EvoOntology reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Evidence boundary and duplicate identities

The four reports share the responsibility boundary and frozen revision in boundary. The Source register supplies implementation, doctrine/design and attributed reported operation, but no observed target run or causal experiment. This reconciliation uses the pinned members only; no source reread was needed. No correction-answer files or declined objections were supplied. Memory's Integration issues retain its DDR correction and a carried InsightBench inspection limit; neither is treated as an independently verified defect.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-term is superseded by MEM-OBJ-term. Both identify root Term records loaded from versions/<v>/terms.json, with definition/scope prose and symbolic identifiers, evidence links and lifecycle selectors. Their retained model-field passages identify the same family. The epistemic inventory and Build ledger concern this memory-declared family; their truth-apt-content and unobserved-commitment assessments remain intact.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-mapping is superseded by MEM-OBJ-mapping. Both identify root Mapping records in versions/<v>/mappings.json, with term/data addressing, filter, aggregation and grain fields. The epistemic loading passage and memory delivery passage describe the same records at different stages. Inventory, Build and projection findings retain their consumer-specific warrant limits rather than becoming different mapping families.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-relation is superseded by MEM-OBJ-relation. Both identify root Relation records in versions/<v>/relations.json, with endpoint/type links and connection prose. Loading and selection passages concern the same family. The epistemic assessment that a derivation label is not checked entailment remains a finding about that referent.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-constraint is superseded by MEM-OBJ-constraint. Both identify root Constraint records in versions/<v>/constraints.json and the severity/description/evidence projection to model guidance. Memory distinguishes valid mapping targets from retrieved term targets; this does not create another family or replace epistemic applicability assessments.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-evidence is superseded by MEM-OBJ-evidence. Both identify root Evidence records in versions/<v>/evidence.json, carrying source/query/result/validation-method/timestamp strings and ID links. Their loading and delivery passages establish identity. The epistemic assessment of asserted observations and unknown source warrant is retained; these objects are not task trajectories or gate observations.

These supersessions establish identity, not preferred analyst values. Both IDs remain declared. The epistemic records' no-counterpart statements compare against their supplied runtime container, not the independently declared memory families now supplied to reconciliation.

Containment and distinct overlapping mechanisms

RT-OBJ-evolution-session remains a valid lifecycle container alongside its declared parts: MEM-OBJ-hypothesis, MEM-OBJ-evaluation and MEM-OBJ-source-references. Their model-interpreted explanations, mechanically consumed evaluation fields and external-file pointers have different consumers. Containment does not require superseding the valid container. MEM-OBJ-checkpoint is separate workspace trigger metadata. MEM-OBJ-trajectory, MEM-OBJ-workload and MEM-OBJ-version-report identify distinct retained payloads, not session or semantic-family aliases.

Identity is ruled out for these route overlaps:

MEM-RTE-bird-guidance, MEM-RTE-ddr-guidance and MEM-RTE-insight-guidance use different local loaders, selectors and projections from root retrieval and are narrower than benchmark execution. Shared tool names do not establish identity. Workflow declares no competing records; its annotation adds delivery conditions to the existing evolution route.

EPI-CLM-grounded-commitment concerns initial semantic grounding, not successor performance. Identity is also ruled out between EPI-CLM-gated-versioning and RT-CLM-evolution-success: the public publication condition and broader search-completion objective overlap, but have different scope. Their shared improvement language is not independent corroboration.

Convergence and integration dispositions

Publication and warrant. Runtime build publication, memory's Write side and epistemic version validation independently describe host semantic judgment versus structural/reference checks. Epistemic doctrine only for semantic generation/acceptance does not contradict a wired publication API: the findings concern different functions. No combined finding upgrades host compliance to observed semantic acceptance.

Conditional admission and bypass. RT-RTE-evolution-admission, MEM-OBJ-evaluation, epistemic gate aggregation and the workflow account agree that session acceptance recomputes a gate over caller-supplied observations. Adapters return normalized results without formal gate_input; the caller-owned pairing/regression handoff remains necessary. RT-RTE-version-override is an alternate administrative path, not a conflicting account of session acceptance. Mutable named files, gate bypass and separate selector/checkpoint/run writes prevent a global improvement or crash-safe transaction guarantee.

DDR correction. MEM-RTE-ddr-guidance now distinguishes optional manifest(task=...) filtering from shipped startup, session and resource callers that omit task. Its quoted conditional and caller establish the correction's basis: ordinary manifest delivery is unfiltered by task and does not receive the optional filter's 15-concept cap. Runtime describes selected manifests and provider history, not task-conditioned DDR selection; epistemic leaves local variants uninspected. Neither report currently depends on the withdrawn memory inference, so the correction creates no cross-report disagreement. An optional targeting API must not be carried forward as delivered targeting.

Consumer scope. Root retrieval and epistemic projection are explicitly root-local. Memory's three guidance records refine, rather than contradict, them: BIRD drops lifecycle metadata and follows only some evidence-body links; DDR sends evidence IDs but not promised sample_query; InsightBench's manifest discards bindings, while its empty resolve returns bindings and its Python mention loop is not schema-capped. Misleading source-facing labels are not competing analyst findings. MEM-OBJ-constraint further distinguishes valid stored mapping-target constraints from term-target delivery. Local binder accuracy and shortcut enforcement remain inspection limits, not universal absence or withdrawal conclusions.

Trace lineage. Memory's trace-retention and BIRD-guidance records distinguish explicitly selected execution versions from a recorder's reread of active_version and optional displayed-version relabeling. Runtime benchmark evaluation does not promise matching retained trajectory labels. Version-conditioned diagnosis therefore cannot rely on those labels alone, without requiring correction of the current runtime finding. Project-event truncation, benchmark loss of cross-family ordering and InsightBench semantic-ID/status records without native calls likewise qualify later retention, not immediate full replies. Runtime does not assert complete replay evidence; epistemic bounded observation lineage does not imply complete retention.

Recovery metadata. Memory checkpoint, reminder and source-reference records show that latest-trajectory advancement need not match the frozen batch, a missing checkpoint trajectory returns all history, and confirmed_at does not validate referenced content. Workflow assigns freezing and source inspection to the host, consistently with runtime. These are weaker metadata guarantees, not conflicts over authenticated methodological compliance.

Context and delivery. Runtime's benchmark-tool-loop record and its memory annotation distinguish full BIRD/DDR histories from InsightBench per-call frames and transient dedup. Dedup does not restore a reply omitted from a later frame; display/retention truncation is not context trimming. External host compaction remains uninspected. Workflow's terminal-state/presentation boundary supplements evolution and explorer projection: rejection continues search, terminal state permits finalization, and complete host reporting/panel opening remain separate from tool return.

Theory properties. Memory's hypothesis part and epistemic Bounded conclusion retain runtime's independent theory-builder, learning, reflection, autonomy and self-improvement assessments. Hypothesis persistence, requested critique/reuse and an afforded dormant self-change path do not combine into observed learning or successful improvement. Epistemic post-acceptance problem-map integration is instructed, not equivalent to mechanical copying, selection or retention.

Missing-part conflict and remaining uncertainty

Unresolved conflict: RT-RTE-benchmark-tool-loop, MEM-RTE-insight-guidance, MEM-RTE-trace-retention and MEM-OBJ-trajectory do not declare the additional InsightBench recovery/history parts named in memory's Integration issues. Runtime traces ToolCallingChat's stage frames and return; memory now explicitly limits that route and the normalized trace inventory, carrying a supplied finding of RuntimeError fallback to baseline generate_code without a semantic manifest and checkpoint reload of insights_history/semantic_events for later question selection or summarization. Memory identifies benchmarks/insightbench/insightbench/agents.py as the evidence location but says this correction did not independently trace that inventory. The absent declarations are the fallback execution route and retained analytical-history/checkpoint payloads with their later-consumer routes; no IDs are allocated here. The accounts are not opposing claims that fallback exists versus is absent. Their integration gap prevents a complete InsightBench recovery, retained-history and model-context account within the whole-system boundary. The verifier must determine the necessary declaring-analyst corrections; this reconciliation neither authenticates the carried finding nor equates those payloads with normalized trajectories.

No other cross-report disagreement is established by the supplied connections. Uninspected evaluator internals, binder accuracy, generic caller identity, source-reference validity, host compliance, evaluator authenticity and causal benefit remain scoped uncertainty rather than disagreements. The missing-part conflict does not erase the established stage-frame, semantic-delivery or trace-retention mechanisms, nor establish successful fallback or exercised checkpoint reuse.