OpenRSI reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

Boundary and evidence alignment

The reports share the boundary: a builder or improvement plane with a complete artifact, partial loop boundary. Later inspections add coverage within SRC-1 rather than changing that boundary. All four accounts distinguish inspected implementation from observed activation and benefit. The boundary's initial uninspected paths are not permanent exclusions; the epistemic member's additional Gym evaluator records therefore do not contradict it. No source reads were needed for this reconciliation.

RT-CLM-meta-evolution, RT-CLM-training-validation and EPI-CLM-model-harness are distinct claims: bounded improver training, author-reported training-path validation, and model–harness performance contrasts. They are not duplicate declarations. The epistemic comparison preserves their different evidence layers and does not promote reported operation to an observed run.

Duplicate identity and retained containers

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-rich-summary is superseded by MEM-OBJ-rich-summary. Both identify the same Evo method_overview and parent_comparison_experience strings attached to nodes/cards and retained in the solver's JSON cache. Their SRC-1 anchors identify the same solver and rich-summary operator paths. The epistemic object's schema/consumer description and the memory object's storage/recovery description concern one referent, not separate summaries. This connection affects the epistemic inventory and its summary production, retention and consumption findings; those assessments remain the epistemic analyst's findings, not replacements for the memory record's fields. Neither record supplies an actual generated response or checked explanatory warrant.

EPI-OBJ-experience-card spans both MEM-OBJ-experience-card and MEM-OBJ-strategy-board. Its identity explicitly includes both build_experience_card and build_strategy_board; the memory member separates per-node metadata from aggregate strategy statistics at the same SRC-1 experience implementation. This is a valid combined container, not identity with either single part. No supersession is made: its findings remain about card/board derivation, while the memory records retain their distinct storage and consumption accounts. The parts are already declared; no missing-part conflict is introduced.

MEM-OBJ-journal, the card and board records, and the rich-summary object are not duplicates of RT-RTE-evo-generation or RT-RTE-evo-async. They describe retained objects used by those search routes. The async route shares these objects rather than establishing a second store.

MEM-RTE-experience-cycle covers card/board persistence and resume reattachment; EPI-RTE-experience-derive isolates derivation from source and recorded outcomes. Their overlap at card/board construction does not make their endpoints and functions identical. Both remain parts of the broader generation search, not replacements for it.

EPI-RTE-summary-produce, EPI-RTE-summary-retain and EPI-RTE-summary-consume distinguish candidate generation, cache availability and improve-context delivery. MEM-RTE-operator-context covers the wider operator selection/delivery chain, including debug/crossover alternatives and base memory. The improve rendering function overlaps that chain but is not identical to the whole route. No route supersession follows from the shared summary object.

These reports independently converge on a narrower point: nonempty summary fields permit retention and advisory delivery, not semantic acceptance. The memory member describes 420-character display limits; the epistemic consumer record explains how truncation can remove a qualification. Neither asserts that every actual summary is false, ampliative, faithfully preserved or beneficial.

WF-RTE-debug-cycle is the bounded repair subroute of RT-RTE-evo-generation, not a second declaration of generation search. Its execution/parser checks inherit the parent's conditional oracle. MEM-BAP-experience-guidance, RT-BAP-candidate-execution and RT-BAP-training-parameters remain distinct: model interpretation of retained text, execution of selected source, and numerical training inputs have different consumers, force and horizons.

Integration-issue dispositions

Journal and separate recovery surfaces. MEM-OBJ-journal qualifies evaluator-metadata recovery through the nested export versus flattened reconstruction keys. MEM-RTE-experience-cycle and MEM-OBJ-rich-summary add card reattachment and summary-cache alternatives. The runtime generation/async records assert checkpointing and reuse, not complete evaluator-metadata fidelity or crash-atomic multi-file restoration. The workflow account likewise leaves such fidelity unestablished. These are compatible qualifications, not a disagreement requiring a stronger or weaker runtime status. Complete recovery remains unavailable as an integrated conclusion.

SFT admission layers. MEM-RTE-sft-reuse distinguishes scheduler/database retention from rejection-policy acceptance and reduced checkpoint context. RT-RTE-sft-training distinguishes producer filtering from a launcher accepting caller-selected datasets. The epistemic ledger's selection and adaptation assessments concern those latter functions, not a universal rule excluding rejected examples from every store. MEM-OBJ-sft-programs and MEM-OBJ-sft-messages therefore remain different objects within the training pipeline. No report depends on lossless reconstructed feedback or universal corpus ancestry.

RL retention and later use. MEM-RTE-rl-reuse adds concrete selector classes and configured later prompt consumers to RT-RTE-rl-training. MEM-OBJ-rl-programs reports fitness-based pruning rather than treating a reward-based docstring as executable policy. The runtime does not assert the contrary ordering. The epistemic member leaves full downstream filtering uninspected while preserving invalid-category insertion; memory's positive, scoped selector findings supplement that limit. The SFT and RL databases are distinct implementations; the uninspected Evo-local alternative is not equated with either.

Delivery versus verification. The workflow annotation on RT-RTE-final-submit supplies the unscored/random fallback and empty-output case behind the runtime's best-available wording. The epistemic account already treats export as distinct from final testing. All retain the same false-flag effect: the runner skips its final test loop but still exports code. No member requires every exported artifact to have passed verification, and no supersession is needed.

Additional Gym checks. EPI-RTE-metric-check, EPI-RTE-quality-check and EPI-RTE-quality-recommendation concern separately dispatched checking/reporting functions, not duplicate Gym construction. Their metric result and quality-score objects are distinct outputs. The quality recommendation's report/CLI consumer does not contradict RT-RTE-gym-build's lack of a semantic gate in metric generation; neither report establishes an automatic downstream training or deployment veto.

Remaining coverage and attribution. Memory's unresolved skill filename/task normalization, static-skill provenance, Evo-local database callers and RL lifecycle/helper coverage remain local limits. The epistemic member's unassessed-route limits are not system-wide absence claims. The workflow deliberately traces generation-mode delivery rather than joining Gym, SFT and RL into one automatic run. Across these reports, external weights, corpus lineage, RL optimizer behavior and a trained checkpoint's later Evo deployment remain unestablished. Architecture, retention and delivery are not promoted to successful learning, theory building or exercised self-improvement.

Conflict disposition

No unresolved disagreement between the supplied reports was identified. Their differences above are duplicate object identity, valid container/part relationships, additional functional coverage or explicitly scoped uncertainty. No analyst correction answers or declined objections were supplied; none are presumed resolved by this reconciliation. The single object supersession does not change any declaring analyst's findings or status fields.