Nimbalyst Wiki reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Shared boundary and evidence strength

The reports share the boundary: a complete plugin artifact but partial operational loop. Shipped prompts prescribe behavior; manifests declare connections to external hosts, CLI commands and services. The runtime's wired integration finding in RT-RTE-host-entry and the epistemic ledger's implemented classification refer only to those declarations. They do not conflict with the memory annotation's claimed SessionStart content-selection path or its unknown payload and budget. No member supplies observed execution or causal benefit. No source reads were needed for this reconciliation.

Duplicate supersessions

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-writing-guide is superseded by MEM-OBJ-writing-guide. Both identify the installed natural-language page titled “How we write this wiki,” retained within RT-OBJ-wiki-pages, with later writing consumers and the same shipped base reference. The memory record quotes the hard-won-lessons rule; the epistemic record quotes the decision/observation/guess distinction. These are passages from the same guide, not different operative objects. The affected epistemic inventory and policy-adaptation ledger refer to that same retained page. This identity does not supersede RT-BAP-guide-writing: the guide object and its consumer/channel/force/horizon are different referents. Both original IDs remain declared; no finding or status is replaced.

Amendment: EPI-RTE-legacy-reshape is superseded by MEM-RTE-legacy-migration. Both trace the foreground agent converting old claim/finding/question/investigation/decision items into subject-page prose under skills/update/references/migrating-v1.md, retaining source keys and requiring approval before retiring old items. Both retain the same “Keep every source” passage. This is the same end-to-end conversion route, not merely two routes sharing an input format. The epistemic ledger's content-transformation assessment and the memory write-side discussion concern that route. Intended preservation remains distinct from demonstrated preservation; neither report supplies a converted corpus. The choice of canonical citation does not upgrade the claimed design or uninspected operation, or replace the epistemic report's indeterminate semantic relation.

Containment and distinct identities

RT-OBJ-wiki-pages remains a valid file container, not a duplicate requiring replacement by its parts. MEM-OBJ-page-prose, MEM-OBJ-page-metadata, MEM-OBJ-writing-guide and MEM-OBJ-editor-pages separate prose, symbolic fields, a writing-policy page role and editor payloads/sidecars. Their consumers and controls differ. EPI-OBJ-decision-prose and EPI-OBJ-context-prose distinguish decision attribution from source-linked factual assertions within the broader prose surface. Neither is identical to the whole prose record; the two do not exhaust every possible page-body content. No split supersession is warranted.

EPI-OBJ-sheet-expressions narrows the editor surface to formulas and assertions with fixed-rule consumers. It is not identical to the broader editor-payload/sidecar object. Its two routes, EPI-RTE-sheet-derive and EPI-RTE-sheet-check, distinguish numerical consequence production from predicate checking. They are not duplicates of each other or of MEM-RTE-table-conversion, which changes retained table storage into pages. CSV syntax alone does not identify a shared object or route: typed table rows and editor formulas have different consumers.

EPI-OBJ-citation-inputs is the upstream returned evidence payload, not the destination page prose. EPI-RTE-citation-check is the support-comparison part of RT-RTE-session-capture, not a second declaration of the whole capture route. RT-CLM-session-isolation instead names a claim about the external transcript reader. Source isolation, sentence support and admission to a page therefore remain separate.

MEM-RTE-wiki-maintenance spans diagnosis, repair, withdrawal and library scan repairs. EPI-RTE-doctor-check and EPI-RTE-doctor-repair isolate the non-mutating diagnostic function and the agent's consequential repair function. Neither is identical to the entire maintenance container, which remains valid. Their shared update-skill passages establish connection, not a reason to supersede the broader route. These routes also differ from session-driven capture and setup read-back.

MEM-RTE-component-consumption includes decision blocks, views, transclusion and human-clicked prompts/templates. EPI-RTE-block-choice covers only the human-answer/vote-to-decision-mark path within that broader surface. The shared resolved-block passage supports this overlap, not whole-route identity. A desktop button starting another session is not identical to ordinary RT-RTE-wiki-recall or proof of a separate-worker return protocol.

MEM-OBJ-table-types, MEM-OBJ-recovery-records and MEM-OBJ-destination-metadata have distinct schema/table, recovery/cache and routing consumers. They are not duplicates of current page prose. Likewise, MEM-RTE-cli-file affords alternate callers and direct edits rather than duplicating plugin host entry. RT-RTE-team-transition changes destination/capabilities, while RT-RTE-plugin-update admits successor machinery; neither is the legacy content-conversion route.

Convergence and integration dispositions

The workflow account and its annotation on RT-RTE-session-capture converge with the memory annotation and epistemic ledger: the foreground agent chooses candidates, wording and placement, while external tools perform persistence. Instruction loading is not independent model-worker delegation. Ordinary additions need no per-content approval; approval for destructive changes and existing-guide replacement is separately scoped. Attribution checks do not certify external factual truth. These are shared-route annotations and lens-specific assessments, not duplicate declarations.

The memory integration issue about alternate admission is an extension, not a correction to runtime's scoped guarantees. MEM-RTE-cli-file makes expected-version optional and allows direct file writers, while the runtime already limits locking/version guarantees to cooperating writers. The workflow's stale-version recovery describes its selected tool branch, not every writer. No cross-report disagreement follows from their different scopes.

The guide/data tension remains a source-policy distinction, not a disagreement between reports. RT-BAP-guide-writing explicitly gives the guide writing priority while ordinary retrieved page instructions remain data. Memory identifies that special stored page; epistemic analysis distinguishes policy influence from factual warrant. None claims enforced injection resistance or exercised improvement.

Reason retention is similarly scoped. EPI-CLM-reason-reliance records a behavioral-purpose claim, not a universal guarantee that every artifact retains raw evidence. The guide's instruction to omit incident narrative and legacy migration's selective history qualify such a universal inference without contradicting recall's instruction to read surrounding reasons. EPI-CLM-session-wiki concerns intended distillation, not the separate privacy claim or demonstrated faithful synthesis.

The workflow's final links, possible outdated pages and “nothing to record” terminal branch explain delivery of the capture procedure. Later recall is a separate intended consumer, not a required final capture step. Memory's producer-to-later-reader chain and epistemic analysis of operational reliance are consistent with that distinction. Retention and use do not establish evidence-consuming acceptance of a produced ampliative claim, learning, exercised self-improvement or benefit.

No unresolved cross-report disagreement or required undeclared part was identified in these pinned members. The memory report explicitly reports no supplied-fact corrections, and no correction answers or declined objections were supplied. External selector behavior, hook payloads, transcript isolation, editor extraction, hosted access, write enforcement and migration fidelity remain shared limitations, not conflicts to settle. In particular, a migration verification flag is not independent fidelity evidence, and skipped material can remain local; archive currency and explicit archive access remain distinct. These limits prevent promotion of the prescribed or afforded routes to verified end-to-end operation.