{
  "before_service": {
    "ActiveState": "active",
    "ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Mon 2026-07-13 07:01:34 UTC",
    "MainPID": "2096777",
    "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": "2026-07-13T08:55:33.894567+00:00",
  "handler": {
    "authorized": true,
    "session_key": "agent:main:telegram:group:-5146042086:9070919",
    "temp_profile": "/tmp/leo-direct-claim-handler-dggzup0s/profile"
  },
  "harness_notes": [
    "Broad out-of-sample m3taversal prompts plus randomized memory and participant-identity checks.",
    "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_out_of_sample_suite",
  "mutates_kb_by_harness": false,
  "pass_runtime": true,
  "posted_to_telegram": false,
  "remote_report_path": "/tmp/leo-m3taversal-oos-handler-report-b68079be3724.json",
  "remote_returncode": 0,
  "remote_run_id": "b68079be3724",
  "results": [
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "demo_pressure_without_ids",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T08:56:13.638198+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "m3taversal walks in now and says, 'Leo's database has not learned anything useful since yesterday and I cannot demo this.' Do not ask me for row IDs. In plain English, tell me whether that is true, what you checked live, and the single next action that would materially change the answer. Keep this read-only: do not stage, approve, apply, or edit anything.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-01",
      "reply": "Mostly true. Here is what I checked live and what I found.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nThe last canonical write to `public.*` was `applied_at: 2026-07-09 16:54:40` \u2014 four days ago, not just yesterday. Since then the pipeline has produced genuine work: 14 proposals are `pending_review` and 3 are `approved` with `applied_at: NULL`. Approved is not the same as applied. Those 3 approved proposals contain real content (attach_evidence and add_edge packets) but they have never hit canonical `public.*` rows. So the DB itself has been frozen since July 9.\n\nThe staging layer is active. Leo can write reviewable proposals and has been doing so. What has not happened is the guarded apply step that would move approved packets into `public.claims`, `public.sources`, `public.claim_evidence`, and `public.claim_edges` and change the row counts you can point a demo at.\n\nFor a demo you can show right now: a staging write to `kb_stage.kb_proposals` and a live readback of the proposal ledger \u2014 that proves the pipeline is functional. What you cannot honestly show yet is canonical mutation with before/after row counts.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: authorize and run the guarded apply on one of the 3 approved proposals \u2014 that produces a non-null `applied_at`, increases at least one `public.*` row count, and gives you a provable before/after canonical delta to demo.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T08:55:34.837174+00:00",
      "turn": 1
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "multi_surface_knowledge_ingestion",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T08:56:45.740001+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "I give you a PDF, a Telegram discussion, and five tweets that all make overlapping claims about a market shift. Explain how you would turn that material into durable knowledge Leo can reason over without treating every sentence as true. Cover provenance, duplicates, contradictions, review, and the receipts I should see. Explain only; do not stage or mutate the KB.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-02",
      "reply": "Here is the full pipeline, step by step.\n\n---\n\nSTEP 1 \u2014 SOURCE CAPTURE\n\nEach artifact gets its own `public.sources` row before any claim is touched. The PDF becomes one row with a `storage_path` and a SHA-256 `hash`. The Telegram discussion becomes one row per meaningful message segment, with a `url` or message reference. Each tweet becomes its own row. No two artifacts share a row, even if they say the same thing. This is provenance-first: every downstream claim can be traced back to the exact artifact it came from, not just \"the internet.\"\n\n---\n\nSTEP 2 \u2014 CLAIM EXTRACTION (with explicit type labeling)\n\nFrom those sources you extract candidate claims \u2014 not sentences, but discrete falsifiable assertions. Each gets a `type` from the live taxonomy: `empirical` for observable facts, `structural` for causal or systems claims, `normative` for what ought to happen, `concept` for definitions, `meta` for claims about the KB itself. A tweet saying \"this market shifted last quarter\" is an `empirical` candidate. A thread arguing \"incumbents always lose when distribution flips\" is `structural`. Labeling at extraction time prevents confidence inflation later.\n\n---\n\nSTEP 3 \u2014 DEDUPLICATION\n\nBefore any candidate becomes a row, check `public.claims` for semantic overlap. If the PDF and two tweets are all asserting the same market-shift observation, you do not create three rows. You pick the strongest formulation, create one claim, and attach all three source rows as `public.claim_evidence` links with `role: grounds`. The weaker phrasings become evidence, not duplicate claims. This keeps the graph clean and prevents the same belief from gaining artificial weight by appearing three times.\n\n---\n\nSTEP 4 \u2014 CONTRADICTION HANDLING\n\nWhen two sources make incompatible assertions \u2014 say the PDF says market share flipped in Q1 and a tweet says Q3 \u2014 you do not discard either. You create both claims and connect them with a `contradicts` edge in `public.claim_edges`. The contradiction is now visible and reasoned over, not silently resolved. The `confidence` on each claim stays calibrated to its evidence density, not to which source you trust more. Resolution requires a reviewer decision, not an extraction heuristic.\n\n---\n\nSTEP 5 \u2014 EVIDENCE ATTACHMENT\n\nEach canonical claim gets one or more `public.claim_evidence` rows linking it to its source rows. Role options are `grounds` (primary support), `illustrates` (contextualizes but does not prove), or `contradicts` (a source that cuts against the claim). Weight is set by source quality: primary data outweighs a tweet quoting a thread. A claim with only a single tweet as its `grounds` source gets lower confidence than one grounded by the PDF plus corroborating tweets. A missing locator on a source row \u2014 no URL, no storage path \u2014 means the evidence exists canonically but is not traceable to the raw artifact; that gets flagged as weak provenance, not removed.\n\n---\n\nSTEP 6 \u2014 PROPOSAL PACKAGING\n\nAll of the above \u2014 source rows, claim rows, evidence links, edges \u2014 are assembled into a single reviewable proposal in `kb_stage.kb_proposals`, not written directly to `public.*`. The proposal carries an explicit `apply_payload` listing every row to be inserted. Nothing canonical changes until a reviewer approves and an authorized apply step runs. The staging layer is the firewall between raw material and collective knowledge.\n\n---\n\nSTEP 7 \u2014 REVIEW\n\nA reviewer reads the proposal before it touches the canonical tables. The review checks four things: (1) is each claim specific enough to disagree with; (2) is the evidence traceable to a real artifact; (3) are contradictions surfaced as edges rather than silently dropped; (4) is the claim type honest about the evidence tier \u2014 an untested structural claim should not carry `empirical` confidence. Reviewer approval sets `reviewed_at` but does not yet change `public.*`.\n\n---\n\nSTEP 8 \u2014 APPLY AND RECEIPTS\n\nThe authorized apply step runs the payload as a validated transaction. After it completes you should see:\n\n- `applied_at` is non-null on the proposal row\n- `public.claims` count increased by the number of net-new claims\n- `public.sources` count increased by the number of net-new source rows\n- `public.claim_evidence` count increased by the number of new evidence links\n- `public.claim_edges` count increased by the number of new edges (including any `contradicts` edges)\n- A postflight readback that copies the exact new row IDs\n\nIf any of those five deltas is missing or does not match the declared payload, the apply is incomplete. You point at those five numbers. That is the demo receipt.\n\n---\n\nWHAT YOU SHOULD NOT SEE\n\n- A sentence from a tweet becoming a claim with no source row\n- Two claims saying the same thing with identical confidence, no deduplication edge\n- A contradiction between the PDF and a tweet silently resolved by picking one\n- An `approved` proposal with `applied_at: NULL` described as \"in the KB\"\n- A count increase with no postflight row-ID proof\n\n---\n\nThe short version: source rows first, claims second, evidence links tie them together, contradictions become edges not deletions, nothing canonical until a reviewer approves and an authorized apply transaction closes with matching before/after counts.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T08:56:13.638497+00:00",
      "turn": 2
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "identity_restart_truth",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T08:57:19.790539+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "I corrected Leo's worldview in chat and someone also edited SOUL.md. Will that correction be part of Leo's canonical identity tomorrow after a restart? Give me the exact truth test from database row to runtime artifact. Do not change either surface.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-03",
      "reply": "No. Neither surface is canonical on its own. Here is the exact truth test, from the bottom up.\n\n---\n\nLAYER 1 \u2014 CANONICAL POSTGRES (the only ground truth)\n\nA correction is durable and collective if and only if it exists as new or updated rows in `public.*`. The test is:\n\n1. A new or superseding `public.claims` row exists with the corrected content, the right `type`, and non-null `created_at`.\n2. If it supersedes an old claim, the old claim's `superseded_by` column points at the new row's ID, and a `supersedes` edge exists in `public.claim_edges` between the two.\n3. At least one `public.sources` row represents the artifact or conversation that grounded the correction.\n4. At least one `public.claim_evidence` row links the new claim to that source row.\n\nIf those rows are absent, the correction does not exist canonically, full stop. Nothing else substitutes.\n\nCurrent readback shows `claims: 1837`, and no new proposals have been applied since July 9. So right now, no chat correction from this session has reached `public.*`.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\n---\n\nLAYER 2 \u2014 SOUL.MD (runtime artifact, not canonical)\n\n`SOUL.md` is rendered from the DB. It is the output, not the input. Editing it directly changes what Leo reads at session start, but it does not change Postgres. After a restart, if the render pipeline pulls a fresh `SOUL.md` from the DB, the hand-edit is overwritten. If the render pipeline does not run and the edited file persists on disk, the edit survives that restart but it is still not canonical \u2014 it is a local artifact that has drifted from the DB. Either way, it cannot be the source of truth.\n\nThe truth test for `SOUL.md`: open the rendered file and pick the corrected sentence. Then run `teleo-kb search` for the core terms in that sentence. If no `public.claims` row comes back that matches, the file is ahead of the DB and will either be overwritten or will silently diverge.\n\n---\n\nLAYER 3 \u2014 CHAT MEMORY (session-scoped continuity)\n\nA chat correction this session lives in Hermes `state.db` and session JSONL. It survives short gaps and a soft restart if the session state is retained. It does not survive a fresh profile load, a redeployed container, or any path that does not reload the exact session. It is runtime continuity, not collective knowledge. Leo may behave correctly in the next turn because of session memory, which can make the correction look durable when it is not.\n\n---\n\nTHE COMPLETE TRUTH TEST (run these in order after any restart)\n\nStep 1 \u2014 Check `public.claims` for the corrected content:\n`teleo-kb search \"<core terms of the correction>\"`\nIf no matching row: correction is not canonical.\n\nStep 2 \u2014 If a row is found, check its evidence:\n`teleo-kb evidence <claim_id>`\nIf no `public.claim_evidence` row links it to a source: the claim exists but is ungrounded.\n\nStep 3 \u2014 If the correction superseded an old claim, check the old claim:\n`teleo-kb show <old_claim_id>`\nConfirm `superseded_by` is non-null and points at the new row. Confirm a `supersedes` edge exists.\n\nStep 4 \u2014 Check `SOUL.md` agrees with the DB row, not the other way around:\nThe sentence in `SOUL.md` should be traceable to the `public.claims` row found in Step 1. If it cannot be traced, `SOUL.md` is ahead of or behind the DB and cannot be trusted as the source.\n\nStep 5 \u2014 Check the proposal that carried the correction:\n`teleo-kb list-proposals --status applied`\nFind the proposal. Confirm `applied_at` is non-null. Confirm the row IDs in its payload match the rows found in Steps 1\u20133.\n\nIf all five steps pass: the correction is canonical, grounded, and will survive any restart that re-renders from the DB.\nIf any step fails: the correction is either staged, runtime-only, or a file artifact that will diverge or be overwritten.\n\n---\n\nSHORT VERSION\n\nChat correction alone: session memory only, does not survive a clean restart.\nSOUL.md edit alone: file artifact only, overwritten if the DB renders fresh, diverged if it does not.\nBoth together, with no new rows in `public.*`: still not canonical.\nCanonical requires: new or updated `public.claims` row, linked `public.sources` row, `public.claim_evidence` link, optional `supersedes` edge \u2014 all confirmed by a non-null `applied_at` on the proposal that carried them.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: run `teleo-kb search` for the corrected content and report whether a matching `public.claims` row with a non-null `created_at` and at least one evidence link exists \u2014 that is the only test that settles it.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T08:56:45.740313+00:00",
      "turn": 3
    },
    {
      "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": "2026-07-13T08:57:34.469869+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: -` \u2014 database NULL. Reviewer approval is not the same as applied. The canonical tables `public.claims`, `public.sources`, `public.claim_evidence`, and `public.claim_edges` have not changed since July 9. The DB you would be demoing against is the same one that existed before those reviews happened.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nThe three approved proposals are:\n\n`14fa5ecc` \u2014 internet-finance/capital-allocation claim split, `applied_at: none`\n`ac036c9d` \u2014 strategy-kernel document claim hygiene, `applied_at: none`\n`a64df080` \u2014 Helmer 7 Powers framework packet, `applied_at: none`\n\nWhat would let you change the answer to yes: an authorized apply transaction runs against one or more of those proposals, `applied_at` becomes non-null, and a postflight readback shows the matching `public.*` row counts increased by the declared payload amounts. That is the only proof that changes the sentence from \"approved\" to \"updated.\"\n\nWhat you can honestly demo today: the staging layer working \u2014 Leo received inputs, extracted claims, packaged them into reviewable proposals, and a reviewer approved them. That is a real and demonstrable pipeline. What you cannot say is that the canonical knowledge database is updated, because no row in `public.*` changed.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: authorize and run the guarded apply on `a64df080` (Helmer 7 Powers) \u2014 it is the oldest approved packet, has a rationale describing a cleaned payload, and a non-null `applied_at` plus matching row-count delta would give you a concrete before/after canonical proof for the demo.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T08:57:19.790946+00:00",
      "turn": 4
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "source_pointer_needs_canonical_link_audit",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T08:58:08.844693+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "A proposal points to a Telegram attachment and its extracted text exists on disk. Does that mean the claim already has canonical evidence? Walk the link chain I should audit and tell me what a valid before-and-after receipt looks like. Read-only only.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-05",
      "reply": "No. The answer is no, and here is the full link chain you need to walk to prove it either way.\n\n---\n\nTHE FOUR LAYERS \u2014 WHAT EXISTS VS WHAT IS CANONICAL\n\nLayer 1 \u2014 The Telegram attachment itself\nA file arriving via Telegram is ingestion proof only. It proves Leo received the artifact. It does not prove anything about the KB.\n\nLayer 2 \u2014 The extracted text on disk\nA file at a local path proves the extraction pipeline ran. It is a working artifact, not a KB object. Nothing in `public.*` knows this file exists until a source row is created and points at it.\n\nLayer 3 \u2014 The proposal's `source_ref` or logical source key\nThe proposal in `kb_stage.kb_proposals` may reference the attachment by Telegram message ID, file path, or a logical label in its payload. That reference is staging metadata. It is not a `public.sources` row. A pointer inside a proposal is not a canonical row.\n\nLayer 4 \u2014 `public.sources` and `public.claim_evidence`\nThese are the only canonical layers. A `public.sources` row must exist with a `storage_path` or `url` that resolves to the actual artifact. A `public.claim_evidence` row must exist that links a specific `claim_id` to that `source_id` with a valid `role` (`grounds`, `illustrates`, or `contradicts`). Until both rows exist in `public.*`, the claim has no canonical evidence, regardless of what the proposal says or what is on disk.\n\n---\n\nTHE AUDIT CHAIN \u2014 RUN THESE IN ORDER\n\nStep 1 \u2014 Check whether a `public.sources` row exists for the attachment:\n`teleo-kb search \"<title or key terms from the attachment>\"`\nLook for a result from `public.sources`, not from the proposal payload. Confirm the row has a non-null `storage_path` or `url` that matches the file on disk.\n\nStep 2 \u2014 Check the claim you expect to be grounded:\n`teleo-kb show <claim_id>`\nConfirm the claim exists in `public.claims` with the expected text and type.\n\nStep 3 \u2014 Check the evidence link:\n`teleo-kb evidence <claim_id>`\nLook for a `public.claim_evidence` row that names the source row from Step 1 as its `source_id`, with `role: grounds` or `role: illustrates`. If this row is absent, the chain is broken here. The claim and source both exist but are not connected canonically.\n\nStep 4 \u2014 Cross-check the proposal:\n`teleo-kb show-proposal <proposal_id>`\nConfirm the proposal's `apply_payload` names the same `source_id` and `claim_id` you found above. If the payload references a logical key or Telegram message ID but not a canonical UUID, the apply step cannot complete without first resolving those to real row IDs.\n\nStep 5 \u2014 Confirm `applied_at`:\nIf the proposal's `applied_at` is null, none of the above is canonical yet regardless of what you found in Steps 1\u20133. The rows may exist from a prior apply \u2014 but if this specific proposal has never been applied, the evidence link it describes is still only a proposal.\n\n---\n\nWHAT A VALID BEFORE-AND-AFTER RECEIPT LOOKS LIKE\n\nBefore (read before any apply):\n- `public.sources` count: N\n- `public.claim_evidence` count: M\n- `kb_proposals` row: `<proposal_uuid>`; status: `approved`; `applied_at: none`\n- `teleo-kb evidence <claim_id>` returns zero rows for this source\n\nAfter (read immediately after apply):\n- `public.sources` count: N+1 (if source row is net-new) or unchanged (if source row already existed)\n- `public.claim_evidence` count: M+1\n- `kb_proposals` row: same UUID; status: `applied`; `applied_at: <non-null timestamp>`\n- `teleo-kb evidence <claim_id>` returns one row naming the source UUID with the expected role and weight\n- The source row's `storage_path` resolves to the file on disk\n\nIf `public.claim_evidence` count did not increase, the evidence link was not written. If `applied_at` is still null, the transaction did not close. If the source's `storage_path` points nowhere, the evidence exists canonically but is not traceable to the raw artifact \u2014 that is weak provenance, not missing provenance.\n\n---\n\nSHORT VERSION\n\nProposal pointer \u2192 staging only.\nFile on disk \u2192 extraction artifact only.\n`public.sources` row \u2192 source exists canonically.\n`public.claim_evidence` row linking claim to source \u2192 evidence is canonical.\nAll of the above plus non-null `applied_at` on the proposal \u2192 the chain is complete and the receipt is valid.\n\nA missing locator (`storage_path` or `url`) on an otherwise complete chain means the evidence is canonical but not traceable to the raw file. Call that weak provenance. Do not call it unclaimed or missing.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: run `teleo-kb evidence <claim_id>` for the specific claim and confirm whether a `public.claim_evidence` row with the expected `source_id` already exists \u2014 that single readback tells you whether the chain is complete or broken at the link step.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T08:57:34.470387+00:00",
      "turn": 5
    },
    {
      "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": "2026-07-13T08:58:56.000995+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 components, five different structures. Here is how each maps, then the review and apply sequence.\n\n---\n\nCOMPONENT 1 \u2014 FACTUAL OBSERVATIONS\nTable: `public.claims`, type: `empirical`\n\nEach discrete observation becomes its own row with a falsifiable text. Not a paragraph \u2014 one assertion per row. Each gets a `public.sources` row for the artifact it came from and a `public.claim_evidence` link with `role: grounds`. Confidence is set at extraction time based on source quality, not on how confident the packet author sounds. Two observations that say the same thing become one claim with two evidence links, not two claims.\n\n---\n\nCOMPONENT 2 \u2014 STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK\nTable: `public.reasoning_tools`\n\nA framework is not a claim \u2014 it is a structured method Leo applies to claims. It gets a `public.reasoning_tools` row with `name`, `category`, and a `description` that encodes its criteria or steps. It does not go into `public.claims` as an `empirical` or `structural` row. The connection between the framework and the claims it applies to is made through `public.claim_edges` using `relates` or `derives_from` edges from the relevant claims to the reasoning-tool's logical neighborhood \u2014 but the current schema has no direct reasoning-tool-to-claim edge column, so those connections are expressed as claim-to-claim edges where one claim explicitly invokes the framework, or as narrative in the tool's `description`.\n\n---\n\nCOMPONENT 3 \u2014 DISPUTED INTERPRETATION\nTable: `public.claims` with a `contradicts` edge\n\nThe disputed interpretation becomes its own `public.claims` row, typed `structural` or `empirical` depending on what it asserts. If it conflicts with an existing claim, a `public.claim_edges` row connects them with `edge_type: contradicts`. Both claims survive. Neither is silently dropped. The confidence on each reflects its own evidence density, not the outcome of the dispute. If the interpretation contradicts another claim inside the same packet, the `contradicts` edge is part of the same proposal payload \u2014 it ships alongside both claims, not after.\n\n---\n\nCOMPONENT 4 \u2014 GOVERNANCE RULE\nTable: `public.behavioral_rules`\n\nA governance or operating rule is not a claim and not a reasoning tool. It belongs in `public.behavioral_rules`, with `agent_id`, `category`, `rank`, `rule`, and `rationale` columns. Critical constraint: the current `approve_claim` apply contract does not insert `behavioral_rules`. This component requires a separately reviewed apply capability. It cannot be bundled into the same strict payload as the claims package and treated as one atomic transaction. The proposal for this component should be staged separately and reviewed against the behavioral-rules apply path, not the claim-apply path.\n\n---\n\nCOMPONENT 5 \u2014 CORRECTION TO AN OLD BELIEF\nTables: `public.claims` (new row) + `public.claim_edges` (supersedes) + `public.claims` update (superseded_by column on old row)\n\nThis is the most complex component. Three things must happen:\n\nFirst \u2014 a new `public.claims` row is created with the corrected content.\n\nSecond \u2014 a `supersedes` edge in `public.claim_edges` connects the new claim to the old one.\n\nThird \u2014 the old claim's `superseded_by` column is updated to point at the new row's ID.\n\nCritical constraint: the current `approve_claim` contract can insert the new claim and the `supersedes` edge, but updating an existing claim's `superseded_by` column requires a separately reviewed apply capability. The new claim and edge can ship in one packet; the retirement of the old claim needs its own reviewed path. If the old claim is not retired, both the old and new claim exist in `public.claims` and Leo will reason over both unless the `supersedes` edge and `superseded_by` marker are both present. Do not treat the edge alone as sufficient retirement proof.\n\n---\n\nREVIEW SEQUENCE\n\nThe packet arrives as a single reviewable proposal in `kb_stage.kb_proposals` but a reviewer should mentally treat it as five sub-components with different destinations and different apply contracts.\n\nReview gate 1 \u2014 Empirical claims: is each observation specific enough to disagree with, typed honestly, and linked to a traceable source row?\n\nReview gate 2 \u2014 Reasoning tool: does the framework have a clear name and category, and are its steps or criteria described in `description` rather than invented as structured columns that do not exist?\n\nReview gate 3 \u2014 Disputed interpretation: is the `contradicts` edge present and pointing at the right existing claim? Is confidence on both sides calibrated independently?\n\nReview gate 4 \u2014 Governance rule: is this staged as a separate `behavioral_rules` proposal, not bundled into the claim payload? If it is bundled, flag it and split before approval.\n\nReview gate 5 \u2014 Belief correction: does the payload include the new claim, the `supersedes` edge, and a separate noted action for updating `superseded_by` on the old row? If the old-row update is missing, the reviewer should explicitly note it as a follow-on apply action.\n\nReviewer sets `reviewed_at`. Approval does not mutate `public.*`.\n\n---\n\nAPPLY SEQUENCE\n\nBecause the five components span three different apply contracts, apply happens in stages, not one transaction.\n\nStage A \u2014 Claim packet apply (claims, sources, evidence, edges, reasoning_tools):\nRuns the strict `approve_claim` payload. Inserts empirical claim rows, source rows, evidence links, the `contradicts` edge, the new corrected claim row, the `supersedes` edge, and the reasoning-tool row. Postflight confirms each expected row ID exists in `public.*` and counts match declared payload.\n\nStage B \u2014 Old claim retirement (update `superseded_by`):\nSeparate reviewed apply step that updates only the `superseded_by` column on the old claim row. Requires its own authorization and before/after readback. Before: `superseded_by` is null. After: `superseded_by` equals the new claim's UUID.\n\nStage C \u2014 Behavioral rule insert:\nSeparate reviewed apply step against the `behavioral_rules` apply path. Before: rule row absent. After: row exists with expected `agent_id`, `category`, `rank`, `rule`, and `rationale`.\n\n---\n\nRECEIPTS YOU SHOULD SEE AFTER ALL THREE STAGES\n\nAfter Stage A:\n`public.claims` increased by the number of net-new claims (observations plus corrected belief claim).\n`public.sources` increased by net-new source rows.\n`public.claim_evidence` increased by new evidence links.\n`public.claim_edges` increased by the `contradicts` edge plus the `supersedes` edge.\n`public.reasoning_tools` increased by one if the framework is net-new.\nAll five are non-null confirmed row IDs. `applied_at` non-null on the Stage A proposal.\n\nAfter Stage B:\n`teleo-kb show <old_claim_id>` returns `superseded_by: <new_claim_uuid>`. No count change \u2014 this is an update, not an insert.\n\nAfter Stage C:\n`public.behavioral_rules` increased by one. `applied_at` non-null on the Stage C proposal.\n\nIf any stage's `applied_at` is null, that component is not canonical. The packet is partially applied until all three stages close.\n\n---\n\nSHORT VERSION\n\nObservation \u2192 `public.claims` empirical, grounded by evidence link.\nFramework \u2192 `public.reasoning_tools`, connected by edges not by duplicating it as a claim.\nDisputed interpretation \u2192 `public.claims` plus `contradicts` edge, both sides survive.\nGovernance rule \u2192 `public.behavioral_rules`, separate apply contract, cannot bundle with claims.\nBelief correction \u2192 new claim plus `supersedes` edge in one payload, old claim `superseded_by` update in a second separately reviewed apply step.\n\nThree apply stages, three sets of receipts. Partial apply is not complete apply.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: confirm whether a `behavioral_rules` apply path exists in the current codebase separate from `approve_claim` \u2014 that is the gating question before any packet with a governance rule can be fully applied.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T08:58:08.845282+00:00",
      "turn": 6
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "same_session_memory_set",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T08:59:06.158219+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "From everything you checked in this conversation, pick the single highest-impact demo blocker. For the next question, remember it under the temporary label demo-ledger-fd596d14. State the label and blocker now. This is chat memory only; do not write it to the KB.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-07",
      "reply": "Label: `demo-ledger-fd596d14`\n\nBlocker: Three proposals are approved with `applied_at: NULL`. The guarded apply step \u2014 the authorized transaction that writes approved payloads into `public.*` \u2014 has not run in production since July 9. Until it does, no canonical row count changes, no before/after delta exists, and the only honest demo tier is staging. Every other issue in this conversation (provenance gaps, split apply contracts, SOUL.md drift) is downstream of this one: nothing else matters until at least one approved proposal closes with a non-null `applied_at` and matching postflight row IDs.\n\nThat is the single blocker. Held in chat memory only under `demo-ledger-fd596d14`.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T08:58:56.001468+00:00",
      "turn": 7
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "same_session_memory_recall",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T08:59:20.094840+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "Without re-reading my previous wording, what temporary label did I give the demo blocker, what blocker did you associate with it, and what exact proof would close it? Do not mutate anything.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-08",
      "reply": "Label: `demo-ledger-fd596d14`\n\nBlocker: Three approved proposals sitting with `applied_at: NULL`. The guarded apply step \u2014 the authorized transaction that writes approved payloads into canonical `public.*` \u2014 has not run in production since July 9. No canonical row counts have changed since then regardless of reviewer approval.\n\nProof that closes it: Run the authorized apply against one of the three approved proposals. Then confirm all of the following in a single postflight readback:\n\n- `applied_at` is non-null on that proposal row\n- At least one `public.*` table count increased by the amount declared in the payload (minimum: `public.claim_evidence` increases by the evidence links in the packet)\n- `teleo-kb evidence <claim_id>` returns the new row with the expected `source_id` and `role`\n- The row IDs returned match what the payload declared before apply ran\n\nAll four conditions together constitute the receipt. Any one of them missing and the blocker is not closed.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T08:59:06.158711+00:00",
      "turn": 8
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "telegram_participant_identity",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T08:59:29.509511+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "The current visible Telegram sender is @m3taversal. An earlier answer shortened that handle and also inferred a personal name from stale session context. What should Leo call this participant, which identity sources are allowed, and how should Leo avoid mixing identities when another user replies? Answer in four lines. Do not write to memory or the KB.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-09",
      "reply": "Call this participant exactly `m3taversal` \u2014 no shortening, no inferred personal name, no nickname.\n\nAllowed identity sources: the current Telegram update's visible sender handle only.\n\nProhibited sources: session headers, runtime memory, soul documents, other participants' messages, environment labels, or any prior-session carry-over.\n\nWhen another user replies, resolve their identity from their own current update only \u2014 never carry one participant's handle or inferred name across to a different sender.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T08:59:20.095646+00:00",
      "turn": 9
    },
    {
      "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": "2026-07-13T08:59:39.690266+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 halves.\n\nUnchanged `public.*` counts prove only that canonical Postgres did not mutate. They say nothing about answer behavior or session memory.\n\nSurfaces that can affect answers independently of the DB:\n\n`Hermes state.db and session JSONL` \u2014 prior-session facts and conversation context survive a soft restart if the session state is retained. Not erased by a restart that reloads the same session.\n\n`SOUL.md on disk` \u2014 if hand-edited and the render pipeline did not overwrite it, the edited file loads at startup and shapes behavior without touching Postgres.\n\n`Deployed skills` \u2014 skill files in `~/.hermes/skills/` are loaded procedurally and change answer behavior without any DB mutation.\n\n`Runtime memory` \u2014 injected into every turn from the memory store, independent of Postgres row counts.\n\nProof tiers:\n\n- Canonical knowledge: `public.*` row counts plus `applied_at` receipts.\n- Runtime continuity: Hermes `state.db` and session JSONL readback.\n- File artifacts: `SOUL.md` hash compared against last DB render.\n- Procedural behavior: deployed skill file contents.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: diff the current `SOUL.md` against the last confirmed DB render to separate file-artifact drift from canonical identity.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T08:59:29.510567+00:00",
      "turn": 10
    },
    {
      "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": "2026-07-13T08:59:54.907001+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": "One claim, not two. Here is the current-schema answer.\n\n---\n\nSHARED KNOWLEDGE \u2014 `public.claims`\n\nThe factual observation becomes a single `public.claims` row. Both agents read from it. Duplicating it per agent inflates the canonical graph, creates false confidence weighting, and makes contradiction tracking impossible. The claim's `confidence` reflects the evidence density, not either agent's stance.\n\n---\n\nAGENT-SPECIFIC POSITIONS \u2014 `public.reasoning_tools` and `public.behavioral_rules`\n\nThe current schema has no dedicated agent-belief or agent-position table. An agent's stance toward a shared claim is represented either in a `public.reasoning_tools` row (if the disagreement is about how a framework applies) or in a `public.behavioral_rules` row (if it drives operating behavior). Neither duplicates the claim.\n\n---\n\nDISAGREEMENT REMAINING QUERYABLE\n\nIf both agents' conclusions are themselves assertable claims \u2014 not just stances but falsifiable propositions \u2014 each conclusion becomes its own `public.claims` row, typed honestly, with its own evidence links. A `contradicts` edge in `public.claim_edges` connects the two conclusion rows to each other, and both carry `relates` or `derives_from` edges back to the shared factual claim. The query path is then: fetch the shared claim, traverse its edges, find claims connected by `contradicts` that `derive_from` the same root.\n\nIf the disagreement is only about interpretation weight and neither conclusion is independently assertable, it stays out of `public.claims` entirely and lives in agent-specific context \u2014 not in the shared graph.\n\n---\n\nSHORT VERSION\n\nShared evidence: one `public.claims` row, one set of evidence links.\nAgent conclusions: separate `public.claims` rows if assertable, connected to the shared claim by `derives_from` and to each other by `contradicts`.\nPure stance disagreement with no assertable conclusion: agent-specific context only, not in `public.claims`.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: confirm whether a dedicated agent-position or agent-belief table exists in the current schema beyond `behavioral_rules` and `reasoning_tools` \u2014 if it does, agent stances can be stored with explicit claim and agent foreign keys rather than as derived claims.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T08:59:39.691658+00:00",
      "turn": 11
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "forecast_resolution_without_rewriting_history",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:00:20.652442+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "An old claim recorded a 60% forecast but never defined resolution criteria. The event is now over. What may Leo record in the current database without rewriting history, and what needs a schema proposal? Do not apply anything.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-12",
      "reply": "Here is the exact boundary.\n\n---\n\nWHAT LEO MAY RECORD NOW IN CURRENT V1 SCHEMA\n\nNew outcome claim \u2014 create a new `public.claims` row typed `empirical` stating what actually happened. This is a fresh observation, not a rewrite. It carries its own `public.sources` row and `public.claim_evidence` link grounding it to the post-event evidence.\n\nEdge from outcome to forecast \u2014 connect the new outcome claim to the old forecast claim using an existing valid edge type. `relates` is the honest choice if the outcome is relevant but not a clean confirmation or refutation. `contradicts` if the outcome directly falsifies the forecast. `supports` if the outcome corroborates it. All three exist in the current schema.\n\nThe old claim stays untouched \u2014 its `confidence: 0.60` and original `created_at` timestamp are preserved exactly as recorded. Do not overwrite historical confidence. Do not add resolution criteria to the old row after the fact. The forecast was made under the epistemic conditions that existed then; those conditions are part of the historical record.\n\n---\n\nWHAT REQUIRES A SCHEMA PROPOSAL\n\nResolution criteria field \u2014 the current `public.claims` table has no column for precommitted resolution criteria. Recording what the resolution threshold should have been requires either a new column on `public.claims` or a separate `forecast_resolutions` table. Neither exists in v1.\n\nA `resolves` edge type \u2014 current accepted edge types are `supports`, `challenges`, `requires`, `relates`, `contradicts`, `supersedes`, `derives_from`, `cites`, `causes`, `constrains`, and `accelerates`. There is no `resolves` type. Expressing a formal resolution relationship requires a schema proposal to add it.\n\nConfidence update on the old claim reflecting resolution \u2014 updating the old claim's `confidence` to 1.0 or 0.0 post-hoc rewrites history. If a resolved confidence value is useful, it belongs on a new outcome claim or in a future resolution table, not as a mutation of the original row.\n\nForecast metadata fields \u2014 things like `resolution_date`, `resolution_outcome`, `resolution_source` do not exist on `public.claims` v1. Any structured forecast lifecycle tracking needs a schema proposal first.\n\n---\n\nSUMMARY TABLE\n\nWhat you can do now:\n- New `empirical` claim for the outcome, sourced and evidenced\n- `relates`, `contradicts`, or `supports` edge from outcome claim to old forecast claim\n- Old claim untouched: `confidence: 0.60`, original timestamp preserved\n\nWhat needs a schema proposal first:\n- `resolves` edge type\n- Resolution criteria column or table\n- Post-resolution confidence field\n- Any structured forecast lifecycle metadata\n\n---\n\nThe honest current-schema record says: the forecast existed at 60%, the event resolved, here is what happened \u2014 linked by a `relates` or `contradicts` edge. Resolution ambiguity is the accurate label when precommitted criteria were never recorded. Do not manufacture criteria retroactively and do not call the resolution proven when the linkage is only inferential.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: confirm whether a `forecast_resolutions` table or a `resolves` edge type has been proposed anywhere in `kb_stage.kb_proposals` \u2014 if an approved schema proposal exists for either, the resolution path may already be partially specifiable without a new proposal.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T08:59:54.907569+00:00",
      "turn": 12
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "handler_is_not_telegram_delivery",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:00:32.988209+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "A temporary-profile GatewayRunner answered every test prompt, but the run explicitly posted nothing to Telegram. Can I tell a partner the Telegram path is proven live? Answer first, then state exactly what this run proves and the smallest test that closes the gap.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-13",
      "reply": "No.\n\n---\n\nWHAT THIS RUN PROVES\n\nHandler proof only. The GatewayRunner received prompts, processed them, and returned responses within the temporary profile. That proves the inference path, the profile config, and the runner process itself are functional under test conditions.\n\nIt does not prove:\n\n- The Telegram bot token authenticates against the live Telegram API\n- Outbound messages reach Telegram's servers\n- The message routing layer from GatewayRunner to the Telegram send endpoint is wired correctly in the production profile\n- A real Telegram participant can see a reply in a real chat\n\nA handler answering in isolation and a Telegram-visible reply in a live chat are two different proof tiers. The gap between them is exactly the outbound delivery path \u2014 and that path was explicitly not exercised in this run.\n\n---\n\nSMALLEST TEST THAT CLOSES THE GAP\n\nSend one real message to the live Telegram chat from the production profile and confirm it appears as a visible message in that chat. One round-trip: inbound message received, outbound reply visible to a real participant. That is Telegram-visible delivery proof. Anything short of that \u2014 including handler success, local echo, or log confirmation \u2014 stays at handler proof tier.\n\nUntil that single visible reply exists, the honest statement to a partner is: the inference and handler path is proven; Telegram end-to-end delivery is not yet confirmed live.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:00:20.653755+00:00",
      "turn": 13
    },
    {
      "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": "2026-07-13T09:01:01.586583+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 tiers. Here is where each boundary sits.\n\n---\n\nTIER 1 \u2014 WHAT LEO CAPTURES AND STAGES IMMEDIATELY, NO APPROVAL NEEDED\n\nSource row construction \u2014 Leo reads the document, extracts its title, type, and available locator (file path, URL, or hash), and assembles a candidate `public.sources` row. This stays in the proposal payload, not in `public.*`. No approval needed to build it.\n\nClaim extraction \u2014 Leo reads the document and extracts discrete falsifiable assertions, assigns each a type from the live taxonomy (`empirical`, `structural`, `normative`, `concept`, `meta`), and sets a provisional confidence calibrated to source quality. These become candidate claim rows in the proposal payload.\n\nDeduplication check \u2014 Leo queries `public.claims` for semantic overlap against existing canonical rows and flags duplicates, near-duplicates, and potential `contradicts` relationships. This is a read-only operation. No approval needed.\n\nEvidence link construction \u2014 Leo assembles candidate `public.claim_evidence` rows linking each extracted claim to the source row, with provisional roles (`grounds`, `illustrates`, `contradicts`) and weights.\n\nProposal staging \u2014 Leo packages everything above into a single `kb_stage.kb_proposals` row with a complete `apply_payload`. This write goes to the staging ledger only. Canonical `public.*` is untouched.\n\nAll of this happens in one pass. You get a reviewable proposal with source row, claim rows, evidence links, and any contradiction edges \u2014 ready to inspect without a single canonical mutation.\n\n---\n\nREAL SOURCE IDENTITY \u2014 WHAT MUST BE RETAINED EXACTLY\n\nLeo may not manufacture a source row from a chat label, a session memory tag, or a proposal pointer. The source row candidate must carry a real locator: a `storage_path` to the actual file on disk, a URL, or a SHA-256 hash of the artifact. If none of those is resolvable at ingestion time, the proposal notes the locator as missing and flags the evidence as weak provenance \u2014 it does not invent a substitute.\n\nThe document's origin is locked at extraction time and must not be revised retroactively to strengthen an evidence link. If the document arrived via Telegram attachment, the source row reflects that exactly: Telegram message reference plus file path. It does not get promoted to a primary academic source because the claims inside it are well-argued.\n\n---\n\nTIER 2 \u2014 WHERE EXPLICIT APPROVAL BEGINS\n\nApproval is required before any of the following:\n\nCanonical write \u2014 any application of the proposal payload to `public.*`. No matter how clean the extraction, the guarded apply step requires explicit reviewer authorization. Leo does not self-apply.\n\nConfidence promotion \u2014 if Leo's provisional confidence on an extracted claim is higher than the evidence density warrants, a reviewer must either confirm it or adjust it before apply. Leo cannot promote its own confidence assessments to canonical without review.\n\nContradiction resolution \u2014 if the document contradicts an existing canonical claim, Leo stages both claims and the `contradicts` edge, but does not choose a winner. Resolution requires a reviewer decision, not an extraction heuristic.\n\nGovernance rules or belief corrections \u2014 if the document contains an operating rule or corrects a canonical belief, those components require a separately reviewed apply path beyond the standard claim packet. Leo stages them with a clear flag but cannot route them through `approve_claim` unilaterally.\n\nSchema-dependent content \u2014 if the document contains material that requires columns or tables not in current v1 (resolution criteria, agent-position fields, forecast metadata), Leo flags the gap in the proposal and stages a separate schema proposal. It does not flatten the content into existing columns that do not fit.\n\n---\n\nSHORT VERSION\n\nImmediate and autonomous: source construction, claim extraction, deduplication, evidence link assembly, proposal staging \u2014 all read-only against `public.*`, all written only to `kb_stage`.\n\nRetained exactly: the real artifact locator; no manufactured or retroactively upgraded source identity.\n\nExplicit approval begins: at the canonical apply step, and separately for any contradiction resolution, confidence promotion, governance rule, belief correction, or schema-dependent content.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: confirm whether the current staging bridge exposes a single-command document-ingest path that produces a complete proposal in one call \u2014 if it does, the autonomous tier collapses to one command and the approval boundary becomes a single reviewer action on the resulting proposal.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:00:32.989257+00:00",
      "turn": 14
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "schema_valid_supersession",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:01:28.192545+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "A canonical claim is wrong. I want the replacement, an explanation, and the old claim visibly retired. In current v1, which exact claim and edge fields exist, which requested writes fit approve_claim, and which require a separate reviewed apply capability? Do not mutate anything.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-15",
      "reply": "Three requested writes, three different statuses in current v1. Here is the exact breakdown.\n\n---\n\nEXACT FIELD INVENTORY\n\n`public.claims` columns: `id`, `type`, `text`, `status`, `confidence`, `tags`, `created_by`, `superseded_by`, `created_at`, `updated_at`\n\n`public.claim_edges` columns: `id`, `from_claim`, `to_claim`, `edge_type`, `weight`, `created_by`, `created_at`\n\nValid edge types that apply here: `supersedes`, `relates`, `derives_from`\n\n`approve_claim` strict contract accepts collections: `claims`, `sources`, `evidence`, `edges`, `reasoning_tools` \u2014 nothing else.\n\n---\n\nWRITE 1 \u2014 THE REPLACEMENT CLAIM\n\nFits `approve_claim`.\n\nA new `public.claims` row with corrected `text`, honest `type`, appropriate `confidence`, and `created_by`. Packaged as a new entry in the `claims` collection of the `apply_payload`. Sources and evidence links for the corrected claim go in the `sources` and `evidence` collections of the same payload. One atomic packet.\n\n---\n\nWRITE 2 \u2014 THE EXPLANATION EDGE\n\nFits `approve_claim`.\n\nA `public.claim_edges` row with `from_claim` set to the new claim's UUID, `to_claim` set to the old claim's UUID, and `edge_type: supersedes`. This edge is the machine-readable explanation \u2014 it records that the new claim formally supersedes the old one, with optional `weight`. Packaged in the `edges` collection of the same payload as Write 1. Ships in the same transaction.\n\n---\n\nWRITE 3 \u2014 RETIRING THE OLD CLAIM\n\nDoes not fit `approve_claim`. Requires a separate reviewed apply capability.\n\nRetirement means two field mutations on the existing old row:\n\n- `superseded_by` set to the new claim's UUID\n- `status` optionally updated to reflect retired state\n\nThe `approve_claim` contract does not update existing rows. It inserts. Updating `superseded_by` and `status` on an already-canonical row requires a separate reviewed apply path that targets the old claim's `id` directly and makes a bounded column update. That path is not the same tool as `approve_claim` and is not currently live in production.\n\n---\n\nCONSEQUENCE OF THE GAP\n\nAfter `approve_claim` closes: the new claim exists, the `supersedes` edge exists, the old claim's `superseded_by` is still NULL and its `status` is unchanged. Leo will find both claims when querying unless it explicitly traverses the `supersedes` edge. The old claim is not invisible \u2014 it is still a live canonical row. The `supersedes` edge is necessary but not sufficient for full retirement without the column update.\n\n---\n\nSUMMARY TABLE\n\nNew replacement claim row \u2014 `approve_claim`, `claims` collection.\nNew evidence links for replacement \u2014 `approve_claim`, `sources` and `evidence` collections.\n`supersedes` edge from new to old \u2014 `approve_claim`, `edges` collection.\n`superseded_by` column update on old claim \u2014 separate reviewed apply capability, not `approve_claim`.\n`status` update on old claim \u2014 same separate path, not `approve_claim`.\n\n---\n\nAPPLY SEQUENCE\n\nStage A \u2014 `approve_claim` payload: new claim, its sources, its evidence links, the `supersedes` edge. One reviewed authorization, one transaction. Postflight confirms new row IDs exist and `claim_edges` count increased by one.\n\nStage B \u2014 separate reviewed apply: bounded UPDATE on old claim setting `superseded_by` to new UUID and `status` to retired. Before: `superseded_by` is NULL. After: `superseded_by` equals new claim UUID. No count change \u2014 this is an update, not an insert. Requires its own authorization and before/after readback.\n\nBoth stages must close before the old claim is fully retired in the canonical graph.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: confirm whether a bounded existing-row UPDATE apply path exists anywhere in the current codebase \u2014 if it does, Stage B has a live tool; if it does not, Stage B requires a new reviewed apply capability before full retirement is possible.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:01:01.587611+00:00",
      "turn": 15
    }
  ],
  "service_before_after": {
    "after": {
      "ActiveState": "active",
      "ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Mon 2026-07-13 07:01:34 UTC",
      "MainPID": "2096777",
      "NRestarts": "0",
      "SubState": "running"
    },
    "before": {
      "ActiveState": "active",
      "ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Mon 2026-07-13 07:01:34 UTC",
      "MainPID": "2096777",
      "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-suite-current.json",
  "temp_profile_removed": true
}
