JAZ reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Shared boundary and evidence

The reports share the boundary and evidence and its Source register: SRC-1 at the frozen revision. Inspected implementation and attributed design support architectural findings, not observed operation or causal benefit. No execution trace or experiment is supplied. This reconciliation uses the handed members without additional source reads. No correction answers or declined objections were supplied; dispositions below follow the current records, not the previous reconciliation's findings.

Duplicate supersessions

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-rollout is superseded by MEM-OBJ-rollout. Both identify the frozen per-invocation Rollout over TurnRecord/token-stamp data and its sample projections. Their SRC-1 passages from src/jaz/hooks/builtin/rollout.py identify the same container and fields, not separate stores. Memory additionally traces hidden reasoning and backend-label limits. The epistemic inventory and export ledger concern this same object. Both declarations remain; identity does not authenticate the recorded tokens, equate their numerical measurements with distributed model weights, or establish trainer consumption.

Amendment: EPI-RTE-rollout-export is superseded by MEM-RTE-rollout-export. Both cover backend token records → per-invoke collection → frozen Rollout → caller-selected flat, pieces or per-turn exports. Their SRC-1 passages from src/jaz/hooks/builtin/rollout.py identify token-less stand-down and nonmonotone flat-export rejection; memory also traces stamp production in src/jaz/llm/sglang.py. This is one collection/export mechanism, not two learning routes. Both declare implementation wired and operation uninspected. The epistemic retention, checking and disposition rows remain separate functions of that mechanism. Supersession preserves the trusted-stamp limit and does not turn representation admission into task acceptance.

Amendment: EPI-RTE-weight-update is superseded by MEM-RTE-weight-transport. Both identify SGLang methods transmitting caller-selected disk, tensor or distributed weight updates to an external serving engine. Their SRC-1 passages from src/jaz/llm/sglang.py show the same update_weights_from_disk request through _post; epistemic additionally retains HTTP status handling. This connects the adaptation ledger to the memory mutability account without selecting between their implementation statuses. Both declarations remain, and neither establishes server application, later consumption or improvement.

Unresolved cross-report finding

Unresolved conflict: MEM-RTE-weight-transport assigns implementation conclusion status afforded, while EPI-RTE-weight-update assigns wired to the same request-wrapper mechanism identified above. Memory emphasizes the exposed capability, caller activation and external server contract. Epistemic explicitly identifies a wired outbound HTTP request while leaving server application uninspected. Their retained SRC-1 passages from src/jaz/llm/sglang.py support the common wrapper description, but the reports do not provide one agreed implementation-status scope. A single implementation conclusion status for the unified route is therefore prevented. Reconciliation chooses neither value. Both operation statuses remain uninspected; no disagreement about observed parameter replacement or learning is established.

Dispositions of replay and history integration issues

Memory's integration issue 1 still objects to an unqualified per-invoke replay account. The current RT-RTE-trajectory-replay now explicitly states that query selection uses the shared stack's top rather than query-event invoke ID, limits queue correspondence to strictly sequential nesting, and retains concurrent-sibling response/divergence misrouting. Its SRC-1 passages from src/jaz/hooks/builtin/replay.py include the sequential-invokes assumption. Memory's replay annotation describes the same limitation. The current records thus agree on selection and its concurrency boundary. The integration issue's description of the runtime finding is stale; it does not establish a remaining substantive disagreement. The epistemic replay ledger defers selection to the current runtime record, so it no longer depends on an unqualified isolation claim. Neither report supplies an observed misrouting incident, replay equivalence or rollback of repeated effects.

Memory's integration issue 2 likewise describes an earlier unqualified history account. The current RT-OBJ-repl-state expressly distinguishes full Continue output and recoverable exceptions from terminal Return/Raise entries with empty output and no exception in that field. It also denies uniform reconstruction of terminal stdout, values and exceptions. This matches memory's history annotation, whose SRC-1 passage from src/jaz/protocol/code_only.py distinguishes those cases. EPI-RTE-observation-cut scopes full-output availability to Continue. No present conflict remains on that scope, and none of these records establishes a serialized namespace checkpoint.

These dispositions identify agreement in the handed records; they do not rewrite memory's issue list or treat a prior objection as automatically correct.

Distinct identities and complementary parts

The other overlaps do not establish supersessions:

The workflow member declares no competing records. Its settings-change annotation follows the existing runtime route from restricted helper delegation through typed return, fresh-invocation retry, human consent and host execution. RT-BAP-helper-proposal identifies its execution endpoint. The workflow's delivery account distinguishes applied=True, recorded before execution, from completed execution and semantic success. This complements memory's admission-flag account and epistemic's action-permission distinction, rather than contradicting either. Its hook-control annotation also preserves the runtime's hook-failure qualification instead of asserting unconditional fail-closed validation.

Remaining integration limits and convergence

Memory's integration issues 3–6 add bounded detail or retain uncertainty. SGLang weight operations supplement the LiteLLM-centered RT-CMP-model-backend; the latter leaves provider parameter changes uninspected and does not claim package-wide update impossibility. The duplicate weight routes and their status conflict are handled above. MEM-RTE-rollout-export and MEM-RTE-weight-transport have no supplied trainer, objective/evaluator, parameter artifact or subsequent operation connecting them into learned capacity. Telemetry retention and later consumers remain limited by memory's coverage inventory, not contradicted by local display conversion. Runtime and memory both retain workflow-emission code-edit and object-binding limits; no report certifies equivalence or quality-selected adoption.

The epistemic claim comparison adds distinct claims about optimization, future model availability, token fidelity and reported framing comparisons to RT-CLM-repl-work. They assert different source claims, so no claim supersession follows. Its future-availability mismatch concerns source doctrine versus the probe's limited license, not a disagreement with another analyst. Reported framing measurements remain attributed comments rather than supplied observed-run or causal evidence, consistent with the boundary's evidence limits.

The runtime account, memory read-back account, epistemic conclusion and workflow account converge on separate execution authority and task-correctness warrant. Retention, response supply, type conformity, human action consent and configuration loading do not by themselves establish evidence-consuming acceptance of an answer. This is convergence over the same frozen source, not independent experimental corroboration. Faithful uncertainty about provider state, trainer behavior, successful operation and benefit remains a limit rather than another conflict. Beyond the supersessions and the weight-status conflict above, the handed reports establish no further duplicate identities or required undeclared parts.