{
  "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": "2026-07-13T07:05:29.941875+00:00",
  "handler": {
    "authorized": true,
    "session_key": "agent:main:telegram:group:-5146042086:9070919",
    "temp_profile": "/tmp/leo-direct-claim-handler-qxpcactn/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-02458528a0cc.json",
  "remote_returncode": 0,
  "remote_run_id": "02458528a0cc",
  "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": "2026-07-13T07:06:12.670085+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": "Here is the live readback. Today is July 13. The most recent proposal write of any kind was July 9 \u2014 four days ago, not yesterday. So the claim is essentially true, and stronger than stated.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nWhat I checked live:\n\n`teleo-kb status` \u2014 full canonical and staging counts.\n`teleo-kb list-proposals --status all` \u2014 all 26 proposals with timestamps.\n\nWhat the DB shows:\n\nThe newest staging write is proposal `8dfedb3f-3aa4-4200-970f-4c0016f6869f`, a Telegram-to-DB canary, created 2026-07-09. No proposal was staged, approved, or applied on July 11 or July 12. The two canonically applied proposals both carry `applied_at` timestamps from July 4\u20139. The three currently approved proposals (`14fa5ecc`, `ac036c9d`, and one more in the list) all have `applied_at: none (database NULL)` \u2014 approved, but not applied. Approved is not the same as applied.\n\nDemo tier reality: staging writes are live-proven (the canary path works). Canonical `public.*` mutation is not provable from chat alone and requires explicit operator/admin authorization plus a reviewed apply path. A safe demo can show a real staging write and read it back. It cannot currently demonstrate canonical table change without that authorization.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: authorize and execute the apply worker against one of the three approved proposals with a validated strict `apply_payload`, then run a postflight `status` readback \u2014 that is the single action that would move content from `kb_stage` into canonical `public.*` and change the true demo answer from \"nothing applied in four days\" to \"something landed today.\"",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T07:05:30.561568+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": "2026-07-13T07:06:46.060412+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": "The pipeline has five stages. Here is each one in plain language.\n\n---\n\nSTAGE 1 \u2014 INGEST AND PROVENANCE\n\nEvery piece of material gets its own source row in `public.sources` before any claim is extracted. The PDF gets a row with its file hash and storage path. The Telegram discussion gets one or more rows referencing the channel and message range. Each tweet gets its own row with the URL. Nothing enters the claim layer until the source layer exists. This is the provenance anchor: every claim that follows must trace back to a source row, not to a conversation or memory.\n\nWhat you should see: five or more rows in `public.sources`, each with a distinct `source_type`, `url` or `storage_path`, a `hash` that fingerprints the raw material, and a `captured_at` timestamp. If a source row is missing, the downstream claim has no provenance.\n\n---\n\nSTAGE 2 \u2014 EXTRACTION AND CALIBRATION\n\nFrom each source, candidate claims are extracted as discrete, falsifiable statements \u2014 not summaries of the document's vibe. \"DeFi TVL fell 40% in Q1\" is a candidate claim. \"The market is shifting\" is not, because it cannot be falsified.\n\nEach candidate gets a confidence label at its true evidence tier:\n- `likely` requires empirical data in the source.\n- `experimental` means coherent argument with limited validation.\n- `speculative` means untested assertion.\n\nA tweet can support a `speculative` claim. A peer-reviewed dataset can support a `likely` claim. The tier travels with the claim permanently.\n\nWhat you should see: candidate claim text that is specific enough to disagree with, a confidence score, and a status of `pending_review` \u2014 not canonical yet.\n\n---\n\nSTAGE 3 \u2014 DEDUPLICATION\n\nBefore a new candidate claim is proposed, it is searched against `public.claims` by semantic overlap and keyword match. Three outcomes are possible:\n\n- No match: the candidate becomes a new claim proposal.\n- Near-duplicate: the candidate is compared sentence by sentence. If one is strictly stronger (more specific, better evidenced), a `supersedes` edge is proposed rather than creating a redundant row. The weaker claim gets a `superseded_by` pointer.\n- Partial overlap: both claims survive as separate rows, but a `relates` or `derives_from` edge is proposed to link them. The relationship is made explicit rather than collapsed silently.\n\nWhat you should see: the proposal rationale should name which existing claim IDs were checked, and either confirm no overlap or specify the edge type proposed to handle it.\n\n---\n\nSTAGE 4 \u2014 CONTRADICTION HANDLING\n\nWhen two sources make claims that appear to conflict \u2014 say the PDF says TVL fell 40% and a tweet says TVL rose 15% in the same period \u2014 the first question is whether it is a real contradiction or a scope mismatch. About 85% of apparent conflicts resolve when you nail down the time window, the metric, or the chain being measured. If the scope mismatch resolves it, the claims survive as separate rows linked by a `relates` edge, with the scope difference noted in the rationale.\n\nIf the conflict is real and irreducible, a `contradicts` edge is proposed between the two claim IDs. Neither claim is deleted. The contradiction is made explicit in the graph so any reasoning that touches those nodes surfaces the disagreement rather than silently picking one. A real contradiction also triggers a flag for cross-domain review \u2014 one claim cannot be used as a chain-of-reasoning input until the contradiction is resolved or the lower-confidence leg is superseded.\n\nWhat you should see: a `contradicts` edge in `public.claim_edges` between the two claim IDs, with the source of each leg traceable back to its source row, and a note in the proposal rationale explaining why it was not resolved as a scope mismatch.\n\n---\n\nSTAGE 5 \u2014 REVIEW AND RECEIPTS\n\nNo candidate claim lands in `public.claims` without passing through `kb_stage.kb_proposals`. Each proposal carries the full chain: the proposed claim text, the source row it cites, any edge types proposed, the confidence tier, and the rationale for why it clears the quality gate (specific enough to disagree with, evidence traceable, not a duplicate, right domain reviewers).\n\nA reviewer \u2014 not Leo \u2014 approves or rejects. Approval moves the proposal to `status: approved`. Application moves content into canonical `public.*` rows and sets `applied_at`. Approved is not the same as applied. A proposal sitting at approved with `applied_at: none` has not changed the KB.\n\nThe receipts you should see at the end of a clean run, in order:\n\n1. Source rows in `public.sources` \u2014 one per raw document/thread/tweet, each with hash and `captured_at`.\n2. `claim_evidence` rows linking each new or updated claim to its source row.\n3. `kb_proposals` rows in `kb_stage` \u2014 one per proposed change \u2014 each with `status`, `reviewed_at`, and `applied_at` filled or explicitly null.\n4. `claim_edges` rows in `public.claim_edges` for any `supersedes`, `contradicts`, `relates`, or `derives_from` relationships surfaced during dedup and contradiction handling.\n5. A postflight `status` readback showing the before/after counts for `claims`, `sources`, `claim_edges`, `claim_evidence`, and `kb_proposals`.\n\nIf any of those five layers is missing, the run is incomplete and the material has not become durable knowledge \u2014 it has become a proposal that is waiting to be completed.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T07:06:12.670451+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": "2026-07-13T07:07:15.699246+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": "DB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nNo new rows since the last check. That is the baseline the truth test runs against.\n\n---\n\nTHE EXACT TRUTH TEST \u2014 THREE LAYERS, ALL REQUIRED\n\n---\n\nLAYER 1 \u2014 CANONICAL POSTGRES (the only authoritative surface)\n\nA correction is part of Leo's canonical identity if and only if a new or updated row exists in `public.claims` or the relevant identity tables in Postgres, with:\n\n- a row ID you can point to,\n- `created_at` or `updated_at` after the correction was made,\n- `claim_evidence` linking it to a source row with a hash, and\n- any `supersedes` edge replacing the old claim, with the old claim's `superseded_by` pointer set.\n\nTest command: `teleo-kb show <claim_id>` returns the row. `teleo-kb evidence <claim_id>` returns at least one evidence link. If those calls return nothing, the correction is not canonical, regardless of what happened in chat or in SOUL.md.\n\nCurrent state right now: no new rows applied today. The three approved proposals sitting at `applied_at: none (database NULL)` are not canonical. Approved is not the same as applied.\n\n---\n\nLAYER 2 \u2014 SOUL.MD (a rendered artifact, not the source of truth)\n\nSOUL.md is generated from the DB. It is a read-out, not a write-in. Editing it directly changes what the next runtime session loads, but does not change Postgres. After a restart, if the render/sync process regenerates SOUL.md from Postgres, the edit disappears and the pre-correction version returns. If the sync process is not running or is skipped, the hand-edited SOUL.md persists temporarily \u2014 but it is still not canonical, because the DB disagrees with it.\n\nThe SOUL.md edit has zero evidential weight for identity claims. 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.\n\n---\n\nLAYER 3 \u2014 CHAT CORRECTION (runtime memory, not canonical)\n\nWhat Leo accepts in chat and stores in runtime memory survives the current session and may carry into the next via the memory tool. That is useful for procedural preferences. It is not canonical collective truth. Another agent, a different Leo session, or any consumer of the DB reading `public.claims` directly will not see the correction. Runtime memory is local continuity, not shared ground truth.\n\n---\n\nTHE COMPLETE TRUTH TEST, IN ORDER\n\nAsk these five questions. All five must be yes for the correction to be canonical tomorrow after a restart:\n\n1. Does a row exist in `public.claims` (or the relevant identity table) with an ID and a timestamp after the correction?\n2. Does `public.claim_evidence` have a row linking that claim to a source with a non-null hash?\n3. If the correction replaces an old claim, does a `supersedes` edge exist in `public.claim_edges` and does the old claim carry a `superseded_by` pointer?\n4. Does `kb_stage.kb_proposals` show a row for this correction with `status: applied` and a non-null `applied_at`?\n5. Does a postflight `teleo-kb status` readback show counts that are higher than the pre-correction baseline?\n\nIf any answer is no, the correction lives only in chat memory or in a hand-edited file. It will not survive a clean restart with DB-driven render.\n\n---\n\nCURRENT ANSWER FOR YOUR SPECIFIC CASE\n\nThe chat correction: runtime memory only. Not in Postgres. Test 1 through 5 all fail on current readback.\n\nThe SOUL.md edit: changes the runtime artifact directly. Survives until the next DB-driven render overwrites it. Fails tests 1 through 4. Fails test 5 \u2014 counts unchanged at the baseline above.\n\nNeither surface has changed canonical identity as of this readback.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: route the correction through a proposal, get it reviewed and approved with a validated strict `apply_payload`, authorize and execute the apply worker, then run postflight `teleo-kb status` and verify the counts moved \u2014 that is the only path that makes the correction survive a restart as canonical identity.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T07:06:46.060784+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": "2026-07-13T07:07:41.041107+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\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nAll three approved proposals have `applied_at: none (database NULL)`. Approved is not the same as applied. The three are:\n\n`14fa5ecc-ac7a-41c1-807d-a2e85b936617` \u2014 attach_evidence, reviewed 2026-07-05, applied_at: none\n`ac036c9d-20a0-4ffe-881f-57d6b7bacf22` \u2014 attach_evidence, reviewed 2026-07-05, applied_at: none\n`a64df080-8502-42e2-98f4-9bbdecb8da73` \u2014 Helmer 7 Powers framework packet, reviewed 2026-06-29, applied_at: none\n\nThe canonical tables have not moved. `public.claims` still reads `1837`. No postflight counts show growth. Nothing in `public.*` has changed from before those approvals.\n\nWhat you can honestly say to a partner right now: three changes have passed reviewer approval and are queued \u2014 they exist as durable staged proposals and can be inspected at the links above. The canonical knowledge database has not been updated.\n\nThe proof that changes the answer: authorize and execute the apply worker against each of the three proposals, then run a postflight `teleo-kb status` that shows counts higher than the current baseline \u2014 specifically `claims`, `claim_evidence`, or `claim_edges` moving above `1837`, `4670`, and `4916` respectively, and all three `applied_at` fields populated with timestamps. That readback, copied into your demo notes, is the honest receipt.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: explicit operator authorization to run the apply path against these three proposals, with before/after postflight readback retained \u2014 that is the one action that converts approved to applied and makes the answer yes.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T07:07:15.699753+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_is_not_evidence",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T07:08:40.808302+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": "Now I have the full picture across every layer. Here is the exact chain you should audit, and what a valid receipt looks like.\n\n---\n\nTHE SHORT ANSWER\n\nNo. A proposal pointing to a Telegram attachment, and that attachment's extracted text existing on disk, is not canonical evidence. It is three or four hops short of it. Each hop is a distinct layer and each can break independently.\n\n---\n\nTHE LINK CHAIN TO AUDIT \u2014 IN ORDER\n\nLAYER 1 \u2014 THE FILE ON DISK\n\nThe file referenced is the `source_candidate.local_path` in the proposal payload. I checked: that path does not exist right now.\n\n`/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/cache/documents/doc_e37afcd86605_teleo_agent_strategy_kernels_2026-06-30.md` \u2014 not found on disk.\n\nSo even before reaching the DB, the first link is already broken for at least one of these proposals. The text that was extracted is gone from disk. This is not unusual \u2014 the cache is transient \u2014 but it means there is no live file to hash.\n\nLAYER 2 \u2014 THE SOURCE ROW IN `public.sources`\n\nA file on disk is not a source. A canonical source is a row in `public.sources` with a stable `id`, a `source_type`, a `hash` fingerprinting the exact file content, a `storage_path` or `url`, and a `captured_at` timestamp. I ran a search: no row in `public.sources` matches the `doc_e37afcd86605` file. The file existed in cache; it was never promoted to a canonical source row. This means there is nothing in `public.sources` to link evidence to.\n\nLAYER 3 \u2014 THE CLAIM_EVIDENCE ROW IN `public.claim_evidence`\n\nEvidence is a row in `public.claim_evidence` that joins a specific `claim_id` to a specific `source_id`, with an `excerpt` or `excerpt_anchor` and a `role` (grounds, illustrates, challenges). Without a source row from Layer 2, this join is impossible. The evidence row cannot exist. I confirmed this indirectly: the existing Hayek claim `7da4851c-0aac-4084-a99f-baeeeb3aa23e` has two evidence rows, but both point to `storage_path` rows that are KB-internal markdown files and a plain `other` source_type with no URL and no hash \u2014 not the Telegram attachment.\n\nLAYER 4 \u2014 THE PROPOSAL APPLIED_AT\n\nThe approved proposal `ac036c9d` has `applied_at: none (database NULL)`. Even if Layers 1\u20133 were all healthy, nothing has been applied. Approved is not the same as applied.\n\nLAYER 5 \u2014 THE PROPOSAL ITSELF AS A PROXY\n\nThe proposal payload contains `source_candidates` with `key_excerpts` and `source_key` strings. Those are intent declarations \u2014 a description of what should become source rows and evidence links once applied. They are not DB rows. They cannot be reasoned over as canonical evidence. They live only in the JSONB payload of `kb_stage.kb_proposals`.\n\n---\n\nWHAT A VALID BEFORE-AND-AFTER RECEIPT LOOKS LIKE\n\nBEFORE (the baseline you capture now):\n\n`public.sources` row count: current number, zero rows matching this document.\n`public.claim_evidence` row count for target claim: current number per `teleo-kb evidence <claim_id>`.\nProposal `ac036c9d-20a0-4ffe-881f-57d6b7bacf22`: status `approved`, `applied_at: none`.\n\nAFTER (what a clean apply would produce):\n\n1. A new row appears in `public.sources` with a stable `id`, `source_type: document`, a non-null `hash` of the file content, `storage_path` pointing to a durable location (not a transient cache), and `captured_at` populated.\n2. A new row appears in `public.claim_evidence` joining the target claim ID to that source row, with `excerpt` matching one of the anchors named in the proposal payload and a `role` of `grounds` or `illustrates`.\n3. The proposal row shows `applied_at` as a non-null timestamp.\n4. A postflight `teleo-kb status` readback shows `sources` count one higher and `claim_evidence` count one or more higher than the before baseline.\n5. `teleo-kb evidence <claim_id>` returns the new row with a populated `source_type`, non-null `storage_path` or `url`, and the excerpt anchor.\n\nAll five must be present. If any is missing, the evidence link is not complete.\n\n---\n\nCURRENT STATE FOR YOUR CASE\n\nThe file is not on disk. No matching source row exists in `public.sources`. No evidence row links the Telegram attachment to any canonical claim. The three approved proposals all have `applied_at: none`. The proposal payload describes what the evidence should look like but is not the evidence itself.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: recover or re-capture the source document to a durable path, promote it to a `public.sources` row with a computed hash, validate the proposal's `apply_payload` against that row's real ID, then authorize apply with a retained before/after postflight. Until then, the claim has no canonical evidence from this source.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T07:07:41.041840+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": "2026-07-13T07:09:36.165768+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 types of content, five different DB treatments. Here is how each lands, why the separation matters, and then the full review and apply sequence.\n\n---\n\nPART 1 \u2014 THE FIVE TYPES AND HOW EACH LANDS\n\nFACTUAL OBSERVATION\n\nGoes into `public.claims` as a `structural` type with a tight confidence calibration and at least one `claim_evidence` row pointing to a `public.sources` row with a hash. The claim text must be falsifiable \u2014 a specific, time-bounded, measurable assertion. The evidence row carries the excerpt that supports it and a `role` of `grounds`. If the observation comes from an external source, the source row carries the URL and hash. If it comes from an internal document, it carries the storage path and hash.\n\nWhat flattening destroys here: if you bundle the observation with the interpretation of it, you can no longer update one without touching the other. The observation might survive five years; the interpretation might be wrong next quarter.\n\nSTRATEGIC FRAMEWORK\n\nDoes not go into `public.claims` at all \u2014 or not primarily. A framework is a reasoning tool: a structured lens for evaluating claims, not a claim itself. It should land as a `reasoning_tool` or `concept_map` node in the soul/context layer, with a name, a description of its mechanism, and edges to the claims it applies to. Those edges use types like `relates`, `supports`, or `constrains` from the framework node toward the claims it informs.\n\nWhat flattening destroys here: a framework encoded as a claim cannot be applied as a lens. It becomes a single proposition you either accept or reject, instead of a reusable analytical structure you can apply to new claims as they arrive. The Rumelt strategy kernel and the Hayek price-system node already live this way in the current DB.\n\nDISPUTED INTERPRETATION\n\nGoes into `public.claims` with a lower confidence tier \u2014 `experimental` or `speculative` \u2014 and a `contradicts` or `challenges` edge to any competing interpretation already in the graph. The claim text must include the scope limit that makes it disputable: what the interpretation asserts, what it does not assert, and what evidence would resolve the dispute. If a rival interpretation exists in the graph, a `contradicts` edge is proposed between them explicitly. Neither is deleted.\n\nWhat flattening destroys here: if the disputed interpretation is encoded at the same confidence as the factual observation, Leo cannot distinguish between settled ground and contested ground when building a reasoning chain. A chain that silently passes through a `speculative` claim and arrives at a conclusion looks identical to one that passed through a `likely` claim. The confidence tier and the explicit `contradicts` edge are what make the dispute visible downstream.\n\nGOVERNANCE RULE\n\nGoes into the behavioral rules layer of the soul/context \u2014 not into `public.claims`. A governance rule is a constraint on conduct, not a proposition about the world. It has a name, a scope (`collective`, `leo`, `review`), and a rationale. If the rule is new, a proposal stages it as a soul/context edit. If it modifies an existing rule, a `supersedes` relationship is recorded between the old rule text and the new one, with the rationale for the change.\n\nWhat flattening destroys here: a governance rule encoded as a claim can be challenged, weighted by confidence, and superseded by a higher-confidence counter-claim. That is the wrong epistemic treatment. Rules are not beliefs about the world \u2014 they are commitments about how to act. Mixing them with claims contaminates both layers.\n\nCORRECTION TO AN OLD BELIEF\n\nThis is the most structurally demanding of the five. The old belief already has a row in `public.claims`. The correction does not overwrite it \u2014 it creates a new claim row with the corrected text and a `supersedes` edge pointing from the new claim to the old one. The old claim gets its `superseded_by` field populated with the new claim's ID. The old evidence rows are not deleted; they remain attached to the old claim so the reasoning that produced the original belief is auditable. New evidence rows are attached to the new claim to show what changed.\n\nWhat flattening destroys here: if you overwrite the old belief, you lose the audit trail. You cannot later ask why the collective believed the old thing, what evidence supported it, and what specifically changed. The supersession chain is the institutional memory of belief revision.\n\n---\n\nPART 2 \u2014 THE GRAPH STRUCTURE ACROSS ALL FIVE\n\nAfter a clean apply, the packet produces a graph neighborhood that looks like this:\n\nThe factual observation sits at the base with `grounds` evidence links to source rows.\nThe framework node sits above it with `relates` or `constrains` edges pointing down to the observation and the disputed interpretation.\nThe disputed interpretation sits alongside the observation with a `contradicts` edge to any rival, a `challenges` edge back to the old belief if relevant, and a lower confidence marker.\nThe new belief sits above the old one with a `supersedes` edge, and the old belief is reachable but marked superseded.\nThe governance rule sits in the soul layer, adjacent but not entangled \u2014 referenced by the proposal rationale but not wired into the claims graph as a node.\n\nThe whole neighborhood is traversable: ask Leo to reason over anything touching the framework, and it can pull the observation, the dispute, and the current belief in one graph walk without flattening any of them.\n\n---\n\nPART 3 \u2014 REVIEW AND APPLY SEQUENCE\n\nSTEP 1 \u2014 SOURCE CAPTURE\n\nBefore any proposals are written, every raw input gets a `public.sources` row: the document, the session reference, or the URL. Hash is computed and stored. `captured_at` is set. This happens first and is a prerequisite for all downstream steps.\n\nSTEP 2 \u2014 PROPOSAL DRAFTING \u2014 FIVE SEPARATE PROPOSALS\n\nEach of the five types gets its own proposal in `kb_stage.kb_proposals`. They are not bundled. Bundling forces an all-or-nothing review decision and makes partial approval impossible. Each proposal carries:\n- the type of change (`add_claim`, `attach_evidence`, `add_edge`, `add_context_node`, or `supersede_claim`),\n- the full payload with the candidate row content,\n- the source row ID it cites,\n- the confidence tier and rationale,\n- the set of edges being proposed,\n- an explicit note on why it is not a duplicate of an existing row,\n- and for the correction: the ID of the claim being superseded.\n\nSTEP 3 \u2014 DEPENDENCY ORDERING\n\nThe five proposals are not reviewed in isolation \u2014 they have dependencies. The source rows must exist before any evidence-attach proposals are reviewed. The factual observation must be reviewed before the disputed interpretation proposal, because the interpretation may propose a `contradicts` edge to the observation's claim ID. The correction must be reviewed after confirming the old belief's claim ID is current and not already superseded.\n\nThe reviewer sees a dependency map, not a flat list.\n\nSTEP 4 \u2014 REVIEW DECISIONS\n\nEach proposal passes four gates: specific enough to disagree with, evidence traceable, not a duplicate, right domain reviewers. The framework proposal requires a reviewer who can assess whether the mechanism is specifiable \u2014 pattern-matching without a named mechanism does not ship as a synthesis claim. The governance rule proposal requires a collective reviewer, not just Leo, because no self-merge is permitted. The belief correction requires the reviewer to confirm that the superseded claim ID matches the intended old belief and that new evidence is attached, not just asserted.\n\nEach proposal gets one of three decisions: approved, approved-with-changes, or rejected with reasoning. Approved-with-changes means the proposal is returned for revision before it re-enters the queue.\n\nSTEP 5 \u2014 APPLY WITH RETAINED BEFORE/AFTER\n\nEach approved proposal is applied individually, in dependency order. Before each apply, a postflight baseline is captured: the current counts for `claims`, `sources`, `claim_edges`, `claim_evidence`. After apply, those counts are read again. The receipts you should see per proposal:\n\nFor the factual observation: one new row in `public.claims`, one new row in `public.claim_evidence` linking to the source row, count increments confirmed.\n\nFor the framework: one new context node in the soul layer, one or more new rows in `public.claim_edges` linking it to the claims it governs, no new `public.claims` row unless the framework has an associated testable proposition.\n\nFor the disputed interpretation: one new row in `public.claims` at the correct confidence tier, one new `contradicts` or `challenges` edge in `public.claim_edges`, evidence rows attached, count increments confirmed.\n\nFor the governance rule: one new or updated rule in the soul/behavioral-rules layer, `applied_at` populated on the proposal, no mutation to `public.claims`.\n\nFor the belief correction: one new row in `public.claims` with the corrected text, one `supersedes` edge in `public.claim_edges`, the old claim's `superseded_by` field populated, new evidence rows attached, old evidence rows intact and still linked to the old claim, count increments confirmed for both claims and edges.\n\nSTEP 6 \u2014 POSTFLIGHT AUDIT\n\nAfter all five are applied, `teleo-kb status` is run and the five-table counts are compared to the pre-apply baseline. The total delta should account for every row created. If any count is lower than expected, the shortfall identifies which apply step is incomplete. That readback, retained with timestamps, is the canonical receipt for the packet.\n\n---\n\nSUMMARY LINE\n\nThe packet produces five proposals, reviewed in dependency order, applied individually, with before/after count receipts per step. The DB ends up with claims, a context node, edges, evidence, a superseded belief with its audit trail intact, and a governance rule in the correct layer \u2014 none of it flattened, all of it traversable.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: when you are ready to stage this packet, the first action is capturing the source rows and confirming they exist in `public.sources` before any proposal is written \u2014 that is the prerequisite every downstream step depends on.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T07:08:40.809054+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": "2026-07-13T07:09:47.080134+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-5a5ebcf0. 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-5a5ebcf0`\n\nBlocker: Three proposals \u2014 `14fa5ecc-ac7a-41c1-807d-a2e85b936617`, `ac036c9d-20a0-4ffe-881f-57d6b7bacf22`, and `a64df080-8502-42e2-98f4-9bbdecb8da73` \u2014 carry reviewer approval but all have `applied_at: none (database NULL)`. The canonical tables have not moved in four days. The demo cannot honestly show that the knowledge database has been updated, because approved is not the same as applied, and no apply worker has run against any of these proposals. That single gap \u2014 approval without application \u2014 is the root of every \"nothing changed\" answer this conversation produced.\n\nHeld in session memory only under that label. Not staged, not written to the KB.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T07:09:36.166731+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": "2026-07-13T07:09:57.233592+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-5a5ebcf0`\n\nBlocker: Three reviewer-approved proposals \u2014 `14fa5ecc-ac7a-41c1-807d-a2e85b936617`, `ac036c9d-20a0-4ffe-881f-57d6b7bacf22`, and `a64df080-8502-42e2-98f4-9bbdecb8da73` \u2014 all sitting at `applied_at: none (database NULL)`. The canonical tables have not moved. Approved is not the same as applied.\n\nExact proof that closes it: explicit operator authorization to run the apply worker against all three proposals, in dependency order, followed by a postflight `teleo-kb status` readback showing all five canonical counts higher than the current baseline \u2014 `claims` above `1837`, `sources` above `4145`, `claim_edges` above `4916`, `claim_evidence` above `4670` \u2014 and all three proposal rows showing non-null `applied_at` timestamps. That readback, retained with timestamps, is the receipt. Anything short of those numbers moving is not proof.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T07:09:47.080708+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": "2026-07-13T07:10:07.405187+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": "This participant is `@m3taversal` \u2014 that exact handle, no shortening, no nickname, no personal name inferred from anywhere.\n\nAllowed identity sources: the current Telegram update only \u2014 the visible sender field of the message being answered right now.\n\nForbidden sources: session headers, memory, soul documents, environment labels, other participants' messages, and any prior session's identity resolution.\n\nWhen another user replies, Leo resolves identity fresh from that update's sender field and never carries a previous participant's identity forward or assigns it to a different sender.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T07:09:57.234181+00:00",
      "turn": 9
    }
  ],
  "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
}
