{"record_type":"pith_number_record","schema_url":"https://pith.science/schemas/pith-number/v1.json","pith_number":"pith:2026:K7CWKOLKKA4DLFFKMYVRCGOWAI","short_pith_number":"pith:K7CWKOLK","schema_version":"1.0","canonical_sha256":"57c565396a50383594aa662b1119d60210c0cab59128e2157fe1715cfcd61bc7","source":{"kind":"arxiv","id":"2607.00269","version":1},"attestation_state":"computed","paper":{"title":"Mnemosyne: Agentic Transaction Processing for Validating and Repairing AI-generated Workflows","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":[],"primary_cat":"cs.AI","authors_text":"Edward Y. Chang, Emily J. Chang, Longling Geng","submitted_at":"2026-06-30T23:33:16Z","abstract_excerpt":"LLMs, solvers, and agent teams increasingly generate workflow actions, repairs, and plans, but a generated action may be syntactically valid yet stale, infeasible, conflicting, or destructive of the evidence that triggered a repair. We introduce Agentic Transaction Processing (ATP), a transaction model that treats generated actions as untrusted proposals until they pass deterministic admission under a declared, executable constraint set C. The principle is two-sided: a proposal is not truth, and no proposal foresees every disruption: anything may propose, but only the runtime admits and commit"},"verification_status":{"content_addressed":true,"pith_receipt":true,"author_attested":false,"weak_author_claims":0,"strong_author_claims":0,"externally_anchored":false,"storage_verified":false,"citation_signatures":0,"replication_records":0,"graph_snapshot":true,"references_resolved":false,"formal_links_present":false},"canonical_record":{"source":{"id":"2607.00269","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"metadata":{"license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","primary_cat":"cs.AI","submitted_at":"2026-06-30T23:33:16Z","cross_cats_sorted":[],"title_canon_sha256":"5891db3f622656d736becd70c8f8dc06aee13e3635bcc9ef3be14105a9d4439e","abstract_canon_sha256":"309c3a657fc35a182b3114fd1d7bf43faa35a2ffb1b5ec18051e007e3f15fe01"},"schema_version":"1.0"},"receipt":{"kind":"pith_receipt","key_id":"pith-v1-2026-05","algorithm":"ed25519","signed_at":"2026-07-02T00:18:42.123838Z","signature_b64":"MBsH482riO5/evbuttsKfZhwvEH902Cy3ufs45QfhWgOPaEi0JZZsdSYtJBodbbLkWMWGug2USMoveccsIo+DA==","signed_message":"canonical_sha256_bytes","builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1","receipt_version":"0.3","canonical_sha256":"57c565396a50383594aa662b1119d60210c0cab59128e2157fe1715cfcd61bc7","last_reissued_at":"2026-07-02T00:18:42.123071Z","signature_status":"signed_v1","first_computed_at":"2026-07-02T00:18:42.123071Z","public_key_fingerprint":"8d4b5ee74e4693bcd1df2446408b0d54"},"graph_snapshot":{"paper":{"title":"Mnemosyne: Agentic Transaction Processing for Validating and Repairing AI-generated Workflows","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"","cross_cats":[],"primary_cat":"cs.AI","authors_text":"Edward Y. Chang, Emily J. Chang, Longling Geng","submitted_at":"2026-06-30T23:33:16Z","abstract_excerpt":"LLMs, solvers, and agent teams increasingly generate workflow actions, repairs, and plans, but a generated action may be syntactically valid yet stale, infeasible, conflicting, or destructive of the evidence that triggered a repair. We introduce Agentic Transaction Processing (ATP), a transaction model that treats generated actions as untrusted proposals until they pass deterministic admission under a declared, executable constraint set C. The principle is two-sided: a proposal is not truth, and no proposal foresees every disruption: anything may propose, but only the runtime admits and commit"},"claims":{"count":0,"items":[],"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"source":{"id":"2607.00269","kind":"arxiv","version":1},"verdict":{"id":null,"model_set":{},"created_at":null,"strongest_claim":"","one_line_summary":"","pipeline_version":null,"weakest_assumption":"","pith_extraction_headline":""},"integrity":{"clean":true,"summary":{"advisory":0,"critical":0,"by_detector":{},"informational":0},"endpoint":"/pith/2607.00269/integrity.json","findings":[],"available":true,"detectors_run":[],"snapshot_sha256":"c28c3603d3b5d939e8dc4c7e95fa8dfce3d595e45f758748cecf8e644a296938"},"references":{"count":0,"sample":[],"resolved_work":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"},"aliases":[{"alias_kind":"arxiv","alias_value":"2607.00269","created_at":"2026-07-02T00:18:42.123180+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"arxiv_version","alias_value":"2607.00269v1","created_at":"2026-07-02T00:18:42.123180+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"doi","alias_value":"10.48550/arxiv.2607.00269","created_at":"2026-07-02T00:18:42.123180+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_12","alias_value":"K7CWKOLKKA4D","created_at":"2026-07-02T00:18:42.123180+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_16","alias_value":"K7CWKOLKKA4DLFFK","created_at":"2026-07-02T00:18:42.123180+00:00"},{"alias_kind":"pith_short_8","alias_value":"K7CWKOLK","created_at":"2026-07-02T00:18:42.123180+00:00"}],"events":[],"event_summary":{},"paper_claims":[],"inbound_citations":{"count":1,"internal_anchor_count":1,"sample":[{"citing_arxiv_id":"2607.24604","citing_title":"Looping Is Not Reliability: State-Bound Evidence and Typed Revision Contracts for Agentic Code Repair","ref_index":3,"is_internal_anchor":true}]},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"sample":[],"anchors":[]},"links":{"html":"https://pith.science/pith/K7CWKOLKKA4DLFFKMYVRCGOWAI","json":"https://pith.science/pith/K7CWKOLKKA4DLFFKMYVRCGOWAI.json","graph_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/K7CWKOLKKA4DLFFKMYVRCGOWAI/graph.json","events_json":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/K7CWKOLKKA4DLFFKMYVRCGOWAI/events.json","paper":"https://pith.science/paper/K7CWKOLK"},"agent_actions":{"view_html":"https://pith.science/pith/K7CWKOLKKA4DLFFKMYVRCGOWAI","download_json":"https://pith.science/pith/K7CWKOLKKA4DLFFKMYVRCGOWAI.json","view_paper":"https://pith.science/paper/K7CWKOLK","resolve_alias":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/resolve?arxiv=2607.00269&json=true","fetch_graph":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/K7CWKOLKKA4DLFFKMYVRCGOWAI/graph.json","fetch_events":"https://pith.science/api/pith-number/K7CWKOLKKA4DLFFKMYVRCGOWAI/events.json","actions":{"anchor_timestamp":"https://pith.science/pith/K7CWKOLKKA4DLFFKMYVRCGOWAI/action/timestamp_anchor","attest_storage":"https://pith.science/pith/K7CWKOLKKA4DLFFKMYVRCGOWAI/action/storage_attestation","attest_author":"https://pith.science/pith/K7CWKOLKKA4DLFFKMYVRCGOWAI/action/author_attestation","sign_citation":"https://pith.science/pith/K7CWKOLKKA4DLFFKMYVRCGOWAI/action/citation_signature","submit_replication":"https://pith.science/pith/K7CWKOLKKA4DLFFKMYVRCGOWAI/action/replication_record"}},"created_at":"2026-07-02T00:18:42.123180+00:00","updated_at":"2026-07-02T00:18:42.123180+00:00"}