OKF Harness reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

All four reports use the frozen revision and evidence layers in the boundary Source register. Implementation and delivered instructions are not observed execution. No analyst correction answers or refusal were supplied to this attempt; the connections below are reconstructed from the pinned members. No source reads were needed.

Duplicate supersessions and distinct identities

Amendment: EPI-RTE-workspace-check is superseded by MEM-RTE-workspace-check. Both identify the same check/status/common-pipeline operation: current workspace snapshot, lint and currency computation, structured diagnostics, and consumption by the evidence planner. Both cite SRC-1 packages/core/src/check/index.ts and packages/core/src/lint/index.ts. Memory includes snapshot reload and check-only guidance; epistemic includes the conformance verdict, hash comparison and currency passages. These are complementary fields on one evaluator, not separate checks. Affected findings are the epistemic ledger's check/evidence-production row, its check-result object and bounded conclusion, together with memory's currency and read-back account. The supersession preserves the epistemic assessment of predicate-bounded warrant and the separate implementation/operation statuses; it does not turn a check result into semantic acceptance.

Amendment: EPI-RTE-graph-report is superseded by MEM-RTE-graph-report. Both identify caller-requested graph generation from the current wiki, persistence of JSON/HTML reports, returned paths/counts and optional browser consumption. SRC-1 packages/core/src/graph/index.ts and packages/cli/src/commands/query.ts support the identity in both records. Memory retains the report-write passage; epistemic retains edge-kind and backlink construction passages. Affected findings are the epistemic graph ledger row and bounded conclusion, and the memory graph object and write/read-back account. The epistemic classification of parsed connectivity as a rule-bound derivation remains distinct from any claim that linked assertions are supported. Neither record establishes observed browser use.

The specialists independently compared these routes only with the supplied runtime records. Their statements that no runtime counterpart exists do not rule out the cross-specialist identities above. Neither operation is identical to RT-RTE-evidence-answer: check supplies an evaluator used by several callers, while exposed graph generation additionally persists reports. EPI-RTE-doctor-check remains a distinct dependency/integration diagnostic, not workspace check or semantic verification.

No supersession is required for the valid source container EPI-OBJ-registered-source and the separate operative parts MEM-OBJ-source-bytes, MEM-OBJ-url-metadata and MEM-OBJ-manifest. The epistemic record explicitly distinguishes body, pointer and manifest fields; the memory records distinguish storage, trust and consumers. SRC-1 packages/core/src/source/index.ts supports byte copying versus generated URL metadata and manifest append. Container identity is not identity with any one part, and the reports do not require correcting its finding by replacing it with those parts.

Likewise, EPI-OBJ-wiki-page is a valid mixed page container alongside MEM-OBJ-wiki-content and MEM-OBJ-wiki-metadata. Prose and parsed fields have different consumers, but the epistemic container already separates their authority. It is not another name for prose alone. EPI-OBJ-reconciliation-ledger remains a valid container alongside MEM-OBJ-reconciliation-edges and MEM-OBJ-reconciliation-notes: exact IDs affect pending-edge filtering, while note substance is not checked. SRC-1 packages/core/src/source/reconciliation.ts supports that distinction. No required part is missing in these comparisons.

EPI-OBJ-evidence-brief is a transient selected return, not the retained wiki or RT-BAP-evidence-context. EPI-OBJ-check-result is diagnostic output, not its producing route. MEM-OBJ-backlinks is persisted derived navigation data, not graph generation. Recovery's MEM-OBJ-checkpoint-tree and MEM-OBJ-checkpoint-judgment are retained parts with different consumers, not duplicates of RT-RTE-workspace-recovery. Runtime's guidance and pin objects remain instruction provisioning and configuration respectively, not wiki evidence or use-derived memory. These object/route/authority-path identities are ruled out.

Independent convergence and integration dispositions

Registration and semantic work. RT-RTE-source-ingest, the memory annotation on it and the epistemic ledger agree on the separation between executable registration/planning and requested agent synthesis. Source bytes can be preserved without certifying propositions; URL registration preserves a pointer rather than a page body. The epistemic ledger's implemented acquisition and doctrine-only synthesis rows assess different functions of the runtime route, not a disagreement with its wired implementation and claimed agent protocol. Missing claim-level input/output evidence leaves the semantic transformation indeterminate without erasing the available synthesis workflow.

Currency versus evidence eligibility. Memory integration issue 1 is resolved as a distinction, not a correction of a contrary runtime finding. MEM-CLM-currency-evidence, the superseded epistemic check record and the workflow delivery account converge: exact acknowledgment can clear a pending edge without changing wiki prose or evidence eligibility. The currency return and maintenance-loop assertions retained in memory supply the evidence. RT-RTE-source-reconcile already separates mechanical append from agent revision. RT-CLM-evidence-boundary concerns source-risk withholding, not revision acknowledgment. These claims are related but not identical; neither supersedes the other.

Logs. Memory integration issue 2 qualifies the boundary's example inventory and RT-RTE-direct-retrieval, without establishing a contrary assertion. MEM-CLM-log-exclusion retains SRC-1 scanner/read exclusions for legacy log.md. The workflow's permission to edit affected logs describes a write obligation, not a claim that those files enter answer retrieval. The reports can therefore retain both the shipped permission and the reserved/unreadable exception. Log presence or editing does not supply the missing trace-to-answer consumer.

Conversation provenance. Memory integration issue 3 and EPI-CLM-provenance-origin converge on the countercase of a manually authored citation-empty page. MEM-CLM-provenance-signal is the analytical limit on the signal; the epistemic record additionally retains the source-native disclosure and equal-weight design claim. These are not duplicate claim identities: one qualifies the inference, the other identifies the consequential policy being compared with implementation. Both connect to RT-RTE-evidence-answer, which already says explicit yes permits retention without certifying correctness. No report asserts that empty provenance authenticates arbitrary page authorship.

Reasons and admission. Memory integration issues 4 and 5 remain local limits, not cross-report conflicts. Reconciliation notes retain reasons but no established later semantic consumer; checkpoint history exposes judgment bodies to callers; wiki reasons reach answers only if authored and selected. Workflow's requirement for a substantive note is a requested obligation alongside the core's nonempty-string check, not evidence of semantic note validation. Generic caller identity and historical wiki authorship remain unresolved. RT-RTE-guidance-install, RT-OBJ-workflow-guidance and RT-CLM-delivery-ceiling all preserve the distinction between workspace references, native host payloads and actual loading/compliance.

Workflow completion and recovery. The workflow annotations add sequencing, repair ownership and edge-specific delivery to the existing reconciliation/recovery routes; they declare no new identities. The terminal acknowledgment is a protocol receipt, not an acceptance decision about corrected claims. Failed post-edit checks or rejected acknowledgments do not automatically undo prose. Recovery remains caller-selected and can restore configuration, guidance and knowledge together. This agrees with runtime admission limits and the memory recovery parts.

Context and warrant. Runtime evidence/direct-read routes, memory read-back and the epistemic ledger independently retain planner-local withholding, direct-read counterpaths, excerpt character budgets and external host context responsibility. Selection and just-in-time instructions limit additions; they do not establish host eviction, compaction or isolated model frames. Predicate-bound checks and graph derivations do not warrant source truth, faithful synthesis, accepted ampliative knowledge or causal improvement. The epistemic absence of an evidenced accepted semantic candidate and the memory positive retained-conversation route concern different properties, not opposing verdicts.

Memory integration issue 6 holds for its comparison with runtime: its new objects and check/graph operations do not redeclare the supplied runtime identities. The two cross-specialist duplicate routes are disposed of by the amendments above. No remaining disagreement between the pinned reports was found. Their retained uncertainties prevent stronger conclusions but do not require an unresolved-conflict paragraph. This reconciliation changes no analyst finding or status and supplies no judgment of report support.