Interview Doc Agent report verification

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

Verification

The reports support a bounded doctrine/design account of the shipped skill, not an inspected execution engine or demonstrated knowledge-production process. I independently read the complete tracked source tree at SRC-1's frozen revision and traced initialization, raw-material consolidation, index maintenance, later selection, generation and cloud writeback against the submitted reports. HEAD equals the reviewed revision and the checkout is clean. The Source register supplies the evidence identity; no new source or evidence layer was introduced. Its stated total of 15 files is a clerical miscount: the tree has 16 tracked files, all represented by its coverage rows. This does not conceal a responsibility or change the boundary, so I dismiss it as immaterial to this judgment.

Runtime, memory and authority

I checked every runtime declaration and its anchors against SRC-1, SKILL.md, README.md, docs/02-安装-obsidian.md, docs/03-接入-飞书.md, the indexes and templates. RT-CMP-host-ai, RT-OBJ-skill and RT-BAP-skill-instructions correctly separate the external executor from text guidance. All four route records preserve user triggers, model next-step ownership, external I/O and unobserved operation. The initialization and cloud alternatives are instructions, not implemented fallback machinery. RT-CLM-numeric-fidelity retains genuine constraints without claiming enforcement; RT-CLM-local-privacy correctly withholds a provider-transmission guarantee.

I checked all seven memory objects, both authority paths, the retrieval claim, maintenance absence and four route annotations. SRC-1, materials/README.md, jd/README.md, 经历库/00-个人档案.模板.md, 经历库/01-示例经历.md, wiki/index.md and both template files support their distinct input, content, locator, style and output roles. MEM-OBJ-personal-profile preserves biography/persona and access metadata; MEM-OBJ-experience-dossiers distinguishes project reasons from extraction provenance. MEM-OBJ-output has a human consumer, not a prescribed future-agent feedback path. Model admission is not confused with human initiation or physical writes. Local whole-file selection is not transferred to opaque cloud retrieval. Claimed doctrine and uninspected operation are appropriate evidence statuses.

Epistemic and workflow findings

I checked all epistemic objects, both claims, the absence record, every ledger function and their source anchors. EPI-ABS-content-check is supported as a bounded absence of a separate evidence-producing truth check and evidence-consuming acceptance decision, not an absence of possible private model comparison or human review. The ledger separates transformation, retention, selection and refresh. Its indeterminate rewrite assessments avoid inferring non-entailment from missing input/output evidence. EPI-CLM-source-consistency and the two retrieval-reliability records preserve attributed promises without granting numerical agreement, recall or inference guarantees. Fictional examples and illustrative causal statements are not observed outcomes.

The workflow account and all three annotations faithfully join shipped user requests through persistent state, rather than inventing autonomous scheduling or specialist delegation. SRC-1, docs/04-使用指南.md joins maintenance and generation; SKILL.md supplies the steps and missing-number policy. Delivery is document placement or a permission-dependent conversational handoff, not certified quality, PDF compilation or employer submission. No successful execution is claimed.

Reconciliation and omission checks

I checked every reconciliation amendment, retained overlap and integration disposition. The four supersessions identify the same materials, JD, templates and output referents; their evidence supports identity without changing values. The differently scoped experience and index containers can remain alongside memory objects without false whole-record identity. The broader epistemic retrieval claim also includes inference accuracy, so retaining it alongside the narrower memory claim is justified. No explicit Part of: relations are present. I found no required missing containment relation: new analyst objects are not material parts of exactly one supplied runtime object, and reconciliation correctly distinguishes overlapping later declarations. The two absence records ask different questions. No unresolved conflicting findings require adjudication, and no supplied correction answers offer contrary arguments. The supplied structural check reports none.

Omission questions were selected from the complete frozen tree and producer/consumer dependencies, not just report anchors. Could an alternate shipped caller provide execution, checking or automatic feedback? The tracked tree contains no executable driver, tests or evaluator; the local/cloud tutorials prescribe external hosts and manual adaptation, preserving the doctrine-only conclusion. Could retained output, raw chats or cross-platform copying feed later method revision? SRC-1, materials/README.md, wiki/index.md and docs/03-接入-飞书.md establish input types, output locations and copying, but no such consumer or evaluation-fed revision protocol. This supports MEM-ABS-memory-maintenance within its stated boundary. Could selection imply enforced isolation or complete recall? SRC-1, SKILL.md and docs/01-理念-karpathy-wiki.md permit raw-detail fallback and whole-library reads while prescribing ordinary selective reads; the reports preserve that distinction. Could example numbers authenticate the library? The explicit fictional/example warnings prevent it and are retained in the records.

Further omission expansion stopped because all shipped behavioral files and their material dependencies were inspected, these consequential alternatives have supported dispositions, and no identified material challenge remains unanswered. External host execution, retrieval and provider handling are explicitly outside the frozen source; more documentation here cannot settle those facts. Their uncertainty already bounds the emitted findings and does not require weakening supported routes.

Blockers

none

Limits

• RT-RTE-initialize-workspace and RT-RTE-generate-document: workspace resolution and starter-file naming remain unresolved setup issues. SRC-1, SKILL.md defines the root as its containing folder, while docs/02-安装-obsidian.md installs it under the host's skills directory and initializes at the current location. The shipped profile and script-template names also differ from ordinary read targets, as recorded in runtime and memory. The intended maintenance/read-back loop remains supported, but readers should withhold guaranteed out-of-the-box file discovery, a resolved default-template fallback and uniform setup behavior across hosts.