Virtual Context reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Boundary and evidence layers

All four reports concern the repository and revision fixed by the boundary. Their added inspections remain within SRC-1; the Source register supplies no observed-run or causal-experiment layer. Runtime, memory and workflow distinguish wired implementation from uninspected operation. The epistemic ledger's implemented architectural status does not upgrade either operation or benefit. No source inspection was added for this reconciliation.

Identity and containment

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-fact is superseded by MEM-OBJ-fact. Both identify extracted Fact content together with symbolic authorship, lifecycle and trust fields in configured relational storage. The memory record's raw-conversation extraction passage and the epistemic record's linked trust-refresh and withholding passages concern the same fact object, not embeddings or verdict ledgers. This identity connects the epistemic inventory and fact-route assessments to the memory object without replacing either report's warrant assessment or status.

No other whole-referent identity is established. The following correspondences retain valid containers, parts or different functions rather than requiring supersession:

The authority paths also remain distinct: RT-BAP-engine-watermarks controls payload/maintenance eligibility; MEM-BAP-fact-refusals controls later proposals and writes; RT-BAP-assembled-context describes interpreted model input; EPI-BAP-card-influence specializes an optional retained part of that input. Their different consumers, channels or parts rule out whole-path identity.

Engagement disagreement disposition

The supplied reports no longer disagree about the fidelity veto. RT-RTE-engagement-stage, WF-RTE-draft-selection and the epistemic authority-route ledger now all state that negative fidelity vetoes a personal outcome but not a timed outcome. Runtime and workflow retain the branch passages from SRC-1 virtual_context/core/engagement/select.py, the bundled timed qualifier in virtual_context/core/engagement/continuation.py, and the runner's non-skip/nonempty acceptance in virtual_context/core/engagement/runner.py. Runtime also states that the poster does not recheck fidelity. Epistemic's bounded conclusion carries the same qualification through to staging authority.

The previous reconciliation's unresolved conflict depended on broader runtime rejection wording and an epistemic account missing this qualification. Those descriptions are not the current findings. The present connection therefore closes that cross-report discrepancy rather than preserving the old conflict. Workflow's remaining reference to the baseline's broad gate description must be read alongside its explicit type-dependent finding; the current runtime record itself includes that finding. Independent live-source, repetition, posting-intent, staging and day controls remain in all accounts. No report establishes an actual unfaithful staged message or its deployment incidence. No correction-answer files or declined objections were supplied, so this disposition concerns the handed reports, not an inferred analyst response.

Workflow's additional source-verification limits are compatible refinements: collection deduplicates before contradiction checking, and live checks compare selected identity metadata rather than exact body/timestamp equality. The workflow account supplies the deduplication and live-check evidence. Runtime characterizes source verification as identity checking, not an answer oracle; it does not promise exhaustive contradiction detection or exact quote equivalence. No second disagreement follows. Runtime, workflow and memory's engagement annotation also agree on caller-owned scheduling/sender capabilities, staging rather than community publication, and a retained day claim after ambiguous sending.

Other convergence and integration issues

MEM-CLM-renderer-proof and EPI-RTE-summary-rendering independently converge on SRC-1 virtual_context/core/summary_identity.py: ordinary summary depth returns stored synopsis, and missing individual source rows need not cause quarantine. The memory claim assesses the proof-name implication; EPI-CLM-private-synopsis records a different source promise, exclusion of synopsis from answer prompts. These are not duplicate claims. The doctrine/implementation mismatch is not an analyst disagreement. Neither the runtime maintenance container nor its assembled-context authority path promises exact-source-only delivery or semantic fidelity.

Memory's maintenance annotation and EPI-RTE-summary-admission refine runtime's admission account with the same fallback distinction: ordinary generation failure can retain a bounded source slice; fail-closed regeneration can raise. Requested polarity and causal-rationale preservation are not fidelity invariants. Fact refusal/verdict read-back is a separate retained admission mechanism, and card semantic acceptance is another mechanism again. Their different warrants and consumers prevent merging them into one system-wide acceptance status.

Memory's integration issues leave initial transcript/adapter authenticity, unfinished-rebuild consumer consistency, backend/checkpoint equivalence, card disclosure/privacy and alternative operation coverage unresolved. These are scoped uncertainties, not disagreements. Epistemic's card-check and scoring inspections add positive witnesses without resolving all card store predicates, reader oracle exposure or evaluator coverage. Its structural fact proof is compatible with memory's distinction between source verification and external factual truth. No missing undeclared part was identified that makes a supplied combined record false merely when its parts are separated.

Finally, RT-CLM-compaction-fence remains conditional on enforcement mode; checkpoint persistence remains conditional on the owner identified in RT-OBJ-engine-state. Neither the specialist refinements nor convergence licenses universal durability, isolation or concurrency. Evaluator reuse and answer scoring remain different from EPI-CLM-answer-benefit's reported benefit claim. The reports establish neither observed activation nor measured learning, exercised self-improvement or a system-complete absence of other acceptance routes. No unresolved cross-report disagreement remains in the supplied findings; their bounded uncertainties remain attached to the relevant records.