teleo-codex/schemas/belief.md

Belief Schema

Beliefs are an agent's interpretation of the claims landscape — worldview premises that shape how the agent evaluates new information. Beliefs are per-agent and cite the shared claims that support them.

Belief Hierarchy

Beliefs exist at four levels of commitment. The level determines evidence requirements, cascade impact, and what transitions mean diagnostically.

Level	What it means	Min claims	Cascade impact	Diagnostic signal
axiom	Load-bearing. Would restructure worldview if wrong. Agent's existential premises.	5+	Full cascade: positions re-evaluated, dependent beliefs flagged, public acknowledgment required	An axiom changing is a major event — equivalent to an agent identity shift
belief	High confidence, actively grounded. Shapes reasoning and evaluation.	3+	Standard cascade: dependent positions flagged, counter-evidence acknowledged	Normal KB evolution. Most agent reasoning operates here
hypothesis	Promising pattern, insufficient evidence. Actively being tested.	1+	No cascade — nothing should depend on a hypothesis yet	Research priority signal: hypotheses are where evidence-gathering should focus
unconvinced	Aware of the argument, explicitly not buying it. Tracking for re-evaluation.	0 (records the argument and why it's rejected)	No cascade	Intellectual map: shows what the agent has considered and rejected, and what evidence would change their mind

Axioms vs. Convictions

Axioms (belief hierarchy) and convictions (schemas/conviction.md) are different things:

• Axiom: An agent's highest-commitment belief, grounded in 5+ claims, subject to eval review. Earned through evidence accumulation.
• Conviction: A founder-staked assertion that bypasses review. Enters the KB on reputation alone.

An agent can cite a conviction in their belief grounding, and an agent's axiom might align with a founder conviction — but they're independently maintained. A conviction can be wrong without the axiom falling (if the axiom has independent claim support), and vice versa.

Why the hierarchy matters

The hierarchy is diagnostic infrastructure, not just taxonomy. It answers:

• Where is the agent's reasoning fragile? Axioms with weakening claims are existential risks.
• Where should research focus? Hypotheses are the frontier — they need evidence.
• What has the agent rejected? Unconvinced items show the boundary of the worldview.
• What's load-bearing vs. exploratory? Axioms and beliefs drive positions; hypotheses and unconvinced items are the agent's intellectual periphery.

Transitions go through eval

Every transition between levels is a reviewable PR event:

Transition	What it means	Review focus
unconvinced → hypothesis	"I'm now taking this seriously enough to test"	Is the reasoning for reconsidering sound?
hypothesis → belief	"Evidence is now sufficient to ground reasoning on this"	Are 3+ claims genuinely supporting? Are challenges addressed?
belief → axiom	"This is now load-bearing for my worldview"	Is 5+ claim grounding strong? Is the agent aware of what breaks if this is wrong?
belief → hypothesis	"Evidence has weakened — demoting to active testing"	What changed? Are dependent positions flagged?
belief → unconvinced	"I no longer buy this"	What counter-evidence drove the change? Cascade check.
axiom → belief	"Still believe this, but it's not existential anymore"	What reduced the stakes? Position dependencies?
Any → abandoned	"This is no longer relevant to track"	Clean removal from active reasoning

The eval pipeline reviews transitions for: evidence quality, cascade completeness, intellectual honesty (is the agent acknowledging what changed and why?).

YAML Frontmatter

---
type: belief
agent: leo | rio | clay | theseus | vida | astra
domain: internet-finance | entertainment | health | ai-alignment | space-development | grand-strategy
description: "one sentence capturing this belief's role in the agent's worldview"
level: axiom | belief | hypothesis | unconvinced
confidence: strong | moderate | developing  # retained for backward compatibility within a level
depends_on: []  # claims from the shared knowledge base (min varies by level)
created: YYYY-MM-DD
last_evaluated: YYYY-MM-DD
status: active | under_review | revised | abandoned
promoted_from: null  # previous level, if this was promoted (e.g., "hypothesis")
promoted_date: null  # when the transition happened
---

Required Fields

Field	Type	Description
type	enum	Always belief
agent	enum	Which agent holds this belief
domain	enum	Primary domain
description	string	This belief's role in the agent's worldview
level	enum	axiom, belief, hypothesis, unconvinced
depends_on	list	Claims from shared KB. Minimum varies by level (see hierarchy table)
created	date	When first adopted at any level
last_evaluated	date	When last reviewed against current evidence
status	enum	active, under_review (flagged by cascade), revised, abandoned

Optional Fields

Field	Type	Description
confidence	enum	strong, moderate, developing — finer grain within a level. Retained for backward compatibility
promoted_from	string	Previous level if this belief was promoted (creates an audit trail)
promoted_date	date	When the last level transition occurred
demoted_from	string	Previous level if this belief was demoted
demoted_date	date	When demotion occurred
promotion_evidence	string	What new evidence or reasoning triggered the transition

Governance

• Ownership: Beliefs belong to individual agents. The agent has final say on their own beliefs.
• All transitions go through eval: Level changes (promotion, demotion, abandonment) are PR events reviewed by Leo + domain peer. The PR must explain what evidence changed and why the transition is warranted.
• Challenge process: Any agent or contributor can challenge a belief by presenting counter-evidence. The owning agent must re-evaluate (cannot ignore challenges).
• Cascade trigger: When a claim in depends_on changes confidence, this belief is flagged under_review. For axioms, this is a priority review.
• Cross-agent review: Other agents review for cross-domain implications but cannot force a belief change.
• Leo's role: Reviews for consistency with shared knowledge base and cross-domain coherence. Does not override agent beliefs but can flag tensions.

Body Format by Level

Axiom

# [belief statement as prose]

[Why this is load-bearing — what in the agent's worldview breaks if this is wrong]

## Grounding
- [[claim-1]] — what this claim contributes
- [[claim-2]] — what this claim contributes
- [[claim-3]] — what this claim contributes
- [[claim-4]] — what this claim contributes
- [[claim-5]] — what this claim contributes
[5+ claims required]

## What Breaks If Wrong
[Explicit description of which beliefs, positions, and reasoning chains collapse if this axiom is invalidated. This is the diagnostic value — it maps the blast radius.]

## Challenges Considered
[Counter-arguments the agent has evaluated and responded to. Axioms must address at least 2 challenges.]

## Cascade Dependencies
Positions that depend on this axiom:
- [[position-1]]
- [[position-2]]

Beliefs that depend on this axiom:
- [[belief-1]]

## Promotion History
- **Entered as:** [level] on [date]
- **Promoted to axiom:** [date] — [what evidence/reasoning triggered promotion]

---

Topics:
- [[agent-name beliefs]]

Belief (standard)

# [belief statement as prose]

[Why the agent holds this belief — the argued reasoning chain from claims to interpretation]

## Grounding
- [[claim-1]] — what this claim contributes to this belief
- [[claim-2]] — what this claim contributes
- [[claim-3]] — what this claim contributes
[3+ claims required]

## Challenges Considered
[Counter-arguments the agent has evaluated and responded to]

## Cascade Dependencies
Positions that depend on this belief:
- [[position-1]]
- [[position-2]]

---

Topics:
- [[agent-name beliefs]]

Hypothesis

# [belief statement as prose]

[Why the agent thinks this is worth testing — what pattern or evidence prompted it]

## Initial Evidence
- [[claim-1]] — what suggests this might be true
[1+ claim, or a source reference if no claim exists yet]

## What Would Promote This
[Specific evidence that would move this to belief level. This is the research agenda.]

## What Would Kill This
[Specific evidence that would move this to unconvinced or abandoned]

---

Topics:
- [[agent-name beliefs]]

Unconvinced

# [belief statement as prose — stated as the argument being rejected]

[The strongest version of the argument — steelman before rejecting]

## Why Unconvinced
[Specific reasoning for not accepting this. What evidence is missing, what mechanism doesn't hold, what counter-evidence exists]

## What Would Change My Mind
[Specific evidence or events that would promote this to hypothesis. This is crucial — it shows the agent isn't dogmatically closed.]

## Sources of the Argument
- [[claim-or-source-1]] — where this argument appears
[Can reference claims, sources, or other agents' beliefs]

---

Topics:
- [[agent-name beliefs]]

Quality Checks by Level

All levels

1. Each cited claim actually exists in the knowledge base
2. Agent has specified what would change their mind
3. Level transition history is documented (if applicable)

Axiom (additional)

4. Minimum 5 claims cited in depends_on
5. "What Breaks If Wrong" section is explicit and complete
6. At least 2 challenges addressed
7. Cascade dependencies (positions + downstream beliefs) are listed

Belief (additional)

4. Minimum 3 claims cited in depends_on
5. Reasoning chain from claims to belief is explicit and walkable
6. At least 1 challenge addressed
7. Cascade dependencies are accurate

Hypothesis (additional)

4. At least 1 claim or source referenced
5. "What Would Promote" and "What Would Kill" sections are specific

Unconvinced (additional)

4. The argument is steelmanned before rejection
5. "What Would Change My Mind" is specific and honest (not "nothing")

Migration from Current Format

Existing beliefs in agents/{name}/beliefs.md are assumed to be level: belief unless the agent explicitly promotes them. The numbered beliefs in current files (Belief 1, Belief 2, etc.) should be evaluated for axiom status — particularly each agent's Belief 1, which was designed as their existential premise.

Migration is not urgent. Agents adopt the hierarchy as they naturally re-evaluate beliefs. The first axiom promotions will be the most scrutinized reviews, setting the quality bar for the collective.