Autogenesis reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Boundary and reconciliation basis

The four reports share the revision and implementation/doctrine evidence boundary in boundary.md. None supplies an observed run or causal experiment. This reconciliation connects their pinned findings; it neither rechecks source support nor converts implementation into observed behavior. No correction answers or refusal were supplied. No additional source reads were needed.

Duplicate supersessions

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-corpus-records is superseded by MEM-OBJ-corpus. Both identify KnowledgeManager's corpus.jsonl documents, backend metadata and their retrieval representation. The epistemic record's returned records are a view of the same retained material, not a separately retained corpus. Identity evidence is their shared autogenesis/knowledge/server.py path and identical quoted construction of records with scores. The affected epistemic inventory and ranking findings retain unknown source warrant and the possibility that retrieval overwrites a caller's score; the memory record adds the distinction between document content, backend metadata and transient statistical intermediates. Supersession changes no value or evidence limit in either declaration.

Amendment: EPI-RTE-history-summary is superseded by MEM-RTE-tier-context. Both trace TieredMemory event ingestion, oldest-chunk removal, CompactHook summary production, bounded working retention and later context selection by ID. Their shared autogenesis/memory/default/tiered.py and autogenesis/hook/default/compact.py evidence includes the same removal and nonempty-summary insertion steps. The affected epistemic transformation and retention rows concern this same route, not an additional summarizer. The memory declaration supplies the hook-to-Agent delivery leg and exception-loss qualification. The epistemic record's additional observation about shortening tiered todo descriptions remains a display transformation, covered by MEM-OBJ-memory-display, not the separate todo prompt route. Its indeterminate semantic-preservation assessment remains unchanged. Neither report establishes accurate summaries, observed reliance or restart restoration of these tiers.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-workflow-evaluation is superseded by MEM-OBJ-workflow-evaluations. Both identify WorkflowContextManager's version-scoped _evaluations, persisted evaluations.json, caller quality/notes and aggregate view. Their autogenesis/workflow/context.py evidence identifies the same store; neither identifies the executable workflow checkpoint. The affected epistemic object and authority-ledger rows retain the distinction between recorded lifecycle evidence and independent correctness, including caller-dependent quality and optional reasons.

Amendment: MEM-RTE-evaluation-records is superseded by EPI-RTE-workflow-evidence. Both identify evaluation submission through evolution_tool, version/run/hash/terminality/success validation, persistence, current-version selection and summary delivery. Their shared autogenesis/workflow/context.py evidence gives the identical three-case, 0.8 success-rate and 0.7 quality health predicate. The epistemic declaration additionally traces inspect_workflow and the workflow evaluator's recording permission. The memory write/read-back findings and epistemic ledger functions therefore refer to one evidence-maintenance route, not independent corroborating implementations. Both retain software admission of tracking evidence, caller-supplied quality, no automatic keep/rollback consequence and unobserved actual use.

All superseded IDs remain declared and citable. These amendments identify referents; they do not replace the analysts' fields or discard their additional findings.

Containers, parts and distinct identities

EPI-OBJ-tiered-history spans MEM-OBJ-recent-history and MEM-OBJ-working-memory, with their selected get representation. The combined epistemic record already distinguishes event assertions from model summaries. Its findings do not become wrong when the two parts are separated, so no supersession of this valid container is warranted. The memory parts retain their different producers and lineage; neither alone replaces the combined object.

RT-RTE-task-execution remains the enclosing task route. The detailed tier-context route is its declared part, not its replacement. MEM-RTE-todo-context is a distinct file-based sibling: it reads whole todo Markdown even outside the memory-enabled branch. Tiered todo display, separate TodoTool JSON/Markdown and generic task context are not identical objects or routes.

RT-RTE-knowledge-admission remains the ingest/retrieve container. The corpus object and EPI-RTE-corpus-ranking expose its store and ranking part respectively. Object, backend-selection mechanism and whole write/read route are not duplicates. The memory annotation and epistemic ranking record agree that workflow normalization preserves returned data; neither establishes automatic delivery of those records to an Agent model.

RT-RTE-workflow-execution remains the executable workflow container. EPI-RTE-workflow-checks, EPI-RTE-record-transforms and the workflow-evidence route expose different checking, transformation and evaluation-maintenance operations. None replaces the outer invocation/recovery account. Their targets and consequences also differ from EPI-RTE-evaluator-reports, whose model-authored reports are advisory, and EPI-RTE-web-reports, whose internal pipeline acquires and synthesizes web material.

Recovery records are distinct: RT-OBJ-workflow-checkpoint controls invocation reuse; MEM-OBJ-version-snapshot points to capability versions; RT-OBJ-extension-manifest identifies active reloadable components. Evaluation evidence and memory display files replace none of these. MEM-RTE-version-recovery likewise differs from workflow resume and extension admission rollback. No whole-system transactional recovery follows from joining them.

MEM-OBJ-run-records is a valid diagnostic container with declared conversation, chat, trace, snapshot and trajectory parts. MEM-RTE-client-replay consumes particular transcripts for display, not the tier registry or all diagnostic products. It is distinct from RT-RTE-model-playground, which streams a completion. The reports leave the full frontend resend path uninspected; this does not contradict a wired display reader.

MEM-RTE-memory-admission and RT-RTE-capability-admission share extension infrastructure but trace different generated component types and hooks. Neither supersedes the other. Administrative configuration in RT-RTE-runtime-configuration is another admission path, not an instance of every generator smoke or overwrite check.

MEM-BAP-memory-guidance and MEM-BAP-todo-guidance deliver different retained inputs into the broader RT-BAP-prompt-guidance channel. RT-BAP-skill-guidance identifies selected skill text, while RT-BAP-extension-execution identifies executable authority. Shared downstream consumers do not make these paths identical.

Independent convergence and integration dispositions

The workflow account declares no new records. Its annotations connect actor delegation, optional verification, corrective rounds and Gateway delivery to RT-RTE-task-execution and RT-RTE-child-delegation. Both reports distinguish selected child inputs and returned message from full child history, and shared effects from isolation. Workflow review is requested model policy, not an enforced terminal veto. Runtime, workflow and epistemic accounts agree that lifecycle completion is not an independent answer oracle, including the explicitly incomplete MetaAgent branch.

The memory integration issues require no correction of runtime's skill route. RT-RTE-skill-instructions establishes same-caller text delivery; the tier-context findings add retention and compaction of that action result. Runtime's uninspected exact retention horizon was not a contrary finding. The evolution playbook's type-filter limitation and the lack of tier restart reload remain local limits, not disagreements.

The workflow health threshold does not contradict runtime's lack of an enforced generated-tool quality threshold. The former computes advisory metrics over version-linked evidence; the latter admits executable source through another route. Epistemic checking, evidence admission, retention and requested adoption remain distinct functions. No report establishes a mandatory quality-based adoption branch by combining them.

RT-CLM-self-evolution and EPI-CLM-continuous-improvement overlap but are not identical: the latter adds a broader continuous-benefit claim. RT-CLM-user-approval and EPI-CLM-smoke-safety concern different admission warrants. The prompt's approval claim, automatic promotion behavior, smoke module's pre-manifest claim and runtime's post-registration probe account are source doctrine/implementation discrepancies retained by the reports, not conflicting analyst conclusions. Both runtime and epistemic findings preserve the probe's generic success predicate, lack of required candidate exercise and limited rollback consequences.

No unresolved inter-report disagreement was found in the supplied versions. Their shared uncertainty about operation, benefit, semantic fidelity, uninspected leaves and full recovery does not constitute conflict. The reports retain standing improvement-directed self-change separately from exercised or successful self-improvement; none fills missing content-directed criticism, iteration or causal dependence merely from installation, scores or retention. No additional supersession or missing required part is asserted by this reconciliation. Outstanding coverage questions remain the bounded limitations stated by their declaring reports, rather than system-wide absence conclusions.