{
  "artifact": "telegram_visible_direct_claim_suite_results",
  "generated_at_utc": "2026-07-12T23:51:07.726Z",
  "platform": "telegram",
  "chat_label": "Leo",
  "chat_id": "-5146042086",
  "evidence_tier": "telegram_visible_prompt_and_reply",
  "posted_to_telegram": true,
  "mutates_kb": false,
  "results": [
    {
      "prompt_id": "DC-01",
      "prompt": "Did we actually update the knowledge base, or is it still just proposals?",
      "reply": "Mostly still proposals.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nBreakdown across all 26 proposals:\n\n- `applied`: 2\n- `approved`: 3 (reviewed, not yet applied)\n- `pending_review`: 14\n- `canceled`: 7\n\nThe 2 applied ones:\n- `f004bbb2` - Leo guiding-policy revision evidence (applied 2026-07-05)\n- `00957f6c` - strict `add_edge` canary (applied 2026-07-09)\n\nThe 3 approved but NOT applied:\n- `14fa5ecc` - claim-split proposal for internet-finance/capital-allocation; `applied_at: none`\n- `ac036c9d` - strategy-kernel document / claim hygiene; `applied_at: none`\n- `a64df080` - Helmer 7 Powers framework packet; `applied_at: none`\n\nApproved is not the same as applied. All three have empty `applied_at` - they are packet-ready but not canonical. The 14 pending proposals haven't been reviewed at all.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: the proof-changing action is running the apply step on the 3 approved proposals - that requires explicit operator/admin authorization and a reviewed apply path, not a normal chat command. Want me to draft or refresh the admin review packet for any of them?",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "telegram_prompt_visible": true,
      "telegram_reply_visible": true,
      "screenshot_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/telegram-visible-direct-claim-suite-20260712/dc-01-telegram-visible-20260712.jpeg",
      "accessibility_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/telegram-visible-direct-claim-suite-20260712/dc-01-telegram-visible-accessibility-20260712.txt",
      "server_session_format_verified": true
    },
    {
      "prompt_id": "DC-02",
      "prompt": "Is Helmer's 7 Powers in Leo now?",
      "reply": "No, not canonical. Direct answer: The 7 Powers framework is approved/staged but not in the canonical KB.\n\nDB readback: proposal: a64df080-8502-42e2-98f4-9bbdecb8da73; status: approved; applied_at: none (database NULL). Canonical vs staged split: - public.claims, public.sources, public.claim_evidence, public.claim_edges — no 7 Powers rows found in a live search - kb_stage.kb_proposals — proposal a64df080 is approved with m3ta's \"approved-with-changes\" decision (removed Teleo self-positioning claim, added competitive advantage/moats neighborhood links) - applied_at: NULL — approved is not the same as applied The full packet is rich: 5 proposed claims, 7 source candidates with local research files, a reasoning tool node, lifecycle map, and Leo usage template — all staged and ready. It just hasn't been walked into public.* rows by an operator apply action. Next Cory-style follow-up: Run the apply path (operator-authorized, with before/after public.* postflight readback) to promote proposal a64df080-8502-42e2-98f4-9bbdecb8da73 into canonical claims, sources, evidence, and edges — that's the action that changes this answer from \"no\" to \"yes.\" 01:42",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "telegram_prompt_visible": true,
      "telegram_reply_visible": true,
      "screenshot_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/telegram-visible-direct-claim-suite-20260712/dc-02-telegram-visible-20260713.png",
      "accessibility_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/telegram-visible-direct-claim-suite-20260712/dc-02-telegram-visible-accessibility-20260713.txt",
      "server_session_format_verified": true
    },
    {
      "prompt_id": "DC-03",
      "prompt": "Did the decision matrix approve this already?",
      "reply": "No. Fresh readback: the decision-matrix schema is absent; reviewer status is not a decision-matrix vote. All three decision-matrix tables — matrix_voters, proposal_votes, proposal_decisions — are missing from both kb_stage and public.*. The schema was never migrated to production.\n\nDB readback: proposal: a64df080-8502-42e2-98f4-9bbdecb8da73; status: approved; applied_at: none (database NULL). What actually happened: m3ta reviewed proposal a64df080 in Telegram on 2026-06-29 and gave an \"approved-with-changes\" decision via chat. That updated the status field in kb_stage.kb_proposals. That is reviewer approval — not a futarchy/decision-matrix vote, which would require proposal_votes rows and a quorum calculation via proposal_decisions. The two are different paths. Right now only the manual reviewer path exists. The decision-matrix path is not shipped. Next Cory-style follow-up: either ship the decision-matrix schema migration (creating matrix_voters, proposal_votes, proposal_decisions ) and back-fill the vote, or treat m3ta's manual approval as sufficient authorization and move to the apply step instead. 01:44",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "telegram_prompt_visible": true,
      "telegram_reply_visible": true,
      "screenshot_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/telegram-visible-direct-claim-suite-20260712/dc-03-telegram-visible-20260713.png",
      "accessibility_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/telegram-visible-direct-claim-suite-20260712/dc-03-telegram-visible-accessibility-20260713.txt",
      "server_session_format_verified": true
    },
    {
      "prompt_id": "DC-04",
      "prompt": "Are the pending proposals stuck because the documents are not pointed at the right source rows?",
      "reply": "Not just a pointer mismatch.\n\nDB readback: claims: 1837; sources: 4145; claim_edges: 4916; claim_evidence: 4670; kb_proposals: 26. Looking at the actual source_ref values across the 14 pending proposals, there are at least four distinct layers that all need to align before apply is safe — and they are different problems: Layer 1 — Local file references f5036882 points at telegram-doc:/home/teleo/.../doc_e37afcd86605_teleo_agent_strategy_kernels_2026-06-30.md. The file path exists in the local cache but there is no corresponding row in public.sources yet. Document pointer is fine; the source row is missing. Layer 2 — URL-only references bcec8528 points at telegram-url:https://luma.com/the-declaration-of-intelligence... — a URL, not a canonical source ID. No public.sources row has been created. Layer 3 — Resolved attachment keys e987b07c points at telegram-resolved-attachment:doc_996e2e86cd94_Good Strategy_Bad Strategy.pdf — an ingestion handle, not a public.sources UUID. Layer 4 — Approved proposals with no apply path The 3 approved proposals ( a64df080, 14fa5ecc, ac036c9d ) are not stuck on pointer issues — they are stuck because the bridge chat has no teleo-kb apply-* command and the production apply worker is disabled. So the 14 pending proposals are blocked by a mix of: no reviewer (pending without reviewed_at ), missing canonical public.sources rows, and source_ref values that are local-cache handles not linked to canonical row IDs. The approved ones are blocked purely on the apply-path gap, not on source pointers. The missing proof is a row-link audit: map each proposal's source_ref to either an existing public.sources UUID or flag it as needing a create_source step before apply. Next Cory-style follow-up: the clearest unblocking action is a row-link audit pass — run each pending proposal's source_ref against public.sources and generate a dependency list of \"needs source row created first\" vs \"source row exists, just needs reviewer.\" Want me to draft that audit? 01:45",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "telegram_prompt_visible": true,
      "telegram_reply_visible": true,
      "screenshot_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/telegram-visible-direct-claim-suite-20260712/dc-04-telegram-visible-20260713.png",
      "accessibility_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/telegram-visible-direct-claim-suite-20260712/dc-04-telegram-visible-accessibility-20260713.txt",
      "server_session_format_verified": true
    },
    {
      "prompt_id": "DC-05",
      "prompt": "Can I demo that Leo changes the KB?",
      "reply": "Staging yes, canonical KB change not safe to demo from chat.\n\nDB readback: claims: 1837; sources: 4145; claim_edges: 4916; claim_evidence: 4670; kb_proposals: 26. Approved is not the same as applied. What you can demo safely right now: A safe demo shows a real staging write to kb_stage.kb_proposals and reads it back. For example: pick two existing claim IDs, Leo stages an add_edge proposal via the bridge, and you read it back from the ledger with a UUID, timestamp, rationale, and status pending_review. That is a real DB write — provable, reversible, review-gated. Current tier breakdown: - Live-proven: strict existing-ID add_edge path — Leo stages a proposal, it lands in kb_stage.kb_proposals, apply path has been run once (proposal 00957f6c, applied 2026-07-09) - Clone-proven only: guarded approve_claim bundles and rich attach_evidence packets — reviewed and applied on a clone, not production - Disabled: production permission migration, apply worker, and the apply tooling for approved legacy packets without strict apply_payload structures So canonical demo — showing new or updated row IDs in public.claims, public.sources, public.claim_evidence, public.claim_edges — still requires explicit operator/admin authorization, the matching reviewed apply path, and retained before/after postflight readback. A chat statement alone is not postflight proof. Next Cory-style follow-up: the clearest demoable canonical change is promoting the strict canary add_edge apply path on one of the 3 approved proposals — that would show the full loop (proposal staged → approved → applied → public.claim_edges row confirmed). Requires operator authorization to run. 01:47",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "telegram_prompt_visible": true,
      "telegram_reply_visible": true,
      "screenshot_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/telegram-visible-direct-claim-suite-20260712/dc-05-telegram-visible-20260713.png",
      "accessibility_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/telegram-visible-direct-claim-suite-20260712/dc-05-telegram-visible-accessibility-20260713.txt",
      "server_session_format_verified": true
    },
    {
      "prompt_id": "DC-06",
      "prompt": "If we changed SOUL.md, did we change Leo's canonical identity?",
      "reply": "No.\n\nDB readback: claims: 1837; sources: 4145; claim_edges: 4916; claim_evidence: 4670; kb_proposals: 26. SOUL.md is a runtime/rendered artifact — not canonical Postgres, not the source of truth, not a canonical commit, and not collective truth. Editing it changes what Leo reads at session startup, which can shift runtime behavior in the next session. It does not change canonical Postgres rows. Row-level proof would require current readback of new or updated row IDs in public.claims, public.sources, public.claim_evidence, public.claim_edges or identity tables, plus postflight/render-sync proof. Without those rows, canonical identity is unchanged. The distinction matters practically: - SOUL.md edit → affects next runtime session only; reversible; not reviewed; not version-controlled through the KB graph - Canonical identity change → requires a proposal staged in kb_stage.kb_proposals, reviewer approval, apply step that writes new/updated rows to public.*, and postflight readback confirming the row IDs Right now Leo's identity is DB-backed (per memory), meaning the rendered SOUL.md at session start is supposed to reflect Postgres — but that sync is only as good as the last render. If you edited SOUL.md directly without a corresponding DB change and render, you've created a divergence: runtime Leo would behave differently than what the canonical DB says Leo is. Next Cory-style follow-up: if a SOUL.md edit encodes a real identity correction, the proof-changing action is staging it as a KB proposal, getting it reviewed, applying it to public.*, and re-rendering SOUL.md from the DB — so the rendered artifact and canonical rows agree. 01:47",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "telegram_prompt_visible": true,
      "telegram_reply_visible": true,
      "screenshot_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/telegram-visible-direct-claim-suite-20260712/dc-06-telegram-visible-20260713.png",
      "accessibility_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/telegram-visible-direct-claim-suite-20260712/dc-06-telegram-visible-accessibility-20260713.txt",
      "server_session_format_verified": true
    }
  ],
  "server_session_jsonl": "/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/sessions/20260712_183900_2c340f62.jsonl",
  "server_reply_sequence_verified": true
}
