EQUIPA reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Boundary and evidence basis

The reports share the revision and source in the boundary's Source register. Their implementation findings concern source-level paths, not observed execution. No supplied run or causal experiment establishes activation, reliable recovery, useful retrieval or improved capacity. This reconciliation uses the pinned members and their retained passages; it adds no source inspection. No analyst correction answers or declined objections were supplied.

Duplicate supersessions

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-agent-episodes is superseded by MEM-OBJ-agent-episodes. Both identify the SQLite agent_episodes approach/reflection narrative and its task/outcome lineage. Their identity evidence is SRC-1, equipa/lessons.py and equipa/reflexion.py, including the parsing and INSERT passages retained in EPI-RTE-episode-memory and the sanitized reflection passage in the memory object. Neither object denotes provider weights or a full conversation. The epistemic inventory and ledger's truth-content and warrant assessments remain attached to this episode content; the supersession does not upgrade narrative retention to factual acceptance.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-lessons-learned is superseded by MEM-OBJ-lessons-learned. Both identify the SQLite lessons_learned text and associated role/source/active metadata, including SIMBA rules. Identity evidence is SRC-1, scripts/forgesmith_simba.py and forgesmith.py; the matching simba_generated INSERT is retained in the memory object and EPI-RTE-simba-rules. Both distinguish these rows from role-file instructions and agree that the inspected INSERT omits the requested rationale. The epistemic inventory, synthesis and pruning findings concern this same retained object, not a separately accepted knowledge product.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-episode-q-value is superseded by MEM-OBJ-q-value. Their shared operative value is agent_episodes.q_value, the bounded SQLite number controlling later eligibility/ranking. SRC-1, equipa/lessons.py supplies the identical bounded SQL update retained in EPI-RTE-episode-values and MEM-RTE-episode-feedback. The memory record additionally describes the task-keyed exposure tracker and counters associated with this update; those details do not make a second Q-value. The supersession preserves the epistemic distinction between priority and truth and the memory qualification that exposure tracking is incomplete. It does not equate the number with episode prose, embeddings or model parameters.

These amendments connect identities only. Both declarations remain, and each analyst's fields and evidence limits remain its own.

Overlapping routes and distinct parts

MEM-RTE-episode-feedback, MEM-RTE-experience-retrieval, EPI-RTE-episode-memory and EPI-RTE-episode-values overlap but are not interchangeable route identities. The first joins narrative production to outcome-driven priority updates; the second selects both lessons and episodes. The epistemic narrative route crosses production and later consumption but excludes the separate numeric-update function. The value route isolates that update. Their retained SRC-1 passages in equipa/lessons.py, equipa/reflexion.py and equipa/prompts.py establish the shared transitions. Supersession is ruled out: these are valid differently bounded routes and parts, not competing names for one complete progression. None replaces RT-RTE-dev-test, which supplies task outcomes and consumes selected context but owns task-phase control.

MEM-RTE-lesson-maintenance includes template extraction and SIMBA generation, scoring and pruning. EPI-RTE-simba-rules isolates the SIMBA branch and its generic active-query consumer. The matching validation, INSERT, score and active-flag passages connect them; the additional template branch prevents whole-route identity. Both remain valid, so no supersession is made. EPI-OBJ-effectiveness-score isolates the numeric pruning input within the lesson metadata described by MEM-OBJ-lessons-learned; it is not another rule-text object and does not supersede the valid lesson container.

MEM-RTE-memory-queries covers lesson, project-context and session-note requests; EPI-RTE-mcp-retrieval principally assesses the lesson handler. The shared query progression is evidenced by SRC-1, equipa/mcp_server.py, including the SELECT retained by the epistemic route. Their scopes preclude whole-route supersession. Neither is the automatic prompt-push route or the runtime's task-dispatch front door. Their differing status findings are retained below.

MEM-RTE-context-recovery explicitly belongs to RT-RTE-dev-test, while EPI-RTE-context-reorder explicitly belongs to that same task container but isolates a different prompt-ordering operation. Recovery snapshots, selected summaries and deterministic ordering are not identical routes. The runtime task container remains valid alongside both parts. EPI-OBJ-prior-summary denotes rendered history sections, not the hard checkpoint files, soft-state JSON or session rows declared in memory. These related representations are not superseded by one another.

EPI-RTE-hook-checks isolates build/lint check producers within RT-RTE-lifecycle-hooks. The scripts' compile, missing-tool and timeout passages supplement the runtime's callback execution account; they do not replace its registry or arbitrary shell effects. No supersession is warranted. EPI-RTE-rubric-scores, its score object and EPI-OBJ-training-marker have no duplicate declarations in the supplied members.

Other nearest-record comparisons likewise rule out identity. MEM-CMP-embedding-service denotes embedding inference rather than RT-CMP-ollama's chat operation; a potentially shared deployed service does not establish identical component roles. MEM-OBJ-embedding and MEM-OBJ-lesson-graph-edges are retrieval representations, not narrative content or Q-values. MEM-OBJ-initiative-plan is particular historical content, not its RT-OBJ-task-branch container. MEM-OBJ-agent-messages and MEM-OBJ-persisted-output retain distinct payloads and read-back limits. MEM-BAP-experience-context supplies historical advice rather than RT-BAP-role-instructions's standing instructions. No further duplicate supersessions are asserted.

Anchored disagreement

Unresolved conflict: MEM-RTE-memory-queries assigns implementation conclusion status: afforded, while EPI-RTE-mcp-retrieval assigns implementation conclusion status: wired to the overlapping registered lesson-query path. Both cite the implemented handler in SRC-1, equipa/mcp_server.py, agree that inactive lessons remain queryable, and leave actual client use unobserved. Memory frames the result as an exposed capability without established downstream incorporation; epistemic frames the implemented request-to-response handler as wired while likewise leaving subsequent client reliance uninspected. Their broader route scopes differ, but the shared handler has different implementation-status assignments. This prevents reporting one agreed implementation status for that overlap. It does not establish observed consumption or a factual disagreement about the SELECT. Neither status is selected here.

Convergence and integration dispositions

The workflow account reuses the runtime's task and merge records rather than declaring duplicates. Its direct CLI, loop and dispatch passages corroborate selected handoffs: tester failures become addressed messages, another developer cycle may follow, and changed Git work reaches delivery only after merge admission and reconciled telemetry. This convergence is source inspection, not independent execution evidence. Workflow's annotations preserve the runtime distinction between cycle acceptance and product landing. Clean no-op termination remains separate from a new merge.

The runtime and workflow agree that launch confirmation is not per-change approval, no_tests and shortcuts qualify universal testing claims, and security rejection can leave a branch for operator resolution. EPI-CLM-task-testing records the broader README claim; its comparison with RT-RTE-dev-test and RT-RTE-gated-merge is a doctrine-versus-route mismatch, not a disagreement between the analysts. The same applies to EPI-CLM-self-improvement and EPI-CLM-semantic-memory: they are distinct public claims, not duplicate declarations of runtime mechanisms or measured outcomes.

Memory integration issues 1–2 qualify source labels rather than withdraw runtime guarantees. MEM-RTE-context-recovery retains both session and hard-checkpoint history, lexical checkpoint ordering and conditional history delivery. The runtime already states that regular history is omitted without anti_compaction_state. MEM-CLM-context-budget separately establishes a best-effort prompt target, not an enforced cap. These findings prevent claims of complete restoration or a hard size invariant; they do not contradict the runtime's bounded recovery account.

Memory integration issues 3–6 remain local qualifications. Its exposure-tracker and final-trim findings limit what Q rewards can attribute. Both analysts agree that uniform outcome rewards do not isolate episode usefulness, SIMBA source labels miss a dedicated scoring filter without blocking generic lesson injection, and active-flag withdrawal does not revoke MCP access. Memory's untyped graph-ID and fallback-sort questions further limit retrieval claims; epistemic explicitly leaves full graph/vector internals uninspected rather than denying them. Memory's ordinary telemetry embedding gap limits activation on that caller, not the existence of alternate embedding capabilities.

The two accounts also converge on the LITM propagation limit: memory finds no established reader for audit-written weights in the inspected ordering path; EPI-RTE-context-reorder shows unused numeric arguments and section reordering. Neither establishes a system-wide absence of other consumers or observed attention benefit.

Memory integration issues 7–8 preserve part/container distinctions and included-but-uninspected responsibilities. The runtime's file/configuration changes, GEPA variants and separate autoresearch path remain distinct from lesson-table maintenance. Memory annotates RT-OBJ-role-prompts rather than redeclaring it. All reports leave complete training, plugin, optimizer, scheduling and deployed-state conclusions bounded by their recorded coverage. Unequal inspection depth is not a conflict and does not cancel supported positives.

Finally, the runtime's implemented improvement-directed prompt-change paths and epistemic's standing self-change assessment agree on the missing exercised causal link and benefit evidence. Memory's trace-fed text and ranking updates add retained mechanisms, not proof of improved capacity. The reports do not infer theory building, reflection-mediated behavior or provider weight learning from those updates. No additional cross-report disagreement or missing-part conflict is established by the supplied findings; the status disagreement above remains for report verification.