Operational Ontology Framework reconciliation

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

Reconciliation

The reports share the frozen boundary and Source register: a complete public reference artifact, partial operational loop, with doctrine/design for organizational work and inspected implementation only for publication CI. Their operational uncertainty is concordant, not a disagreement. No correction answers or declined objections were supplied to this reconciliation. No additional source reads were needed.

Duplicate supersessions

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-pin is superseded by MEM-OBJ-pin. Both identify the same source-native Pin role in SRC-1, README.md, supported by the same artifact-table passage. Neither declares a different Pin instance. The epistemic record distinguishes possible identity/domain assertions from prescriptions; the memory record supplies lifetime, unknown initialization, intended constraint consumption and precedence limits. These compatible findings remain attached to their declaring records. The supersession connects the epistemic inventory and rule-amendment assessment to the memory object's identity; it does not make every Pin field subject to an established amendment procedure.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-spec is superseded by MEM-OBJ-spec. Both identify the current-objective/tasks/blockers/acceptance-criteria role in the same SRC-1, README.md passage. The epistemic distinction between work-state assertions and desired outcomes adds a lens on that object, not a second object. The memory record's unknown writers, admission and later delivery remain unknown. Neither storing criteria nor naming current work establishes satisfaction or later read-back. This identity affects the epistemic inventory, not the unresolved mapping to the weekly organizational source.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-handoff is superseded by MEM-OBJ-handoff. Both describe the append-only continuity role in SRC-1, README.md, and connect it to the short weekly-review handoff in docs/conceptual-example.md. Their passages identify the same role and example output. Reports of decisions/attempts/results and the proposed next action retain their distinct semantic roles. The epistemic record's containment in the weekly route does not erase the more general README role. Inventory, retention and memory-lineage references concern this shared identity; none establishes actual append-only storage, reason retention or later use.

Amendment: EPI-OBJ-facts is superseded by MEM-OBJ-facts. Both identify long-term observations with source, date and confidence in the same SRC-1, README.md passage. No separate store, instance or consumer distinguishes them. The epistemic inventory's truth-apt observations and the memory account's attribution metadata concern one role. Unknown fact admission, verification, expiry and retrieval remain unknown; this supersession grants no source-warrant or automatic-acceptance claim.

These four supersessions state identity, not replacement of findings or selection of a stronger status. Both IDs in each pair remain declared. No other duplicate supersession is established below.

Containers, parts and distinct identities

RT-RTE-weekly-review remains the valid workflow container. The epistemic parts EPI-RTE-data-import, EPI-RTE-draft-generation, EPI-RTE-source-check, EPI-RTE-review-disposition and EPI-RTE-status-retention separate acquisition, candidate production, checking, disposition and retention. Their different endpoints, functions and consumers rule out identity with one another or with the whole route. They do not show that the container is wrong once separated, so no split supersession is warranted. The workflow annotation and memory annotations concern that same supplied route without declaring duplicates.

EPI-OBJ-data and EPI-OBJ-draft are input and candidate-output parts, not identities of the weekly route. MEM-OBJ-authorized-source describes the source-of-truth/destination role, whereas Data describes the client, commitment, deadline and status content supplied for review. Shared involvement in SRC-1, docs/conceptual-example.md, does not identify content with its organizational source or prove a particular backing database. No supersession is established between them. The approved-status counterpart of Data in the epistemic account is compatible with the memory account's destination role without fixing a storage implementation.

The memory report's unresolved mapping among the authorized source, MEM-OBJ-spec, MEM-OBJ-facts and MEM-OBJ-handoff remains unresolved. Content overlap does not prove identical artifact roles or colocation. Likewise RT-RTE-rule-amendment changes governing rules; it is not identical to MEM-OBJ-pin, nor does its known subsequent ownership requirement resolve initial Pin admission.

RT-RTE-public-surface remains a separate publication container. EPI-RTE-public-check is its evaluator part, not a duplicate CI system: the container also covers triggers, checkout, contribution admission and limits on merge enforcement. SRC-1, .github/workflows/public-surface.yml, supplies the quoted predicates and failure mechanism in both records. The part does not invalidate the container, so neither is superseded. EPI-RTE-completion-check instead concerns general operational action-result evidence. Its overlap with a weekly completion rule does not identify it with the weekly route, the accuracy check or publication validation.

Convergence and integration dispositions

The runtime, memory and workflow accounts independently preserve the distinction between a draft-only AI and later authorized organizational recording. EPI-RTE-review-disposition adds the distinction between accuracy approval and permission to proceed; EPI-RTE-status-retention keeps recording separate from acceptance and lifecycle integration. These findings connect, rather than contradict, the memory lineage and workflow delivery criterion. SRC-1, docs/conceptual-example.md, supplies reviewer confirmation and write-back passages through those records. The actual writer, persistence acknowledgment, later selector, delivery channel and changed behavior remain unestablished across the reports. Intended continuity is not a claim that those mechanisms operated.

MEM-BAP-state-continuity and RT-BAP-action-authority are distinct: durable work-state inheritance versus permission to act. Their channels can interact, but continuity does not confer authorization. Similarly EPI-CLM-source-warrant, EPI-CLM-result-evidence, EPI-CLM-context-invention and RT-CLM-human-authority respectively concern reliance on facts, evidence of completion, prevention of invented context and action authority. Related governance language does not establish duplicate claim identities. Their source passages and route comparisons retain separate scopes.

RT-ABS-agent-entry is a bounded absence of a published operational agent entry, not absence of executable publication material. The wired publication route and implemented epistemic evaluator therefore do not conflict with the operational routes' claimed design and uninspected implementation/operation. No supplied CI result establishes mandatory merge rejection, just as no supplied operational trace establishes reliable review, withdrawal, reload or benefit. Unknown model fixity in RT-CMP-ai also remains independent of external-state continuity and human correction.

The memory integration issues require no correction to supplied runtime findings. Their initialization, storage, admission and read-back questions remain local conclusion limits, not cross-report conflicts. The epistemic duplicate objects are reconciled above; workflow declares no new records. No unresolved disagreement between the supplied reports was identified. None of these connections establishes observed acceptance, produced ampliative knowledge, learning, reflection, autonomous theory building or exercised self-improvement.