Stigmergy reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Boundary and basis

The supplied reports share the frozen revision and SRC-1 declared in boundary. This reconciliation assesses their current findings, rather than treating the previous reconciliation as evidence. No refusal or analyst correction answers were supplied. No source read was needed: the connections and discrepancies below are established from the supplied members and their retained passages. Implementation, requested model behavior, exercised behavior and benefit remain separate. None of these reports supplies an inspected target run establishing actual reliance, production reliability or causal improvement.

Record identity and supersession decisions

No duplicate identity requires an amendment. The overlapping records below remain distinct referents or valid containers and parts. Supersession is ruled out for each comparison; it would not resolve the finding disagreements described later.

  • Proposal, inputs and retained effects: RT-OBJ-filing-plan is the transient typed proposal. MEM-OBJ-artifact and MEM-OBJ-source supply original/readable evidence and retained source pages; MEM-OBJ-knowledge-body and MEM-OBJ-page-metadata describe admitted page content and control fields. MEM-OBJ-knowledge-changes records admitted effects and exact patch evidence, not the proposal. Their extraction, rendering, preservation and patch-storage passages establish this progression, not shared identity.
  • Readable source across stages: EPI-OBJ-readable-source covers assertions in ExtractionResult and rendered source Markdown. Its writer extraction/rendering passage connects it to the readable portion of MEM-OBJ-artifact and the content portion of MEM-OBJ-source. It is not coextensive with either memory object: the first also includes originals, and the second includes the retained page's provenance/control structure. The cross-stage referent does not replace either storage-oriented record.
  • Wiki container and operative parts: EPI-OBJ-wiki-pages includes natural-language bodies and symbolic metadata. MEM-OBJ-knowledge-body and MEM-OBJ-page-metadata separate their consumers and controls. The combined record remains valid; the split does not make its findings wrong. EPI-OBJ-entity-aliases is a narrower metadata part, not another identity for the whole header. EPI-OBJ-merge-evidence is instead a supplied identity-assertion request; it is neither persisted alias metadata nor a model-generated FilingPlan.
  • Contradiction container and views: EPI-OBJ-contradictions combines competing claims, explanation, IDs and source references. MEM-OBJ-contradiction-data distinguishes canonical serialized records and their validation/preservation consumer from MEM-OBJ-contradiction-display, the human/model-readable warning. Their writer, decoder and renderer passages establish connected parts, not duplicate indivisible identities. The epistemic container remains alongside those parts. The warning's possible omission from excerpts remains material.
  • Retrieval state, model and output: MEM-OBJ-fragment is retained text with offsets; MEM-OBJ-fragment-vector is its numerical retrieval representation. RT-CMP-embedding-model is the remote producer, not those vectors. RT-OBJ-synthesis-context is fresh per-question evidence/bookkeeping state. EPI-OBJ-answer-output is the draft answer product. Shared lineage does not make these referents identical.
  • Alias chain and functions: MEM-RTE-alias-recording covers candidate extraction, classification, threshold admission, writes and later lookup. EPI-RTE-alias-judgment isolates evaluator output, while EPI-RTE-alias-admission covers acceptance/integration. Their common classifier and threshold passages establish a valid chain and its functions. Neither epistemic route is the entire memory chain. Both capture and garden invoke it, so the chain is not wholly a part of exactly one runtime route.
  • Raw reading versus answers: MEM-RTE-scoped-reading includes independent search/read/list/describe, backoffice and Slack display products. It overlaps the retrieval tools in RT-RTE-scoped-answer but does not require answer synthesis or its verifier. Different terminal products rule out identity. MEM-RTE-workspace-replay instead reconstructs a different workspace by re-enqueueing captures and can move sessions; it is not in-place RT-RTE-maintenance-admission.

The explicit epistemic filing parts remain alongside their valid end-to-end parent RT-RTE-capture-filing: EPI-RTE-evidence-extraction, EPI-RTE-filing-transform, EPI-RTE-filing-check, EPI-RTE-filing-retention and EPI-RTE-contradiction-disposition. Extraction, proposal, checking, retention and conflict disposition are different functions, not duplicate declarations of the whole workflow. Likewise EPI-RTE-answer-check and EPI-RTE-answer-disposition are distinct parts of scoped answering. EPI-RTE-evidence-withdrawal is the managed reference-sweep part of destructive maintenance, not all erasure.

EPI-RTE-merge-check and EPI-RTE-entity-merge add the explicit ENTITY evaluator and consolidation operation. They do not duplicate the selected garden/recompile account. EPI-RTE-qa-evaluation checks golden cases rather than live-answer occurrence conditions. EPI-RTE-release-evaluation and EPI-RTE-release-admission specialize the broader RT-RTE-product-admission protocol. Their evidence, EPI-OBJ-qa-results and EPI-OBJ-parity-artifact, has separate targets and consumers. None of these comparisons warrants supersession.

The visibility/intake promise RT-CLM-scoped-knowledge differs from the answer-warrant claim EPI-CLM-verified-answer, maintenance claim EPI-CLM-self-healing, reported measures EPI-CLM-quality-measures and release criterion EPI-CLM-parity-release. Their quoted promises have different scopes, not duplicate identities. Workflow declares no new records; its annotations use existing runtime identities.

Disagreements requiring verification

Unresolved conflict: RT-RTE-capture-filing describes selected context as within 768 KiB and says overflow drops candidate tails first, then evidence and eventually catalog entries. The memory annotation on the same record and Integration issues state that compact JSON measurement drives trimming but final indented rendering can still reject the selected context; one candidate also survives while excess evidence is dropped before that last candidate. The memory annotation retains SRC-1 src/stigmergy/knowledge/context.py passages for compact measurement and the indented-size rejection. These positions prevent an unqualified joint conclusion that every selected context successfully renders within the nominal cap, or that all candidates are evicted before any source evidence. The runtime wording and memory qualification both remain; the reconciler does not select a corrected value. Their common findings of bounded selection, omission and no in-call filing reload are unaffected.

Unresolved conflict: RT-RTE-scoped-answer describes quote checking against surfaced page content and says the ledger tracks precisely which windows verification may use; the runtime account calls this citation checking against surfaced page content. In contrast, EPI-RTE-answer-check says surfaced-path membership permits a newly fetched scoped head/title, including head text never delivered in the earlier tool result; recorded fragment numbers constrain appended fragments rather than making the head a delivered-text snapshot. Its retained SRC-1 passages from src/stigmergy/answer/brain.py show fetch_page_raw and path recording, and its src/stigmergy/server/service.py passage shows head excerpting. The epistemic bounded conclusion traces a listing-only hypothetical in which an undisplayed head quotation can pass. That is an implementation deduction, not an observed draft. The memory answer annotation relies on the supplied runtime trajectory and adds reader budgets, but does not resolve this evidence-domain discrepancy. A joint guarantee that every passing quotation occurred in tool text actually delivered to the model, or in the identical earlier snapshot, is prevented. The runtime's surfaced-content wording and the epistemic refetch finding must remain distinct pending verification; the reconciler neither expands the runtime's guarantee nor silently substitutes the epistemic account. Both reports still distinguish quote occurrence from semantic support and retain scoped delivery.

Convergence and integration dispositions

Delivery milestones and recovery. The workflow account, RT-RTE-capture-filing and EPI-RTE-filing-retention agree that receipt, proposal, admitted effects, publication, landed queue state and indexed availability are different stages. A rejected whole plan can archive just its source, subject to fallback gates. Workflow's more detailed handoffs and recovery-only stopping condition refine the runtime account without creating a new route. Operation-marked Git history supports forward reconciliation of interrupted bookkeeping without new planning; MEM-OBJ-knowledge-changes adds that reconstructed reasons can be generic. These findings establish neither atomic Git/database completion nor automatic reversal of a bad edit. RT-RTE-index-convergence remains a later, asynchronous boundary.

Answer force and limits. EPI-RTE-answer-disposition and the runtime answer route agree on suppression for figure defects or failed verdicts, the single citation-only partial exception, and stricter verified-only budget completion. Raw reading does not inherit those checks. The epistemic hypothetical in which contradictory nonnumeric prose ships with an occurring quote limits semantic interpretations of “verified”; it does not conflict with the runtime's express denial of a truth/entailment guarantee. The separate quote-delivery discrepancy above must not be hidden by that agreement. Figure checks against recorded tool evidence and citation checks have different input domains in the epistemic finding.

Preservation is route-specific. MEM-OBJ-knowledge-body, the memory core ideas and EPI-RTE-filing-check connect cited-block preservation to capture update gates. MEM-OBJ-contradiction-data and EPI-RTE-contradiction-disposition connect canonical conflict preservation and named master-authorized resolution on that path. The current epistemic bounded conclusion explicitly excludes garden's separate repair-body replacement from the capture-body preservation comparison: garden has preservation guidance and lint/projection/diff/ACL gates, not that comparison. It establishes no actual garden loss. This route distinction prevents elevating capture preservation into an invariant of every maintenance transformation; it does not negate the capture findings or require superseding the wiki/contradiction containers.

Maintenance, withdrawal and acceptance have different purposes. The memory maintenance annotation extends the runtime's selected dispatcher inspection with source-by-source recompile failure, explicit entity operations and managed purge details. The epistemic withdrawal record narrows its own claim to reference sweeping. Differences in inspected scope are not conflicting erasure findings; no report establishes deletion from external copies or every provider. Garden cleanliness, alias judgment, explicit source-backed merge and release review retain separate evaluators. The merge and parity routes add evidence-consuming identity/release criteria without contradicting the absence of a semantic reference-answer oracle on ordinary capture admission. QA reporting and optional deployment gates do not establish automatic production adaptation or successful release execution.

Outstanding limits are not absences. Memory's Integration issues retain incomplete extraction/parser, entity/tombstone, pagination/UI, evaluation, reset and audit/roster inspection. Epistemic coverage adds some direct reads while retaining other unassessed operations. Additional inspection does not resolve every remaining included surface, and available-but-unread material is not an access gap. No missing required operative part requiring a new declaration was identified from these supplied records. Retention, alias adaptation, repair and release capacity remain positive architectural findings, while actual activation, improved capacity and exercised self-improvement remain unestablished on their separately assessed paths. Those evidence limits are not an inter-report disagreement or a system-wide negative about opaque processing.