Gnosis reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

All four reports use the revision and evidence limits in boundary. This reconciliation connects their pinned findings; it does not introduce source inspection, execution evidence or new analyst records. No correction answers or refusal were supplied.

Duplicate supersessions

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-entry-text is superseded by MEM-OBJ-entry-text. Both identify the same caller-supplied Entry.Text bodies in JSONL, not different versions or different content surfaces. Their identity evidence is SRC-1 internal/storage/storage.go and .gnosis/entries.jsonl, as given in the declarations. The epistemic object's historical, causal and predictive examples remain findings about this body; the memory object's lineage, rationale availability and later consumers remain applicable. This connects the epistemic inventory and import findings to the memory write/read account without converting retained assertions into accepted claims.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-entry-metadata is superseded by MEM-OBJ-entry-metadata. Both enumerate the same Entry ID, Topics, Author, Related, CreatedAt and UpdatedAt fields beside the body. Identity evidence is their SRC-1 internal/storage/storage.go declarations and shared lookup/display consumers. Epistemic observations about attribution and timestamps supplement the memory account of organization and access; neither licenses authenticated origin or executable supersession. Inventory, acquisition and navigation findings concern this same object, not independent corroborating instances.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-entries-fts is superseded by MEM-OBJ-entries-fts. Both identify the disposable SQLite entries_fts projection of ID, body and joined topics, supported by the same SRC-1 internal/index/index.go schema passage. The epistemic inventory and lexical-selection findings and the memory projection/read-back findings therefore concern one object. Neither declaration treats lexical ranking or snippets as semantic evaluation. Both IDs remain declared, and supersession changes no analyst finding or status.

Distinct records and retained containers

RT-OBJ-doctrine is not identical to the entry body, entry metadata or lexical projection above. It is static embedded selection guidance, whereas those objects accumulate or derive from caller submissions. MEM-OBJ-metadata is not the Entry metadata object: it identifies the SQLite mtime control value and its refresh consumer. EPI-OBJ-topic-aggregate is a recomputed topic/count result, not the persisted topic fields or FTS rows. No supersession is warranted for these distinctions.

The admission container RT-RTE-entry-admission remains alongside its declared parts: EPI-RTE-candidate-filter, EPI-RTE-candidate-choice, EPI-RTE-structure-check, EPI-RTE-entry-import and EPI-RTE-entry-retention. These distinguish instructed usefulness checking and disposition from executable structural checking, acquisition and persistence. Their differing architectural statuses do not conflict with the runtime's implemented command path: it also assigns semantic admission to the caller and leaves compliance unobserved. The parts are not alternative names for the full route, and their separation does not make its findings wrong.

Likewise EPI-RTE-lexical-selection and EPI-RTE-topic-count are distinct parts of RT-RTE-knowledge-read, not replacements for its search/show/latest/topics container. The topic-count record bounds its derivation to decoded topic occurrences, including manual duplicate memberships; the runtime's general description of counts does not assert a conflicting distinct-entry guarantee. The memory annotations distinguish snippets, full bodies and topic counts on the same runtime route.

EPI-RTE-edit-check, EPI-RTE-entry-replacement and EPI-RTE-entry-withdrawal separate checking and dispositions within RT-RTE-entry-maintenance. They do not supersede that valid container. EPI-RTE-cache-refresh spans both maintenance and knowledge read, rather than being identical to either full route. EPI-RTE-test-check concerns fixture assertions and CI results, not entry admission or semantic checking. No duplicate route or missing part requiring a split was identified in these connections.

EPI-CLM-knowledge-continuity, EPI-CLM-review-filter and RT-CLM-agent-compliance name different claims: retained-context utility, review's noise filtering, and every-time obedience. None supersedes another or the doctrine object that carries instructions. EPI-ABS-evidence-acceptance is a bounded absence finding about target-implemented evidence-consuming truth acceptance and subsequent integration, not another name for the operational admission/maintenance routes. Empty absence sections elsewhere do not contradict it.

The workflow declares no new records. Its annotations add handoff, recovery and delivery roles to the runtime routes rather than duplicating them. Its workflow account distinguishes README's planning shorthand from detailed post-plan, pre-implementation search instructions. The other reports' pre-implementation consultation accounts do not require a different timing invariant.

Convergence and integration dispositions

The memory integration issues establish no correction to runtime facts. Its unresolved provenance and control questions connect MEM-OBJ-entry-text and MEM-OBJ-entry-metadata to EPI-RTE-entry-import: all leave source warrant and per-item human approval unresolved. This is shared uncertainty, not conflicting findings. No claim of authenticated human-origin admission follows.

Rationale retention and delivery remain separate. MEM-OBJ-entry-text can retain reasons that MEM-OBJ-entries-fts excerpts omit; EPI-RTE-lexical-selection adds source-deduced query and truncation countercases. RT-RTE-knowledge-read and the workflow annotations likewise leave full-entry expansion to the caller. These are compatible limits, not evidence that no useful rationale can be delivered.

Withdrawal findings independently converge on consumer-specific effects. RT-RTE-entry-maintenance, MEM-OBJ-metadata, EPI-RTE-entry-withdrawal and EPI-RTE-cache-refresh distinguish removal from JSONL, ordinary successful index replacement, stale-cache countercases and previously delivered context. Related-entry replacement is a prose convention that leaves both entries available unless one is removed. The shared source basis is not independent execution corroboration.

RT-BAP-agent-guidance, its memory annotation and the workflow consultation account agree that requested stdout is advisory at the external agent. The epistemic ledger's implemented doctrine delivery and doctrine-only semantic evaluation concern different functions, not incompatible strengths of one guarantee. Missing activation evidence prevents concluding that delivery changed a plan; it does not negate the implemented delivery path. The workflow's local write, repository sharing and enclosing-task delivery boundaries preserve that distinction.

No cross-report disagreement remains identified in the supplied findings, so there is no unresolved-conflict paragraph. Original provenance, actual compliance, later reliance, observed test passage and causal benefit remain limitations rather than conflicts to settle. The epistemic bounded absence concerns inspected target mechanisms, while private external judgments remain uninspected; this does not turn the caller's semantic authority into an absent human capability. None of these connections strengthens an implementation finding into observed operation, acceptance or improvement.