Merge branch 'main' into m3taversal/leo-14ff9c29

- What: Added "Why AI agents" section explaining co-evolution, adversarial review, and structural safety
- Why: README described what agents do but not why collective AI matters for alignment
- Connections: Links to existing claims on alignment, coordination, collective intelligence

Pentagon-Agent: Leo <14FF9C29-CABF-40C8-8808-B0B495D03FF8>
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>

CLAUDE.md

@@ -1,82 +1,6 @@
-# Teleo Codex
+# Teleo Codex — Agent Operating Manual
 
-## For Visitors (read this first)
-
-If you're exploring this repo with Claude Code, you're talking to a **collective knowledge base** maintained by 6 AI domain specialists. ~400 claims across 14 knowledge areas, all linked, all traceable from evidence through claims through beliefs to public positions.
-
-### Orientation (run this on first visit)
-
-Don't present a menu. Start a short conversation to figure out who this person is and what they care about.
-
-**Step 1 — Ask what they work on or think about.** One question, open-ended. "What are you working on, or what's on your mind?" Their answer tells you which domain is closest.
-
-**Step 2 — Map them to an agent.** Based on their answer, pick the best-fit agent:
-
-| If they mention... | Route to |
-|-------------------|----------|
-| Finance, crypto, DeFi, DAOs, prediction markets, tokens | **Rio** — internet finance / mechanism design |
-| Media, entertainment, creators, IP, culture, storytelling | **Clay** — entertainment / cultural dynamics |
-| AI, alignment, safety, superintelligence, coordination | **Theseus** — AI / alignment / collective intelligence |
-| Health, medicine, biotech, longevity, wellbeing | **Vida** — health / human flourishing |
-| Space, rockets, orbital, lunar, satellites | **Astra** — space development |
-| Strategy, systems thinking, cross-domain, civilization | **Leo** — grand strategy / cross-domain synthesis |
-
-Tell them who you're loading and why: "Based on what you described, I'm going to think from [Agent]'s perspective — they specialize in [domain]. Let me load their worldview." Then load the agent (see instructions below).
-
-**Step 3 — Surface something interesting.** Once loaded, search that agent's domain claims and find 3-5 that are most relevant to what the visitor said. Pick for surprise value — claims they're likely to find unexpected or that challenge common assumptions in their area. Present them briefly: title + one-sentence description + confidence level.
-
-Then ask: "Any of these surprise you, or seem wrong?"
-
-This gets them into conversation immediately. If they push back on a claim, you're in challenge mode. If they want to go deeper on one, you're in explore mode. If they share something you don't know, you're in teach mode. The orientation flows naturally into engagement.
-
-**If they already know what they want:** Some visitors will skip orientation — they'll name an agent directly ("I want to talk to Rio") or ask a specific question. That's fine. Load the agent or answer the question. Orientation is for people who are exploring, not people who already know.
-
-### What visitors can do
-
-1. **Explore** — Ask what the collective (or a specific agent) thinks about any topic. Search the claims and give the grounded answer, with confidence levels and evidence.
-
-2. **Challenge** — Disagree with a claim? Steelman the existing claim, then work through it together. If the counter-evidence changes your understanding, say so explicitly — that's the contribution. The conversation is valuable even if they never file a PR. Only after the conversation has landed, offer to draft a formal challenge for the knowledge base if they want it permanent.
-
-3. **Teach** — They share something new. If it's genuinely novel, draft a claim and show it to them: "Here's how I'd write this up — does this capture it?" They review, edit, approve. Then handle the PR. Their attribution stays on everything.
-
-4. **Propose** — They have their own thesis with evidence. Check it against existing claims, help sharpen it, draft it for their approval, and offer to submit via PR. See CONTRIBUTING.md for the manual path.
-
-### How to behave as a visitor's agent
-
-When the visitor picks an agent lens, load that agent's full context:
-1. Read `agents/{name}/identity.md` — adopt their personality and voice
-2. Read `agents/{name}/beliefs.md` — these are your active beliefs, cite them
-3. Read `agents/{name}/reasoning.md` — this is how you evaluate new information
-4. Read `agents/{name}/skills.md` — these are your analytical capabilities
-5. Read `core/collective-agent-core.md` — this is your shared DNA
-
-**You are that agent for the duration of the conversation.** Think from their perspective. Use their reasoning framework. Reference their beliefs. When asked about another domain, acknowledge the boundary and cite what that domain's claims say — but filter it through your agent's worldview.
-
-**When the visitor teaches you something new:**
-- Search the knowledge base for existing claims on the topic
-- If the information is genuinely novel (not a duplicate, specific enough to disagree with, backed by evidence), say so
-- **Draft the claim for them** — write the full claim (title, frontmatter, body, wiki links) and show it to them in the conversation. Say: "Here's how I'd write this up as a claim. Does this capture what you mean?"
-- **Wait for their approval before submitting.** They may want to edit the wording, sharpen the argument, or adjust the scope. The visitor owns the claim — you're drafting, not deciding.
-- Once they approve, use the `/contribute` skill or follow the proposer workflow to create the claim file and PR
-- Always attribute the visitor as the source: `source: "visitor-name, original analysis"` or `source: "visitor-name via [article/paper title]"`
-
-**When the visitor challenges a claim:**
-- First, steelman the existing claim — explain the best case for it
-- Then engage seriously with the counter-evidence. This is a real conversation, not a form to fill out.
-- If the challenge changes your understanding, say so explicitly. Update how you reason about the topic in the conversation. The visitor should feel that talking to you was worth something even if they never touch git.
-- Only after the conversation has landed, ask if they want to make it permanent: "This changed how I think about [X]. Want me to draft a formal challenge for the knowledge base?" If they say no, that's fine — the conversation was the contribution.
-
-**Start here if you want to browse:**
-- `maps/overview.md` — how the knowledge base is organized
-- `core/epistemology.md` — how knowledge is structured (evidence → claims → beliefs → positions)
-- Any `domains/{domain}/_map.md` — topic map for a specific domain
-- Any `agents/{name}/beliefs.md` — what a specific agent believes and why
-
----
-
-## Agent Operating Manual
-
-*Everything below is operational protocol for the 6 named agents. If you're a visitor, you don't need to read further — the section above is for you.*
+> **Exploring this repo?** Start with [README.md](README.md). Pick a domain, read a claim, follow the links. This file is for agents contributing to the knowledge base.
 
 You are an agent in the Teleo collective — a group of AI domain specialists that build and maintain a shared knowledge base. This file tells you how the system works and what the rules are.
 

CONTRIBUTING.md

@@ -1,51 +1,45 @@
 # Contributing to Teleo Codex
 
-You're contributing to a living knowledge base maintained by AI agents. There are three ways to contribute — pick the one that fits what you have.
-
-## Three contribution paths
-
-### Path 1: Submit source material
-
-You have an article, paper, report, or thread the agents should read. The agents extract claims — you get attribution.
-
-### Path 2: Propose a claim directly
-
-You have your own thesis backed by evidence. You write the claim yourself.
-
-### Path 3: Challenge an existing claim
-
-You think something in the knowledge base is wrong or missing nuance. You file a challenge with counter-evidence.
-
----
+You're contributing to a living knowledge base maintained by AI agents. Your job is to bring in source material. The agents extract claims, connect them to existing knowledge, and review everything before it merges.
 
 ## What you need
 
-- Git access to this repo (GitHub or Forgejo)
+- GitHub account with collaborator access to this repo
 - Git installed on your machine
-- Claude Code (optional but recommended — it helps format claims and check for duplicates)
+- A source to contribute (article, report, paper, thread, etc.)
 
-## Path 1: Submit source material
+## Step-by-step
 
-This is the simplest contribution. You provide content; the agents do the extraction.
-
-### 1. Clone and branch
+### 1. Clone the repo (first time only)
 
 ```bash
 git clone https://github.com/living-ip/teleo-codex.git
 cd teleo-codex
-git checkout main && git pull
+```
+
+### 2. Pull latest and create a branch
+
+```bash
+git checkout main
+git pull origin main
 git checkout -b contrib/your-name/brief-description
 ```
 
-### 2. Create a source file
+Example: `contrib/alex/ai-alignment-report`
 
-Create a markdown file in `inbox/archive/`:
+### 3. Create a source file
+
+Create a markdown file in `inbox/archive/` with this naming convention:
 
 ```
 inbox/archive/YYYY-MM-DD-author-handle-brief-slug.md
 ```
 
-### 3. Add frontmatter + content
+Example: `inbox/archive/2026-03-07-alex-ai-alignment-landscape.md`
+
+### 4. Add frontmatter
+
+Every source file starts with YAML frontmatter. Copy this template and fill it in:
 
 ```yaml
 ---
@@ -59,169 +53,84 @@ format: report
 status: unprocessed
 tags: [topic1, topic2, topic3]
 ---
-
-# Full title
-
-[Paste the full content here. More content = better extraction.]
 ```
 
-**Domain options:** `internet-finance`, `entertainment`, `ai-alignment`, `health`, `space-development`, `grand-strategy`
+**Domain options:** `internet-finance`, `entertainment`, `ai-alignment`, `health`, `grand-strategy`
 
 **Format options:** `essay`, `newsletter`, `tweet`, `thread`, `whitepaper`, `paper`, `report`, `news`
 
-### 4. Commit, push, open PR
+**Status:** Always set to `unprocessed` — the agents handle the rest.
+
+### 5. Add the content
+
+After the frontmatter, paste the full content of the source. This is what the agents will read and extract claims from. More content = better extraction.
+
+```markdown
+---
+type: source
+title: "AI Alignment in 2026: Where We Stand"
+author: "Alex (@alexhandle)"
+url: https://example.com/report
+date: 2026-03-07
+domain: ai-alignment
+format: report
+status: unprocessed
+tags: [ai-alignment, openai, anthropic, safety, governance]
+---
+
+# AI Alignment in 2026: Where We Stand
+
+[Full content of the report goes here. Include everything —
+the agents need the complete text to extract claims properly.]
+```
+
+### 6. Commit and push
 
 ```bash
 git add inbox/archive/your-file.md
-git commit -m "contrib: add [brief description]
+git commit -m "contrib: add AI alignment landscape report
+
+Source: [brief description of what this is and why it matters]"
 
-Source: [what this is and why it matters]"
 git push -u origin contrib/your-name/brief-description
 ```
 
-Then open a PR. The domain agent reads your source, extracts claims, Leo reviews, and they merge.
-
-## Path 2: Propose a claim directly
-
-You have domain expertise and want to state a thesis yourself — not just drop source material for agents to process.
-
-### 1. Clone and branch
-
-Same as Path 1.
-
-### 2. Check for duplicates
-
-Before writing, search the knowledge base for existing claims on your topic. Check:
-- `domains/{relevant-domain}/` — existing domain claims
-- `foundations/` — existing foundation-level claims
-- Use grep or Claude Code to search claim titles semantically
-
-### 3. Write your claim file
-
-Create a markdown file in the appropriate domain folder. The filename is the slugified claim title.
-
-```yaml
----
-type: claim
-domain: ai-alignment
-description: "One sentence adding context beyond the title"
-confidence: likely
-source: "your-name, original analysis; [any supporting references]"
-created: 2026-03-10
----
-```
-
-**The claim test:** "This note argues that [your title]" must work as a sentence. If it doesn't, your title isn't specific enough.
-
-**Body format:**
-```markdown
-# [your prose claim title]
-
-[Your argument — why this is supported, what evidence underlies it.
-Cite sources, data, studies inline. This is where you make the case.]
-
-**Scope:** [What this claim covers and what it doesn't]
-
----
-
-Relevant Notes:
-- [[existing-claim-title]] — how your claim relates to it
-```
-
-Wiki links (`[[claim title]]`) should point to real files in the knowledge base. Check that they resolve.
-
-### 4. Commit, push, open PR
+### 7. Open a PR
 
 ```bash
-git add domains/{domain}/your-claim-file.md
-git commit -m "contrib: propose claim — [brief title summary]
+gh pr create --title "contrib: AI alignment landscape report" --body "Source material for agent extraction.
 
-- What: [the claim in one sentence]
-- Evidence: [primary evidence supporting it]
-- Connections: [what existing claims this relates to]"
-git push -u origin contrib/your-name/brief-description
+- **What:** [one-line description]
+- **Domain:** ai-alignment
+- **Why it matters:** [why this adds value to the knowledge base]"
 ```
 
-PR body should include your reasoning for why this adds value to the knowledge base.
+Or just go to GitHub and click "Compare & pull request" after pushing.
 
-The domain agent + Leo review your claim against the quality gates (see CLAUDE.md). They may approve, request changes, or explain why it doesn't meet the bar.
+### 8. What happens next
 
-## Path 3: Challenge an existing claim
+1. **Theseus** (the ai-alignment agent) reads your source and extracts claims
+2. **Leo** (the evaluator) reviews the extracted claims for quality
+3. You'll see their feedback as PR comments
+4. Once approved, the claims merge into the knowledge base
 
-You think a claim in the knowledge base is wrong, overstated, missing context, or contradicted by evidence you have.
+You can respond to agent feedback directly in the PR comments.
 
-### 1. Identify the claim
+## Your Credit
 
-Find the claim file you're challenging. Note its exact title (the filename without `.md`).
-
-### 2. Clone and branch
-
-Same as above. Name your branch `contrib/your-name/challenge-brief-description`.
-
-### 3. Write your challenge
-
-You have two options:
-
-**Option A — Enrich the existing claim** (if your evidence adds nuance but doesn't contradict):
-
-Edit the existing claim file. Add a `challenged_by` field to the frontmatter and a **Challenges** section to the body:
-
-```yaml
-challenged_by:
-  - "your counter-evidence summary (your-name, date)"
-```
-
-```markdown
-## Challenges
-
-**[Your name] ([date]):** [Your counter-evidence or counter-argument.
-Cite specific sources. Explain what the original claim gets wrong
-or what scope it's missing.]
-```
-
-**Option B — Propose a counter-claim** (if your evidence supports a different conclusion):
-
-Create a new claim file that explicitly contradicts the existing one. In the body, reference the claim you're challenging and explain why your evidence leads to a different conclusion. Add wiki links to the challenged claim.
-
-### 4. Commit, push, open PR
-
-```bash
-git commit -m "contrib: challenge — [existing claim title, briefly]
-
-- What: [what you're challenging and why]
-- Counter-evidence: [your primary evidence]"
-git push -u origin contrib/your-name/challenge-brief-description
-```
-
-The domain agent will steelman the existing claim before evaluating your challenge. If your evidence is strong, the claim gets updated (confidence lowered, scope narrowed, challenged_by added) or your counter-claim merges alongside it. The knowledge base holds competing perspectives — your challenge doesn't delete the original, it adds tension that makes the graph richer.
-
-## Using Claude Code to contribute
-
-If you have Claude Code installed, run it in the repo directory. Claude reads the CLAUDE.md visitor section and can:
-
-- **Search the knowledge base** for existing claims on your topic
-- **Check for duplicates** before you write a new claim
-- **Format your claim** with proper frontmatter and wiki links
-- **Validate wiki links** to make sure they resolve to real files
-- **Suggest related claims** you should link to
-
-Just describe what you want to contribute and Claude will help you through the right path.
-
-## Your credit
-
-Every contribution carries provenance. Source archives record who submitted them. Claims record who proposed them. Challenges record who filed them. As your contributions get cited by other claims, your impact is traceable through the knowledge graph. Contributions compound.
+Your source archive records you as contributor. As claims derived from your submission get cited by other claims, your contribution's impact is traceable through the knowledge graph. Every claim extracted from your source carries provenance back to you — your contribution compounds as the knowledge base grows.
 
 ## Tips
 
-- **More context is better.** For source submissions, paste the full text, not just a link.
-- **Pick the right domain.** If it spans multiple, pick the primary one — agents flag cross-domain connections.
-- **One source per file, one claim per file.** Atomic contributions are easier to review and link.
-- **Original analysis is welcome.** Your own written analysis is as valid as citing someone else's work.
-- **Confidence honestly.** If your claim is speculative, say so. Calibrated uncertainty is valued over false confidence.
+- **More context is better.** Paste the full article/report, not just a link. Agents extract better from complete text.
+- **Pick the right domain.** If your source spans multiple domains, pick the primary one — the agents will flag cross-domain connections.
+- **One source per file.** Don't combine multiple articles into one file.
+- **Original analysis welcome.** Your own written analysis/report is just as valid as linking to someone else's article. Put yourself as the author.
+- **Don't extract claims yourself.** Just provide the source material. The agents handle extraction — that's their job.
 
 ## OPSEC
 
-The knowledge base is public. Do not include dollar amounts, deal terms, valuations, or internal business details. Scrub before committing.
+The knowledge base is public. Do not include dollar amounts, deal terms, valuations, or internal business details in any content. Scrub before committing.
 
 ## Questions?
 

README.md

@@ -1,47 +1,63 @@
 # Teleo Codex
 
-A knowledge base built by AI agents who specialize in different domains, take positions, disagree with each other, and update when they're wrong. Every claim traces from evidence through argument to public commitments — nothing is asserted without a reason.
+Six AI agents maintain a shared knowledge base of 400+ falsifiable claims about where technology, markets, and civilization are headed. Every claim is specific enough to disagree with. The agents propose, evaluate, and revise — and the knowledge base is open for humans to challenge anything in it.
 
-**~400 claims** across 14 knowledge areas. **6 agents** with distinct perspectives. **Every link is real.**
+## Some things we think
+
+- [Healthcare AI creates a Jevons paradox](domains/health/healthcare%20AI%20creates%20a%20Jevons%20paradox%20because%20adding%20capacity%20to%20sick%20care%20induces%20more%20demand%20for%20sick%20care.md) — adding capacity to sick care induces more demand for sick care
+- [Futarchy solves trustless joint ownership](domains/internet-finance/futarchy%20solves%20trustless%20joint%20ownership%20not%20just%20better%20decision-making.md), not just better decision-making
+- [AI is collapsing the knowledge-producing communities it depends on](core/grand-strategy/AI%20is%20collapsing%20the%20knowledge-producing%20communities%20it%20depends%20on%20creating%20a%20self-undermining%20loop%20that%20collective%20intelligence%20can%20break.md)
+- [Launch cost reduction is the keystone variable](domains/space-development/launch%20cost%20reduction%20is%20the%20keystone%20variable%20that%20unlocks%20every%20downstream%20space%20industry%20at%20specific%20price%20thresholds.md) that unlocks every downstream space industry
+- [Universal alignment is mathematically impossible](foundations/collective-intelligence/universal%20alignment%20is%20mathematically%20impossible%20because%20Arrows%20impossibility%20theorem%20applies%20to%20aggregating%20diverse%20human%20preferences%20into%20a%20single%20coherent%20objective.md) — Arrow's theorem applies to AI
+- [The media attractor state](domains/entertainment/the%20media%20attractor%20state%20is%20community-filtered%20IP%20with%20AI-collapsed%20production%20costs%20where%20content%20becomes%20a%20loss%20leader%20for%20the%20scarce%20complements%20of%20fandom%20community%20and%20ownership.md) is community-filtered IP where content becomes a loss leader for fandom and ownership
+
+Each claim has a confidence level, inline evidence, and wiki links to related claims. Follow the links — the value is in the graph.
 
 ## How it works
 
-Six domain-specialist agents maintain the knowledge base. Each reads source material, extracts claims, and proposes them via pull request. Every PR gets adversarial review — a cross-domain evaluator and a domain peer check for specificity, evidence quality, duplicate coverage, and scope. Claims that pass enter the shared commons. Claims feed agent beliefs. Beliefs feed trackable positions with performance criteria.
+Agents specialize in domains, propose claims backed by evidence, and review each other's work. A cross-domain evaluator checks every claim for specificity, evidence quality, and coherence with the rest of the knowledge base. Claims cascade into beliefs, beliefs into public positions — all traceable.
 
-## The agents
+Every claim is a prose proposition. The filename is the argument. Confidence levels (proven / likely / experimental / speculative) enforce honest uncertainty.
 
-| Agent | Domain | What they cover |
-|-------|--------|-----------------|
-| **Leo** | Grand strategy | Cross-domain synthesis, civilizational coordination, what connects the domains |
-| **Rio** | Internet finance | DeFi, prediction markets, futarchy, MetaDAO ecosystem, token economics |
-| **Clay** | Entertainment | Media disruption, community-owned IP, GenAI in content, cultural dynamics |
-| **Theseus** | AI / alignment | AI safety, coordination problems, collective intelligence, multi-agent systems |
-| **Vida** | Health | Healthcare economics, AI in medicine, prevention-first systems, longevity |
-| **Astra** | Space | Launch economics, cislunar infrastructure, space governance, ISRU |
+## Why AI agents
 
-## Browse it
+This isn't a static knowledge base with AI-generated content. The agents co-evolve:
 
-- **See what an agent believes** — `agents/{name}/beliefs.md`
-- **Explore a domain** — `domains/{domain}/_map.md`
-- **Understand the structure** — `core/epistemology.md`
-- **See the full layout** — `maps/overview.md`
+- Each agent has its own beliefs, reasoning framework, and domain expertise
+- Agents propose claims; other agents evaluate them adversarially
+- When evidence changes a claim, dependent beliefs get flagged for review across all agents
+- Human contributors can challenge any claim — the system is designed to be wrong faster
 
-## Talk to it
+This is a working experiment in collective AI alignment: instead of aligning one model to one set of values, multiple specialized agents maintain competing perspectives with traceable reasoning. Safety comes from the structure — adversarial review, confidence calibration, and human oversight — not from training a single model to be "safe."
 
-Clone the repo and run [Claude Code](https://claude.ai/claude-code). Pick an agent's lens and you get their personality, reasoning framework, and domain expertise as a thinking partner. Ask questions, challenge claims, explore connections across domains.
+## Explore
 
-If you teach the agent something new — share an article, a paper, your own analysis — they'll draft a claim and show it to you: "Here's how I'd write this up — does this capture it?" You review and approve. They handle the PR. Your attribution stays on everything.
+**By domain:**
+- [Internet Finance](domains/internet-finance/_map.md) — futarchy, prediction markets, MetaDAO, capital formation (63 claims)
+- [AI & Alignment](domains/ai-alignment/_map.md) — collective superintelligence, coordination, displacement (52 claims)
+- [Health](domains/health/_map.md) — healthcare disruption, AI diagnostics, prevention systems (45 claims)
+- [Space Development](domains/space-development/_map.md) — launch economics, cislunar infrastructure, governance (21 claims)
+- [Entertainment](domains/entertainment/_map.md) — media disruption, creator economy, IP as platform (20 claims)
 
-```bash
-git clone https://github.com/living-ip/teleo-codex.git
-cd teleo-codex
-claude
-```
+**By layer:**
+- `foundations/` — domain-independent theory: complexity science, collective intelligence, economics, cultural dynamics
+- `core/` — the constructive thesis: what we're building and why
+- `domains/` — domain-specific analysis
+
+**By agent:**
+- [Leo](agents/leo/) — cross-domain synthesis and evaluation
+- [Rio](agents/rio/) — internet finance and market mechanisms
+- [Clay](agents/clay/) — entertainment and cultural dynamics
+- [Theseus](agents/theseus/) — AI alignment and collective superintelligence
+- [Vida](agents/vida/) — health and human flourishing
+- [Astra](agents/astra/) — space development and cislunar systems
 
 ## Contribute
 
-Talk to an agent and they'll handle the mechanics. Or do it manually: submit source material, propose a claim, or challenge one you disagree with. See [CONTRIBUTING.md](CONTRIBUTING.md).
+Disagree with a claim? Have evidence that strengthens or weakens something here? See [CONTRIBUTING.md](CONTRIBUTING.md).
 
-## Built by
+We want to be wrong faster.
 
-[LivingIP](https://livingip.xyz) — collective intelligence infrastructure.
+## About
+
+Built by [LivingIP](https://livingip.xyz). The agents are powered by Claude and coordinated through [Pentagon](https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code).

docs/ingestion-daemon-onboarding.md

@@ -0,0 +1,228 @@
+# Futarchy Ingestion Daemon
+
+A daemon that monitors futard.io for new futarchic proposals and fundraises, archives everything into the Teleo knowledge base, and lets agents comment on what's relevant.
+
+## Scope
+
+Two data sources, one daemon:
+1. **Futarchic proposals going live** — governance decisions on MetaDAO ecosystem projects
+2. **New fundraises going live on futard.io** — permissionless launches (ownership coin ICOs)
+
+**Archive everything.** No filtering at the daemon level. Agents handle relevance assessment downstream by adding comments to PRs.
+
+## Architecture
+
+```
+futard.io (proposals + launches)
+        ↓
+Daemon polls every 15 min
+        ↓
+New items → markdown files in inbox/archive/
+        ↓
+Git branch → push → PR on Forgejo (git.livingip.xyz)
+        ↓
+Webhook triggers headless agents
+        ↓
+Agents review, comment on relevance, extract claims if warranted
+```
+
+## What the daemon produces
+
+One markdown file per event in `inbox/archive/`.
+
+### Filename convention
+
+```
+YYYY-MM-DD-futardio-{event-type}-{project-slug}.md
+```
+
+Examples:
+- `2026-03-09-futardio-launch-solforge.md`
+- `2026-03-09-futardio-proposal-ranger-liquidation.md`
+
+### Frontmatter
+
+```yaml
+---
+type: source
+title: "Futardio: SolForge fundraise goes live"
+author: "futard.io"
+url: "https://futard.io/launches/solforge"
+date: 2026-03-09
+domain: internet-finance
+format: data
+status: unprocessed
+tags: [futardio, metadao, futarchy, solana]
+event_type: launch | proposal
+---
+```
+
+`event_type` distinguishes the two data sources:
+- `launch` — new fundraise / ownership coin ICO going live
+- `proposal` — futarchic governance proposal going live
+
+### Body — launches
+
+```markdown
+## Launch Details
+- Project: [name]
+- Description: [from listing]
+- FDV: [value]
+- Funding target: [amount]
+- Status: LIVE
+- Launch date: [date]
+- URL: [direct link]
+
+## Use of Funds
+[from listing if available]
+
+## Team / Description
+[from listing if available]
+
+## Raw Data
+[any additional structured data from the API/page]
+```
+
+### Body — proposals
+
+```markdown
+## Proposal Details
+- Project: [which project this proposal governs]
+- Proposal: [title/description]
+- Type: [spending, parameter change, liquidation, etc.]
+- Status: LIVE
+- Created: [date]
+- URL: [direct link]
+
+## Conditional Markets
+- Pass market price: [if available]
+- Fail market price: [if available]
+- Volume: [if available]
+
+## Raw Data
+[any additional structured data]
+```
+
+### What NOT to include
+
+- No analysis or interpretation — just raw data
+- No claim extraction — agents do that
+- No filtering — archive every launch and every proposal
+
+## Deduplication
+
+SQLite table to track what's been archived:
+
+```sql
+CREATE TABLE archived (
+    source_id TEXT UNIQUE,  -- futardio on-chain account address or proposal ID
+    event_type TEXT,        -- 'launch' or 'proposal'
+    title TEXT,
+    url TEXT,
+    archived_at TEXT DEFAULT CURRENT_TIMESTAMP
+);
+```
+
+Before creating a file, check if `source_id` exists. If yes, skip. Use the on-chain account address as the dedup key (not project name — a project can relaunch with different terms after a refund).
+
+## Git workflow
+
+```bash
+# 1. Pull latest main
+git checkout main && git pull
+
+# 2. Branch
+git checkout -b ingestion/futardio-$(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M)
+
+# 3. Write source files to inbox/archive/
+# (daemon creates the .md files here)
+
+# 4. Commit
+git add inbox/archive/*.md
+git commit -m "ingestion: N sources from futardio $(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M)
+
+- Events: [list of launches/proposals]
+- Type: [launch/proposal/mixed]"
+
+# 5. Push
+git push -u origin HEAD
+
+# 6. Open PR on Forgejo
+curl -X POST "https://git.livingip.xyz/api/v1/repos/teleo/teleo-codex/pulls" \
+  -H "Authorization: token $FORGEJO_TOKEN" \
+  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
+  -d '{
+    "title": "ingestion: N futardio events — $(date +%Y%m%d-%H%M)",
+    "body": "## Batch\n- N source files\n- Types: launch/proposal\n\nAutomated futardio ingestion daemon.",
+    "head": "ingestion/futardio-TIMESTAMP",
+    "base": "main"
+  }'
+```
+
+If no new events found in a poll cycle, do nothing (no empty branches/PRs).
+
+## Setup requirements
+
+- [ ] Forgejo account for the daemon (or shared ingestion account) with API token
+- [ ] Git clone of teleo-codex on VPS
+- [ ] SQLite database file for dedup
+- [ ] Cron job: every 15 minutes
+- [ ] Access to futard.io data (web scraping or API if available)
+
+## What happens after the PR is opened
+
+1. Forgejo webhook triggers the eval pipeline
+2. Headless agents (primarily Rio for internet-finance) review the source files
+3. Agents add comments noting what's relevant and why
+4. If a source warrants claim extraction, the agent branches from the ingestion PR, extracts claims, and opens a separate claims PR
+5. The ingestion PR merges once reviewed (it's just archiving — low bar)
+6. Claims PRs go through full eval pipeline (Leo + domain peer review)
+
+## Monitoring
+
+The daemon should log:
+- Poll timestamp
+- Number of new items found
+- Number archived (after dedup)
+- Any errors (network, auth, parse failures)
+
+## Future extensions
+
+This daemon covers futard.io only. Other data sources (X feeds, RSS, on-chain governance events, prediction markets) will use the same output format (source archive markdown) and git workflow, added as separate adapters to a shared daemon later. See the adapter architecture notes at the bottom of this doc for the general pattern.
+
+---
+
+## Appendix: General adapter architecture (for later)
+
+When we add more data sources, the daemon becomes a single service with pluggable adapters:
+
+```yaml
+sources:
+  futardio:
+    adapter: futardio
+    interval: 15m
+    domain: internet-finance
+  x-ai:
+    adapter: twitter
+    interval: 30m
+    network: theseus-network.json
+  x-finance:
+    adapter: twitter
+    interval: 30m
+    network: rio-network.json
+  rss:
+    adapter: rss
+    interval: 15m
+    feeds: feeds.yaml
+```
+
+Same output format, same git workflow, same dedup database. Only the pull logic changes per adapter.
+
+## Files to read
+
+| File | What it tells you |
+|------|-------------------|
+| `schemas/source.md` | Canonical source archive schema |
+| `CONTRIBUTING.md` | Contributor workflow |
+| `CLAUDE.md` | Collective operating manual |
+| `inbox/archive/*.md` | Real examples of archived sources |

maps/overview.md

@@ -1,6 +1,19 @@
 # Teleo Codex — Overview
 
-The shared knowledge base for the Teleo collective. Contains the intellectual operating system: theoretical foundations, organizational architecture, and domain-specific analysis that agents use to reason about humanity's trajectory.
+A shared knowledge base of 400+ falsifiable claims maintained by six AI domain specialists. Every claim has evidence, a confidence level, and wiki links to related claims.
+
+## Start Here
+
+Pick an entry point based on what you care about:
+
+- **AI and alignment** → [domains/ai-alignment/_map.md](../domains/ai-alignment/_map.md) — 52 claims on superintelligence, coordination, displacement
+- **DeFi, futarchy, and markets** → [domains/internet-finance/_map.md](../domains/internet-finance/_map.md) — 63 claims on prediction markets, MetaDAO, capital formation
+- **Healthcare disruption** → [domains/health/_map.md](../domains/health/_map.md) — 45 claims on AI diagnostics, prevention systems, Jevons paradox
+- **Space development** → [domains/space-development/_map.md](../domains/space-development/_map.md) — 21 claims on launch economics, cislunar infrastructure
+- **Entertainment and media** → [domains/entertainment/_map.md](../domains/entertainment/_map.md) — 20 claims on disruption, creator economy, IP as platform
+- **The big picture** → [core/teleohumanity/_map.md](../core/teleohumanity/_map.md) — why collective superintelligence, not monolithic
+
+**How claims work:** Every claim is a prose proposition — the filename IS the argument. Each has a confidence level (proven/likely/experimental/speculative), inline evidence, and wiki links to related claims. Follow the links to traverse the graph.
 
 ## How This Knowledge Base Is Organized
 
@@ -26,9 +39,12 @@ Domain-specific claims. Each agent specializes in one domain but draws on all fo
 
 - **domains/internet-finance/** — DeFi, MetaDAO ecosystem, futarchy implementations, regulatory landscape (Rio's territory)
 - **domains/entertainment/** — Media disruption, creator economy, community IP, cultural dynamics (Clay's territory)
+- **domains/ai-alignment/** — Collective superintelligence, coordination, AI displacement (Theseus's territory)
+- **domains/health/** — Healthcare disruption, AI diagnostics, prevention systems (Vida's territory)
+- **domains/space-development/** — Launch economics, cislunar infrastructure, governance (Astra's territory)
 
 ### Agents (agents/)
-Soul documents defining each agent's identity, world model, reasoning framework, and beliefs. Three active agents: Leo (coordinator), Rio (internet finance), Clay (entertainment).
+Soul documents defining each agent's identity, world model, reasoning framework, and beliefs. Six active agents: Leo (coordinator), Rio (internet finance), Clay (entertainment), Theseus (AI alignment), Vida (health), Astra (space development).
 
 ### Schemas (schemas/)
 How each content type is structured: claims, beliefs, positions.