Voiden reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Boundary and cross-report agreement

The reports share the subsystem-only boundary and its Source register. They describe Voiden's agent-facing MCP mechanism, not the external host's inference loop or the whole desktop product. Their evidence is implementation and doctrine/design, without supplied observed runs or causal experiments. No source reads were needed for this reconciliation.

RT-RTE-request-execution, the epistemic ledger and the workflow account agree that code owns request execution through tool return, while the external host owns semantic interpretation, repair choices and task completion. The workflow's discover–execute–inspect–optionally-record progression is requested by RT-BAP-agent-guidance, not enforced as a state machine. EPI-CLM-request-check isolates the guidance's checking claim; it is not another declaration of that behavioral-authority path. No supersession is warranted between those different kinds.

Identity and containment dispositions

No replacement duplicate is established. The following overlaps retain distinct referents; no Amendment is made.

  • EPI-OBJ-run-result is the immediate output object within RT-RTE-request-execution. EPI-RTE-outcome-classification is the predicate-producing segment of that route. MEM-RTE-response-reload is its later document-input segment; MEM-RTE-runtime-capture is its value-extraction segment. Different inputs, transformations and consumers rule out replacement identity among these parts or with their valid execution container. Their declarations supply the relevant runner, parser and capture passages.
  • MEM-OBJ-response is the retained YAML output of RT-RTE-result-write, not the write route or the immediate RunResult. EPI-RTE-response-serialization is a declared transformation part of that write route, not another complete admission route. The memory object and epistemic serialization route independently describe the same field selection, write-time metadata and 20,000-character string-body cap, but object and transformation are not interchangeable records. The write container remains valid alongside its part.
  • MEM-OBJ-process-env is the durable standalone-CLI part of RT-OBJ-runtime-vars, not all process/session state. MEM-OBJ-session-results is a different retained output. MEM-RTE-history-report spans history append and separately invoked reporting consumers, whereas RT-RTE-session-driver owns execution and variable persistence. Shared driver code does not establish route identity.
  • MEM-OBJ-verify-entry-cache is the cache part of RT-OBJ-serve-decisions. Decisions and cache retain their separate consumers and limits without invalidating the combined runtime object. MEM-OBJ-tool-status-record instead names the reduced status protocol shape; it is neither that in-process cache nor proof of a persisted status instance.
  • MEM-RTE-status-write and EPI-RTE-cli-verification overlap in CLI discovery/validation/verification and optional writer dispatch. They are not replacement duplicates: memory isolates the optional write-back chain and unresolved storage/read-back; epistemic retains the broader command's reporting and exit-code consumer, including operation without --write. Both distinguish known dispatch from unknown provider persistence. Neither is identical to RT-RTE-tool-publication, whose consequential consumers are serving and refresh rather than the one-shot CLI operator.

Memory and workflow otherwise annotate the runtime's existing referents rather than redeclaring them. Workflow declares no additional records. No named required part is identified as missing by these cross-report comparisons.

Independent convergence and integration issues

Retention versus acceptance. RT-RTE-result-write, MEM-OBJ-response, EPI-RTE-response-serialization and the workflow delivery account converge on caller-controlled recording without authenticated binding to an earlier run. UID matching controls placement, not truth. Memory establishes subsequent delivery of parsed responses to callback-visible document JSON through MEM-RTE-response-reload; epistemic and workflow do not deny that delivery when they withhold conclusions about later model reliance or factual acceptance. No conflict arises from these different consumer boundaries.

Execution checks versus purpose-fit review. EPI-RTE-outcome-classification makes the success predicate explicit, including 3xx HTTP responses. EPI-CLM-request-check and workflow's annotation on RT-BAP-agent-guidance retain the stricter requested inspection of non-2xx results and intended body meaning. This is a source policy/enforcement discrepancy, not disagreement between reports. Likewise, RT-CLM-version-gating is consistently treated as tagged-block compatibility, not exact replay. RT-RTE-remote-mcp separately classifies RPC completion, not remote task success.

Opaque verification. RT-RTE-tool-publication, MEM-OBJ-verify-entry-cache, MEM-RTE-status-write and the epistemic ledger preserve positive core wiring while withholding provider-level checks, cache semantics and persistence conclusions. Runtime and memory's wired implementation fields do not contradict epistemic's not-determinable architectural status for substantive checking or retention: those assessments address different segments. No stronger status is selected here. The reports also agree that failed replanning may preserve old decisions and generic request execution bypasses publication admission.

Persistent carry-over and source comments. Memory's integration issues identify stale reset/identity comments, not corrections to runtime: RT-RTE-session-driver already records durable variables, and MEM-RTE-runtime-capture supplies extraction/substitution detail. Epistemic's behavior-adaptation row covers this operational carry-over without claiming factual acceptance or improved capacity. The history/report route supplies a different later consumer, not automatic model context.

Guidance reachability and revocation. Memory's annotations on RT-BAP-agent-guidance and RT-RTE-host-registration add conditional shared-copy refresh, incomplete uninstall coverage and the distinction between composed-only refresh and separate MCP-skill installation. These qualify delivery and removal rather than contradict runtime's already bounded setup account. None of the reports establishes external host loading, obedience, model-window eviction or universal instruction revocation. The unresolved dynamic-mode targeting/budget and provider status read-back remain limits, not disagreements.

No analyst correction answers or declined objections are supplied to this attempt. The memory member requires no correction to a supplied runtime record; epistemic's separate CLI consumer extends coverage rather than contradicting publication. No unresolved inter-report conflict is identified. The provider, host and live-operation gaps remain attached to their records and prevent broader conclusions; reconciliation does not settle those gaps or turn them into evidenced absences.