Claude Code dynamic workflows report verification

Type: agentic-system-analyses/types/agentic-system-verification.md

Verification

The supplied runtime, memory, epistemic, workflow and reconciliation members support a bounded account of the documented workflow subsystem. I independently read the entire frozen SRC-1 capture at the path registered in the Source register, including the example script, then compared its conditions and countercases with every declaration and annotation. This was source inspection, not target execution. The supplied report check has no structural findings; all four correction-answer inputs are empty. There are no correction arguments to adjudicate.

Runtime records. I checked all twelve declarations against SRC-1 and their cited local anchors. RT-CMP-claude-model correctly leaves parameter changes and exact version unresolved while preserving model substitution. RT-OBJ-workflow-script and RT-OBJ-agent-results distinguish retained orchestration from returned task values and their documented local/cloud substrates. RT-RTE-workflow-launch preserves manual, auto, bypass and noninteractive alternatives, keyword-origin conditions and version qualifications. The absence of a keyword trigger is not misrepresented as a ban on Workflow calls. These findings match SRC-1, Have Claude write a workflow, Approve the plan before it runs, How a workflow runs, and Cost.

RT-RTE-agent-orchestration, RT-RTE-agent-recovery and RT-RTE-run-replay preserve the consequential boundaries: script isolation does not isolate worker file effects; schema conformance does not validate facts; fan-out null continuation differs from direct-await stall termination; restarted attempts lose transcripts but retain edits; ordered-prefix replay can rerun completed suffix work. Missing saved results produce an error, not an automatic fresh run. RT-RTE-script-admission correctly separates human save/edit choices, structural checks and later launch permission, including the different project/personal symlink checks. The source anchors are SRC-1, What the saved script looks like, Behavior and limits, Manage runs, Save the workflow for reuse, and Edit a saved script.

RT-CLM-runtime-limits distinguishes ceilings from advice and warnings; RT-CLM-research-report treats greater trustworthiness as a design assertion without comparative evidence. RT-BAP-script-control and RT-BAP-agent-prompts correctly separate symbolic runtime control from interpreted worker guidance. No record upgrades the capture into implementation, observed operation or causal support.

Memory records and annotations. All three declarations have distinct referents. MEM-OBJ-prompt-cache and MEM-RTE-prefix-reuse concern matching tools/system prefixes, not shared findings or result replay. Their matching inputs, first-response trigger, hold budget and TTL agree with SRC-1, Prompt caching in a fan-out. MEM-OBJ-workflow-settings concerns control metadata and advice, not factual task content. The annotations and write/read-back accounts preserve automatic result retention, human script selection, partial tool-result display and transcript loss. Unknown replay freshness, cleanup, worker context and reason retention are stated beside the affected routes, not converted into absence or guarantees. The integration issues remain supported uncertainties rather than corrections to runtime.

Epistemic records and containment. I checked both object declarations, all seven route declarations and every authority-ledger row. EPI-OBJ-research-claims is a defensible material part of the generic results container. EPI-OBJ-output-schema is a distinct constraint object rather than another result. The three Part of: relations from EPI-RTE-schema-check, EPI-RTE-schema-disposition and EPI-RTE-result-filter to generic orchestration reflect its actual checking, admission and return-transformation functions. Their parent remains valid; no supersession is needed.

EPI-RTE-research-acquisition, EPI-RTE-research-check and EPI-RTE-report-disposition faithfully separate imported content, source checking and report selection. SRC-1, Bundled workflows and Read the report, supports failed-claim filtering and unverified inclusion as distinct outcomes. It does not establish verifier independence, exact thresholds or actual acceptance. EPI-RTE-checker-loop remains an illustrative requested feedback process under SRC-1, Keep fixing until a check passes, not an executed loop. The ledger's doctrine only statuses, indeterminate worker transformation and narrow structural license are justified. Its bounded conclusion does not infer factual acceptance, lifecycle integration or self-improvement from retention and execution capability.

Workflow and reconciliation. The workflow account selects a source-connected research procedure without borrowing the audit example's internal assignments. Its annotations preserve unknown handoff payloads, vote rules and research-specific null handling. Delivery means report presentation, not human endorsement or factual correctness. SRC-1, Behavior and limits, also supports its distinction between initial approval and unavailable mid-run stage sign-off. I checked every connection and integration disposition in reconciliation. There are no supersessions or unresolved conflict paragraphs to adjudicate. The distinct identities, four containment relations and independent convergence are supported; shared unknowns are not disagreements. General null handling and specific stalled direct-await errors are retained as scoped alternatives, not silently resolved into one universal result.

Consequential omission search and stopping decision. The search basis was the complete frozen page, its alternate entry routes and producer/consumer dependencies; no repository tree exists inside this capture boundary. I examined whether permission alternatives defeat universal human review, whether worker effects defeat script isolation, whether replay or prefix reuse implies fresh factual checking or shared experience, and whether the research contract warrants delivery after every failure or superior quality. The records preserve each relevant countercase. I also checked saved/plugin loading, changed-script replay, usage-limit eligibility, resource advice versus caps, disable behavior and the no-mid-run-input contract. None exposes an undisposed material challenge to the emitted conclusions. Further search stops because the entire authorized capture has been inspected and the remaining evidence would require excluded implementation, linked pages, actual scripts or execution. The boundary already prevents those broader comparisons. Faithfully scoped unknowns in the reports require no additional limit or correction; they must remain scoped in downstream use.

Blockers

none

Limits

none