Auto-claude-code-research-in-sleep reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Boundary and identities

All reports preserve the boundary's complete-artifact, partial-loop scope. Specialist inspection extends SRC-1 coverage without adding observed operation or causal evidence. No source reads were needed for reconciliation. No analyst correction answers or declined objections were supplied.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-query-pack is superseded by MEM-OBJ-query-pack. Both identify the same research-wiki/query_pack.md, built from brief/gaps, failed ideas, paper theses and graph relations by SRC-1's tools/research_wiki.py. The epistemic inventory and ledger references retain their findings about omitted scope/evidence; the memory declaration supplies concrete lineage and storage. This object identity does not equate its construction and consumption routes or alter either declaration's fields.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-wiki-claim is superseded by MEM-OBJ-claims. Both identify claim Markdown pages with statement, honest scope, evidence chain and symbolic proof status, rendered by SRC-1's tools/research_wiki.py. The epistemic declaration also mentions associated graph relations; their separately stored object is MEM-OBJ-edges, not another claim page. This identity concerns the page, not an assertion that triples are its body. Affected inventory and retention references preserve caller-selected status versus scientific acceptance. No authority or status is promoted.

Containers and distinct operations

MEM-RTE-reviewer-memory explicitly isolates append/replay within RT-RTE-review-transition, not its stateless stop computation. MEM-OBJ-reviewer-memory is the retained object, not another gate. MEM-RTE-compact-recovery and WF-RTE-sanity-recovery isolate different operations within RT-RTE-research-pipeline. These valid containers and parts require no supersession. Workflow annotations add sequencing and delivery distinctions without redeclaring the pipeline.

EPI-RTE-query-pack isolates construction and EPI-RTE-query-consumption isolates scan-gated delivery/reliance. MEM-RTE-pack-read covers their joined rebuild-to-ideation chain. Neither narrower route replaces the whole memory route. Implemented construction and host-followed consumption retain separate statuses; their overlap warrants no supersession or strongest-status selection.

EPI-RTE-wiki-retention covers helper claim/edge persistence. MEM-RTE-evaluation-write additionally spans idea/experiment writes, upstream judgment mapping and in-place outcome edits. EPI-RTE-result-integration traces specific result judgments into project/wiki evidence connections, separating accepted from partial/no branches. Shared writes and rebuilds do not make these whole-route identities. Implemented persistence and procedural integration concern different operations, not conflicting implementation claims.

EPI-RTE-evidence-check, EPI-RTE-result-judgment and EPI-RTE-result-disposition distinguish occurrence, empirical support and permission for further research/writing. They do not duplicate score-based stopping or RT-RTE-phase-resume's metadata acceptance. EPI-RTE-proof-check and EPI-RTE-proof-disposition concern theorem-specific targets and criteria, not alternate names for generic helpers. No further replaceable cross-member identity is established.

Convergence and integration dispositions

MEM-CLM-pack-contract's doctrine/implementation mismatch is not a disagreement with runtime, which left wiki selection uninspected. The epistemic construction route independently describes filename-based selection and omission of relationship evidence. Both accounts qualify ranking and preservation claims; neither establishes delivery of full evaluative warrant. MEM-BAP-wiki-ideation names the same later consumer and banlist/search-seed guidance assessed by epistemic consumption, but an authority-path record and a route have different referents and are not duplicates.

RT-CLM-review-independence already qualifies unfiltered primary-artifact input as protocol, not sanitation. Workflow's pasted code-review context and the epistemic result jury's selected numbers/caveats give concrete exceptions to a universal enforced-input reading, not contradictions of runtime's finding. Backend-specific stop assurance also remains path-specific in all accounts.

Memory's integration issues remain bounded limits: reviewer-memory initialization does not establish fresh-run reset; retained edges do not establish withdrawal on rejudgment; MEM-RTE-paper-capture and evaluation write-back do not establish uniformly enforced maintenance, scanning or authentic evaluation. The epistemic retention/acceptance distinction agrees with these limits. Uninspected trace writers, native validators, global event-log consumers and platform overlays remain unknown rather than absent. Neither report depends on those unknowns being resolved positively.

MEM-OBJ-events supplies lossy event summaries to RT-RTE-meta-landing. Memory's annotation adds raw-to-derived lineage and notes that rationale need not accompany live skill consumption. RT-BAP-skill-instructions names that later consumer. These findings complement runtime's human-gated reflective revision protocol, without upgrading its separately unestablished learning, exercised reflection, autonomy or successful self-improvement findings. Research-product revision is not thereby harness self-change.

Workflow's delivery annotations distinguish narrative/report return, optional paper deferral, nonblocking HTML failure and unavailable claim adjudication. Runtime's optional writing path and epistemic result disposition are consistent with those distinctions: termination, a file name or resume COMPLETE is not scientific acceptance. No unresolved cross-report disagreement or missing required operative part is established by these supplied records. Remaining coverage and execution uncertainties limit integration; they do not establish system-complete negatives.