OpenRSI reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Evidence and shared boundary

The four reports concern the separately runnable stages within the frozen boundary, not a demonstrated autonomous training-to-deployment cycle. Their implementation findings use SRC-1; no supplied observed-run or causal-experiment evidence closes the historical trace, training, serving and later-outcome links. The reports' different coverage limits do not disagree with the boundary's source-release whole-system scope: that scope includes available material that individual lenses explicitly leave uninspected. No additional source inspection was needed for this reconciliation. No correction answers or refusal were supplied; dispositions below compare the pinned members themselves.

Duplicate identities

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-rich-summary is superseded by MEM-OBJ-rich-summary. Both identify the Evo node/card rich_summary with method_overview and parent_comparison_experience, retained in the separate JSON cache. Both locate it inside RT-RTE-evolution-search, rather than identifying it with code, a scalar score or a model component. Their SRC-1 anchors name the same Evo solver; the memory record additionally supplies the summary-operator prompt and cache filename. This is one artifact, not two stages or differently warranted copies. The epistemic inventory and summary ledger rows therefore concern the memory-declared artifact. Their candidate-content and warrant assessments remain the epistemic report's findings; the supersession changes no value or status.

Amendment: EPI-RTE-summary-generation is superseded by MEM-RTE-summary-cache. Both trace selected node/first-parent/task inputs through existing node/card values, disk-cache reuse or optional model generation, two-field normalization, node/card/cache storage and preparation for later operator prompts. The retained passages in these records identify the same SRC-1 solver normalization and storage mechanism. The memory record's additional prompt inspection does not create another route. Both declare implementation wired and operation uninspected. The epistemic ledger's separate content-transformation and retention functions remain assessments of this same route; neither function supplies semantic acceptance. Detailed subsequent selection and display remain the distinct MEM-RTE-targeted-memory, not part of this identity amendment. Both superseded IDs remain declared and resolvable.

Containers, distinct parts and authority channels

The remaining overlaps are containment, annotation or different referents, not duplicate identities requiring supersession:

• RT-RTE-evolution-search remains the proposal, evaluation, admission and successor loop. MEM-OBJ-journal, MEM-OBJ-experience-card and MEM-OBJ-rich-summary are different retained parts: raw/derived node history, derived cards/board and model-authored comparative prose. Their separate persistence and reload rules prevent identifying them as one checkpoint object. MEM-RTE-summary-cache derives/reuses summaries; MEM-RTE-targeted-memory selects and renders accumulated material; WF-RTE-final-delivery selects terminal code and writes outputs. These parts do not replace the valid search container or each other.
• RT-CMP-generic-llm is a producer/consumer component, not the summary artifact or its derivation route. RT-BAP-operator-guidance describes model-interpreted force and horizon, while MEM-RTE-targeted-memory establishes the selector and clipped delivery. RT-BAP-execution-authority instead describes executable force. Sharing the search loop does not make these identities interchangeable.
• RT-RTE-sft-training contains experience production, dataset admission and numerical training. MEM-OBJ-sft-program is its production-side SQL history; MEM-RTE-sft-search is the retained-parent generation loop; MEM-OBJ-alignment-dataset is the selected conversation/manifest output. RT-CMP-training-models describes the distinct parameter state. These are neither duplicate datasets nor interchangeable persistence channels.
• RT-RTE-rl-training contains MEM-OBJ-rl-program, EPI-OBJ-hack-verdict, EPI-RTE-hack-judgment and EPI-RTE-hack-disposition. Stored programs, a pre-execution verdict, judgment and consequential disposition are different referents. Memory's annotation adds curation and later consumers to the existing RL route rather than declaring a duplicate. SFT and RL databases are explicitly separate source implementations with different schemas and selection rules.
• RT-RTE-gym-build contains RT-OBJ-metric and EPI-RTE-code-extraction. Executable scoring machinery and extraction of a code block are not the same object or the whole build workflow. EPI-RTE-package-validation, EPI-RTE-quality-judgment and EPI-RTE-quality-disposition are separately invoked post-build checking, model review and report disposition. EPI-OBJ-task-evaluation is their report, not the executable metric.
• EPI-CLM-verifiable-packages concerns task-package verifiability; RT-CLM-meta-evolution concerns training improvers for later search. The shared project does not make these one claim. RT-RTE-async-search, RT-RTE-naturebench-execution and RT-RTE-sandbox-evaluation likewise retain different scheduling, execution and evaluation responsibilities despite joining the search workflow.

Integration-issue dispositions

Checkpoint restoration is qualified, not contradicted. Memory's first integration issue cites MEM-OBJ-journal: nested metric-info export and flattened-key reload can lose provenance/status, and dynamic cards/summaries have separate persistence. RT-RTE-evolution-search establishes reconstruction of a population and optional memory delivery, not lossless restoration of every field. Runtime also states that checkpoint writes are separate and reconciliation is necessary. Memory's findings limit replay fidelity without denying that continuation is implemented. The shared conclusion cannot be extended to exact historical replay or complete memory restoration.

Empty graph updates do not establish erasure. Memory's second integration issue and its annotation on RT-RTE-gym-build contrast messages: [] with the add_messages reducer. Runtime states the literal empty return and explicit recent-history selection, not an enforced deletion guarantee. Thus the reports support bounded query construction while retaining uncertainty about graph-state erasure; they do not present opposing findings on deletion. The preparation tail is selected code/feedback, not a complete prior reasoning episode. No supersession or stronger erasure finding follows.

Similarly named memory selectors stay separate. Memory's third issue contrasts the Evo shared-parent siblings in MEM-RTE-targeted-memory with RL children-of-current-parent selection in its annotation on RT-RTE-rl-training. Runtime does not claim uniform sibling semantics across these implementations. This is a distinction to preserve, not a conflict. Memory's fourth issue correctly rules out duplication against runtime containers; the two amendments above concern duplicates independently declared by the epistemic analyst, not additional runtime duplicates.

Uninspected surfaces remain limits. Memory's fifth issue retains other database copies, RL algorithms, metadata/task-quality paths, skills, operational stores and NatureBench context branches. The epistemic report adds direct assessment of some local task-quality paths, but does not thereby complete memory's other uninspected branches. Conversely, memory's direct selection/rendering inspection supplies detail where epistemic reliance was bounded. Neither report establishes exhaustive equivalence, a system-wide absence of acceptance or learning, or historical training lineage. See memory's coverage and issues and epistemic coverage.

Analyze has more than one activation condition. The epistemic ledger's retained parser passage distinguishes the experience-disabled always-Analyze branch from experience-enabled deterministic-first/fallback behavior. RT-RTE-sandbox-evaluation names model fallback and deterministic override but does not assert that fallback is the only model invocation. Its account is compatible with that added condition. The workflow's evaluator handoff likewise does not exclude legacy Analyze. The reconciliation preserves both branches rather than converting shorthand into an exclusive claim or a new route.

Terminal delivery adds a different eligibility predicate. WF-RTE-final-delivery supplies random code-bearing fallback, empty output when no candidate exists, code writing before optional test evaluation and success reporting from zero subprocess exit. RT-RTE-evolution-search describes eligibility for active solutions, not a universal final-output quality veto; its runtime account only says an available node is selected. Accordingly, workflow's fallback does not contradict population admission. The stricter resume-completeness predicate remains a different decision from current process success. No warranted-validity conclusion follows from the final filename, exit status or retained artifacts.

Independent convergence and remaining disagreements

The reports converge on distinct functions rather than one status for the system. RT-RTE-sandbox-evaluation and the epistemic ledger preserve task/protocol-relative score authority, including printed-score and test-score alternatives. WF-RTE-final-delivery and RT-RTE-naturebench-execution preserve the distinction between writing code, evaluating it anew and reusing search-stage evidence. None licenses an unconditional independent final-test claim.

Memory and epistemic independently identify structural rather than semantic admission for rich summaries in the amended records. Memory additionally establishes clipping before later delivery; epistemic retains indeterminate semantic transformation for unseen outputs. These findings coexist: derivation and delivery do not establish summary truth, model reliance or accepted explanatory knowledge.

RL retention and negative disposition likewise coexist. EPI-RTE-hack-disposition records penalties and execution bypass; MEM-OBJ-rl-program and the memory annotation on RT-RTE-rl-training distinguish database inclusion, active-success selection and baseline queries. Epistemic's uninspected selector restrictions are not a claim that every flagged row is eligible as a parent. No conflict arises from different inspected depths.

The SFT reports connect proxy-based dataset admission, minimal messages reaching the trainer, and parameter updates without equating their warrants. MEM-OBJ-alignment-dataset retains selection metadata separately from training messages; RT-RTE-sft-training establishes token/loss-mask consumption and updates; the epistemic ledger assesses acceptance for training use rather than truth acceptance for every proposition. Their missing historical deployment and causal links remain shared limits on RT-CLM-meta-evolution, not evidence against the positive implementation findings.

No unresolved conflict between the pinned reports was identified. No supplied dependency requires a finding that its cited record has withdrawn, and no required split with an undeclared part was identified in these comparisons. This disposition does not settle source support or completeness for the report verifier; it preserves the reports' qualifications without selecting a stronger status or rewriting their findings.