LHTB reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Boundary and duplicate identity

This reconciliation connects the four supplied analyst members within the frozen workflow boundary. It uses their retained passages and findings; no additional source reads were needed. No correction answers or refusals were supplied. The reports distinguish implementation from observed operation and causal benefit; their common lack of execution evidence is a limitation, not a disagreement.

Amendment: EPI-CMP-analysis-model is superseded by MEM-CMP-analysis-model. Both identify the configured model passed through normalize_model_name to Claude Agent SDK in SRC-1, harbor/src/harbor/analyze/backend.py. The epistemic record adds CLI defaults for check and analyze; it does not identify a different backend component. Both retain external distributed-parametric weights, non-pinned aliases and uninspected provider-side changes. This identity connects the epistemic inventory and assessment routes to the memory member's analysis component without replacing either analyst's findings. Both IDs remain declared. Neither is identical to RT-CMP-terminus-model, which uses the solver's separate call stack and provider interface.

Post-run analysis: overlapping scopes, not interchangeable records

No whole-record supersession joins MEM-RTE-trial-analysis to EPI-RTE-trial-analysis. The memory record is a valid account spanning selection, assessment, validation, persistence, cache reuse and job aggregation. The epistemic record isolates trial assessment; EPI-RTE-analysis-cache isolates structural admission and persistence/reuse, and EPI-RTE-job-aggregation isolates subsequent narrative generation. Their retained SRC-1 analyzer/backend passages connect the same implementation stages at different granularities. The broader account does not become wrong when these stages are separated, so a split supersession is not warranted.

The reports converge independently on automatic structural admission without a semantic truth gate. Both retain the cache-existence/overwrite branch, and both distinguish aggregation's summary/check input from raw trajectory access. The memory record's software admission and the epistemic routes' advisory judgments are different authorities: schema validation enforces structure, while the resulting prose guides interpretation. Neither report establishes reward withdrawal, solver adoption or evidence-sensitive cache invalidation.

No whole-object supersession joins EPI-OBJ-analysis to MEM-OBJ-analysis. The former includes task-quality judgments as well as trial assessments and job summaries; the latter identifies retained trial/job analysis files and their consumers. Their shared trial/job payloads overlap, but the epistemic object's task-check scope prevents exact identity. EPI-RTE-task-check establishes the separate task-quality assessment route, including optional saved output whose later consumer remains uninspected. That uncertainty does not contradict the established trial/job read-back chain. MEM-BAP-analysis-guidance describes the aggregate model's interpretive input, not the solver-facing consumer of RT-BAP-task-guidance.

Context and retained evaluation material

The memory member's annotation on context handoff, MEM-OBJ-handoff-context and the epistemic ledger connect to RT-RTE-context-handoff. There is no duplicate identity: one record is the transformation route and another is its derived payload. Likewise, the derived payload is not RT-OBJ-task-instruction, the static instruction introduced at initialization.

The memory integration issue qualifies fallback wording rather than contradicting the successful three-call handoff: short and ultimate fallbacks construct task/screen prompts submitted through the remaining unwound Chat, without explicitly installing the full replacement frame. The runtime distinguishes successful replacement from fallback attempts, and the epistemic installation row concerns successful handoff admission. Their connection therefore does not license treating every overflow recovery as the same complete history replacement. All retain unverified semantic fidelity and no established automatic raw-history reload.

No supersession joins MEM-OBJ-trajectory, MEM-OBJ-process-reward or RT-OBJ-trial-result. They distinguish action/observation records, hidden checkpoint records and snapshots, and saved outcome/configuration. Some checkpoint metadata is copied into result metadata, but separate JSONL and snapshot files prevent whole-object identity. Paths and trajectory references do not establish complete payload retention or automatic solver access.

MEM-RTE-checkpoint-retention is the declared storage/visibility part of RT-RTE-verifier-continuation, not its replacement. Its live verifier return controls continuation; a later reload of checkpoint JSONL is not established. MEM-RTE-artifact-access adds viewer/export/upload consumers, while MEM-RTE-sweep-selection adds outcome-based subsequent task selection. Neither is identical to RT-RTE-job-recovery, whose consumer matches completed configurations. These additions do not contradict the runtime's bounded account. The sweep's singular reward-key compatibility remains unresolved; its greater-than-zero predicate must not inherit continuation's full-pass threshold.

Task checks, continuation and delivery

WF-RTE-migration-grading, EPI-RTE-hidden-semantics and EPI-RTE-dense-reward are declared parts of RT-RTE-verifier-execution. None supersedes the containing transport/execution route. The migration and acoustics checks concern different task products and criteria; acoustics checking and score conversion also remain distinct. EPI-OBJ-check-report identifies intermediate results, not another verifier route. EPI-OBJ-reconstruct identifies a task product rather than its instruction. No identity is established among these records.

EPI-RTE-public-feedback is an additional solver-invoked, public-scenario evaluator, not the hidden continuation channel. Detailed public diffs therefore do not contradict fixed hidden rejection messages. Conversely, both workflow and memory independently confirm the runtime's distinction between fixed same-conversation rejection and diagnostic-bearing restarted feedback. This is a doctrine/implementation discrepancy retained in RT-CLM-grader-isolation and EPI-CLM-benchmark-warrant, not a disagreement between analysts. These claims also have different referents: grader hardening versus benchmark measurement and warrant. Neither supersedes the other.

The two task examples converge on fractional scoring distinct from full-pass stopping. They do not share an oracle merely because both feed reward files to Harbor. The workflow further distinguishes interim pass, outer final verification and persisted delivery through RT-RTE-trial-execution. A delivered result can record failure; it is not necessarily an accepted work product. These distinctions agree with the epistemic separation of checking, arithmetic, stopping and explanation acceptance.

Maintenance and remaining integration limits

RT-RTE-runtime-patching and RT-BAP-runtime-module describe an afforded maintenance/adoption path and its future executable consumer, not duplicate records or observed self-improvement. The memory and epistemic members retain that same limit. The drop-in's different hardening policy does not strengthen the bundled implementation retroactively. RT-RTE-agent-dispatch and RT-CMP-agent-factory likewise distinguish a dispatch route from the symbolic component implementing selection; alternate agents do not inherit Terminus-specific guarantees.

No unresolved inter-report disagreement was identified in the supplied versions. Remaining limits include opaque provider/SDK state, uninspected alternate agents and task internals, exported-trace completeness, checkpoint-to-published-data lineage, sweep schema compatibility and absent execution/comparison evidence. These prevent the respective universal, operational or benefit conclusions without negating the positive routes. No additional supersession or missing-part conflict is asserted; the listed containers remain compatible with their separately assessed parts.