Meta-Harness reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Boundary and evidence

The members share the frozen repository revision in boundary. Runtime describes the reference searches, task execution, pilot and onboarding. Memory distinguishes retained content and its consumers. Epistemic separates checking, admission and reliance. Workflow selects the terminal reference search, not a composite of separate entry paths. Connections below rely on the members' retained SRC-1 passages; no source file was reread. The Source register supplies implementation, doctrine/design and reported-operation evidence, not observed-run or causal-experiment evidence.

No refusal or correction-answer file is supplied to this attempt. Memory's corrected declarations and integration account can be compared directly with the current peer records; no declined cross-report objection is supplied. The previous reconciliation is not evidence that its earlier connection or conflict still holds.

Duplicate identity and overlap dispositions

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-examples is superseded by MEM-OBJ-examples. Both denote the FewShotMemory examples list, its input/ground-truth pairs and JSON serialization, and retain the same construction passage from SRC-1, reference_examples/text_classification/agents/fewshot_memory.py. Memory adds append admission, lineage and model-consumer distinctions. This establishes identical referents, not a stronger conclusion status. The epistemic inventory and example-context ledger concern this same object; their source-warrant and acceptance assessments remain epistemic findings. Both declarations remain available.

Identity is ruled out between those examples and MEM-OBJ-memory. The latter is the generic candidate-state checkpoint transported across processes through get_state and set_state. Few-shot examples are one payload; NoMemory's inert state is another. Its retained save and inert-state passages establish why a checkpoint load cannot universally imply example delivery or behavioral dependence.

Identity is ruled out between RT-OBJ-pending-eval and MEM-OBJ-evolution-summary, MEM-OBJ-summary-results, MEM-OBJ-summary-rationale, MEM-OBJ-frontier-val, or EPI-OBJ-val-results. The manifest is a transient proposal handoff. Summary rationale is its later retained copy; result/control fields join identities to measured outcomes and resume counters; frontier fields retain selected winners. Shared candidate names or copied hypotheses do not establish identity across these artifacts.

EPI-OBJ-val-results overlaps MEM-OBJ-frontier-val and MEM-OBJ-summary-results, but exact identity is ruled out. The epistemic record denotes numerical evaluation and selection fields across result files, frontiers and summaries. The memory records denote specific frontier stores and the summary's result/control part. The epistemic object explicitly excludes model-authored hypotheses; it therefore is not identical to MEM-OBJ-summary-rationale or the mixed summary container. These cross-artifact overlaps warrant no supersession.

The current MEM-OBJ-evolution-summary remains a valid container alongside its two declared parts. MEM-OBJ-summary-results owns software-derived result/control lineage, deterministic iteration-resume force and advisory comparison use. MEM-OBJ-summary-rationale owns copied model-authored hypotheses/changes and advisory design use. Both state their Part of relation to the container. Their retained resume, score-write and proposer-read passages establish distinct consumers and authority. Separating them does not make the container's findings wrong, so no split supersession is warranted. Neither part is identical to the other.

Identity is ruled out between EPI-OBJ-evaluation-results and MEM-OBJ-evaluation-history as whole records. They share pilot result dictionaries, accumulated history and uploaded JSON. The memory record also includes executable source snapshots and distinguishes these from projected feedback; the epistemic record denotes response/history fields. Shared history does not establish identical complete scopes. Neither object duplicates RT-RTE-pilot-search, which denotes the whole edit/evaluate/score progression.

Identity is ruled out between MEM-RTE-classification-memory and EPI-RTE-example-context as whole routes. The memory route covers candidate-owned updates, online/offline modes, best-epoch restoration and benchmark reload for multiple candidate implementations. The epistemic route isolates baseline example copying, serialization and prompt selection through answer production. Their common baseline operations converge without making the scopes interchangeable. Neither duplicates the outer admission/selection progression in RT-RTE-classification-search or finalization sequencing in RT-RTE-classification-finalize.

The epistemic part routes likewise do not duplicate their runtime parents: EPI-RTE-answer-check, EPI-RTE-frontier-selection, EPI-RTE-terminal-scoring, EPI-RTE-source-check, EPI-RTE-suite-scoring and EPI-RTE-history-selection identify consequential parts rather than whole search loops. Their Part of relations preserve checking, source admission, winner selection and historical scoring as separate functions.

MEM-OBJ-completion-cache and MEM-RTE-completion-replay are not identical to RT-CMP-classification-llm: stored symbolic responses and replay operations are not model weights. EPI-RTE-observation-filter spans lossy delivery transformations, not replay or the full RT-RTE-kira-execution and pilot loops. EPI-OBJ-terminal-output denotes observations, not their filtering route. MEM-OBJ-classification-log denotes mode-dependent trace events and partial previews, not the answer strings and prediction-result storage of EPI-OBJ-predictions. Exact identities between these records are ruled out.

MEM-OBJ-reports is requested post-evaluation guidance, not the pending hypotheses or their summary copies. EPI-CLM-mechanism-tests concerns mechanism-testing doctrine, while RT-CLM-fixed-model concerns the mutable boundary of search; neither supersedes the other. Workflow declares no new records and adds terminal handoff/delivery fields through an annotation, not another route identity.

Integration dispositions and qualifications

The earlier summary missing-part conflict no longer applies. The current memory integration issues and the two summary-part declarations identify both previously missing parts with separate lineage and consumer assessments. EPI-OBJ-val-results still supplies the broader numerical referent and excludes rationale; it need not stand in for either exact summary part. No dependent peer finding requires the memory container to remain unsplit in its operative assessment. The resolved allocation does not confer software-derived warrant on copied model explanations.

Memory's KIRA qualification is compatible with RT-RTE-kira-execution. Runtime describes the fallback text as original instruction plus last 1,000 screen characters and leaves inherited retention uninspected. The memory annotation retains the retry passage copying remaining chat messages before appending that text. Runtime does not say the fallback is the entire next context or that all prior messages disappear. Together the findings permit surviving messages, but establish neither complete retained reasoning nor summarizer fidelity.

The classification trace qualification also adds a limit without contradiction. RT-RTE-classification-search identifies instructed history reads, not guaranteed full-example delivery. MEM-OBJ-classification-log retains the 200-character preview passage and distinguishes offline training counts, evaluation events and the separate returned trajectory. The requested prototyping input may therefore be partial; this does not negate the history-read affordance.

RT-RTE-terminal-search, EPI-RTE-terminal-scoring and the workflow account agree on same-dataset final reevaluation. Epistemic's warning and pass-fraction passages show that undiscovered trials do not become denominator entries. Workflow additionally distinguishes main-loop benchmark failure-to-zero handling from final-pass parsing whenever a job directory exists, after ignoring success status. Runtime's recovery description does not assert identical failure handling on every branch. These qualifications do not contradict the route, but prevent treating a displayed rate as complete sampling or the final completion message as a successful-evaluation certificate.

The pilot records independently converge on separate admission, feedback and scoring consumers. EPI-RTE-source-check shows that admitted source can score zero. MEM-OBJ-evaluation-history shows full-history retention versus model-visible reward/tasks/reason/budget, which omit acceptance and digest. EPI-RTE-history-selection shows arithmetic eligibility without a nonnegative-remaining-budget requirement. This does not contradict the normal evaluation-tool budget in RT-RTE-pilot-search, whose owner and enforcement point differ and exclude standalone controller calls and some exceptions. Historical maximum reward does not identify or restore the final edited code. No universal budget, provenance or final-artifact guarantee follows.

No unresolved cross-report conflict remains in the supplied records. The qualifications above do not require either report to abandon its finding, and no peer conclusion relies on the corrected summary container lacking its now-declared parts. No supplied declined objection is treated as an established defect.

Independent convergence and retained uncertainty

RT-BAP-candidate-execution establishes executable force before frontier selection; memory's example route establishes model-interpreted demonstration delivery; EPI-RTE-frontier-selection establishes metric-based operational selection rather than acceptance of explanatory truth. The workflow annotation separates the implementation child's requested import self-check from the driver's independent veto. These findings connect different consumers and do not select a single strongest status.

Runtime's theory accounts and the epistemic bounded conclusion are compatible. Executable consumption, requested criticism and feedback opportunities are not demonstrated criticism-mediated iteration or accepted explanations. Memory retention does not upgrade those findings. Epistemic architectural implemented rows do not establish exercised reliance or benefit. Runtime's marked dispositional self-change pathways remain distinct from successful self-improvement, learning benefit, exercised reflection and autonomous theory-building.

Generated-candidate state, caller-supplied checkpoint provenance, inherited Harbor compaction, provider behavior and actual production of reports or child analyses remain scoped uncertainties in the memory integration issues and epistemic coverage account. They prevent universal memory, fidelity, reliance and performance conclusions, not the positive wiring findings. Missing observed-run and causal evidence limits activation and attribution; it is neither a disagreement nor evidence that the inspected routes are absent.