Spacebot reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

The reports share the frozen boundary and SRC-1 register. Their implementation and doctrine findings do not establish observed operation or causal benefit. This reconciliation uses only the supplied members; no additional source reads were needed. No analyst correction answers or declined objections were supplied.

Duplicate identities

Amendment: EPI-CMP-embedding-model is superseded by MEM-CMP-embedding-model. Both identify the same EmbeddingModel wrapper around fastembed::TextEmbedding, its cache-backed numerical parameters and default initialization in SRC-1 src/memory/embedding.rs. Their retained initialization passages and fixity qualifications agree. This is not identity with RT-CMP-spacebot-model, the generative provider wrapper. Epistemic inventory references to the numerical encoder concern the memory-declared component; neither report establishes the exact downloaded model artifact or parameter training.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-memory-content is superseded by MEM-OBJ-memory. Both denote Memory.content, the per-agent natural-language claim text, rather than its selectors, vectors or live history. Identity evidence is their source-native field and shared save pipeline at SRC-1 src/tools/memory_save.rs; the epistemic construction passage and memory type passage identify the same retained text. Epistemic extraction, save, merge and rendering findings concern this object. Neither its fact label nor its persistence establishes truth acceptance.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-memory-metadata is superseded by MEM-OBJ-memory-metadata. Both denote the memory selectors and association rows consumed by fixed rules, including type, importance, forgotten state and relation/weight. Their SRC-1 src/memory/search.rs multiplier evidence identifies the same graph semantics. The memory declaration also inventories timestamps and access/provenance fields; this adds coverage of the same metadata referent, not a different object. The epistemic ranking and withdrawal findings remain separate functions over that object, not truth adjudication.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-wiki-content is superseded by MEM-OBJ-wiki-page. Both identify current and historical WikiPage/WikiPageVersion content in instance SQLite, with symbolic version, slug, type and authorship metadata. Their evidence at SRC-1 src/wiki/store.rs and src/tools/wiki_read.rs identifies the same persisted page/version surface. The epistemic mutation and reader-authority findings apply to that surface; version retention is not evidence-consuming acceptance. Neither declaration denotes filesystem skills.

These amendments identify duplicate referents without changing either analyst's values, removing declarations or selecting a stronger status.

Containers, parts and overlapping routes

MEM-RTE-chronicle-retention explicitly names RT-RTE-context-control as its container. The latter also covers rolling compaction, private frames and emergency reduction. The chronicle route supplies durable checkpoint, rollup, bounded view and expansion details at SRC-1 src/agent/chronicle.rs and src/tools/chronicle.rs. These are not identical routes; the valid container remains. Likewise WF-RTE-completion-admission explicitly belongs to RT-RTE-delegated-work. Its SRC-1 src/agent/channel.rs version/kind/owner comparison is the receiving channel's admission step, not the entire worker execution and finalization loop. No supersession is warranted for either part/container pair.

MEM-RTE-context-supply covers store, task, temporal and participant rendering inside RT-RTE-channel-turn. EPI-RTE-memory-render covers the narrower global store/task renderer and its first-line transformation, not all those context layers or the whole turn. Their SRC-1 src/memory/render.rs evidence converges on first-line selection and a memory-only word budget. These route identities differ; neither whole route replaces another.

MEM-RTE-memory-admission and MEM-RTE-file-ingestion distinguish conversation-triggered admission and file-triggered chunk processing. EPI-RTE-memory-extraction crosses those input routes but isolates their model-selection function; EPI-RTE-memory-save isolates the shared tool's validation and retention; EPI-RTE-completion-contract isolates terminal accounting and its hook/ingestion consumers. Their progression overlaps, but their triggers, endpoints and admitted objects differ. The extraction route is not identical to either complete memory route, nor is the terminal evaluator identical to worker completion admission. Saved-memory-ID equality at SRC-1 src/tools/memory_persistence_complete.rs and worker terminal version agreement at SRC-1 src/agent/channel.rs check different propositions.

MEM-RTE-memory-curation retains a valid maintenance-family account with separate mechanisms. EPI-RTE-batch-consolidation, EPI-RTE-memory-maintenance and EPI-RTE-memory-withdrawal trace different functions within that family. No combined finding becomes wrong merely by separating these routes, so there is no split supersession. EPI-RTE-memory-selection is specifically graph ranking, whereas MEM-RTE-memory-recall includes hybrid/metadata recall, transcript recall and administrative displays. These are not duplicate route identities.

MEM-RTE-wiki-editing includes discovery, archive and restore behavior beyond EPI-RTE-wiki-mutation's selected create/edit/read path. The latter explicitly leaves full archive/restore and API coverage unassessed. Positive memory findings and epistemic noninspection therefore coexist without supersession. EPI-BAP-wiki-readers names a reader path within the broader knowledge-context authority family, not an alias for that entire family.

MEM-BAP-memory-context concerns natural-language claims, temporal evidence and wiki context. MEM-BAP-memory-selectors concerns fixed query/render/maintenance rules. EPI-BAP-memory-context combines selection force with advisory delivery over a narrower memory-consumer scope and leaves participant/temporal transformations unassessed. Its scope is not identical to either memory authority declaration. Their overlapping paths do not justify substituting one whole record for another or inventing a split record.

Independent convergence and integration dispositions

The memory integration issues do not require a runtime fact correction. MEM-CLM-retention-contract qualifies the prompt's “full conversation history” against a copied current window. RT-RTE-context-control already distinguishes reduction, hydration and private context. The boundary quotes that prompt as doctrine and inclusion evidence, not as a guarantee of complete runtime history. The reports thus do not disagree about what the persistence branch receives.

The index-consistency issue is also bounded rather than a cross-report conflict. MEM-RTE-memory-curation distinguishes committed SQL merges from later vector upkeep and explains that stale survivor indexing can affect candidate selection. EPI-RTE-batch-consolidation quotes the source comment claiming invisibility/self-healing but expressly declines to prove every join or recovery path. Its findings do not assert the stronger guarantee the memory report rejects. Their shared supported claim is the ordering of SQL commitment and warn-only post-commit embedding work, not immediate retrieval-index consistency.

MEM-RTE-context-supply and EPI-RTE-memory-render agree that automatic delivery can omit multiline reasons or conditions. The epistemic counterexample is a code deduction, not a reported incident. MEM-RTE-memory-curation calls periodic merging concatenation rather than semantic synthesis; EPI-RTE-memory-maintenance explains why substring suppression and clipping do not guarantee semantic preservation. Neither report claims an actual deployed input pair or observed semantic failure.

The schema/parser human-filter mismatch and unresolved anchor-cache refresh remain local limits in MEM-RTE-memory-recall and MEM-OBJ-human-anchor. Other reports do not establish immediate cache freshness or complete human-filter support. The chronicle budget floor likewise qualifies local renderer comments, not an unconditional runtime guarantee.

Withdrawal remains route-local. MEM-RTE-file-ingestion distinguishes history/source cleanup from derived-memory withdrawal; MEM-RTE-wiki-editing distinguishes archive-filtered discovery from explicit slug reads. EPI-RTE-memory-withdrawal excludes forgotten rows from ordinary retrieval without claiming derivative erasure. These findings do not conflict with RT-RTE-skill-change's separate skill archive/reload behavior.

The skill objects and routes remain distinct from memory claims and wiki pages. Memory annotations and the epistemic benefit comparison rely on RT-RTE-skill-change, RT-CLM-required-skills and RT-BAP-skill-instruction, rather than declaring replacement skill records. They preserve the runtime's distinction between instruction delivery, actual content-dependent behavior and improved outcomes. EPI-CLM-better-use is a public benefit claim, not an alias for that implementation route. The other epistemic claims concern public memory-render/consolidation wording or wiki procedure content, whereas MEM-CLM-retention-contract concerns persistence guidance and terminal accounting; these claim identities also differ.

The workflow refines, rather than contradicts, runtime completion ordering. RT-RTE-delegated-work establishes the finalizer's commit-before-event protocol and bounded failure behavior; WF-RTE-completion-admission adds the receiver's durable-result check. The workflow's later retrigger, outbound routing and receipt distinctions remain compatible with RT-RTE-channel-turn. Neither lifecycle check accepts the substantive work product, and neither guarantees relay or user receipt. EPI-RTE-result-filtering adds a separate result-consumer transformation; event scrubbing does not establish identical cleaning of private model history.

No unresolved cross-report disagreement was found in the supplied findings. The memory inventory's uninspected attachments, organizational seeding/refresh, full task/goal/wake revision paths, profile-card consumer and restored-worker variants remain coverage limits, not evidence of absent behavior. The epistemic inventory independently leaves relevant operations unassessed and therefore withholds a system-complete negative about acceptance. EPI-RTE-behavioral-fixtures adds a narrow first-action evaluator definition, not execution evidence or a successor-selection loop. These limits prevent completeness, recovery, security and improvement guarantees without cancelling the positive implemented routes.