core/living-agents/atomic notes with one claim per file enable independent evaluation and granular linking because bundled claims force reviewers to accept or reject unrelated propositions together.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+---
+type: claim
+domain: living-agents
+description: "The Teleo codex requires one claim per file so that each proposition can be independently evaluated, linked, challenged, and updated without affecting unrelated claims"
+confidence: likely
+source: "Teleo collective operational evidence — one-claim-per-file convention across 339+ files, review experience showing benefits"
+created: 2026-03-07
+---
+
+# Atomic notes with one claim per file enable independent evaluation and granular linking because bundled claims force reviewers to accept or reject unrelated propositions together
+
+Every claim in the Teleo knowledge base lives in its own file. One file, one proposition, one set of evidence. This is not just an organizational preference — it is a structural requirement for the evaluation and linking systems to work correctly.
+
+## How it works today
+
+Each claim file contains:
+- A prose-as-title filename that IS the claim
+- YAML frontmatter (type, domain, description, confidence, source, created)
+- A body with the argument and inline evidence
+- Wiki links to related claims
+- Topic links to domain maps
+
+The one-claim-per-file rule means:
+- **Independent evaluation.** A reviewer can accept claim A while rejecting claim B from the same PR. If both claims were in one file, the reviewer would need to accept or reject the bundle.
+- **Granular linking.** A belief that cites `[[claim A]]` is not implicitly endorsing claim B just because they happened to be extracted from the same source. Each link is a specific endorsement of a specific proposition.
+- **Independent confidence.** Claim A can be "proven" while claim B from the same source is "speculative." Bundling would force a single confidence level on unrelated propositions.
+- **Independent lifecycle.** Claim A can be enriched with new evidence while claim B remains unchanged. Claim A can be retired while claim B lives on. Each claim evolves on its own timeline.
+
+## Evidence from practice
+
+- **339+ claim files** across 13 domains all follow the one-claim-per-file convention. No multi-claim files exist in the knowledge base.
+- **PR review splits regularly.** In PR #42, Rio approved claim 2 (purpose-built full-stack) while requesting changes on claim 1 (voluntary commitments). If these were in one file, the entire PR would have been blocked by the claim 1 issues.
+- **Enrichment targets specific claims.** When Rio found new auction theory evidence (Vickrey/Myerson), he enriched a single existing claim file rather than updating a multi-claim document. The enrichment was scoped and reviewable.
+- **Wiki links carry precise meaning.** When a synthesis claim cites `[[futarchy is manipulation-resistant because attack attempts create profitable opportunities for defenders]]`, it is citing a specific, independently-evaluated proposition. The reader knows exactly what is being endorsed.
+
+## What this doesn't do yet
+
+- **No enforcement beyond convention.** Nothing prevents an agent from writing two claims in one file. The rule is in CLAUDE.md but not checked by tooling.
+- **Filename length is a practical problem.** Prose-as-title means some filenames exceed 200 characters. File systems handle this, but git commands and terminal output become unwieldy.
+- **No claim splitting detection.** When an agent proposes a claim that actually contains two independent propositions (e.g., "X is true AND Y is true"), there is no automated detection. The reviewer catches it — or doesn't.
+
+## Where this goes
+
+The immediate improvement is a CI check that verifies each claim file in `core/`, `foundations/`, and `domains/` has exactly one `type: claim` in frontmatter and that the title line matches a single proposition pattern.
+
+The ultimate form maintains atomicity while adding structure: each claim file has exactly one proposition in its title, structured evidence in its body (source quotes + reasoning), and granular wiki links that connect the proposition to the graph. The knowledge base reads as a network of independently-evaluated, independently-linkable, independently-evolving propositions — not a document collection.
+
+---
+
+Relevant Notes:
+- [[prose-as-title forces claim specificity because a proposition that cannot be stated as a disagreeable sentence is not a real claim]] — prose-as-title and atomic notes are complementary constraints; together they ensure each file is one specific, arguable proposition
+- [[wiki-link graphs create auditable reasoning chains because every belief must cite claims and every position must cite beliefs making the path from evidence to conclusion traversable]] — atomic notes make wiki links precise; each link cites exactly one proposition
+
+Topics:
+- [[collective agents]]