Reconcile notes into a typed knowledge graph

Why use this

1. A personal knowledge base can contain several spellings for one entity and identical names for different people or projects. Converting every link into a graph node can make the structure look richer while preserving or amplifying those ambiguities.

2. This job could expose identity and relationship decisions before the graph changes. A proposed reconciliation ledger would let the owner accept useful merges, reject speculative links and see where personal exports add evidence rather than merely repeating an assumption.

Why an agent / simpler alternative

Useful judgment

Interpret note context and compare entity references while retaining uncertainty and source provenance.

Simpler alternative

Use consistent tags and manual backlinks when the collection is small and relationships are straightforward.

Unsuitable when

The graph would infer sensitive relationships or publish personal exports without approval.

Proposed inputs

1. Name

   Scoped note collection

   Owner

   Knowledge-base owner

   Minimum scope

   Selected notes, link targets and existing entity IDs

   Quality check

   Preserve source paths and distinguish explicit statements from inferred associations.

2. Name

   Entity schema and exports

   Owner

   Knowledge-base owner

   Minimum scope

   Allowed entity types, relationship definitions and authorized export fields

   Quality check

   Check data minimization and rules for ambiguous names.

Access and setup — proposed or unknown

Proposed minimum

1. Read selected note copies and graph records; produce a change proposal before merges or enrichment writes.

Compatibility unknowns

1. Unknown: Wikibase schema, SPARQL access, import tooling and current script compatibility.

External actions requiring approval

1. Merging entities, adding personal export data, scheduling syncs or sharing graph contents.

Expected deliverable and review checks

Proposed artifact

Entity reconciliation plan with source pointers, proposed types, merge candidates and unresolved links.

Critical checks

1. Each relationship has an explicit supporting note or is labelled a proposal.

2. Distinct same-name entities are not merged merely because their labels match.

Missing output evidence

No new workflow run or output inspection is performed for this editorial layer. The linked implementation evidence retains the original source-specific outcome and artifact limits.

Failure signals and proposed responses

1. Signal

   A company and a project share the same short name.

   Why it matters

   A merge can mix unrelated facts and corrupt later queries.

   Proposed response

   Use type and contextual identifiers to keep separate records until reviewed.

2. Signal

   A note’s hypothetical relationship becomes a factual graph edge.

   Why it matters

   Downstream answers may present speculation as established knowledge.

   Proposed response

   Preserve the note’s uncertainty and hold the edge for owner approval.

Effort and cost — unknown

Setup work

1. Define entity types, identity rules and provenance fields.

Ongoing review

1. Review uncertain links and reconcile source-note edits or deletions.

Unknowns

1. Unknown: graph hosting cost, schema migration effort and privacy review workload.

First check — proposed, unexecuted

Status

proposed_unexecuted

Synthetic fixture

Synthetic notes mention two entities named Atlas and a hypothetical future partnership.

Acceptance checks

1. Atlas entities remain distinct by type.

2. The partnership is not stored as a confirmed relationship.

Stop conditions

1. Private exports require new sharing or a merge cannot be safely reversed.

Limits

1. A typed graph organizes evidence; additional connections do not automatically establish truth or permission to retain personal data.