Sig reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Record identities and containment

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-factual-record is superseded by MEM-OBJ-factual-record. Both denote the factual part of the private structured note produced from user capture, retained as local markdown. Their identity evidence is SRC-1, README.md, including the two-layer passage retained by RT-CLM-private-sharing and the local-memory passage retained by the memory record. Different analytical fields do not establish different objects. The epistemic inventory, private-synthesis endpoints, retention and context-use findings concern the memory record's same referent; its label does not establish factual truth. Both declarations remain, and neither finding is replaced by this identity connection.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-personal-layer is superseded by MEM-OBJ-personal-layer. Both denote the user's private interpretation retained with the local notes, distinct from the factual layer and excluded from team sharing by declared policy. Identity evidence is the same SRC-1, README.md two-layer passage retained in the memory record and RT-CLM-private-sharing. The epistemic inventory, synthesis, retention and context-use findings refer to that same interpretive output. The identity does not resolve file-level separation, truth-apt portions or provider-payload inclusion; both records retain those limits.

No supersession connects EPI-OBJ-org-version with MEM-OBJ-team-knowledge. The former denotes the proposed organizational account presented for review; the latter denotes approved published content. SRC-1, README.md, as quoted in RT-RTE-capture-share, places user inclusion and send decisions between those stages. They have different admission states and consumers; no specimen establishes unchanged content across that transition. The epistemic record's discussion of later sharing does not make the draft identical to the published object.

EPI-OBJ-capture is the input narrative, not either retained private output or approved team material. Its independent retention is unknown. MEM-OBJ-install-id is analytics linkage metadata, not a work-context object or a duplicate of the analytics route. RT-OBJ-skills denotes reusable workflows, not meeting accounts, drafts or team knowledge. These identities are distinct; no supersession is warranted.

RT-RTE-capture-share remains a valid combined route. Its capture and private-output objects, and EPI-RTE-private-synthesis, EPI-RTE-org-draft, EPI-RTE-share-approval, EPI-RTE-note-retention and EPI-RTE-context-use, distinguish material parts rather than duplicate the entire progression. SRC-1, README.md, retained by the runtime route, supplies the connected stages. Separation does not make the container's findings wrong, so no split supersession is warranted. EPI-RTE-local-deletion overlaps the persistence endpoint but describes a separate user action, not a replacement for the production route.

EPI-CLM-factual-layer concerns semantic organization, while RT-CLM-private-sharing concerns privacy and publication permission. Shared source wording does not make these claims identical. EPI-CLM-context-payoff concerns advertised AI benefit; the runtime account's quotation of that benefit is not a separate claim declaration. No further duplicate claim or route identity is established. Workflow declares no records; its annotation adds workflow fields to the existing capture/share route.

Convergence and integration dispositions

All four accounts preserve the boundary: complete release-document artifact, partial application loop, with no inspected app implementation or supplied execution evidence. Their documentary route findings do not establish operation or benefit. The epistemic ledger's doctrine only architectural status does not replace the runtime routes' separate claimed documentation and uninspected implementation/operation statuses. Likewise, the ledger's implemented treatment of RT-RTE-product-feedback concerns the inspectable form definitions, while runtime's afforded implementation finding concerns intake capability. Both limit force to the form affordance and leave hosting and production-change consumers unobserved.

The workflow account, memory annotation and epistemic parts agree that Sig proposes transformed text, the user controls team publication, and private retention can precede publication approval. Workflow's “acceptance decision” names review for publication, not truth acceptance: it expressly disclaims a correctness check. EPI-RTE-share-approval preserves that same operational decision while finding no evidence-consuming truth acceptance. This terminology difference is not a conflicting finding.

The memory integration issues require no correction to runtime. Their unresolved questions remain limits across the connected records:

  • Raw-input persistence, local approval, schemas and retained reasons remain unknown for the private objects and EPI-RTE-private-synthesis. The epistemic transformation relation remains indeterminate, not established reshaping, derivation or conjecture.
  • Remote encoding, recipient checks, conflicts and withdrawal remain unknown for MEM-OBJ-team-knowledge. Claimed synchronization does not establish successful delivery, consistency or global rollback.
  • Context selection, budgets and payloads remain unknown in EPI-RTE-context-use and RT-RTE-provider-message. Memory's claimed read-back surfaces and epistemic's claimed advisory context do not establish a wired selector or observed behavioral influence.
  • Skill bodies, admission, execution authority and trace-derived revision remain unknown in RT-OBJ-skills and RT-RTE-skill-sync. Sharing is not activation or demonstrated learning.
  • Optional integration acquisition, end-of-day processing and context control remain unresolved included surfaces. These prevent a complete application-loop account, not a bounded documentary account.
  • Local deletion does not establish remote retraction or cache invalidation; install-ID reset does not establish deletion of past events. EPI-RTE-local-deletion and MEM-OBJ-install-id retain distinct local controls. RT-RTE-analytics-egress and public feedback intake establish no admitted repair or later app-change consumer.

The privacy findings also converge. RT-CLM-private-sharing scopes exact-text approval to team publication; RT-CLM-provider-direct and RT-CLM-telemetry-filter retain separate egress claims and the explicit-comment exception. Neither memory nor workflow depends on a universal approval-before-network guarantee. Personal-layer inclusion in inference requests remains unresolved.

No cross-report disagreement remains in the supplied findings after the two duplicate-object supersessions. No supplied correction answers or declined objections require disposition. No required missing part is established as an inter-report conflict by these inputs. The remaining uncertainties prevent stronger conclusions; they are not settled here. No source read was needed beyond the supplied members.