ai-modules report verification

Type: agentic-system-analyses/types/agentic-system-verification.md

Verification

The supplied reports and reconciliation support publication of their bounded account. The previous raw-body preservation blocker is repaired. The reports distinguish model-interpreted procedures from executable bookkeeping, route-specific admission from universal approval, and available retained content from demonstrated knowledge or improvement.

I read all supplied members, types, correction answers, the structural report-check, the records contract and previous verification. Only memory supplies a nonempty correction answer. The report-check contains none; no structural failure requires routing. I independently checked the checkout's HEAD against the boundary, found a clean worktree and enumerated the tracked root tree. Source inspection below uses SRC-1 at the registered revision. No target, test, example, helper, host or provider was executed. These checks establish implementation or doctrine/design support, not observed operation. Analyst validation statements were not treated as semantic verification.

Records, source support and evidence strength

Runtime. I checked the component, three objects, seven routes, two claims and three behavioral-authority paths in the runtime records. SRC-1 README.md, AGENTS.md and plugins/ai_dev/skills/task_implement/SKILL.md support persistent work contracts, model-consumed procedures, prerequisite holds, implementation stamping and the user-owned audit/finish handoff. They do not establish host routing, empirical savings or a mandatory readiness gate before all implementation. The inherited model metadata and SRC-1 tests/lib/vendor.py support RT-CMP-host-model's alias/fixity qualifications, not an inference about weight updates.

I followed SRC-1 plugins/ai_dev/skills/task_auto_check/SKILL.md through freeze, gate, citation challenge, proposal approval, application, delta recovery and finalization, and checked the corresponding drift/gate/reviewer/verifier contracts. RT-RTE-readiness-repair and the workflow account preserve the consequential distinctions: broadening-only drift classification versus frozen whole-task fidelity; gate-owned readiness versus proposal and delta judgments; verified body changes versus direct mechanical cleanup; task-local restoration versus project rollback. Fresh reads are not atomic exclusion. Missing spawn stops before freeze; deliberate inability and failed invocation have different retry rules. The cap and citation exception do not authorize unlimited repairs. The workflow declares no duplicate records, and its annotation preserves the foreground writer/recovery owner.

SRC-1 plugins/ai_dev/skills/agent_spinner/SKILL.md independently supports RT-RTE-helper-dispatch's generic inline degradation, family-specific stop precedence, bounded retries and unverified-after-repair reporting. It does not make a deployed role callable. SRC-1 deployment/deployment.sh discovery, filter, Codex generation, backup and logged uninstall paths support RT-RTE-deploy-artifacts. Emitting read-only configuration is not evidence of live enforcement. SRC-1 plugins/ai_dev/hooks/charter_guardrail.sh supports RT-RTE-charter-protect's best-effort static scan and branch predicate; the implementation checks neither semantic approval nor arbitrary indirect mutations.

Memory. I checked the eight objects, four routes, summary claim, procedure authority path and all memory annotations. SRC-1 plugins/knowledge_management/skills/wiki/SKILL.md, the import/wrapup front ends, initializer and hash utility support distinct raw content, symbolic lineage, curated pages, schema, index and action-history roles. The hash utility updates digest metadata, not source truth or authenticity. Procedure extraction explicitly strips instances while retaining a trigger/action/reason rule. SRC-1 plugins/ai_dev/skills/task/SKILL.md, task_finish/SKILL.md and update_changelog/SKILL.md support archived precedent, conditional lesson/design retention and incremental changelog consumption. Changelog flush instructions do not prove host context eviction; no save/reload contract turns standalone summaries into wired checkpoints.

I traced SRC-1 plugins/knowledge_management/agents/auto_shaper_wiki.md's working-set derivation and audit-log consumer. MEM-OBJ-wiki-log correctly describes full fallback, incremental body reads, additive lexical/contradiction expansion and retained baseline metadata, without certifying reliable invalidation. The parser, matcher, partition and reporting paths in SRC-1 plugins/knowledge_management/skills/wiki/scripts/lint.py support MEM-RTE-finding-acceptance: retained declarations affect later info reporting, not warn/blocking suppression or factual endorsement.

Correction disposition. I reread the source-drift fix and general raw-content constraint in SRC-1 plugins/knowledge_management/agents/auto_shaper_wiki.md. Both passages now appear in MEM-OBJ-raw-body. The correction reaches raw frontmatter, Core ideas, Write side, maintenance annotation, coverage and integration issues. Memory no longer categorically excludes maintenance body replacement, does not mistake the hashing script's narrow I/O for the whole admission contract, and does not assume which conflicting instruction controlled execution. Hub re-ingest replacement remains separately supported. The previous blocker is discharged; the source tension is faithfully scoped uncertainty, not a residual unsupported classification.

Epistemic. I checked all seven objects, eighteen routes, three claims and their ledger/comparison appearances in the epistemic records. SRC-1 plugins/knowledge_management/skills/wiki/SKILL.md supports acquisition, composition, pending-validation retention and active archive withdrawal as different functions. The shaper's contradiction and safe-fix contracts support criticism, contested disposition and bounded remediation without a semantic safety invariant. Source attribution and confidence do not supply truth acceptance. Indeterminate semantic transformations remain appropriately distinguished from demonstrable fixed-code deductions. SRC-1 plugins/ai_dev/skills/task_audit/SKILL.md and task_finish/SKILL.md support the narrower completion acceptance and later trusted-stamp consumer, not general wiki warrant.

SRC-1 plugins/knowledge_management/skills/spr/SKILL.md, plugins/knowledge_management/skills/executive_summary/SKILL.md and plugins/ai_editorial/skills/language_humanizer/SKILL.md support the standalone transformation claims and differentiated self-checks. Requested fidelity and self-ratings are not demonstrated semantic equivalence or independent receiver reconstruction. The theory-builder, learning, reflection and self-improvement uncertainties remain witness-specific; none is an evidenced whole-system absence. No analyst declares an evidenced-absence record. Statuses were checked against their actual scope: fixed executable rules can be wired while requested model compliance and benefit remain unobserved.

Evaluator chain. I independently traced the launch/capture references in SRC-1 tests/wiki/layer2/run.py, tests/lib/micro_deploy.py and tests/lib/vendor.py, and read the wiki normalizer, grader and aggregator. RT-RTE-evaluator-worker includes the shipped caller rather than externalizing it. Permission-bypass/disabled-sandbox flags do not establish security confinement. EPI-RTE-report-normalize's hypothetical context-loss example follows report extraction and regex cleanup, not an asserted run. The remaining evaluator parts correctly separate self-reported fields, artifact predicates, final worker/integrity gates, ungated assertion averages and prior-benchmark regression signals. Missing integrity records are permissive, not affirmative provenance; a scenario failure need not make grading or a nonregressing aggregate exit fail. No automatic product admission or worker-learning feedback follows from this chain.

Relations and reconciliation

I checked every Part of: relation for substantive containment, including cross-kind carried objects. The combined runtime wiki route includes direct ingest, query and maintenance; its epistemic subfunctions and memory finding-acceptance chain fit inside it. Evaluator objects and functions belong to the launch-through-aggregation container. Their statuses do not inherit a stronger parent status.

The sole supersession, epistemic wiki pages by memory wiki pages, identifies the same referent without replacing findings. Raw sidecar versus body/frontmatter, full lint settings versus acceptance declarations, acknowledgement consumer versus end-to-end admission, task versus completion verdict, and SPR-only versus combined summary claims retain valid broader/narrower scopes. Procedure authority and wiki authority overlap without becoming separate stores. Audit, stamp and close-out are successive but distinct routes. I found no missing material part necessary for an emitted conclusion and no unresolved cross-report disagreement requiring routing. The correction consequences correctly distinguish source-internal raw instructions from conflict between analysts; neither runtime maintenance nor epistemic contested-page handling relies on the withdrawn prohibition.

Consequential omission searches and stopping decision

The frozen root inventory and producer/consumer dependencies guided three questions beyond confirming listed passages:

  • Could alternate wiki paths overturn universal approval, immutability, retrieval exclusion or full-corpus audit inferences? Direct filing, re-ingest, maintenance source-drift repair, incremental working sets and recursive query search support the reports' existing qualifications. No such universal guarantee remains emitted.
  • Could evaluator consumers convert self-reports or directory separation into stronger warrant or enforcement? Following normalization through grading and aggregation preserves the narrower account. Assertions and final pass remain distinct; provenance is not preventive confinement. Complete isolation effectiveness and empirical evaluator accuracy cannot be compared from these records.
  • Could instruction-quality machinery invalidate the bounded criticism/improvement account? I additionally read SRC-1 plugins/ai_dev/skills/skill_doctor/SKILL.md. It supplies check-only instruction assessment and a separate user-directed editing handoff, not evidence that the selected task/wiki witnesses exercised theory-specific iteration or capacity improvement. Its contract says:

Report findings only. Leave every selected skill artifact, and every other skill file, byte-for-byte unchanged for the duration of a check run. Applying fixes is a separate user-directed edit, never part of this workflow. --- plugins/ai_dev/skills/skill_doctor/SKILL.md

This additional family confirms why unassessed instruction-quality routes must not be called absent. It does not require extending the reports into an exhaustive family inventory. Further optional searches stopped because these consequential alternatives have supported dispositions, the correction is verified, and no identified material challenge remains undispositioned. Complete route inventories, corpus truth, host enforcement, actual model behavior and empirical benefit remain outside the supported comparisons. Their uncertainty is already expressed beside the affected report findings; it does not invalidate the positive mechanisms or require a new publication limit.

Blockers

none

Limits

none