ai-modules reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Evidence and identity basis

The four analyst members share the run and revision in boundary. Their additional inspection remains inside its Source register. The whole-system functional boundary does not mean each report inspected every included mechanism. None uses execution evidence. This reconciliation assesses the supplied records and passages without independent source reads. The previous reconciliation was supplied, but its connections were reassessed against the current members. No separate correction answers or declined objections were supplied; memory's correction and its consequences are retained in its integration issues.

Supersession and object distinctions

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-wiki-pages is superseded by MEM-OBJ-wiki-pages. Both identify typed Markdown wiki pages, including confidence and contested metadata, read by query and maintenance models. Their identity evidence is SRC-1, plugins/knowledge_management/skills/wiki/SKILL.md, and their matching storage, content and consumers. Epistemic's candidate-content and confidence-versus-warrant findings concern the same pages, not another store. Its inventory and composition, retention, criticism, dispute, remediation and archive routes consequently concern the memory-declared object too. Both declarations remain; supersession changes neither analyst's findings nor their warrant.

Supersession is ruled out between EPI-OBJ-raw-sidecars and MEM-OBJ-raw-body or MEM-OBJ-raw-frontmatter. The epistemic record is a valid container distinguishing model-interpreted captured content from symbolic origin/hash metadata. Memory separates these parts because their consumers and transformations differ. Replacing the container with either part would omit the other; separating them does not invalidate its acquisition or self-consistency findings.

Supersession is ruled out between EPI-OBJ-lint-settings and MEM-OBJ-lint-acceptance. Epistemic includes Accepted finding declarations, Page-check exclusions and Declared boilerplate; memory isolates the acceptance part. Both differ from the ordinary writing conventions in MEM-OBJ-schema-guidance. The combined settings record identifies the additional policies and coverage consequences rather than assigning all schema content one consumer or force.

MEM-OBJ-task-files contains durable intent and lifecycle state; EPI-OBJ-audit-verdict isolates completion judgments and status consumed by close-out. They overlap at the audited stamp but are not identical objects. Supersession is ruled out: the broader task remains a valid work-contract container, while the verdict adds its particular checking and reliance boundary. Raw relay evidence remains separately declared as RT-OBJ-relay-files.

Route and authority connections

RT-RTE-wiki-consume explicitly combines hub/query/maintenance paths. Its material functions remain separately identified by EPI-RTE-raw-capture, EPI-RTE-wiki-compose, EPI-RTE-wiki-retain, EPI-RTE-wiki-critic, EPI-RTE-wiki-dispute, EPI-RTE-wiki-remediate, EPI-RTE-wiki-archive, EPI-RTE-lint-check and EPI-RTE-lint-dispose. These are functions within a valid container, not duplicate whole routes. Supersession of the runtime container is ruled out. Runtime explicitly confines its wired finding to the linter mechanism; epistemic's doctrine-only model functions do not contradict it or inherit that implementation status.

Supersession is ruled out between MEM-RTE-finding-acceptance and EPI-RTE-lint-acknowledge. Memory traces model judgment, declaration persistence and later matching; epistemic isolates the downstream partition/report consumer and distinguishes other Lint policies. Their shared matching operation connects them but does not make their end-to-end referents identical. Both retain info-only suppression rather than semantic endorsement, and neither replaces the combined maintenance route.

MEM-RTE-procedure-capture spans source/session triage and direct hub authoring. Its instance stripping, trigger/action/reason formulation and hoisting are not identical to either RT-RTE-wiki-triage or the whole hub route; supersession is ruled out. MEM-BAP-procedure-guidance shares page/tool delivery with RT-BAP-wiki-guidance, but distinguishes later operational procedure use and local harness-work consumers from answer/write decisions. These are overlapping authority facets, not identical paths or separate stores; neither supersedes the other.

MEM-RTE-task-close follows RT-RTE-task-implement, which stops before audit and finish. EPI-RTE-task-audit supplies the completion check, and EPI-RTE-task-stamp supplies its disposition and the stamp close-out later trusts unless concrete code-change evidence requires re-verification. Checking, stamping and finished/deferred archival with conditional architecture/lesson capture have different progressions and consequences. Supersession among these routes is ruled out.

The workflow declares no new records. Its account and annotation elaborate RT-RTE-readiness-repair, not a duplicate. Drift, readiness, proposal approval and landed-delta checking remain separate judgments; the foreground writes and recovers. Memory's annotations connect the same route and relay to later helper invocations and downstream task implementation. The repaired task persists; the relay is cleared on the next same-stem run. The reports agree on missing-spawn stop, no improvised helper returns, optimistic concurrency rather than locking, task-local restoration and separately authorized mechanical finalization. The workflow's bounded stop or ready delivery does not imply implemented software or improved future capacity.

EPI-OBJ-test-report is state carried by RT-RTE-evaluator-worker, not another launch route. EPI-RTE-report-normalize, EPI-RTE-scenario-check, EPI-RTE-scenario-dispose and EPI-RTE-benchmark-rollup separate evidence reshaping, assertions, final gates and regression reporting within that valid container. Supersession is ruled out. Epistemic's grader inspection adds findings where runtime and memory explicitly left correctness uninspected; their uncertainty is not a contrary assessment. Conditional artifact deductions do not establish observed worker compliance, confinement or causal efficacy.

Standalone EPI-OBJ-text-output, EPI-RTE-text-reshape and EPI-RTE-text-check concern delivered documents and self-checks, not installed RT-OBJ-skill-bodies or retained wiki pages. MEM-RTE-changelog-update has a different Git-history input, incremental consumer and explicit omission-of-rationale contract. Supersession with those text/wiki routes is ruled out.

Supersession is also ruled out between EPI-CLM-spr-recoverability and MEM-CLM-summary-transfer. The former isolates SPR receiver reconstruction; the latter validly combines that objective with executive-summary preservation and length intent. Replacing the combined claim with SPR alone would lose its summary scope. Neither establishes reconstruction benefit. These claims differ from RT-CLM-persistent-context, which concerns task/wiki retention. EPI-CLM-editor-fidelity and EPI-CLM-shaper-safety likewise concern different transformation targets, not duplicate claims.

Correction consequences and remaining limits

Memory's corrected MEM-OBJ-raw-body withdraws categorical maintenance body prohibition. It retains both SRC-1 plugins/knowledge_management/agents/auto_shaper_wiki.md passages: the general content-read-only constraint and the source-drift exception permitting re-recording what the source now says. MEM-OBJ-raw-frontmatter and the maintenance annotation now distinguish digest-only script I/O from this broader conflicting workflow. The conflict is inside the target's instructions, not between the supplied analyst findings. Which instruction controlled actual operation remains unresolved; neither guaranteed body preservation nor unrestricted replacement follows.

That correction does not invalidate a dependent finding in RT-RTE-wiki-consume or EPI-RTE-wiki-remediate: neither requires maintenance-wide raw-body prohibition. Epistemic's prohibition on choosing a winner in EPI-RTE-wiki-dispute concerns contested page claims, not all source-body refresh. EPI-RTE-raw-capture separately agrees with memory about hub re-ingest replacement after comparison and the lack of historical-version retention guarantees. No cross-report conflict or supersession follows from this correction.

Incremental working-set selection in MEM-OBJ-wiki-log qualifies any inference that broad audit always cold-reads every page. Runtime makes no such guarantee, and EPI-RTE-wiki-critic selects working-set pages and discovered peers. Epistemic's uninspected actual retained criticism trace does not negate memory's instruction-level baseline/log retention. Reliable invalidation and correctly judged finding acceptance remain unobserved.

The reports converge on route-specific admission: triage requires human page selections, while EPI-RTE-wiki-retain files first synthesis pending validation. Human selection is not automatically truth acceptance. Contested flags preserve positions without forced retrieval exclusion; memory's archive account and EPI-RTE-wiki-archive agree that navigation withdrawal is not total access revocation. Static guidance delivery and opaque model state remain separate in RT-BAP-skill-guidance and RT-CMP-host-model.

No unresolved cross-report disagreement or required missing operative part was identified in these supplied versions. No dependent finding requires another record to retain a withdrawn assertion. Remaining family coverage, corpus provenance, maintenance details, host enforcement and execution/benefit evidence are bounded unknowns rather than established absences. Positive requested mechanisms coexist with separately unestablished learning, reflection, theory-builder and self-improvement findings. This reconciliation selects no stronger status and leaves support judgments and analyst correction requirements to report verification.