AREX-Skill reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Shared boundary and evidence

The reports share the frozen revision and the complete artifact, partial loop boundary. Added specialist inspection extends local coverage without converting that boundary into whole-system coverage. All four reports distinguish implementation and doctrine from observed operation. The Source register supplies no inspected execution or causal comparison. Their common uncertainty about activation and benefit is not a disagreement.

Identity and containment dispositions

No duplicate supersession is established. The following comparisons rule out identity rather than replacing any record:

• MEM-OBJ-compaction and MEM-OBJ-branch-summary are distinct declared parts of RT-OBJ-session-context. The first uses a first-kept boundary; the second attaches exploration context at a navigation destination. Neither replaces the valid session container, and they do not replace each other.
• MEM-RTE-branch-summary is not RT-RTE-context-compaction: their triggers, attachment rules and return behavior differ. Memory's annotation extends the compaction account with serialization, incremental summary and budget details rather than redeclaring its route.
• MEM-RTE-journal-replay is a declared part of RT-RTE-workflow-agent, not an identity for the full child-execution route. MEM-OBJ-journal contains returned values for replay; MEM-OBJ-agent-history contains truncated diagnostic events. Neither is the child's session container or the other's payload.
• MEM-OBJ-saved-workflow and MEM-RTE-saved-workflow identify retained orchestration and its reuse, not child execution or journal replay. Rerunning a saved script and returning an old journal value have different consumers and invalidation rules.
• MEM-OBJ-library-state is persisted access/inventory metadata, not RT-OBJ-skill-registry's eligible in-process listing or RT-OBJ-operating-graph's installed content. MEM-OBJ-context-files identifies separately loaded instruction bodies, not the skill listing.
• MEM-BAP-summary-context and RT-BAP-operating-guidance reach model invocations through different retained sources and channels: conversation-derived summaries versus installed skill guidance. A shared downstream model does not make these paths identical.
• EPI-OBJ-skill-assertions and EPI-OBJ-skill-policy are distinct declared parts of the operating-graph container. Factual clauses and imperatives require different assessments; their separation does not invalidate the container. EPI-OBJ-recovery-evidence is a check-evidence bundle, neither that graph nor session history.
• EPI-RTE-native-checks, EPI-RTE-qa-metrics, EPI-RTE-paper-checks, EPI-RTE-paper-decision and EPI-RTE-final-report are respectively command evidence, lexical scoring, paper checks, disposition and reporting. None supersedes RT-RTE-graph-admission's installation route. Shared inputs do not make checking, acceptance and reporting one record.
• EPI-CLM-verified-skills, EPI-CLM-benchmark-gains and RT-CLM-mode-contract concern corpus characterization, reported benchmark gains and role separation respectively. They are distinct claims, not alternate statuses for one proposition.

The workflow annotations add fields to existing runtime routes and declare no records. Their direct-construction account therefore requires no supersession.

Cross-report connections and integration dispositions

Construction, checks and installation remain separate. The workflow account follows a conditional direct-construction branch of RT-RTE-graph-admission. It supplies approval ordering, affected repair, importer rollback ownership and external handoff requirements. This agrees with runtime's distinction between procedural semantic verification and executable structural admission. The epistemic ledger's doctrine-only construction function and implemented admission function describe different functions within that route; neither overwrites its wired importer status. The workflow does not require dynamic child delegation merely because RT-RTE-workflow-agent exists.

Paper acceptance extends coverage, not generic-import guarantees. Runtime and memory leave paper recovery uninspected locally. The epistemic report adds EPI-RTE-paper-checks and EPI-RTE-paper-decision, including a conjunctive evidence-consuming accept/refine criterion. This does not contradict their scoped uncertainty. Conversely, the generic importer does not acquire these predicates merely because paper guidance can eventually be installed. The epistemic report preserves distinct comparator, hard-mode validator and final-report predicates; EPI-RTE-final-report can tolerate a missing analysis decision. Report existence or positive reporting is therefore not substituted for paper acceptance.

Memory's integration qualifications fill open runtime questions. MEM-RTE-journal-replay supplies the finite hash/prefix policy where runtime explicitly left invalidation unaudited. Its checkpoint-default omission qualifies replay safety without contradicting a runtime guarantee. MEM-RTE-saved-workflow adds registration-time content capture and distinguishes deletion from refresh. The library-update annotation in memory adds withdrawal from future discovery, not retroactive erasure of prompt copies. These are extensions, not corrections requiring another member's value to change.

Delivery does not carry all construction evidence. Runtime's RT-RTE-skill-delivery, memory's operating-graph annotation and workflow's successor annotation converge on selected-body delivery without automatic transfer of the Creator conversation, construction record or external handoff. The corresponding epistemic conclusion is availability for reliance, not certification. Registry filtering under RT-CLM-mode-contract remains narrower than confinement of direct file/shell access.

Retained summaries and structured outputs have bounded authority. Memory's summary records extend RT-RTE-context-compaction with the raw-to-derived-to-later-consumer chain. The epistemic ledger retains an indeterminate semantic relation and no semantic preservation oracle; requested rationale retention in the summarizer does not conflict with that uncertainty. Likewise, runtime and epistemic assessments of RT-RTE-workflow-agent agree that schema acceptance gates shape, not factual truth. Journal replay is a further workflow-code consumer, not automatic transfer of the child's reasoning to another model.

Disagreements and remaining limits

No cross-report disagreement is identified in the supplied versions. No correction answers or declined objections were supplied, and no dependent finding here requires a cited record to say something its pinned declaration no longer says.

The reports' remaining coverage limits prevent a whole-system negative about knowledge production, trace-fed updates, criticism or acceptance. In particular, the epistemic paper-helper inspection does not complete specialized importer/exporter recovery, individual graph provenance, task-oriented loops or deployed consumption. The independent positive findings about instruction delivery, summary reuse, replay, executable orchestration and bounded paper acceptance remain separate from unestablished exercised learning, reflection, theory-builder conditions or self-improvement. These are retained limits, not settled conflicts or a combined system status. This reconciliation used the supplied members only; no frozen-source ambiguity required an additional source read.