88f5d58b1f
* Auto: core/living-agents/adversarial PR review produces higher quality knowledge than self-review because separated proposer and evaluator roles catch errors that the originating agent cannot see.md | 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+) * Auto: core/living-agents/prose-as-title forces claim specificity because a proposition that cannot be stated as a disagreeable sentence is not a real claim.md | 1 file changed, 61 insertions(+) * Auto: core/living-agents/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.md | 1 file changed, 56 insertions(+) * Auto: core/living-agents/domain specialization with cross-domain synthesis produces better collective intelligence than generalist agents because specialists build deeper knowledge while a dedicated synthesizer finds connections they cannot see from within their territory.md | 1 file changed, 63 insertions(+) * Auto: core/living-agents/confidence calibration with four levels enforces honest uncertainty because proven requires strong evidence while speculative explicitly signals theoretical status.md | 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+) * Auto: core/living-agents/source archiving with extraction provenance creates a complete audit trail from raw input to knowledge base output because every source records what was extracted and by whom.md | 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+) * Auto: core/living-agents/git trailers on a shared account solve multi-agent attribution because Pentagon-Agent headers in commit objects survive platform migration while GitHub-specific metadata does not.md | 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+) * Auto: core/living-agents/human-in-the-loop at the architectural level means humans set direction and approve structure while agents handle extraction synthesis and routine evaluation.md | 1 file changed, 67 insertions(+) * Auto: core/living-agents/musings as pre-claim exploratory space let agents develop ideas without quality gate pressure because seeds that never mature are information not waste.md | 1 file changed, 52 insertions(+) * Auto: 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 | 1 file changed, 55 insertions(+) * leo: 10 architecture-as-claims — documenting how the Teleo collective works - What: 10 new claims in core/living-agents/ documenting the operational methodology of the Teleo collective as falsifiable claims, not instructions - Why: The repo should document itself using its own format. Each claim grounds in evidence from 43 merged PRs, clearly separates what works today from what's planned, and identifies immediate improvements. - Claims cover: PR review, prose-as-title, wiki-link graphs, domain specialization, confidence calibration, source archiving, git trailers, human-in-the-loop governance, musings, atomic notes - This is Leo proposing about core/ — requires 2 domain agent reviews + Rhea Pentagon-Agent: Leo <76FB9BCA-CC16-4479-B3E5-25A3769B3D7E> Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> * leo: address review feedback from Rhea, Theseus, Rio on PR #44 - Rhea: added structured author field to source archiving claim, fixed ghost email format to {id}@agents.livingip.ghost, added CI-as-enforcement as intermediate step before Forgejo ACLs - Rio: fixed wiki link evidence (was not branch-timing, was nonexistent), corrected OPSEC timeline (rule came after files were written), fixed Doppler null-result (announcement article not whitepaper), removed duplicate Calypso/Vida reference Pentagon-Agent: Leo <76FB9BCA-CC16-4479-B3E5-25A3769B3D7E> Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com> --------- Co-authored-by: Claude Opus 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
61 lines
4.8 KiB
Markdown
61 lines
4.8 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
type: claim
|
|
domain: living-agents
|
|
description: "The Teleo codex requires every claim title to be a full prose proposition that passes the test 'This note argues that [title]' — this constraint has demonstrably filtered vague claims and forced sharpening across 339+ claim files"
|
|
confidence: likely
|
|
source: "Teleo collective operational evidence — Ars Contexta design methodology applied across 339+ claims"
|
|
created: 2026-03-07
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Prose-as-title forces claim specificity because a proposition that cannot be stated as a disagreeable sentence is not a real claim
|
|
|
|
Every claim in the Teleo knowledge base has a title that IS the claim — a full prose proposition, not a label or topic name. This is the simplest and most effective quality gate in the system. If you cannot state the claim as a sentence someone could disagree with, it is not specific enough to enter the knowledge base.
|
|
|
|
## How it works today
|
|
|
|
The claim test is: "This note argues that [title]" must work as a grammatically correct sentence that makes an arguable assertion. This is checked during extraction (by the proposing agent) and again during review (by Leo).
|
|
|
|
Examples of titles that pass:
|
|
- "futarchy is manipulation-resistant because attack attempts create profitable opportunities for defenders"
|
|
- "one year of outperformance is insufficient evidence to distinguish alpha from leveraged beta"
|
|
- "healthcare AI creates a Jevons paradox because adding capacity to sick care induces more demand for sick care"
|
|
|
|
Examples of what gets rejected:
|
|
- "futarchy manipulation resistance" — this is a label, not a claim
|
|
- "AI in healthcare" — this is a topic, not a proposition
|
|
- "token launch mechanisms" — no assertion, nothing to disagree with
|
|
|
|
The constraint propagates through the system. Because titles are propositions, wiki links between claims carry semantic weight: `[[futarchy is manipulation-resistant because...]]` in surrounding prose reads as a citation of a specific argument, not a pointer to a topic. This makes the knowledge graph navigable by reading, not just by following links.
|
|
|
|
## Evidence from practice
|
|
|
|
Across 339+ claim files and 43 merged PRs, the prose-as-title constraint has:
|
|
|
|
1. **Forced splitting of vague claims.** When a proposer tries to write "AI will change healthcare," the title test forces them to specify WHICH change, WHAT mechanism, and WHY — often producing 3-5 specific claims from what started as one vague one.
|
|
|
|
2. **Made the knowledge base searchable by reading.** An agent encountering a wiki link can understand the cited claim's argument without opening the file. This is critical for cross-domain synthesis — Leo can read a chain of wiki links and understand the reasoning path.
|
|
|
|
3. **Created a natural duplicate detector.** Two claims with nearly identical prose titles are obviously duplicates. Two claims with label-style titles ("AI healthcare" and "healthcare AI") could be the same claim or completely different ones.
|
|
|
|
4. **Enabled the description field to add value.** Because the title carries the core proposition, the `description` field in frontmatter adds context beyond the title — methodology, scope, domain-specific framing. If titles were labels, descriptions would just restate what the note is "about."
|
|
|
|
## What this doesn't do yet
|
|
|
|
- **No automated title validation.** The prose-as-title test is applied by agents during extraction and review. There is no CI check or linter that verifies titles are propositions rather than labels.
|
|
- **Title length varies widely.** Some titles are concise ("coin price is the fairest objective function for asset futarchy") while others are long clauses. No guidance exists on optimal title length.
|
|
- **Filename slugification is inconsistent.** The mapping from prose title to filename slug is not standardized — some use hyphens, some use spaces, capitalization varies.
|
|
|
|
## Where this goes
|
|
|
|
The immediate improvement is a simple CI check: does the title contain a verb? Does it pass basic sentence structure? This catches the worst offenders (pure labels) without requiring NLP sophistication.
|
|
|
|
The ultimate form combines prose-as-title with structured evidence: every claim title is a disagreeable proposition, every claim body traces the evidence chain from source quotes through reasoning to the title's conclusion, and the graph of wiki-linked propositions is traversable as a connected argument, not just a linked directory.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
Relevant Notes:
|
|
- [[collaborative knowledge infrastructure requires separating the versioning problem from the knowledge evolution problem because git solves file history but not semantic disagreement or insight-level attribution]] — prose-as-title addresses the semantic layer that git alone cannot
|
|
- [[cross-domain knowledge connections generate disproportionate value because most insights are siloed]] — prose titles make cross-domain links readable without opening files
|
|
|
|
Topics:
|
|
- [[collective agents]]
|