RightMemory report verification

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

Verification

The supplied runtime, memory, epistemic, workflow and reconciliation members support a bounded source-level account. No material correction is required. I read all five members, their types, the boundary, the record contract, the empty correction-answer files and the structural report. The structural report contains none; there is no structural failure to route. I independently checked the frozen checkout's HEAD and clean status against the boundary. Source inspection remained within SRC-1 at that revision. No target execution, provider call or new performance experiment was performed.

Runtime and admission

I traced selector coercion, CLI retries, source dispatch and terminal rendering in SRC-1 rightmemory/runtime.py and rightmemory/retrieve_selection.py. The successful internal agent return is source-derived rather than unconstrained model prose. M evidence requires ranges; S instructions reject ranges and IDs; correction cases use current entry positions. The final character check rejects oversize output. These checks support RT-RTE-agent-retrieval, not relevance, comprehensive selection or host obedience. The separate include-returned renderer uses sys.maxsize, supporting the memory annotation's distinction between terminal-output budget and input size.

I independently followed corpus construction, best-passage scoring, entry-count selection, reranking, source-order display, vector-cache keys and fingerprint retry in SRC-1 rightmemory/retrieval_index.py and rightmemory/embedding_retrieval.py. I checked the caller's exception branch, not just the fallback description: EmbeddingServiceError permits configured agent fallback, while rendering ValueError does not. RT-RTE-embedding-retrieval and MEM-OBJ-vectors preserve those distinctions. Ranking supplies no factual or no-answer oracle.

For RT-RTE-isolated-update, I followed worktree execution through dirty-state rejection, intermediate-commit checks, candidate validation, semantic-base fencing and managed-artifact preparation in SRC-1 rightmemory/isolated_write.py. I also checked root-equality dispatch and nested-runtime construction in rightmemory/runtime.py, and ordinary root assignments in rightmemory/config.py. The direct branch is real and used inside the supervised operation; its existence does not prove an ordinary public-configuration bypass. The report correctly avoids that inference. Insight's validation early return and disabled correction-capacity enforcement remain explicit exceptions, not universal validation guarantees. Provider-native capabilities are distinguished from committed-path admission, so no filesystem sandbox or universal rollback is inferred.

Model construction and adapter inspection in SRC-1 rightmemory/runtime.py, rightmemory/agent_cli.py and rightmemory/embedding_models.py support the separate fixity assessments of RT-CMP-role-model, RT-CMP-embedding-model and RT-CMP-reranker-model. Content-derived adapter identity is not a supplied deployed checkpoint or independent authentication of remote weights. The configuration, instructions and operation-state distinctions in RT-OBJ-runtime-config, RT-OBJ-role-instructions and RT-OBJ-semantic-operation do not promote dispatch or phase metadata into semantic acceptance.

Memory and epistemic findings

I compared every operative-object declaration, route declaration and annotation with its stated consumer, evidence layer and qualification. The module rules, Update/Pruner/Insight prompts and retrieval implementations support the distinctions among MEM-OBJ-memory, MEM-OBJ-markdown-evidence, MEM-OBJ-memory-skill, MEM-OBJ-pursuits, MEM-OBJ-agent-corrections and MEM-OBJ-edit-feedback. In particular, policy capacity is not an invariant; user direction is not execution permission; edit feedback's late curation consumer differs from ordinary retrieval context. The root snapshot's actual source list in SRC-1 rightmemory/retrieve_context.py corroborates that last distinction without establishing that a provider-native reader cannot access another file.

MEM-OBJ-update-evidence, MEM-OBJ-guidance-inbox, MEM-OBJ-retrieve-context and MEM-OBJ-insight-logs keep raw evidence, continuity bookkeeping and derived guidance separate. Pending delivery is not settled truth; stored completed batches do not alone establish another semantic read-back loop. SRC-1 rightmemory/guidance.py and skills/review-agent-guidance-inbox/SKILL.md support wired capture followed by procedural user approval and curation, as distinguished by EPI-RTE-guidance-capture, EPI-RTE-guidance-review and MEM-RTE-guidance-review. Starting ordinary Update does not supply equivalent per-content human approval.

I checked the alternative admission and consumption surfaces rather than treating Update as universal: RT-RTE-maintenance-cycles, RT-RTE-manual-maintenance, RT-RTE-pursuit-editor, RT-RTE-sync-admission, RT-RTE-file-import and MEM-RTE-opening-context. SRC-1 rightmemory/pursuit_store.py checks declared paths and mechanical reference repair; rightmemory/opening_context.py explicitly selects incoming/outgoing one-hop neighbors and ancestors. Sync publication has its own candidate/base checks. HTTP import validates before promotion, while a failed refresh can retain a valid stale import. The reports do not extend these checks into a complete Git-transport, authorization or withdrawal audit.

For shared artifacts, I traced build/refresh, approval and question-response wrappers in SRC-1 rightmemory/shared_view_builder.py, rightmemory/shared_view_files.py and rightmemory/shared_view_questions.py. MEM-OBJ-shared-view, MEM-RTE-view-refresh, EPI-RTE-view-build and EPI-RTE-view-approval correctly separate extractive text preservation, indeterminate generative meaning and distribution permission. Refresh explicitly preserves old approval. MEM-RTE-question-view and EPI-RTE-provider-question describe a separate live answer route: approval, token checks where invoked, timeouts and answered status do not establish truth or universal cancellation.

The epistemic ledger keeps semantic judgment, structural checking, operational admission, retention and conditional lifecycle integration distinct. Its claims EPI-CLM-memory-admission and EPI-CLM-correction-cases remain intended criteria, not demonstrated compliance. I checked EPI-CLM-retrieval-coverage against SRC-1 experiments/README.md: the reported positive-ID coverage and persistent no-answer candidates support its attributed account, not independently observed answer quality or causal benefit. No absence record is declared in any analyst member. The conclusion's separate withholding of exercised learning, theory building and self-improvement does not erase the supported trace-fed guidance capacity or assert an architectural impossibility.

Workflow, reconciliation and omission disposition

I traced the selected workflow account against SRC-1 skills/rightmemory-assistant/SKILL.md, rightmemory/assistant_context.py, rightmemory/assistant.py and rightmemory/assistant_write.py. Submission identity/evidence equality, existing-task versus new-claim behavior, lease-expiry handling, stale semantic-base rejection, no-change validation, prepared finalization and receipt-before-cleanup ordering support RT-RTE-native-assistant and RT-CLM-native-publication. Live file access is not an immutable model snapshot. The host owns native scheduling and returned context; publication does not certify completion of the enclosing coding task. RT-BAP-role-policy and RT-BAP-host-context correctly retain interpretation-dependent authority rather than observed activation.

I reviewed all six supersessions in reconciliation, their identity evidence and affected findings. Agent Corrections, edit feedback, guidance inbox, Insight logs, shared-view container and provider-question route are duplicate referents as stated. The broader epistemic Memory container need not be replaced by one narrower memory part. Combined guidance capture/review and build/refresh routes retain valid stage distinctions. The three Part of: relations for EPI-OBJ-view-document, EPI-OBJ-retriever-policy and EPI-OBJ-view-permission express actual containment and preserve separate consumers after container supersession. I found no unsupported status escalation, required split left unresolved, or cross-report conflict requiring an Unresolved conflict: disposition. Empty correction answers make no repair claim to assess.

Omission questions were selected from the tracked top-level tree and producer/consumer dependencies: could another caller bypass the claimed publication boundary; could another retrieval mode synthesize or admit pending/external content; could shared refresh change content without renewed approval; could a shipped instruction consumer invalidate the restrained authority account? The branch traces above resolve the first three without universalizing their controls. Additional inspection of SRC-1 rightmemory/agent_files.py and skills/rightmemory-manager/SKILL.md, alongside the epistemic report's explicit unassessed-family inventory, did not justify a system-complete negative or contradict the named routes. The catalog's presence is not itself proof of automatic semantic adoption; Manager instructions remain host policy, not observed execution.

Further optional omission expansion stopped because the identified consequential challenges have supported dispositions and the emitted conclusions remain bounded. Detailed Git-file/hub behavior, every evaluator harness, historical recovery combination, actual input provenance and provider window management are not certified by this verification. The reports already withhold those broader conclusions. Their faithful uncertainty is not a defect to move into a weaker classification, nor a new publication finding. Deterministic citation/quotation checks establish form and occurrence; the semantic dispositions above are the independent judgment.

Blockers

none

Limits

none