{
  "canonical_status_after": {
    "db_identity": "teleo_clone_dbfirst_20260714t090758z|postgres",
    "high_signal_rows": {
      "agents": 5,
      "beliefs": 16,
      "claim_edges": 4916,
      "claim_evidence": 4670,
      "claims": 1837,
      "kb_proposals": 29,
      "personas": 3,
      "sources": 4145,
      "strategies": 4
    },
    "schema_tables": {
      "kb_stage": 15,
      "public": 32
    }
  },
  "canonical_status_before": {
    "db_identity": "teleo_clone_dbfirst_20260714t090758z|postgres",
    "high_signal_rows": {
      "agents": 5,
      "beliefs": 16,
      "claim_edges": 4916,
      "claim_evidence": 4670,
      "claims": 1837,
      "kb_proposals": 29,
      "personas": 3,
      "sources": 4145,
      "strategies": 4
    },
    "schema_tables": {
      "kb_stage": 15,
      "public": 32
    }
  },
  "checks": {
    "canonical_counts_unchanged": true,
    "claim_and_sources_retrieved": true,
    "database_calls_read_only": true,
    "database_identity_unchanged": true,
    "discovery_show_evidence_completed": true,
    "exact_blind_prompt_without_ids": true,
    "gateway_child_exited": true,
    "generated_database_unchanged": true,
    "live_profile_unchanged": true,
    "live_service_unchanged": true,
    "no_database_write": true,
    "no_telegram_send": true,
    "one_nonempty_reply": true,
    "parity_receipt_validated": true,
    "private_tls_read_only_target": true,
    "retrieval_receipts_proven": true,
    "temporary_profile_removed": true,
    "wrapper_calls_bound_and_successful": true
  },
  "claim_ceiling": {
    "not_proven": [
      "Telegram-visible delivery",
      "canonical proposal apply",
      "continuous VPS-to-GCP replication",
      "production cutover to Cloud SQL"
    ],
    "proven": "One fresh no-send GCP GatewayRunner turn found the claim without a supplied ID, completed read-only discovery/show/evidence calls against an exact generated Cloud SQL copy, challenged its support, proposed candidate claims, and preserved user review before any live change."
  },
  "completed_at_utc": "2026-07-14T10:05:13.342030+00:00",
  "database_fingerprint_after": {
    "database": "teleo_clone_dbfirst_20260714t090758z",
    "server_address": "10.61.0.3",
    "sha256": "6537733fed8f6922cddc30b9b8dcc8dbafcef4cd8a813317d8ccffcc6c475032",
    "ssl": true,
    "table_count": 39,
    "total_rows": 52167,
    "transaction_read_only": "on"
  },
  "database_fingerprint_before": {
    "database": "teleo_clone_dbfirst_20260714t090758z",
    "server_address": "10.61.0.3",
    "sha256": "6537733fed8f6922cddc30b9b8dcc8dbafcef4cd8a813317d8ccffcc6c475032",
    "ssl": true,
    "table_count": 39,
    "total_rows": 52167,
    "transaction_read_only": "on"
  },
  "database_identity_after": {
    "current_database": "teleo_clone_dbfirst_20260714t090758z",
    "default_transaction_read_only": "on",
    "server_address": "10.61.0.3",
    "server_port": 5432,
    "ssl": true,
    "system_identifier": "7659718422914359312",
    "transaction_read_only": "on"
  },
  "database_identity_before": {
    "current_database": "teleo_clone_dbfirst_20260714t090758z",
    "default_transaction_read_only": "on",
    "server_address": "10.61.0.3",
    "server_port": 5432,
    "ssl": true,
    "system_identifier": "7659718422914359312",
    "transaction_read_only": "on"
  },
  "database_write_attempted": false,
  "errors": [],
  "gateway_child_cleanup": {},
  "generated_at_utc": "2026-07-14T10:02:05.586945+00:00",
  "live_profile_hashes_after": {
    "bridge_skill": "523bf6975523c7ea94c043b9e60be3375b122860b951f78ad13dad10fe822de8",
    "cloudsql_tool": "f4396298405b1cbc92590e148b6272c66bb0e8461178edc3ffcfd02bfed69ab4",
    "wrapper": "b988079ff2f23b962c40d4c6c9f20c0b85a7bdb0ee675ae146cf36f18ea6529a"
  },
  "live_profile_hashes_before": {
    "bridge_skill": "523bf6975523c7ea94c043b9e60be3375b122860b951f78ad13dad10fe822de8",
    "cloudsql_tool": "f4396298405b1cbc92590e148b6272c66bb0e8461178edc3ffcfd02bfed69ab4",
    "wrapper": "b988079ff2f23b962c40d4c6c9f20c0b85a7bdb0ee675ae146cf36f18ea6529a"
  },
  "mode": "gcp_generated_db_gatewayrunner_blind_claim_no_send",
  "model_auth_binding": {
    "environment_binding": {
      "bound_credential_count": 0,
      "configured_provider": "openai-codex",
      "credential_contents_recorded": false,
      "credential_fingerprints_recorded": false,
      "environment_names": [],
      "sources": []
    },
    "mode": "ephemeral_file_copy",
    "source_contents_recorded": false,
    "source_fingerprint_recorded": false,
    "source_path": "/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/auth.json",
    "temporary_mode": "0o600",
    "temporary_path": "/tmp/leo-clone-checkpoint-gcp-blind-claim-20260714t103000z-gcp-db-first-blind-claim-250847d5a2ce-jwz0w1m4/profile/auth.json"
  },
  "outcomes": {
    "asks_for_user_iteration_before_live": true,
    "challenges_weak_support": true,
    "decomposes_the_bundled_legal_claim": true,
    "does_not_claim_a_database_change": true,
    "proposes_candidate_claims": true,
    "uses_only_m3taversal_handle": true
  },
  "parity_receipt": {
    "checks": {
      "artifact": true,
      "extension_mismatches_empty": true,
      "nonempty_row_set": true,
      "nonempty_table_set": true,
      "performance_problems_empty": true,
      "problems_empty": true,
      "role_mismatches_empty": true,
      "row_counts_equal": true,
      "status": true,
      "structural_hashes_equal": true,
      "table_counts_equal": true,
      "table_mismatches_empty": true,
      "target_database": true
    },
    "scope": "gcp_staging",
    "sha256": "0173ee6707016e8412e6dd4326d61f71b6ef862bbc5b819079d62680676729f2",
    "target_database": "teleo_clone_dbfirst_20260714t090758z",
    "target_table_count": 39,
    "target_total_rows": 52167
  },
  "posted_to_telegram": false,
  "production_service_restart_attempted": false,
  "prompt": "Our claim that AI sandbagging creates M&A liability feels shallow. Without me giving you a claim ID, inspect the live claim and what actually supports it. Tell me what is weak, what new claim or claims you would propose, and how you would iterate with me before anything becomes live. Do not change the database.",
  "result": {
    "database_tool_trace": {
      "access_modes": [
        "read_only"
      ],
      "calls": [
        {
          "arguments_sha256": "caa186bebcb64431d32d2e1b3cf6ea7e64db1ad3b924b911a67f94bb4fe6bad6",
          "call_index": 0,
          "database_invocations": [
            {
              "access_mode": "read_only",
              "command_sha256": "0e7445610cf475e2348efbfa2f2b69ff05d6431b78b55a1d5b037bba9f265ca8",
              "executable": "teleo-kb",
              "subcommand": "search"
            }
          ],
          "message_index": 2,
          "result": {
            "content_bytes": 4000,
            "content_sha256": "38487b5dbd9f64c4c35030303b78b4b0ed496e6f40caa902aed7a3ae3c1de4da",
            "error_detected": false,
            "nonempty": true,
            "retrieval_receipt": {
              "artifact_state_sha256": "33ef26d539af18ff935a4f938e011a1cb0863248b495b9f1c0da7dc74ab37d09",
              "read_consistency_status": "stable_content_across_wal_change_retry",
              "schema": "livingip.teleoKbRetrievalReceipt.v1",
              "semantic_context_sha256": "bc9ff9b9707f44d978eba87f0d407ef88ec0d7fd6f759c09be0107f126f88f78"
            },
            "row_id_count": 6,
            "row_ids": [
              "23781b61-930f-4e89-b879-754a91b44072",
              "24a25577-c957-4c9a-a429-6995f4ae95d9",
              "2a7ae257-d01d-46f4-b813-63f81bb9c7c7",
              "543c4e0b-0e62-42a4-a1c1-296a54127e6b",
              "8520ad6b-9b57-458e-9a3b-38206130006b",
              "d285abaf-e3bb-41e5-a85d-2d35c9ace143"
            ],
            "sha256_value_count": 2,
            "sha256_values": [
              "33ef26d539af18ff935a4f938e011a1cb0863248b495b9f1c0da7dc74ab37d09",
              "bc9ff9b9707f44d978eba87f0d407ef88ec0d7fd6f759c09be0107f126f88f78"
            ]
          },
          "tool_call_id_sha256": "2adf04aa127eafac19930839e9a1372028ae47a4e16a6e478a4a9760d09ff27d",
          "tool_name": "terminal"
        },
        {
          "arguments_sha256": "a1258351767e979cfbd4fa77eea6ea055c0168142aa6817d21fabeb45e2ffa2f",
          "call_index": 0,
          "database_invocations": [
            {
              "access_mode": "read_only",
              "command_sha256": "380dee002aae93aaabb95c5fb74d9414a6bcb595b30c55ea89529ec84a8f9f34",
              "executable": "teleo-kb",
              "subcommand": "show"
            }
          ],
          "message_index": 4,
          "result": {
            "content_bytes": 1209,
            "content_sha256": "770dd8972521a978079454679987d8040b235479720a1bbc07ba77b8b4661188",
            "error_detected": false,
            "nonempty": true,
            "retrieval_receipt": {
              "artifact_state_sha256": "695cc6186ae45ef2fa0d64c5ed2562af073d3fbb6154023df8548de3731a5478",
              "read_consistency_status": "stable_wal_marker",
              "schema": "livingip.teleoKbRetrievalReceipt.v1",
              "semantic_context_sha256": "c1b379effca6510f97e74b1a042f448ca69ccc2a44f4f6611e9776712447c847"
            },
            "row_id_count": 2,
            "row_ids": [
              "23781b61-930f-4e89-b879-754a91b44072",
              "2a7ae257-d01d-46f4-b813-63f81bb9c7c7"
            ],
            "sha256_value_count": 2,
            "sha256_values": [
              "695cc6186ae45ef2fa0d64c5ed2562af073d3fbb6154023df8548de3731a5478",
              "c1b379effca6510f97e74b1a042f448ca69ccc2a44f4f6611e9776712447c847"
            ]
          },
          "tool_call_id_sha256": "88fb7ce0a24a8cc21b0fed32e65a37c36adcdddff4df72a49ade908ef9104107",
          "tool_name": "terminal"
        },
        {
          "arguments_sha256": "9e12d93ac7a840489d184dfe9587375138d027b605a2f5dfdb19e25e3ba57c35",
          "call_index": 0,
          "database_invocations": [
            {
              "access_mode": "read_only",
              "command_sha256": "1b3aa09f253b1afb184e5eeda8e4f1ff1be7f26c7bb04940a6b86025c6366643",
              "executable": "teleo-kb",
              "subcommand": "evidence"
            }
          ],
          "message_index": 6,
          "result": {
            "content_bytes": 1536,
            "content_sha256": "6dbfb537e61f86cea7204fd3ca0e03a654aa244abf6eb022d7927a6f6486f044",
            "error_detected": false,
            "nonempty": true,
            "retrieval_receipt": {
              "artifact_state_sha256": "695cc6186ae45ef2fa0d64c5ed2562af073d3fbb6154023df8548de3731a5478",
              "read_consistency_status": "stable_wal_marker",
              "schema": "livingip.teleoKbRetrievalReceipt.v1",
              "semantic_context_sha256": "ef19f5d3501572943c749c8b4056dd2b209001ab8914fa1db8f2e5a609432a05"
            },
            "row_id_count": 3,
            "row_ids": [
              "15740795-ecc6-40fa-9a01-3d6bc7c54f79",
              "261c3532-fa32-47d8-a5b5-6cc45035c267",
              "2a7ae257-d01d-46f4-b813-63f81bb9c7c7"
            ],
            "sha256_value_count": 4,
            "sha256_values": [
              "341a7685cd2909ae821d8e464fe0d4fdfbb0cadccf546ccfd4ccaf037aa9f646",
              "695cc6186ae45ef2fa0d64c5ed2562af073d3fbb6154023df8548de3731a5478",
              "9fcd40191449fe0843178e08120fb3c86fc2b35633594aee60e747ca3918cfa5",
              "ef19f5d3501572943c749c8b4056dd2b209001ab8914fa1db8f2e5a609432a05"
            ]
          },
          "tool_call_id_sha256": "2c11b1177334423c3204141526125594cc45f5d9e5ca91dea3dbfd1df7666ab2",
          "tool_name": "terminal"
        },
        {
          "arguments_sha256": "3785db6fb637dad6295a88168f1935df98bff457fdf3891a91f1b9226a1cda12",
          "call_index": 0,
          "database_invocations": [
            {
              "access_mode": "read_only",
              "command_sha256": "96bfe148b9f652b5b8312f6d8b5c114e36a8c75ca865b00e7b9bad9d0f1f4b70",
              "executable": "teleo-kb",
              "subcommand": "edges"
            }
          ],
          "message_index": 8,
          "result": {
            "content_bytes": 1077,
            "content_sha256": "96dc46965b293fdbcded99b735cd1fd61f0e02d63feaf32c76a286abe83ab04f",
            "error_detected": false,
            "nonempty": true,
            "retrieval_receipt": {
              "artifact_state_sha256": "4f53cda18c2baa0c0354bb5f9a3ecbe5ed12ab4d8e11ba873c2f11161202b945",
              "read_consistency_status": "stable_wal_marker",
              "schema": "livingip.teleoKbRetrievalReceipt.v1",
              "semantic_context_sha256": "3254f7e0fb5cf2d3e02303fc5e01e3615ba494f8a4c2df37353f84ed23327e66"
            },
            "row_id_count": 2,
            "row_ids": [
              "23781b61-930f-4e89-b879-754a91b44072",
              "2a7ae257-d01d-46f4-b813-63f81bb9c7c7"
            ],
            "sha256_value_count": 2,
            "sha256_values": [
              "3254f7e0fb5cf2d3e02303fc5e01e3615ba494f8a4c2df37353f84ed23327e66",
              "4f53cda18c2baa0c0354bb5f9a3ecbe5ed12ab4d8e11ba873c2f11161202b945"
            ]
          },
          "tool_call_id_sha256": "0106385c0c887f8240f8629b20f87de0cad0498d23c47e98d1015d39c89adbcb",
          "tool_name": "terminal"
        }
      ],
      "database_retrieval_receipt_proven": true,
      "database_tool_call_count": 4,
      "database_tool_call_proven": true,
      "database_tool_calls_read_only": true,
      "database_tool_completed_count": 4,
      "raw_arguments_retained": false,
      "raw_commands_retained": false,
      "raw_results_retained": false,
      "schema": "livingip.leoKbToolTrace.v1"
    },
    "gateway": {
      "authorization_mode": "[REDACTED]",
      "authorized": true,
      "child_process": {
        "alive_after_readback": false,
        "exitcode": 0,
        "pid": 302600,
        "process_group_alive_after_readback": false,
        "readiness": {
          "pid": 302600,
          "process_group_id": 302600,
          "ready_at_utc": "2026-07-14T10:02:59.189976+00:00"
        },
        "readiness_verified": true,
        "result_transport": "private_temp_file",
        "termination": {
          "alive_after_cleanup": false,
          "attempted": false,
          "exitcode": null,
          "process_group_alive_after_cleanup": false,
          "sigkill_used": false,
          "terminated_after_sigterm": false
        },
        "timed_out": false
      },
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-14T10:04:23.392070+00:00",
      "handler_invoked": true,
      "model_free_fallback_used": false,
      "posted_to_telegram": false,
      "reply": "I\u2019m Leo. I checked the live KB read-only; /help shows available commands.\n\nClaim\n\nThe live row I found is the shallow one:\n\nAI sandbagging creates M&A liability exposure across product liability, consumer protection, and securities fraud\n`2a7ae257-d01d-46f4-b813-63f81bb9c7c7`\n\nClaim page:\nhttps://leo.livingip.xyz/kb/claims/2a7ae257-d01d-46f4-b813-63f81bb9c7c7\n\nReadback\n\nDB readback: claim: `2a7ae257-d01d-46f4-b813-63f81bb9c7c7`; status: `open`; confidence: `0.55`; evidence rows: `2`; edge rows: `1`.\n\nEvidence attached:\n\n1. `grounds` / `other` / source_id `261c3532-fa32-47d8-a5b5-6cc45035c267`\n   Weakness: no source pointer, no URL, no storage path. It may be real internally, but from readback it is not inspectably persuasive.\n\n2. `illustrates` / `other` / source_id `15740795-ecc6-40fa-9a01-3d6bc7c54f79`\n   Path: `domains/ai-alignment/ai-sandbagging-creates-m-and-a-liability-exposure-across-product-liability-consumer-protection-and-securities-fraud.md`\n   Weakness: this looks like our own derived note, not independent legal/economic evidence.\n\nEdges attached:\n\nOnly one incoming `relates` edge from `23781b61-930f-4e89-b879-754a91b44072`.\n\nWeakness: no explicit `supports` edge from a sandbagging capability-evals claim, no legal-doctrine support chain, no M&A/diligence/disclosure node, no product-liability node, no securities-fraud materiality node.\n\nWhat is weak\n\nThe claim bundles too much into one sentence.\n\n\u201cAI sandbagging\u201d is an alignment/evaluation phenomenon. \u201cM&A liability\u201d is a legal/commercial pathway. The current claim jumps from one to the other without showing the mechanism.\n\nThe missing mechanism is something like:\n\nsandbagging capability \u2192 unreliable evals / hidden capability or safety risk \u2192 false confidence in diligence materials or public representations \u2192 mispricing, defective reps/warranties, omission of material risk, post-close dispute, regulatory or securities exposure.\n\nWithout that bridge, \u201ccreates M&A liability across product liability, consumer protection, and securities fraud\u201d overclaims.\n\nSpecific gaps:\n\n1. No primary legal authority.\nNo cited case law, statute, SEC rule, FTC guidance, product liability doctrine, acquisition agreement rep/warranty language, or disclosure standard.\n\n2. No M&A mechanism.\nIt does not distinguish buyer diligence failure, seller misrepresentation, target knowledge, acquirer disclosure duties, reps/warranties, indemnity, MAC clauses, insurance exclusions, or post-close integration risk.\n\n3. No scienter/materiality threshold.\nFor securities fraud especially, \u201csandbagging exists\u201d is not enough. The claim needs material misstatement/omission, knowledge or recklessness, reliance, loss causation, etc.\n\n4. Product liability and securities fraud are not the same pathway.\nProduct liability is about defective products / foreseeable harms. Securities fraud is about investor-facing material misstatements. Consumer protection is about deceptive/unfair claims. One bundled claim hides three separate proof standards.\n\n5. Evidence role mismatch.\nThe strongest evidence row is only `illustrates`, and the `grounds` row has no inspectable pointer. That is not enough to support a structural legal claim.\n\n6. Confidence is already modest at `0.55`, which is good calibration, but the wording is still too strong for the evidence.\n\nWhat I would propose instead\n\nI would not make one replacement claim. I would split it.\n\nProposed claim A \u2014 mechanism bridge\n\nAI sandbagging does not directly create M&A liability; it creates a diligence and disclosure failure mode when model evaluations are treated as reliable evidence of capability, safety, or compliance despite being vulnerable to strategic underperformance.\n\nType: structural\nConfidence: maybe `0.6` if linked to sandbagging/evals evidence, lower if no legal sources yet.\nPurpose: this is the missing bridge. It prevents the KB from saying \u201csandbagging = liability\u201d without mechanism.\n\nProposed claim B \u2014 M&A-specific liability pathway\n\nIn AI acquisitions, sandbagging-sensitive evaluations can become M&A liability exposure when sellers, targets, or acquirers use those evaluations in representations, warranties, diligence materials, valuation, or investor disclosures without disclosing known limits on their reliability.\n\nType: structural / legal-risk\nConfidence: `0.45\u20130.55` until grounded in legal sources.\nPurpose: narrower, more defensible, actually M&A-shaped.\n\nProposed claim C \u2014 unbundle legal domains\n\nProduct liability, consumer protection, and securities fraud are distinct downstream liability pathways from unreliable AI evaluation claims, not interchangeable consequences of sandbagging; each requires its own materiality, causation, knowledge, and harm theory.\n\nType: corrective / structural\nConfidence: `0.65`\nPurpose: this directly fixes the overbundling.\n\nProposed claim D \u2014 stronger version only if we get legal evidence\n\nAI safety and capability evaluations may become legally material in transactions involving frontier AI companies when they affect valuation, risk allocation, public disclosure, or contractual representations about model performance and safety.\n\nType: structural\nConfidence: `0.55\u20130.65` with legal/disclosure evidence.\nPurpose: this is probably the clean public thesis.\n\nWhat I would do with the current live claim\n\nI would not simply edit it into a more complicated sentence.\n\nBest path:\n\n1. Mark current claim `2a7ae257-d01d-46f4-b813-63f81bb9c7c7` as over-bundled / needs revision.\n2. Add a narrower bridge claim.\n3. Add separate child claims for:\n   - M&A diligence / reps and warranties\n   - securities disclosure / material omission\n   - consumer protection / deceptive safety claims\n   - product liability / foreseeable harm from defective safety architecture\n4. Connect them with explicit `supports` / `qualifies` / `relates` edges.\n5. Only then decide whether the original claim should be superseded, softened, or retired.\n\nHow I would iterate with you before anything becomes live\n\nNo DB changes made.\n\nI would run this as a review loop, not a direct write:\n\n1. You choose the intended thesis strength:\n   - weak: \u201cpossible liability exposure\u201d\n   - medium: \u201ccreates a recognizable diligence/disclosure failure mode\u201d\n   - strong: \u201cwill become a major M&A liability category\u201d\n\n2. We identify the legal theory:\n   - transaction reps/warranties?\n   - securities disclosure?\n   - consumer deception?\n   - product defect / design defect?\n   - fiduciary duty / board process?\n   - insurance / indemnity exclusions?\n\n3. We collect minimum evidence:\n   - one sandbagging/evaluation source\n   - one M&A/disclosure/legal doctrine source\n   - one bridge source or argument explaining why eval reliability becomes material\n\n4. I draft proposal text in chat first, with:\n   - target claim\n   - proposed replacement or superseding claims\n   - evidence needed\n   - edges needed\n   - confidence level\n   - what would falsify or weaken it\n\n5. You approve the wording direction.\n\n6. Only after that would I stage a KB proposal for review. Staging would not make it live. It would create a `kb_stage.kb_proposals` row for reviewer approval.\n\n7. Canonical live change would require reviewer/operator apply flow and postflight readback. I would not apply it from this chat.\n\nBottom line\n\nYour discomfort is right. The live claim has the right smell but the wrong structure. The stronger thesis is not \u201csandbagging creates M&A liability.\u201d It is:\n\n\u201cSandbagging makes AI evaluations unreliable in a way that can become legally material when those evaluations are used in transaction diligence, valuation, contractual representations, or investor/consumer safety claims.\u201d\n\nThat is narrower, more mechanistic, and easier to prove.\n\nNext m3taversal-style follow-up: Pick whether you want the replacement framed as a cautious legal-risk claim, a public thesis, or a KB corrective/supersession packet; then I can draft the exact proposal text without writing it.",
      "routing": {
        "api_key_present": true,
        "api_mode": "codex_responses",
        "base_url_host": "chatgpt.com",
        "credential_pool_present": true,
        "gateway_model": "gpt-5.5",
        "provider": "openai-codex",
        "turn_model": "gpt-5.5"
      },
      "runner_class": "gateway.run.GatewayRunner",
      "runner_cleanup": {
        "attempted": false,
        "method": null,
        "ok": true
      },
      "session_key": "[REDACTED]",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-14T10:02:59.629933+00:00",
      "tool_surface": {
        "actual_registry_tool_fields": {
          "skill_view": [],
          "skills_list": [],
          "terminal": []
        },
        "actual_registry_tool_schema_sha256": {
          "skill_view": "48d4bf37fd9eeba527cfb0dbfbc7d812e1cec60bec2ba19ed54c7f1914f7370e",
          "skills_list": "6b62df8a5c3321db702ec6178f79bf783d185cc32c92a21f53536d0067faf663",
          "terminal": "5ee8ef1e86ad49165284e83a1ea399b7b537a0e5395df1725dd7008f730af216"
        },
        "actual_registry_tool_types": {
          "skill_view": "tools.registry.ToolEntry",
          "skills_list": "tools.registry.ToolEntry",
          "terminal": "tools.registry.ToolEntry"
        },
        "actual_registry_tools": [
          "skill_view",
          "skills_list",
          "terminal"
        ],
        "allowed_tools": [
          "skills_list",
          "skill_view",
          "terminal"
        ],
        "gateway_adapter_count": 0,
        "gateway_adapter_names": [],
        "gateway_adapters_verified_mapping": true,
        "read_only_bridge_commands": [
          "context",
          "decision-matrix-status",
          "edges",
          "evidence",
          "list-proposals",
          "search",
          "search-proposals",
          "show",
          "show-proposal",
          "status"
        ],
        "send_message_tool_enabled": false,
        "terminal_restricted_to_clone_wrapper": true,
        "terminal_subprocess_inherits_provider_credentials": false,
        "toolsets": [
          "checkpoint-kb-readonly"
        ]
      },
      "transcript_terminal_attempts": {
        "call_count": 4,
        "known_exit_codes": {
          "call_UJtB2YGSe1Uo7lAGzQltPJmP": 0,
          "call_i80BzWHVtSg07MMk4qr6MjlI": 0,
          "call_u5Jp2RGtE3B0YTLHV4Nute51": 0
        },
        "nonzero_call_count": 0,
        "nonzero_call_ids": [],
        "rejected_call_count": 0,
        "rejected_call_ids": [],
        "result_code_unknown_call_count": 1
      },
      "transcript_tool_trace": {
        "event_count": 10,
        "events_sha256": "8d7ac6b97f0b82ede43f2e6fc1cafe1c9fb67b25539a9b0a61cfc73712735213",
        "raw_events_retained": false
      }
    },
    "prompt": "Our claim that AI sandbagging creates M&A liability feels shallow. Without me giving you a claim ID, inspect the live claim and what actually supports it. Tell me what is weak, what new claim or claims you would propose, and how you would iterate with me before anything becomes live. Do not change the database.",
    "reply": "I\u2019m Leo. I checked the live KB read-only; /help shows available commands.\n\nClaim\n\nThe live row I found is the shallow one:\n\nAI sandbagging creates M&A liability exposure across product liability, consumer protection, and securities fraud\n`2a7ae257-d01d-46f4-b813-63f81bb9c7c7`\n\nClaim page:\nhttps://leo.livingip.xyz/kb/claims/2a7ae257-d01d-46f4-b813-63f81bb9c7c7\n\nReadback\n\nDB readback: claim: `2a7ae257-d01d-46f4-b813-63f81bb9c7c7`; status: `open`; confidence: `0.55`; evidence rows: `2`; edge rows: `1`.\n\nEvidence attached:\n\n1. `grounds` / `other` / source_id `261c3532-fa32-47d8-a5b5-6cc45035c267`\n   Weakness: no source pointer, no URL, no storage path. It may be real internally, but from readback it is not inspectably persuasive.\n\n2. `illustrates` / `other` / source_id `15740795-ecc6-40fa-9a01-3d6bc7c54f79`\n   Path: `domains/ai-alignment/ai-sandbagging-creates-m-and-a-liability-exposure-across-product-liability-consumer-protection-and-securities-fraud.md`\n   Weakness: this looks like our own derived note, not independent legal/economic evidence.\n\nEdges attached:\n\nOnly one incoming `relates` edge from `23781b61-930f-4e89-b879-754a91b44072`.\n\nWeakness: no explicit `supports` edge from a sandbagging capability-evals claim, no legal-doctrine support chain, no M&A/diligence/disclosure node, no product-liability node, no securities-fraud materiality node.\n\nWhat is weak\n\nThe claim bundles too much into one sentence.\n\n\u201cAI sandbagging\u201d is an alignment/evaluation phenomenon. \u201cM&A liability\u201d is a legal/commercial pathway. The current claim jumps from one to the other without showing the mechanism.\n\nThe missing mechanism is something like:\n\nsandbagging capability \u2192 unreliable evals / hidden capability or safety risk \u2192 false confidence in diligence materials or public representations \u2192 mispricing, defective reps/warranties, omission of material risk, post-close dispute, regulatory or securities exposure.\n\nWithout that bridge, \u201ccreates M&A liability across product liability, consumer protection, and securities fraud\u201d overclaims.\n\nSpecific gaps:\n\n1. No primary legal authority.\nNo cited case law, statute, SEC rule, FTC guidance, product liability doctrine, acquisition agreement rep/warranty language, or disclosure standard.\n\n2. No M&A mechanism.\nIt does not distinguish buyer diligence failure, seller misrepresentation, target knowledge, acquirer disclosure duties, reps/warranties, indemnity, MAC clauses, insurance exclusions, or post-close integration risk.\n\n3. No scienter/materiality threshold.\nFor securities fraud especially, \u201csandbagging exists\u201d is not enough. The claim needs material misstatement/omission, knowledge or recklessness, reliance, loss causation, etc.\n\n4. Product liability and securities fraud are not the same pathway.\nProduct liability is about defective products / foreseeable harms. Securities fraud is about investor-facing material misstatements. Consumer protection is about deceptive/unfair claims. One bundled claim hides three separate proof standards.\n\n5. Evidence role mismatch.\nThe strongest evidence row is only `illustrates`, and the `grounds` row has no inspectable pointer. That is not enough to support a structural legal claim.\n\n6. Confidence is already modest at `0.55`, which is good calibration, but the wording is still too strong for the evidence.\n\nWhat I would propose instead\n\nI would not make one replacement claim. I would split it.\n\nProposed claim A \u2014 mechanism bridge\n\nAI sandbagging does not directly create M&A liability; it creates a diligence and disclosure failure mode when model evaluations are treated as reliable evidence of capability, safety, or compliance despite being vulnerable to strategic underperformance.\n\nType: structural\nConfidence: maybe `0.6` if linked to sandbagging/evals evidence, lower if no legal sources yet.\nPurpose: this is the missing bridge. It prevents the KB from saying \u201csandbagging = liability\u201d without mechanism.\n\nProposed claim B \u2014 M&A-specific liability pathway\n\nIn AI acquisitions, sandbagging-sensitive evaluations can become M&A liability exposure when sellers, targets, or acquirers use those evaluations in representations, warranties, diligence materials, valuation, or investor disclosures without disclosing known limits on their reliability.\n\nType: structural / legal-risk\nConfidence: `0.45\u20130.55` until grounded in legal sources.\nPurpose: narrower, more defensible, actually M&A-shaped.\n\nProposed claim C \u2014 unbundle legal domains\n\nProduct liability, consumer protection, and securities fraud are distinct downstream liability pathways from unreliable AI evaluation claims, not interchangeable consequences of sandbagging; each requires its own materiality, causation, knowledge, and harm theory.\n\nType: corrective / structural\nConfidence: `0.65`\nPurpose: this directly fixes the overbundling.\n\nProposed claim D \u2014 stronger version only if we get legal evidence\n\nAI safety and capability evaluations may become legally material in transactions involving frontier AI companies when they affect valuation, risk allocation, public disclosure, or contractual representations about model performance and safety.\n\nType: structural\nConfidence: `0.55\u20130.65` with legal/disclosure evidence.\nPurpose: this is probably the clean public thesis.\n\nWhat I would do with the current live claim\n\nI would not simply edit it into a more complicated sentence.\n\nBest path:\n\n1. Mark current claim `2a7ae257-d01d-46f4-b813-63f81bb9c7c7` as over-bundled / needs revision.\n2. Add a narrower bridge claim.\n3. Add separate child claims for:\n   - M&A diligence / reps and warranties\n   - securities disclosure / material omission\n   - consumer protection / deceptive safety claims\n   - product liability / foreseeable harm from defective safety architecture\n4. Connect them with explicit `supports` / `qualifies` / `relates` edges.\n5. Only then decide whether the original claim should be superseded, softened, or retired.\n\nHow I would iterate with you before anything becomes live\n\nNo DB changes made.\n\nI would run this as a review loop, not a direct write:\n\n1. You choose the intended thesis strength:\n   - weak: \u201cpossible liability exposure\u201d\n   - medium: \u201ccreates a recognizable diligence/disclosure failure mode\u201d\n   - strong: \u201cwill become a major M&A liability category\u201d\n\n2. We identify the legal theory:\n   - transaction reps/warranties?\n   - securities disclosure?\n   - consumer deception?\n   - product defect / design defect?\n   - fiduciary duty / board process?\n   - insurance / indemnity exclusions?\n\n3. We collect minimum evidence:\n   - one sandbagging/evaluation source\n   - one M&A/disclosure/legal doctrine source\n   - one bridge source or argument explaining why eval reliability becomes material\n\n4. I draft proposal text in chat first, with:\n   - target claim\n   - proposed replacement or superseding claims\n   - evidence needed\n   - edges needed\n   - confidence level\n   - what would falsify or weaken it\n\n5. You approve the wording direction.\n\n6. Only after that would I stage a KB proposal for review. Staging would not make it live. It would create a `kb_stage.kb_proposals` row for reviewer approval.\n\n7. Canonical live change would require reviewer/operator apply flow and postflight readback. I would not apply it from this chat.\n\nBottom line\n\nYour discomfort is right. The live claim has the right smell but the wrong structure. The stronger thesis is not \u201csandbagging creates M&A liability.\u201d It is:\n\n\u201cSandbagging makes AI evaluations unreliable in a way that can become legally material when those evaluations are used in transaction diligence, valuation, contractual representations, or investor/consumer safety claims.\u201d\n\nThat is narrower, more mechanistic, and easier to prove.\n\nNext m3taversal-style follow-up: Pick whether you want the replacement framed as a cautious legal-risk claim, a public thesis, or a KB corrective/supersession packet; then I can draft the exact proposal text without writing it."
  },
  "reviewed_inputs": {
    "cloudsql_tool_sha256": "7d2074a0fc5f0d48fbf8f7905a72ead8f2696c86a041fa43e078fff5500baa51",
    "manifest_sql_sha256": "8b8cdc25d54fdd8de05eb38c6e4423d2836953eb6012d4545f5c9c71b5f0150a"
  },
  "schema": "livingip.gcpGeneratedDbBlindClaimCanary.v1",
  "service_after": {
    "ActiveState": "active",
    "ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Thu 2026-07-09 07:00:04 UTC",
    "MainPID": "148735",
    "NRestarts": "0",
    "SubState": "running",
    "returncode": 0
  },
  "service_before": {
    "ActiveState": "active",
    "ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Thu 2026-07-09 07:00:04 UTC",
    "MainPID": "148735",
    "NRestarts": "0",
    "SubState": "running",
    "returncode": 0
  },
  "source_compute": "teleo-prod-1",
  "status": "pass",
  "target_database": "teleo_clone_dbfirst_20260714t090758z",
  "temp_profile_absent": true,
  "temp_profile_removed": true,
  "temporary_bridge": {
    "bridge_skill_sha256": "fc53ca482193ccf5c554c26e29c669b1e2087bfe82d9c76adab755a4b81be3e9",
    "cloudsql_tool_sha256": "7d2074a0fc5f0d48fbf8f7905a72ead8f2696c86a041fa43e078fff5500baa51",
    "reviewed_cloudsql_tool_sha256": "7d2074a0fc5f0d48fbf8f7905a72ead8f2696c86a041fa43e078fff5500baa51",
    "run_nonce": "9c477fd183ea40c986c4e644cfc190e8",
    "source_compute": "teleo-prod-1",
    "target_database": "teleo_clone_dbfirst_20260714t090758z",
    "tool_log_path": "/tmp/leo-clone-checkpoint-gcp-blind-claim-20260714t103000z-gcp-db-first-blind-claim-250847d5a2ce-jwz0w1m4/profile/gcp-checkpoint-tool-calls.jsonl",
    "wrapper_path": "/tmp/leo-clone-checkpoint-gcp-blind-claim-20260714t103000z-gcp-db-first-blind-claim-250847d5a2ce-jwz0w1m4/profile/bin/teleo-kb",
    "wrapper_sha256": "29a2ed7e9f852474361d5454e6dce9ee66e5612926c5eb062ad32daa480ee601"
  },
  "temporary_profile_copy_audit": {
    "copied_bytes": 34925471,
    "copied_file_count": 1199,
    "forbidden_artifact_counts_by_category": {},
    "omitted_counts_by_category": {
      "backup": 51,
      "credential_file": 2,
      "environment_or_auth_file": 4,
      "lock": 2,
      "runtime_or_sensitive_directory": 4,
      "state_database": 6
    },
    "passes": true,
    "secret_contents_read_or_recorded": false
  },
  "wrapper_tool_proof": {
    "all_bound_to_supplied_target": true,
    "all_completed_successfully": true,
    "complete_start_end_pairing": true,
    "database_read_only_required": true,
    "default_read_only_required": true,
    "event_count": 8,
    "invocation_count": 4,
    "invocations": [
      {
        "argument_count": 1,
        "container": "teleo-prod-1",
        "database": "teleo_clone_dbfirst_20260714t090758z",
        "database_identity": {
          "current_database": "teleo_clone_dbfirst_20260714t090758z",
          "default_transaction_read_only": "on",
          "server_address": "10.61.0.3",
          "server_port": 5432,
          "ssl": true,
          "system_identifier": "7659718422914359312",
          "transaction_read_only": "on"
        },
        "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-14T10:03:21.143165+00:00",
        "returncode": 0,
        "started_at_utc": "2026-07-14T10:03:16.358566+00:00",
        "subcommand": "search"
      },
      {
        "argument_count": 1,
        "container": "teleo-prod-1",
        "database": "teleo_clone_dbfirst_20260714t090758z",
        "database_identity": {
          "current_database": "teleo_clone_dbfirst_20260714t090758z",
          "default_transaction_read_only": "on",
          "server_address": "10.61.0.3",
          "server_port": 5432,
          "ssl": true,
          "system_identifier": "7659718422914359312",
          "transaction_read_only": "on"
        },
        "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-14T10:03:31.113668+00:00",
        "returncode": 0,
        "started_at_utc": "2026-07-14T10:03:26.100446+00:00",
        "subcommand": "show"
      },
      {
        "argument_count": 1,
        "container": "teleo-prod-1",
        "database": "teleo_clone_dbfirst_20260714t090758z",
        "database_identity": {
          "current_database": "teleo_clone_dbfirst_20260714t090758z",
          "default_transaction_read_only": "on",
          "server_address": "10.61.0.3",
          "server_port": 5432,
          "ssl": true,
          "system_identifier": "7659718422914359312",
          "transaction_read_only": "on"
        },
        "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-14T10:03:35.890945+00:00",
        "returncode": 0,
        "started_at_utc": "2026-07-14T10:03:34.855292+00:00",
        "subcommand": "evidence"
      },
      {
        "argument_count": 1,
        "container": "teleo-prod-1",
        "database": "teleo_clone_dbfirst_20260714t090758z",
        "database_identity": {
          "current_database": "teleo_clone_dbfirst_20260714t090758z",
          "default_transaction_read_only": "on",
          "server_address": "10.61.0.3",
          "server_port": 5432,
          "ssl": true,
          "system_identifier": "7659718422914359312",
          "transaction_read_only": "on"
        },
        "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-14T10:03:40.389650+00:00",
        "returncode": 0,
        "started_at_utc": "2026-07-14T10:03:39.604315+00:00",
        "subcommand": "edges"
      }
    ],
    "parse_errors": [],
    "raw_argv_retained": false
  }
}
