Sig report verification

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

Verification

The five submitted members support a bounded documentary account. I independently read all tracked text in SRC-1: README.md, RELEASE_NOTES_v0.1.0-beta.md, ANALYTICS.md, LICENSE, .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/bug_report.yml, .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/feedback.yml and .github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/config.yml. HEAD matched the reviewed commit; a tracked-tree inventory and a clean diff against that commit established the source text used for these reads. The tree contains those texts and two images, not application code, prompts, evaluators or drivers. The images remain excluded from visual inspection. This supports the boundary's partial-loop classification, not a whole-system implementation assessment. No target execution, external acquisition or observed-run evidence was used.

Runtime and memory findings

I checked every runtime declaration and its source-dependent account. RT-RTE-capture-share follows the README's explicit capture, private synthesis, organizational preparation, exact-text review and send sequence. Its quoted team-context statement supports declared later availability, not a reconstructed context selector or successful synchronization. Human capture initiation and publication approval are correctly kept separate from unspecified local-write admission.

RT-CMP-ai-provider and RT-RTE-provider-message preserve provider-family identity without inventing a model pin, fixed endpoint, transcript reload or synthesis-call dependency. RT-OBJ-skills and RT-RTE-skill-sync match the reusable-workflow and git-sharing text without attributing an encoding, executor or permissions model. RT-RTE-analytics-egress retains the automatic event path, comment-text exception and lack of an in-app off toggle. RT-RTE-product-feedback matches the actual required form fields and privacy attestation; its afforded status does not imply deployed hosting or an admitted product change.

The three guarantee records—RT-CLM-private-sharing, RT-CLM-provider-direct and RT-CLM-telemetry-filter—correctly report documentary policies rather than inspected invariants. Their coverage excludes universal network mediation, provider-side confidentiality and demonstrated sanitizer completeness. The broad README local-only wording is not silently extended across the separate provider and analytics channels. Personal-layer inclusion in provider payloads remains explicitly unresolved.

All four memory declarations are supported at their stated documentary strength. MEM-OBJ-factual-record, MEM-OBJ-personal-layer and MEM-OBJ-team-knowledge distinguish structured private outputs from approved published content; their natural-language roles do not establish a schema or factual accuracy. MEM-OBJ-install-id is correctly classified as grouping metadata with a named backend consumer. ID replacement is not deletion of earlier events. I checked each memory annotation, write-side and read-back conclusion against the cited source paths: file access does not establish external-edit adoption, uninstall does not remove captures, synchronization does not establish unsolicited model-input selection, and diagnostics do not establish trace-fed instruction revision.

Epistemic and workflow findings

I checked all four epistemic objects, all six epistemic routes, both claim records and every ledger row. EPI-OBJ-capture is an input account; EPI-OBJ-factual-record and EPI-OBJ-personal-layer are private outputs; EPI-OBJ-org-version denotes the review-stage proposal, not automatically the final published text.

EPI-RTE-private-synthesis and EPI-RTE-org-draft correctly leave semantic transformation indeterminate: the documents supply neither concrete propositions nor a checked input/output mapping. EPI-RTE-share-approval licenses publication permission, not evidence-consuming truth acceptance. EPI-RTE-note-retention distinguishes local writes from approved team persistence, while EPI-RTE-context-use leaves the actual selected subset and influence unobserved. EPI-RTE-local-deletion supports only documentary local removal, not remote withdrawal. These five parts of the capture/share progression plus the separate deletion route retain their own statuses and uncertainty. The ledger's implemented classification for the issue-form route is supported by the inspectable YAML definitions; its force remains a form affordance.

EPI-CLM-factual-layer concerns advertised output separation, not a promised correctness test. EPI-CLM-context-payoff accurately attributes the compounded-benefit claim without endorsing it. No trace or comparison supports observed activation, improved answers or component-level causal attribution. The bounded conclusion preserves these distinctions and does not convert undisclosed checking, learning, reflection or self-improvement into system-complete absences.

The workflow account uses the connected README sequence rather than joining unrelated features. Its annotation on the capture/share route preserves human/Sig/git handoff ownership, publication veto and the two delivery milestones. No agent-to-agent delegation, synthesis-provider call graph, correctness oracle, retry owner or remote rollback is invented. Calling review an acceptance decision is locally scoped to publication and does not contradict the epistemic account.

Reconciliation and omission disposition

I checked every Part of: relation: the input/output objects and five separated transformation, disposition, retention and consumption routes are contained in the declared capture/share progression. Local deletion is correctly separate. The reconciliation establishes two duplicate-object supersessions with matching identities and retained findings. It correctly keeps the organizational proposal distinct from approved team knowledge and keeps the valid combined route alongside its parts. No record is erased or given a new referent. The reports contain no evidenced-absence or behavioral-authority-path declarations requiring additional disposition, and workflow declares no new records. No unresolved cross-report conflict was found. The empty correction answers introduce no arguments to adjudicate. The supplied structural check reports none, so there is no structural failure to route.

Consequential omission questions were selected from the complete tracked tree and the producer-to-consumer chain, not just existing anchors. I looked for an alternate shipped caller or operational content that could establish context selection or truth checking; for integration, skill or end-of-day instructions that could support automatic maintenance or behavioral adaptation; and for outbound paths that could invalidate the narrowed sharing guarantee. All tracked text was inspected. SRC-1, README.md and ANALYTICS.md name Slack, voice, skills and sync counts but supply no corresponding operational definitions or consumers beyond those already qualified in the reports. The end-of-day label does not establish a consolidation route. The provider, telemetry-comment and public-report paths already constrain universal privacy interpretations. SRC-1, RELEASE_NOTES_v0.1.0-beta.md names external builds and an app-internal analytics document, but neither is present in the frozen tree.

Further omission search stopped because no identified material challenge remains without a supported disposition, and additional implementation inspection would require evidence outside the frozen source. The supported conclusion remains a declared capture/retention/publication/context design. Implementation enforcement, complete application-loop coverage, request-level context selection, recovery reliability, truth acceptance and benefit comparisons must remain unestablished, as the submitted wording already states. These faithfully scoped uncertainties are not additional verifier limits or grounds to weaken the supported documentary findings.

Blockers

none

Limits

none