{
  "before_service": {
    "ActiveState": "active",
    "ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Mon 2026-07-13 09:45:35 UTC",
    "MainPID": "3166667",
    "NRestarts": "0",
    "SubState": "running"
  },
  "changed_live_profile": false,
  "db_counts_after": {
    "kb_stage.kb_proposals": 26,
    "public.claim_edges": 4916,
    "public.claim_evidence": 4670,
    "public.claims": 1837,
    "public.sources": 4145
  },
  "db_counts_before": {
    "kb_stage.kb_proposals": 26,
    "public.claim_edges": 4916,
    "public.claim_evidence": 4670,
    "public.claims": 1837,
    "public.sources": 4145
  },
  "db_counts_changed": false,
  "generated_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:58:46.915495+00:00",
  "handler": {
    "authorized": true,
    "session_key": "agent:main:telegram:group:-5146042086:9070919",
    "temp_profile": "/tmp/leo-direct-claim-handler-a7u4697i/profile"
  },
  "harness_notes": [
    "Unchanged five-prompt canary after source-intake and mixed-packet truth repair.",
    "The harness uses a temporary copy of the leoclean profile and does not post to Telegram.",
    "This proves handler-level live VPS GatewayRunner behavior, not human-visible Telegram delivery."
  ],
  "mode": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile_m3taversal_targeted_post_intake_composition_repair",
  "mutates_kb_by_harness": false,
  "pass_runtime": true,
  "posted_to_telegram": false,
  "remote_report_path": "/tmp/leo-m3taversal-oos-targeted-post-intake-composition-repair-7c6133bb83bf.json",
  "remote_returncode": 0,
  "remote_run_id": "7c6133bb83bf",
  "results": [
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "partner_demo_claim_ceiling",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:59:06.087297+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "Three changes have reviewer approval and the partner demo starts in an hour. Can I honestly say the knowledge database is updated? Answer yes, no, or partly first, then name the proof that would let me change that answer. Do not apply anything.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-04",
      "reply": "No.\n\nAll three approved proposals have applied_at: - (null). None have been written to the canonical database. Reviewer approval is intent, not apply.\n\nThe proof that changes the answer:\n\nFor each of the three proposals (14fa5ecc, ac036c9d, a64df080) \u2014 a non-null applied_at timestamp in kb_proposals plus row-level postflight confirmation (matching claim/evidence/edge counts or specific row IDs) after a strict apply payload is built, reviewed, the production worker is confirmed active, and an authorized apply transaction commits.\n\nRight now you cannot honestly say the KB is updated. You can honestly say three changes have reviewer approval and are staged.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:58:47.434325+00:00",
      "turn": 1
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "shared_claims_agent_positions",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:59:18.522231+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "Two agents read the same evidence and reach different conclusions. Should Leo duplicate the factual claim once per agent, or keep shared knowledge and represent agent-specific positions elsewhere? Give the current-schema answer and how disagreement remains queryable. Do not write anything.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-11",
      "reply": "Current-schema answer: keep the factual claim once, represent agent positions separately.\n\nThe schema separates these cleanly:\n\n- public.claims holds the shared factual assertion once, with public.claim_evidence linking it to public.sources. Duplicating the claim per agent would corrupt provenance and make evidence joins ambiguous.\n\n- public.beliefs holds agent-owned positions. Each row carries id, agent_id, level, statement, confidence, falsifier, rank, status, created_at, updated_at. Two agents disagreeing means two rows in public.beliefs \u2014 same or different statements, different agent_id, different confidence or falsifier \u2014 both pointing implicitly at the shared domain, but beliefs have no claim-ID foreign key.\n\n- public.claim_edges connects claims to claims (supports, challenges, contradicts, etc.), not belief rows. So the structural relationship between claims stays in the claim graph; agent disagreement lives in the belief table.\n\nDisagreement remains queryable by:\n\n1. Querying public.beliefs WHERE agent_id IN ('leo', 'theseus') and comparing statement or confidence on the same subject \u2014 divergence is visible in the rows.\n2. A contradicts or challenges edge between two claims in public.claim_edges surfaces structural tension at the claim level, independent of which agent holds which position.\n3. The divergence formalization path (schemas/divergence.md per identity) is the governed escalation when a belief-level gap becomes a real cross-domain dispute requiring formal record.\n\nWhat the schema cannot currently do: there is no belief-to-claim foreign key, so you cannot join beliefs directly to the evidence that grounds the shared claim. That linkage lives in the reviewer's reasoning or in a proposal rationale, not in a queryable column.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:59:06.087641+00:00",
      "turn": 2
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "runtime_vs_canonical_causality",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:59:29.280173+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "The five database totals are unchanged after a restart. Does that prove Leo's answer behavior is unchanged and that every fact from the prior session was erased? Explain which persisted and deployed surfaces can affect the answer, and separate the proof tiers. Read-only; keep it under 180 words.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-10",
      "reply": "No to both.\n\nUnchanged totals prove row counts are stable. They do not prove behavior is unchanged or that prior session facts were erased.\n\nProof tiers:\n\nTier 1 \u2014 what unchanged totals actually prove:\nclaims, sources, claim_edges, claim_evidence, kb_proposals counts are identical. No net insertions or deletions occurred. Individual rows could have been mutated; totals would not catch it.\n\nTier 2 \u2014 surfaces that persist across restart and can affect answer behavior:\n- Runtime memory (injected every turn) \u2014 carries procedural preferences, environment facts, corrections. Survives restart by design.\n- Skills \u2014 loaded on demand; contain instructions that shape responses. Unchanged by restart.\n- Hermes profile config and SOUL.md render \u2014 authoritative identity context, reloaded each session.\n- Session JSONL and state.db \u2014 can preserve continuity depending on Hermes restart path.\n\nTier 3 \u2014 surfaces that do not persist:\n- In-context chat history from the prior session is gone after restart.\n- Any claim staged only in chat and never written to a proposal is gone.\n\nBottom line: DB totals prove canonical storage stability only. Behavior is shaped by memory, skills, and profile config \u2014 none of which the totals touch.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:59:18.522623+00:00",
      "turn": 3
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "autonomous_source_intake_boundary",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:59:43.108906+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "I hand Leo a document and say: absorb this as far as safely possible without making me approve every mechanical step. What can Leo capture and stage immediately, what real source identity must be retained, and where does explicit approval begin? Explain only; do not ingest this prompt.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-14",
      "reply": "Three zones, cleanly separated.\n\nWhat Leo can do immediately without per-step approval:\n\nRead and parse the document, extract candidate claims, identify potential evidence links and edges, draft source metadata, and assemble all of that into a structured pending_review proposal packet. One approval gates the whole bundle, not each mechanical extraction step.\n\nWhat real source identity must be retained in that packet:\n\nA retained artifact (file on disk or storage path), a URL or content hash, and captured_at. A chat label, a Telegram attachment reference, or a proposal source_ref field alone does not constitute canonical source identity. The richer metadata \u2014 title, author, publisher, date \u2014 has no home in the current public.sources schema (those columns do not exist), so it must be preserved inside the review packet until a schema that can hold it is approved and deployed.\n\nWhere explicit approval begins:\n\nAt the boundary between a staged proposal and a canonical write. Leo can build and present the full packet \u2014 claims, sources, evidence links, edges \u2014 but nothing touches public.claims, public.sources, public.claim_evidence, or public.claim_edges until a human reviews the packet, authorizes apply, the production worker is confirmed active, and a committed transaction with non-null applied_at proves the write landed.\n\nThe production apply worker is currently disabled unless a fresh service readback proves otherwise, so that gate is live regardless of proposal readiness state.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:59:29.280690+00:00",
      "turn": 4
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "database_composition_judgment",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:59:56.340723+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "Suppose a new research packet contains factual observations, a strategic framework, a disputed interpretation, a governance rule, and a correction to an old belief. How should Leo compose the database so it can reason over the packet later without flattening it all into claims? Give the review and apply sequence too, but do not write anything now.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-06",
      "reply": "Five content types, five schema destinations.\n\nFactual observations \u2192 public.claims (type: empirical), each with public.claim_evidence linking to a public.sources row that carries a retained artifact and hash. One claim per discrete assertion; do not bundle.\n\nStrategic framework \u2192 public.claims (type: structural) for the load-bearing assertions, with claim_edges (supports, requires, derives_from) connecting them into a graph. The framework is the edge topology, not a single claim.\n\nDisputed interpretation \u2192 public.claims (type: empirical or normative depending on content), with a contradicts or challenges edge to any existing claim it disputes. If two agents hold opposing positions on it, that surfaces in public.beliefs per agent, not as duplicate claims.\n\nGovernance rule \u2192 currently not applyable via approve_claim. Behavioral_rules is outside the supported capability boundary. Stage it in the proposal with explicit notation that it requires a separate reviewed capability before apply.\n\nCorrection to an old belief \u2192 public.beliefs update for the relevant agent_id row (statement, confidence, falsifier, updated_at). No claim foreign key exists, so the correction rationale belongs in the proposal narrative, not a queryable column.\n\nReview and apply sequence:\n\nStage one packet as pending_review containing all five typed sections clearly labeled. Reviewer evaluates each section against its destination \u2014 claims get quality-gate checks, the governance rule gets flagged as unsupported-capability, the belief correction gets isolated. Approval is per-section or with explicit carve-outs noted.\n\nApply runs in order: sources first (needed for evidence FK), then claims, then claim_evidence, then claim_edges. Belief update and governance rule apply separately after their respective capability paths are confirmed live.\n\nPostflight: row-level IDs and non-null applied_at on the proposal receipt prove what actually landed. The governance rule stays staged until a future capability ships.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:59:43.109328+00:00",
      "turn": 5
    }
  ],
  "service_before_after": {
    "after": {
      "ActiveState": "active",
      "ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Mon 2026-07-13 09:45:35 UTC",
      "MainPID": "3166667",
      "NRestarts": "0",
      "SubState": "running"
    },
    "before": {
      "ActiveState": "active",
      "ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Mon 2026-07-13 09:45:35 UTC",
      "MainPID": "3166667",
      "NRestarts": "0",
      "SubState": "running"
    },
    "unchanged_from_preexisting_live_readback": true
  },
  "source": {
    "chat_id": "-5146042086",
    "chat_name": "Leo",
    "chat_type": "group",
    "platform": "telegram",
    "user_id": "9070919",
    "user_name": "codex handler direct claim"
  },
  "source_report_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/work/teleo-infra-main/docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/telegram-handler-m3taversal-oos-targeted-post-intake-composition-repair-20260713.json",
  "temp_profile_removed": true
}
