Kompl report verification
Type: agentic-system-analyses/types/agentic-system-verification.md
Verification
The current reports support publication of the bounded account. Both previous runtime blockers are repaired, including their dependent runtime passages. The remaining stale correction attributions in memory are local report-consistency limits, not competing implementation findings. The supplied structural check reports none; there is no structural failure requiring a blocker.
I judged the current members afresh, including the two runtime correction answers and the previous verification. I independently confirmed SRC-1 checkout HEAD against boundary, inspected its top-level tracked tree, inventoried application APIs, Python routers, CLI and evaluator entry points, and traced consequential branches through source reads and scoped searches. Additional source evidence described below is implementation or doctrine/design at that same revision; dated provider reports supply attributed historical operation only. No target code, tests, services or model calls were executed. Structural and quotation validation is not semantic acceptance.
Corrections and disagreements
RT-RTE-chat-feedback now consistently describes earliest timestamp-ordered rows, LIMIT 11, removal of the final selected row and separate supply of the current question. Independent reads of SRC-1 app/src/lib/db.ts and app/src/app/api/chat/route.ts confirm MEM-RTE-history-read. Python's additional history[-10:] operates on that already selected input; it cannot recover later database rows. Runtime's account, forcing case, selection, visibility and expiry descriptions no longer imply a recent tail. The first correction answer is supported.
RT-RTE-chat-feedback and RT-RTE-draft-approval also now distinguish pending FAQ creation from successful installation. Independent tracing of SRC-1 app/src/app/api/chat/route.ts, app/src/lib/db.ts, app/src/lib/approve-plan.ts and scripts/migrate.py confirms MEM-CLM-chat-provenance: retrieved page IDs occupy source_ids; approval inserts them into source provenance; the schema references existing sources and the app enables foreign keys. For disjoint IDs the transaction rolls back and returns commit_failed. Empty-citation manual saves and coincident source/page IDs remain legitimate exceptions. Runtime carries this qualification through its account, forcing case, read-back and admission descriptions without claiming an executed failure rate. The second correction answer is supported.
The two current reconciliation conflicts accurately identify memory's outdated attribution of the former runtime positions. They cite the affected records, both positions, their evidence and the prevented interpretation. I dismiss them as unresolved mechanism conflicts: current runtime and memory agree on earliest-row selection and constrained adoption. Memory's Integration issues still presents those corrections as outstanding, so the attribution residue remains a limit below. It does not justify sending the already corrected runtime back again. Reconciliation's statement that it received no correction answers describes its own inputs, not a denial of the answers supplied to this verification.
Runtime, controls and workflow
Scoped source tracing of SRC-1 app/src/app/api/onboarding/finalize/route.ts, n8n/workflows/session-compile.json, app/src/app/api/compile/run/route.ts, commit, draft, schema and retry handlers supports RT-RTE-session-compile and RT-OBJ-page-plans. The application owns progression and durable control state; n8n acknowledges before background completion. Extraction and drafting can proceed after partial success. Models supply task results rather than own the graph.
Commit gates and the independently read single-plan helper support RT-RTE-draft-approval and RT-CLM-durable-completion. Compile checks null/thin drafts and configured auto-approval, with provenance-only and original-source exceptions. Explicit approval omits the compile length predicate. Per-plan database commitment precedes file flush; the driver rejects reported flush failures, while explicit approval can still return success with pending content. The zero-source completion branch and first-session manual-review/schema failure preserve the reports' distinction between delivery, pending review and session completion. Neither completion nor approval establishes factual accuracy or all-source coverage. Workflow's account and its three annotations preserve those distinctions, state-derived retry, cancellation boundaries and selected-summary handoffs without claiming successful execution or durable autonomous workers.
Searches of extraction, resolution, match, plan and draft implementations, together with the prompt and recovery reads in SRC-1 nlp-service/services/llm_client.py, support RT-RTE-plan-draft. Consequential conditions include top-three TF-IDF candidates above 0.15, historical mention promotion, provenance-only skip, advisory contradiction activity, ordered draft layers, raw original-source passthrough and optional old-page/schema context. Dossier selection and prefix truncation are different budgets: limiting the dossier does not itself eliminate the separately supplied raw documents. Known-title and prompt limits prevent inferring that every listed source reaches the model.
The model construction and request sites support the five component records: RT-CMP-gemini, RT-CMP-deepseek, RT-CMP-mini-lm, RT-CMP-key-bert and RT-CMP-spacy. SRC-1 provider adapters and extraction/resolution loaders show inference and named-model resolution, not parameter training or immutable weight pinning. Opaque provider internals remain uninspected, not absent learning.
SRC-1 docker-compose.yml supports RT-CLM-local-isolation's conditional loopback exposure and code-level database-ownership convention, not a filesystem permission guarantee. Source-delete/recompile branch searches support RT-RTE-source-maintenance: direct redrafting can bypass ordinary approval and omit old prose/schema, while note/failure branches can preserve old semantics. Import searches support RT-RTE-archive-import's direct file/database/settings restoration and lack of filesystem rollback by SQLite. The CLI update sequence supports RT-RTE-product-update as operator-invoked upstream replacement, not locally generated self-improvement. These conclusions remain implementation findings, not deployment observations.
Retained parts and consumers
SRC-1 database storage, extraction, alias, mention and history helpers support the separate referents and consumers of MEM-OBJ-raw, MEM-OBJ-extractions, MEM-OBJ-aliases, MEM-OBJ-mentions and MEM-OBJ-chat-messages. Converted raw text is not original bytes; mention counts do not establish independent corroboration and do not filter source archival. Generated prose, control identifiers and interaction traces are not interchangeable.
The independently read app reader and Python file writer support MEM-OBJ-pages: existing gzip prose wins over pending outbox content, and previous files afford inspection rather than automatic semantic rollback. SRC-1 nlp-service/services/file_store.py archives the current path before installing the sibling temporary file, leaving the stated failure interval; final rename alone is not power-loss durability. Approval and saved-links writers support MEM-OBJ-pages-fts. Vector implementation searches support MEM-OBJ-wiki-pages: prefix-derived dense embeddings, metadata and documents have different uses, and restore can install supplied embeddings without re-embedding or established original lineage. These writes do not change embedding-model weights.
Retrieval searches and complete chat-handler reads support the index/hybrid selection and 8000-to-2000/300-character clipping findings on RT-RTE-chat-feedback. SRC-1 nlp-service/services/llm_client.py orders history before page text and the question, then prefix-caps the prompt; enough history can evict trailing evidence. Counts of retrieved pages are not verified citation use. MCP's four handler sites and wiki read helpers support RT-RTE-mcp-read and RT-BAP-wiki-answering: requested tool text is delivered, but the external agent owns scheduling and ultimate prompt use. Neither delivery channel guarantees compliance.
The activity reader and planner producer support MEM-OBJ-activity-log's local lineage discrepancy. The reader looks for source ID inside details while the planner writes it on the outer event. Readable reason/title/URL can survive without complete structured source-ID return. This does not negate the advisory challenge consumer.
Epistemic routes, maintenance and record identity
Independent extraction recovery reads support EPI-OBJ-extraction-output, EPI-OBJ-draft-content and EPI-RTE-extraction-recovery. Parsed schema, JSON repair and the conditional Gemini halved-input retry license structural continuation, not semantic completeness. Planning branches support EPI-RTE-triage-disposition's separation of model comparison, enforcing plan selection and advisory contradiction display. The complete injector read supports EPI-RTE-crossref-transform's first-occurrence alias witness and dependence on the identity map; adding links does not independently prove identity or contradiction accuracy.
Schema-handler and generation/drafting prompt inspection supports RT-OBJ-schema, RT-RTE-schema-bootstrap and RT-BAP-schema-drafting as standing generated conventions delivered to future draft calls. The theory assessments distinguish afforded formulation and requested dependence from observed consumption, content-directed criticism, iteration and benefit. They do not infer inaccessible model processing absent or bundle learning, reflection, autonomy and self-improvement into one verdict.
Independent manual-save and saved-links reads, and lint/startup searches, support MEM-RTE-manual-save, MEM-RTE-saved-links, MEM-RTE-lint-retention and their epistemic counterparts EPI-RTE-chat-save, EPI-RTE-saved-links and EPI-RTE-wiki-lint. Explicit save supplies content rather than authenticating a stored answer. Lint has a limited summary sample and advisory output; failed scans can yield empty conflicts. Dismissing the last unresolved link deletes a failure without ingestion, yet saved-links emits its imported-all assertion. The epistemic non-entailment witness is supported by those concrete branches, not merely by lack of proof of entailment.
SRC-1 storage-router operations support MEM-RTE-storage-write as file replacement capability, not a fabricated independent deployed consumer loop. Database cleanup predicates support MEM-RTE-withdrawal-cleanup and EPI-RTE-zombie-cleanup. Joined-source absence governs availability, not subject-matter falsity. Source-ID pruning changes identifiers without rewriting surviving draft bodies; chat page-ID cleanup has the carried prefix limit below.
The public claims EPI-CLM-compiled-knowledge, EPI-CLM-source-attribution and EPI-CLM-wiki-grounding remain doctrine/design, not observed truth or benefit. Their comparison with the inspected routes is appropriately scoped. The ledger separates checks, disposition and retention; operational installation does not establish evidence-consuming factual acceptance. Unknown generated semantics remain indeterminate rather than automatically ampliative. SRC-1's May 5 runner and dated report searches support EPI-RTE-corpus-evaluation's shape/protocol domain and attributed historical operation, not a current-revision causal comparison or factual oracle. The missing exact corpus and pending May 22 results prevent stronger conclusions.
I checked every declared record's meaning, source anchors, evidence layer and statuses, and all annotations and explicit Part of: relations. The extraction output, draft payload, recovery, triage and crossref records are material outputs or segments of the supplied production route; history selection is part of chat. These are not replacement candidates misclassified as parts. The three supersessions correctly identify common manual-save, lint and saved-links implementations while preserving their complementary findings. The broader extraction bundle versus its model-output part, plan control versus draft payload, draft versus installed prose, and withdrawal versus zombie cleanup remain valid container/part distinctions. Workflow declares no new records. No additional duplicate, unsupported absence record, missing required operative part or unresolved material conflict was established.
Omission questions and stopping decision
The tree and producer/consumer searches selected three consequential omission questions: whether alternate writers defeat uniform approval or lineage claims; whether consumers receive the advertised full/recent context; and whether maintenance/evaluation closes a factual-acceptance or improvement loop. Searches covered app mutation and wiki APIs, direct Python storage, import, source redraft, manual/automatic chat saving, saved-links generation, dependency cleanup, CLI startup and evaluator entry points. They confirm alternate admission, actual clipping/history selection and diagnostic rather than truth-certifying checks. A shipped API caller was not excluded simply because it calls another service.
These questions now have supported dispositions or explicit local limits. Further omission expansion stopped because no identified material challenge remains without disposition, and the reports already withhold exhaustive coverage. Uninspected converter branches, every UI path, all manual/unit semantic assertions, complete backup consistency and hidden provider processing cannot support comparisons about universal semantic-check absence, security, backup completeness or improved capacity. Their existence alone does not defeat the scoped positive mechanisms. No change to the frozen target or whole-system functional boundary is required.
Blockers
none
Limits
- MEM-RTE-history-read and memory's Integration issues, items 1–2, still characterize RT-RTE-chat-feedback and RT-RTE-draft-approval as needing history/adoption corrections that current runtime already incorporates. The reconciliation exposes this stale attribution explicitly. Withhold any inference that earliest-row selection or the ordinary provenance obstruction remains a disputed mechanism or an unmet runtime correction. The source-grounded mechanism records agree; this local attribution residue does not undermine their bounded account or warrant another runtime repair.
- MEM-RTE-withdrawal-cleanup, EPI-RTE-zombie-cleanup, MEM-RTE-manual-save and RT-RTE-chat-feedback do not establish pruning for every automatic FAQ draft. Independent SRC-1
app/src/lib/db.ts,app/src/app/api/chat/route.tsandapp/src/app/api/chat/save-draft/route.tstracing confirms that page-ID cleanup requires pending sessions matchingchat-%; manual saves prefix their sessions, whereas automatic creation keeps the caller's session unchanged. Nonmatching automatic drafts can retain deleted-page IDs as well as unchanged prose. Preserve the positive prefix-matching cleanup mechanism, but withhold complete automatic/manual cleanup coverage. Runtime now states this constraint; the narrower epistemic record and the reports' rejection of universal semantic withdrawal remain supported.