AREX-Skill reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

The four reports retain the boundary's complete-artifact, partial-loop scope and single frozen source. Their different inspection limits are local to each report. Additional inspection in one member does not erase another's stated inspection boundary. None supplies observed operation or causal experiments. No analyst correction answers or declined objections were supplied to this attempt.

Duplicate and containment dispositions

Amendment: MEM-RTE-verification-revision is superseded by WF-RTE-repo-verification. Both identify the repository verification procedure that reviews an integrated draft, requests assertion-backed and native checks, revises failures, retains reports outside the runtime graph, and establishes import readiness. Their identity evidence is the same SRC-1 verify-repo-skill skill and evaluation reference, including the quoted instruction to revise failed or thin guidance before finishing. The workflow record supplies the fuller request-to-handoff account; this does not upgrade the memory record's doctrine/design finding to implemented verification or observed revision. Affected findings are memory's verification-driven curation and write-side admission account and workflow's verification/repair handoff. Both retain backend blocking, manual exceptions and unobserved compliance.

EPI-RTE-refine-guidance is not identical to that repository-only verification route. It joins specific feedback-consuming revision contracts in both paper distillation and repository verification. Its paper accept/refine consumer is outside the repository verification referent. Their shared assertion-failure instruction establishes overlap, not identity; no supersession is made.

EPI-OBJ-skill-graph and MEM-OBJ-repo-skills overlap but are not interchangeable referents. The former spans staged, project and managed candidate graphs across construction and use; the latter identifies managed repository guidance and its retained parts. Their shared operating files do not erase lifecycle and destination differences. Both containers can remain; neither finding becomes wrong when those scopes are distinguished. MEM-OBJ-routing-metadata further distinguishes runtime routing, external classification evidence and generated indexes by consumer. It is not another import route or a duplicate of the whole graph.

EPI-OBJ-compaction-summary identifies the natural-language summary text, while MEM-OBJ-compaction-summary includes that text and the retained boundary, usage and optional details. The text overlaps, but the operative objects differ in extent and consumer: ordinary model conversion does not inject arbitrary details. The valid combined memory record remains alongside the narrower text record; whole-record identity and supersession are ruled out.

The explicitly declared parts also remain distinct from their parents: MEM-RTE-session-retention isolates persistence/reconstruction within RT-RTE-session-prompt; EPI-RTE-summary-generation isolates model transformation within RT-RTE-context-compaction; EPI-RTE-import-check isolates validation within RT-RTE-repo-import. Their parent accounts remain valid. No split supersession is required.

Independent convergence and integration dispositions

Import checks, admission and later authority connect without merging. The runtime import record covers installation and rollback. The epistemic check part establishes structural, link, digest and evidence-range checks, not semantic source-support judgment. Memory's import annotation independently establishes the manual-unrouted alternative and separates rich classification rationale from minimal runtime metadata. These extend the runtime's expressly uninspected helper and alternative-path scope; they do not contradict it. The workflow's deployment annotation assigns filesystem recovery to the importer after model-mediated verification. None establishes authenticated human approval merely from an overwrite flag. Exact router/index preservation of evidence remains unresolved, preventing a claim that every later consumer receives the admission reasons.

Compaction inspection differences are not disagreements. Memory's compaction annotation adds recent-tail selection, split-turn preparation, requested rationale and details/text separation. Epistemic summary generation assesses the content relation as indeterminate, while runtime establishes append/rebuild and extension cancellation or substitution. A requested rationale format does not establish fidelity; indeterminate semantic preservation does not negate implemented transformation and delivery. MEM-RTE-branch-navigation is a separate navigation checkpoint, not another name for compaction.

Paper acceptance does not contradict limits on repository import. EPI-RTE-recovery-check and EPI-RTE-recovery-decision establish artifact/metric checks and an input-conditional accept/refine disposition for declared full/proxy recovery use. That is neither repository installation nor blanket acceptance of every skill proposition. The separate hard-mode gate can reject proxy success. The paper routes extend memory's explicitly uninspected paper-recovery scope; they do not establish all remaining recovery, evaluator or result-consumer paths. The public EPI-CLM-verified-skills and EPI-CLM-accepted-graph retain their comparisons with these narrower mechanisms, not a cross-report conflict.

Additional orchestration remains independently scoped. MEM-RTE-workflow-context and MEM-RTE-workflow-resume establish independent worker sessions, bounded completion reports and journal substitution. They are not duplicate foreground prompting, optional fresh-agent verification, session compaction or semantic acceptance. Their implementation findings coexist with uninspected full prompt composition, hash coverage and recovery rounds. The memory coverage extension does not establish filesystem isolation or environmental freshness.

Delivery, exercised change and benefit remain separate. RT-BAP-skill-guidance connects installed guidance to later requests; verification/refinement policies describe how evidence should shape revisions. The reports do not trace an exercised evidence-to-update-to-dependent-later-operation chain. The EPI-CLM-benchmark-gains remains reported operation, not component-level causal evidence. These are shared limits, not competing statuses.

No unresolved cross-report disagreement is identified in the supplied records. Remaining integration questions concern bounded inspection, evidence preservation and unobserved effects, not findings that require incompatible conclusions. No frozen source reads were needed for reconciliation; the cited records supply the passages and distinctions used here.