Claude Code dynamic workflows reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Boundary and evidence alignment

The four reports share the subsystem-only, doc-grounded boundary and single doctrine/design source in the Source register. Runtime routes report doctrine as claimed and implementation and operation as uninspected. The epistemic ledger's doctrine only architectural status expresses the same evidence boundary, not a competing conclusion status. The workflow account describes a connected documented research procedure, not observed delivery. No source reads were needed for this reconciliation; supporting passages are retained in the supplied members.

Identity and containment dispositions

No duplicate supersession is warranted. The workflow member declares no records; its annotations refer to the runtime declarations without creating competing identities. The memory member's annotations likewise extend supplied records rather than replace them.

MEM-OBJ-prompt-cache and RT-OBJ-agent-results are not identical: the former retains a tools/system prefix, while the latter holds task return values. MEM-RTE-prefix-reuse is consequently not identical to RT-RTE-run-replay or RT-RTE-agent-orchestration. Its matching-request, first-response and bounded-hold progression differs from ordered result substitution and ordinary worker execution. SRC-1, Prompt caching in a fan-out, supplies the memory records' supporting passages. The runtime's cache discussion is compatible with these distinct declarations.

MEM-OBJ-workflow-settings is control metadata and authoring advice, not another declaration of RT-RTE-workflow-launch or RT-CLM-runtime-limits. Those records describe consumption and resource claims, respectively. Overlapping consent and guideline evidence in SRC-1, Approve the plan before it runs and Set a size guideline, establishes connections, not identical referents or replacement findings.

EPI-OBJ-research-claims is a declared material part of RT-OBJ-agent-results, distinguished by claim checking and report-selection consumers. The generic results container remains valid. EPI-OBJ-output-schema specifies output constraints rather than factual results or the whole RT-OBJ-workflow-script; neither identity is asserted.

EPI-RTE-schema-check, EPI-RTE-schema-disposition and EPI-RTE-result-filter are declared parts of RT-RTE-agent-orchestration. They separate structural evaluation, consequential admission and terminal list transformation. SRC-1, What the saved script looks like, supports these distinctions. The container already retains validation and filtering limits; separating the functions does not make its findings wrong and requires no supersession.

EPI-RTE-research-acquisition, EPI-RTE-research-check and EPI-RTE-report-disposition specialize the research progression described by RT-CLM-research-report, not its claim identity or the generic worker-call route. Acquisition, evaluation and consuming judgments to select report content remain different functions. EPI-RTE-checker-loop is a separate requested diagnostics-to-fixes loop, not the generic orchestration route or an observed research stage. Its SRC-1 anchor, Keep fixing until a check passes, supports a requested pattern rather than executed machinery.

Cross-report connections and convergence

Orchestration and context. RT-BAP-script-control and RT-BAP-agent-prompts distinguish symbolic next-step control from model-interpreted task guidance. Memory's annotations on RT-OBJ-workflow-script and RT-OBJ-agent-results connect these authorities to reusable scripts and returned values. The epistemic inventory distinguishes task candidates from structural constraints. The workflow annotation on RT-RTE-agent-orchestration preserves unknown research handoff payloads. All accounts distinguish ordinary terminal delivery from progress inspection; the latter does not contradict isolation of intermediate variables from foreground orchestration context. Evidence: SRC-1, How a workflow runs, Watch the run and What the saved script looks like, retained in the cited records and annotations.

Research verification and delivery. The workflow annotation on RT-CLM-research-report and the memory annotation on that record converge with EPI-RTE-research-check and EPI-RTE-report-disposition: failed cross-check claims are omitted, whereas inability to check produces an unverified label, not refutation. SRC-1, Bundled workflows and Read the report, supports both outcomes. The workflow's report-delivery condition does not assert human endorsement or factual acceptance. Epistemic's intended cross-check-survival criterion does not turn unverified inclusion into verification. Exact thresholds, evaluator independence and actual evidence-consuming acceptance remain unestablished across the reports.

Recovery versus content judgment. RT-RTE-agent-recovery describes liveness retries, lost attempt transcripts and surviving file effects. Memory and workflow annotations preserve these limits. EPI-RTE-result-filter separates truthiness selection from correctness checking. The general null-result description and specific direct-await stalled-error case are retained as different failure paths, not inconsistent report findings. The unavailable research script prevents predicting which path a research stage uses or promising delivery after every worker failure. Evidence: SRC-1, When an agent stalls and restarts and What the saved script looks like.

Reuse versus renewed warrant. Memory's selector account and workflow's continuity annotation on RT-RTE-run-replay agree with the epistemic retention and recovery ledger rows: completed-prefix substitution can influence later computation without fresh worker execution. Prompt/order/failure compatibility does not establish factual freshness. Reusable script admission through RT-RTE-script-admission similarly establishes later orchestration consumption, not automatic trace-fed method improvement. Evidence: SRC-1, Which agents run again, Save the workflow for reuse and Edit a saved script, retained in the runtime records.

Integration-issue dispositions and conflicts

The memory report proposes no supported correction or duplicate declaration. Its unresolved issues remain local limitations rather than cross-report disagreements: replay invalidation under model/options/tools/file changes; saved-result encoding, cleanup, crash consistency, null/error persistence and transcript lifetime; worker context and usage-wait checkpoint form; rejected-claim and script-revision reasons and their later consumers; prefix encoding/eviction and consent revocation. These concern, respectively, RT-RTE-run-replay, RT-OBJ-agent-results, RT-RTE-agent-orchestration, RT-RTE-agent-recovery, RT-CLM-research-report, RT-RTE-script-admission, MEM-OBJ-prompt-cache and MEM-OBJ-workflow-settings. The other reports do not supply contrary guarantees or depend on these unknown facts being established.

No unresolved cross-report conflict was found in the supplied versions. No correction answers or declined objections were supplied. No dependency was found that requires a cited record to say something it no longer says. Shared uncertainty about implementation, observed operation and causal quality benefit remains uncertainty; it is neither an evidenced absence nor a reason to select a stronger report status.