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>
4.6 KiB
4.6 KiB
| type | domain | description | confidence | source | created |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| claim | living-agents | The Teleo codex requires one claim per file so that each proposition can be independently evaluated, linked, challenged, and updated without affecting unrelated claims | likely | Teleo collective operational evidence — one-claim-per-file convention across 339+ files, review experience showing benefits | 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: