EAL-Bench reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Identity and overlap

Amendment: MEM-OBJ-annotation is superseded by EPI-OBJ-annotation-state. Both identify the typed interpretation and status/hash envelope consumed by the public preservation resolver, not the underlying prose memory. Identity evidence is their common SRC-1 src/eal_bench/eval/preservation.py consumer and the annotation-agreement passage retained in the memory record and EPI-RTE-annotation-admission. The epistemic record additionally follows the saved annotation producer into child-run JSONL. This supersession connects duplicate object identities; it does not replace the memory report's finding that a generic public caller's authorship, approval and persistence are unresolved. Affected findings are free-text score eligibility and the separation of annotation retention from executor-memory replacement, not writer admission or executor authority.

MEM-OBJ-memory-artifact remains a valid container for payload and lineage metadata. EPI-OBJ-typed-memory and EPI-OBJ-text-memory distinguish its typed and prose payload surfaces; neither equals the entire artifact envelope. The records' serialization/freezing and executor-visible-only passages establish the distinction. No supersession of the container by those parts is warranted: its finding that metadata and payload have different consumers remains intact. MEM-OBJ-memory-attempt is a separate audit output, not another name for accepted memory.

MEM-OBJ-reduced-state overlaps the typed payload family but identifies the event-derived snapshot with reducer, capacity and recovery lineage. It is neither identical to all typed memory nor a second physical memory system. MEM-OBJ-event-log is the cumulative lifecycle history, not the compact snapshot. Their visible-state, previous-state message and checkpoint-event passages distinguish these products. No supersession is appropriate among these objects. RT-OBJ-executor-plan remains distinct from all of them: it selects and authenticates execution artifacts rather than constituting authorization content.

The model components are distinct invocation roles, not asserted distinct weight sets. EPI-CMP-annotation-model interprets saved prose; RT-CMP-writer-model updates profiles; RT-CMP-reviewer-model selects complete candidates; RT-CMP-executor-model generates terminal responses. A shared possible provider does not establish record identity, so no component supersession follows.

Connected routes and independent convergence

Workflow's annotations attach preparation, bounded repair, empty fallback and delivery details to the existing runtime routes without declaring duplicate records. In particular, its annotation on RT-RTE-writer-admission adds the no-prior-state empty-artifact fallback. This is compatible with runtime and memory statements that rejection preserves prior accepted state where available. EPI-RTE-memory-assessment independently distinguishes a recovery status string from actual prior acceptance. Together these findings prevent inferring successful substantive writing from downstream evidence availability; they do not create competing admission routes.

RT-RTE-executor-score, EPI-RTE-memory-assessment and EPI-RTE-failure-attribution are not duplicates. They respectively assess an emitted response, remembered content and a matched multi-arm attribution predicate. EPI-OBJ-case-ledger supplies the encoded reference domain; EPI-OBJ-evaluation-results contains assessment and attribution products rather than the execution plan or underlying response trial. RT-CLM-memory-attribution states the stricter attribution contract, while EPI-CLM-benchmark-test states the broader research question. No identity or supersession follows from their common evaluation purpose.

The reports converge on different consumer forces rather than one universal authorization check. RT-BAP-profile-update carries prior state to the writer; RT-BAP-memory-evidence carries serialized evidence to the executor. The memory report's freezing passage establishes omitted source history. The epistemic ledger separates structural admission from semantic warrant, and workflow separates scoring from transaction approval. RT-RTE-alternate-consumers preserves the countercase of actual generic Python-handler dispatch alongside public/Inspect scoring. These are complementary paths, not supersedable descriptions of one effect boundary.

Integration-issue dispositions

Source-authority replay: Memory's annotation on RT-RTE-authority-gate supplies implementation evidence for paired ORIGINAL/GATED jobs and retained child/original artifacts. Runtime explicitly limits its own replay inspection to documentation; that inspection limit does not deny the implementation inspected by memory. The epistemic filter row is consistent with retaining the original arm. This is additional support on the same route, not a new identity, a record-value correction by reconciliation, or observed mitigation benefit. All retain the gate's limited source-capability criterion rather than entailment checking.

Recovery and replay: MEM-RTE-saved-replay creates new executor work from a completed source run; RT-RTE-checkpoint-resume continues missing frozen executor work; MEM-RTE-event-recovery restores reducer trajectories from events and records. These routes have different inputs, progression and returns, so no supersession applies. Event recovery adds an actual software consumer for the cumulative log without establishing all scheduling or executor recovery of RT-RTE-event-admission. Shared recovery terminology establishes neither equivalence nor exactly-once execution.

Feedback: Memory's renderer inspection and the epistemic feedback rows connect to RT-RTE-closed-feedback, not duplicate routes. They retain the chain from benchmark trials through synthetic update text, seeded admission and later memory consumption. The neutral arm, rejected-update seed retention and missing operation evidence prevent treating feedback wiring as inevitable reinforcement, activated behavior change or demonstrated improvement. Workflow deliberately selects ordinary probes and does not insert this alternate route into its representative sequence.

Annotation coverage: The epistemic extraction and admission routes add concrete Procurement production, parsing and persistence to the public annotation surface that memory leaves locally unresolved. EPI-RTE-annotation-extraction produces an interpretation; EPI-RTE-annotation-admission controls score eligibility. Neither equals profile writing or whole-candidate selection. This added producer coverage does not establish who supplies every generic caller's annotations or a completed human review. Agreement and accepted status remain distinct from extraction fidelity.

Remaining limits: Memory's integration issues and epistemic coverage retain uninspected pressure/challenge, hybrid, maintenance, annotation and analysis surfaces. Their scopes differ without contradictory findings. The shared boundary distinguishes unavailable primary archives from available but unread material. No report establishes observed execution or causal benefit for the connected routes. These limits prevent universal admission/context equivalence, complete negatives about further semantic checks, and reconstruction of primary published results.

No unresolved cross-report disagreement is established by these pinned members. The integration issues above are overlapping identities, additional inspection or compatible scope limits; no supplied correction answers or declined objections require a separate disposition. This reconciliation does not select a stronger status or judge the underlying support. No target-source reads were needed.