Prove2Me_workspace reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Frozen scope and evidence

All four reports share the boundary and SRC-1 in its Source register. The artifact prescribes an agent workflow and ships two extraction helpers; the host and service implementations remain outside the frozen evidence. Added specialist readings extend inspection within that source, not the source identity or functional boundary. The reports retain separate implementation, contract and operation findings. Epistemic doctrine only and runtime contract conclusion status: claimed describe their respective assessments without implying observed execution. This reconciliation reads the supplied members only; no source ambiguity required a direct checkout read.

Identity and containment dispositions

No coextensive duplicate identity is established, so no supersession Amendment is made. The following overlaps are retained as containers, parts or distinct referents, not aliases.

  • Published mathematical content: MEM-OBJ-library-declarations covers theorem/definition content and associated descriptions/citations. EPI-OBJ-formal-statement isolates the formal theorem target, while EPI-OBJ-definition isolates the definition interface. Neither is coextensive with the memory container. The supplied findings remain compatible when separated: Open targets are sorry-stubs, definitions must be sorry-free, and compilation does not certify source faithfulness. The container need not be superseded by these parts. All three differ from RT-OBJ-solution, which is submitted proof code checked against the target. MEM-OBJ-workspace-files describes filesystem retention and reuse, not another identity for every payload stored there. SRC-1, references/contribute.md, references/lean-setup.md, references/prove.md; passages are retained in the cited records.
  • Editable prose: EPI-OBJ-description spans current theorem descriptions, submission explanations, mission descriptions and source metadata. MEM-OBJ-submission-explanation isolates one of those fields; MEM-OBJ-description-versions describes snapshots and their afforded reader, not the whole current-prose container. These are not coextensive duplicates, and their differing permissions and consumers remain explicit. The prose container does not become wrong when those parts are separated, so it remains. RT-OBJ-readback is distinct testimony produced under a blind-input instruction, not ordinary editable description. SRC-1, references/contribute.md, references/discover.md, references/mission_auditor.md.
  • Criticism and experience: EPI-OBJ-review groups audits, proposal reviews/flags, milestone reasons and discussion attempts. MEM-OBJ-proposal-reviews, MEM-OBJ-milestone-history and MEM-OBJ-mission-comments distinguish the respective storage surfaces, additional metadata and visibility/withdrawal limits. None is coextensive with the epistemic grouping. The grouping does not erase the memory report's separate private reports, public audits, optional reasons or parsed locators, and does not require supersession. RT-OBJ-readback remains separate because its producer must not judge faithfulness. SRC-1, references/mission_captain.md, references/mission_solver.md, references/communicate.md.
  • Extraction and recovery: EPI-OBJ-extraction-facts isolates JSONL facts within the wider retained-state account of MEM-OBJ-upload-state, which also includes generated files, maps, caches and action recording. These are not duplicate identities. Both differ from their producers, RT-CMP-extract-decl-graph and RT-CMP-extract-sketch-info. The memory object and EPI-RTE-extraction-facts explicitly declare themselves parts of RT-RTE-project-upload; one owns retained state and the other executable fact production. The broader route remains valid alongside both parts. SRC-1, scripts/extract_decl_graph.lean, scripts/extract_sketch_info.lean, references/upload_full_project.md.
  • Scouting and feedback: MEM-RTE-solver-scouting explicitly isolates retrieval within RT-RTE-solver-proof; it is not the complete proof route. MEM-RTE-discussion-feedback instead writes experience into later guidance. MEM-BAP-experience-guidance identifies the advisory consumer path, distinct from captain-attested targets in RT-BAP-milestone-guidance. Storage, write route, retrieval route and authority path are different referents. SRC-1, references/mission_solver.md, references/communicate.md, references/discover.md.
  • Campaigns, collections and quality: MEM-OBJ-collection-campaign spans collection and campaign records; EPI-OBJ-campaign-value isolates numerical comparability and result state, not the full container. MEM-OBJ-discovery-metadata spans bookmarks, tags, votes, ratings and profile counters; EPI-OBJ-quality-signal isolates ratings/votes/trust. Neither pair is coextensive or requires supersession. EPI-RTE-campaign-review, EPI-RTE-campaign-admission and EPI-RTE-campaign-selection respectively check template fit, admit an entry and select retained results. They are not duplicate proposal launch or proof routes. EPI-RTE-collection-admission admits editorial membership, not Lean content; EPI-RTE-quality-signals consumes preferences, not verification verdicts. SRC-1, references/campaigns.md, references/collections.md, references/discover.md, references/curate.md.
  • Distinct sources and claims: EPI-OBJ-source is external mathematics consulted by agents, not the behavior-guiding RT-OBJ-skill. EPI-CLM-graph-truth concerns upstream conversion authority, not the server-verification claim RT-CLM-verification-boundary or human-launch claim RT-CLM-human-gate. No identity is asserted between them. SRC-1, references/mission_captain.md, references/upload_full_project.md, SKILL.md.

The workflow member declares no new records. Its annotations on RT-RTE-proposal-audit and RT-OBJ-readback add handoff, delivery and recovery fields to those existing identities rather than redeclaring them.

Cross-report convergence

Formal verification is not source-faithfulness review. Runtime's RT-CLM-verification-boundary, memory's MEM-OBJ-library-declarations, and the epistemic ledger preserve this distinction. RT-RTE-reduction-proof keeps Open children as assumptions until closure. The workflow's human comparison of read-back to intent uses RT-RTE-proposal-audit, not a stronger interpretation of compilation. This is convergence across lenses, not independent execution evidence. SRC-1, references/prove.md, references/mission_captain.md.

Proposal delivery is not universal publication control. RT-CLM-human-gate bounds the human gate to proposal launch. The workflow account distinguishes library publication at submit from delivery of a public mission at Reviewed, and separates private launch. Memory and epistemic accounts retain direct publishing and upload-first through RT-RTE-content-publish and RT-RTE-project-upload. These paths do not contradict the selected public-proposal workflow. SRC-1, references/mission_captain.md, references/contribute.md, references/upload_full_project.md.

Blind testimony depends on a requested input boundary. Runtime, memory and workflow annotations agree on RT-OBJ-readback: literal code/preamble becomes testimony, the human compares it with intent, and later moderators may consume it. RT-RTE-proposal-audit keeps host isolation uninspected and API read-back optional. The epistemic ledger assigns no source-equivalence verdict to the auditor. No report establishes mandatory or reliably isolated auditing of every item. SRC-1, references/mission_auditor.md, references/mission_captain.md.

Retention can guide later work without demonstrating learning. MEM-RTE-solver-scouting and MEM-RTE-discussion-feedback supply the detailed retained-input chains underlying runtime's requested iteration. The epistemic account assesses the resulting authority separately from acceptance. The workflow traces product correction rather than improvement of the workflow itself. RT-RTE-workspace-refresh permits instruction replacement, but none of these reports attributes exercised self-improvement or improved future capacity from mere persistence. SRC-1, references/mission_solver.md, references/communicate.md, SKILL.md.

Integration-issue dispositions and remaining limits

  1. Submission PATCH tension remains a source-contract uncertainty, not an established inter-report contradiction. The memory integration issues retain runtime's immutable-code/patchable-explanation distinction while warning against an explanation-only interpretation of all submission edits. RT-RTE-solver-proof and RT-OBJ-solution do not assert that every other submission metadata field is immutable. Runtime's quoted references/prove.md contract preserves immutable code/status/proof type; memory reports references/contribute.md retirement/deprecation permissions beyond explanation editing. Both positions survive without selecting a universal edit gate. Exact backend keys and permissions remain unresolved, preventing a universal author-only submission-edit claim. RT-RTE-content-publish and its memory annotation retain the broader retirement account. No Amendment or report conflict follows from the supplied findings.
  2. Retirement is not revocation. The memory issue qualifies reliability, not runtime's already bounded findings. MEM-OBJ-milestone-history, MEM-OBJ-library-declarations, RT-RTE-content-publish and the epistemic recovery row agree that hiding, unlinking, new-name replacement and history deletion have different effects. SRC-1, references/contribute.md, references/mission_captain.md. No universal rollback conclusion is available.
  3. Upload idempotency remains prescribed. MEM-OBJ-upload-state names the remote-success/local-recording crash window. RT-RTE-project-upload already leaves uploader implementation and measured idempotency uninspected. The stronger source label does not create a report disagreement or establish duplicate-free operation. EPI-RTE-extraction-facts supports only bounded helper behavior, not uploader recovery. SRC-1, references/upload_full_project.md.
  4. History storage is not universal feedback. MEM-OBJ-description-versions and MEM-OBJ-discovery-metadata retain afforded readers or unspecified later consumption where MEM-RTE-solver-scouting has an explicit instructed reader. The epistemic quality route likewise leaves rating-to-ranking linkage unspecified. These limits coexist with the stronger, separately scoped milestone and discussion routes; they require no narrowing of those positives. SRC-1, references/contribute.md, references/discover.md, references/curate.md.
  5. Added campaign and collection coverage is complementary. The memory container and epistemic routes agree that attestation admits comparable Open values, while latest_value requires Proved goals and uses recording recency rather than best-value ordering. Collection membership changes navigation, not verification. Runtime's lack of detailed campaign coverage is disclosed, not a conflicting negative. SRC-1, references/campaigns.md, references/collections.md.
  6. Public-proposal recovery preserves non-atomicity uncertainty. The workflow account explicitly declines to infer rollback of earlier successful publications after a later compile failure. Runtime does not assert such atomicity. The retained reviews, replacement declarations and changed links described by MEM-OBJ-proposal-reviews and RT-RTE-proposal-audit support a prescribed correction sequence, not tested backend transaction semantics. SRC-1, references/mission_captain.md.

No unresolved disagreement between the supplied report findings is established. No analyst correction answers or declined objections are supplied to this attempt. The remaining uncertainties above limit particular conclusions without choosing one report's status over another's. No required undeclared part is identified by these cross-report comparisons; the operative distinctions used here have supplied records. Whether the records' support and coverage are sufficient remains the report verifier's judgment.