remain distinct. Hash/simulated AI fallback does not prove inference, and golden-case grading does not establish production enforcement. These dispositions support EPI-RTE-extract-facts, EPI-RTE-synthesize-brief, EPI-RTE-related-cleanup, EPI-RTE-query-answer, EPI-RTE-lint-judge, EPI-RTE-lint-disposal, EPI-RTE-task-check, EPI-RTE-task-admission, EPI-RTE-task-distill, EPI-RTE-learning-write, EPI-RTE-ai-results and EPI-RTE-prompt-eval.

The two epistemic design claims are not promoted into guarantees: EPI-CLM-verified-lookup exceeds citation-index validity on a semantic reading, and EPI-CLM-cited-knowledge exceeds the inspected citation affordances. The remaining object declarations describe the answer, entity prose, learning and verification result without claiming actual accepted novel content. No inspected record warrants observed operation, causal benefit, general learning or exercised self-improvement. Equally, missing run evidence does not erase the positive implemented criticism, admission and reuse mechanisms.

Reconciliation, relations and omission search

I checked all six supersessions in reconciliation: the duplicate fact and learning objects and the extraction, synthesis, task-distillation and learning-write routes identify the same source-native referents. The amendments preserve the original declarations and local assessments; they neither replace fields nor upgrade evidence strength. The office-turn selection parts and runtime-AI part have supported containment. The narrower epistemic knowledge-packet account overlaps the memory packet branch without identifying the memory record's separate article-file branch. The valid containers need not be split merely to remove overlap. Cleanup versus synthesis, compilation versus registration, and completion verification versus plan authorization remain distinct. No unresolved inter-report conflict was found; differences in inspected scope do not constitute contradictory findings.

Omission questions were selected from the frozen top-level tree and producer/consumer dependencies, not only from quoted lines. I investigated whether an alternate sidecar entry point changes approval or persistence, whether completion produces knowledge before verification, and whether retained material actually reaches a later task or operator. Source inspection covered SRC-1 agent/src/service.ts, agent/src/routineRunner.ts, agent/src/tools.ts, agent/src/toolRuntime.ts, agent/src/executor.ts, internal/team/scheduler_operator_routines.go, internal/team/task_distill.go, internal/team/task_verification.go, internal/team/launcher_wiring.go, internal/team/notification_context.go, internal/team/context_assembler.go, agent/src/sessions.ts, web/src/appdetail/bots/botStateClient.ts and web/src/appdetail/artifacts/ArtifactsTab.tsx. These checks confirm the reports' alternate-path qualifications rather than requiring correction.

I also inspected skill registration/compilation and searched recovery consumers, using SRC-1 internal/team/skill_compile_writer.go, internal/team/skill_compile.go, internal/team/playbook_compiler.go, internal/team/session_memory_snapshot.go and internal/team/runtime_state.go. Searches in SRC-1 internal/team/broker_apps_knowledge.go, internal/team/memory_workflow_reconciler.go and internal/team/broker_wiki_obsidian.go identified additional included responsibilities without establishing their end-to-end checks. They do not contradict the reports' explicitly partial inventories. App-knowledge acceptance, external-editor admission, complete skill activation and global withdrawal comparisons remain unavailable from these records; the reports already withhold them.

Further omission expansion stopped because the selected challenges have supported dispositions and no identified material contradiction remains. Available but unassessed paths cannot establish absence. The accepted breadth is selected implemented routes with local uncertainty, not a whole-system negative about acceptance, theory-building or knowledge production. The existing scoped uncertainty therefore requires neither a corrective blocker nor an additional publication limit.

Blockers

none

Limits

none