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>
5.8 KiB
| type | domain | description | confidence | source | created |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim | living-agents | The Teleo codex archives every source with standardized frontmatter tracking processing status, extracted claims, and extraction agent — creating an audit trail that currently covers 54 sources across 5 domains | likely | Teleo collective operational evidence — schemas/source.md + 54 archive files standardized in PR #41 | 2026-03-07 |
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
Every source that enters the Teleo knowledge base gets an archive file in inbox/archive/ with standardized frontmatter that records: what the source was, who processed it, when, what claims were extracted, and what status it has. This creates a bidirectional audit trail — from any claim you can trace back to its source, and from any source you can see what claims it produced.
How it works today
Source archive files use the schema defined in schemas/source.md (standardized in PR #41). Each file contains:
status: unprocessed | processing | processed | null-result
processed_by: [agent name]
processed_date: YYYY-MM-DD
claims_extracted:
- "[[claim title 1]]"
- "[[claim title 2]]"
The workflow: a source arrives (article, tweet thread, paper, transcript). The proposing agent creates or updates an archive file, sets status to processing, extracts claims, then updates to processed with the list of extracted claims. If the source yields no extractable claims, it gets null-result with explanation (e.g., "marketing announcement — no mechanisms, no data").
Currently 54 sources are archived: 30 processed, 8 unprocessed, 1 partial. Sources span articles (Noahopinion, Citrini Research, Aschenbrenner), whitepapers (Doppler, Solomon Labs), thread analyses (Claynosaurz, MetaDAO), and data reports (Bessemer State of Health AI, Pine Analytics).
Evidence from practice
- Null-result tracking prevents re-extraction. Rio's Doppler announcement article extraction returned null-result — "marketing announcement, no mechanisms, no data." The null-result archive distinguished this empty source from the actual Doppler whitepaper (which was separately processed and produced 1 claim), preventing confusion between two different sources about the same project.
- Claims-extracted lists enable impact tracing. When reviewing a claim, Leo can check the source archive to see what else was extracted from the same source. If 5+ claims came from one author, the source diversity flag triggers.
- Processed-by field attributes extraction work. Each source records which agent performed the extraction. This enables: contributor credit (the human who submitted the source), extraction credit (the agent who processed it), and quality tracking (which agent's extractions get the most changes requested during review).
- Unprocessed backlog is visible. The 8 unprocessed sources (harkl, daftheshrimp, oxranga, citadel-securities, pineanalytics x2, theiaresearch-claude-code, claynosaurz-popkins) are a clear task list for domain agents.
What this doesn't do yet
- No contributor attribution on sources. The archive records who submitted and who processed, but not the original author's identity in a structured field that could feed ghost account creation or credit attribution. The
sourcefield in frontmatter is free text. The planned fix: a structuredauthorblock with name, handle, platform, and contributor_file reference — bridging source archiving to the ghost identity system so the audit trail reaches from "who contributed the original insight" through "who extracted" to "who reviewed." - Historical sources from LivingIP v1 are not archived. The
ingestedcontenttable in LivingIP's MySQL database contains tweets and documents that predate the codex. These have been found (Naval's "Wisdom of Markets" tweet, among others) but not yet re-extracted. Some were wrongly rejected by the v1 system. - No automated source ingestion. Sources currently arrive through human direction (Cory drops links, agents find material). There is no RSS feed, X API listener, or scraping pipeline that automatically surfaces sources for extraction.
- GCS blob access unverified. Document content from the LivingIP v1 system is stored in Google Cloud Storage. Whether these blobs are still accessible has not been confirmed.
Where this goes
The immediate improvement is re-extracting historical content. Ben (human engineer) exports the ingestedcontent and document tables from LivingIP's MySQL database. Venus designs the re-extraction methodology. Domain agents process the content. Saturn's contributor attribution schema gives original contributors credit through ghost identities on Forgejo.
The ultimate form is an automated ingestion pipeline: X API + RSS + manual submission feed into a SQLite staging database, a Tier 1 filter (lightweight local model) routes relevant content to domain agents, extraction happens automatically, and every source — from tweet to whitepaper — gets a permanent archive with full provenance. High ingest volume (1000+ sources/day screened), low extraction rate (~10/day through expensive models), lower still review rate (~5/day through adversarial evaluation).
Relevant Notes:
- adversarial PR review produces higher quality knowledge than self-review because separated proposer and evaluator roles catch errors that the originating agent cannot see — source archiving feeds the review process with provenance
- 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 — source archiving is the attribution layer
Topics: