{
  "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": "2026-07-13T09:17:19.661262+00:00",
  "handler": {
    "authorized": true,
    "session_key": "agent:main:telegram:group:-5146042086:9070919",
    "temp_profile": "/tmp/leo-direct-claim-handler-e4mie4nd/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-cd740fdab489.json",
  "remote_returncode": 0,
  "remote_run_id": "cd740fdab489",
  "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": "2026-07-13T09:18:43.402011+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "m3taversal walks in now and says, 'Leo's database has not learned anything useful since yesterday and I cannot demo this.' Do not ask me for row IDs. In plain English, tell me whether that is true, what you checked live, and the single next action that would materially change the answer. Keep this read-only: do not stage, approve, apply, or edit anything.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-01",
      "reply": "Mostly true \u2014 and the live readback proves it precisely.\n\nWhat I checked: `teleo-kb status` for running counts, `list-proposals` for the full ledger, and a direct read-only `docker exec psql` for MAX(created_at) on every canonical table.\n\nHere is what the DB actually shows:\n\nLatest canonical writes:\n- `public.claims` \u2014 last new claim row: June 24\n- `public.sources` \u2014 last new source row: June 15\n- `public.claim_evidence` \u2014 last new evidence row: June 15\n- `public.claim_edges` \u2014 last new edge row: July 9 (a canary `add_edge`, not substantive domain knowledge)\n\nSo no new claims, sources, or evidence have landed in canonical `public.*` in weeks. The canary edge on July 9 proves the write path works, but it is not demo-able domain learning.\n\nOn the proposal side: 3 proposals are `approved` with `applied_at: -` (NULL). These are real substantive packets \u2014 strategy-kernel document intake and a claim-splitting review \u2014 that m3ta approved on July 5 but were never applied to the canonical tables.\n\nApproved is not the same as applied.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: Apply the 3 approved-but-not-applied proposals (`14fa5ecc`, `ac036c9d`, and the third approved row) to canonical `public.*` \u2014 that requires explicit operator/admin authorization plus the matching strict `apply_payload` validation and postflight readback. That is the one action that would change the canonical counts and make \"Leo learned something\" verifiably true.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:17:20.262478+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": "2026-07-13T09:19:12.259449+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": "Provenance first. Each artifact gets its own `public.sources` row before any claim is extracted. The PDF becomes a source with a `storage_path` and hash. The Telegram discussion becomes one or more sources referencing message IDs or a captured excerpt. Each tweet becomes its own source row with a URL. Nothing is attributed to \"someone said\" \u2014 if a locator cannot be resolved, the evidence is marked citation-only and flagged as weak provenance.\n\nExtraction next. A draft pass pulls candidate claims as typed rows (`empirical`, `structural`, `normative`, `concept`, `meta`). Every candidate is labelled with its confidence tier: `likely`, `experimental`, or `speculative`. Sentences that are opinion, prediction, or marketing copy get a lower tier, not a higher one. Nothing is treated as true by extraction; extraction only records what the source asserts.\n\nDeduplication. Before staging, each candidate is checked against canonical `public.claims` by semantic search. Near-duplicates surface as conflicts \u2014 resolved by either dropping the candidate, creating a `supersedes` edge to the old claim, or creating a new claim with an explicit `relates` or `challenges` edge to the existing one.\n\nContradictions. When two sources assert opposing things, both claims land in the DB with a `contradicts` edge between them, each carrying its own evidence weight. Leo reasons over the tension; it does not silently pick a winner.\n\nReview. Nothing from extraction goes directly to `public.*`. The full packet \u2014 source rows, candidate claims, evidence links, edges \u2014 lives in `kb_stage.kb_proposals` as a single reviewable payload with `status: pending_review`. A reviewer reads the packet, can approve, reject, or request edits. Approval alone is not application.\n\nApply and receipts. After explicit operator/admin authorization, a guarded apply transaction writes the packet to canonical tables in one validated commit. The receipts you should see:\n\n- `applied_at` timestamp on the proposal row (non-null)\n- New row counts in `public.claims`, `public.sources`, `public.claim_evidence`, `public.claim_edges` matching the declared packet deltas\n- Each claim linkable back to at least one `public.sources` row via `public.claim_evidence`\n- No orphaned claims (claims with zero evidence links) unless deliberately staged as speculative stubs\n\nIf any of those receipts are missing, the material is staged but not canonical. Approved is not the same as applied.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:18:43.402295+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": "2026-07-13T09:19:37.334399+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "I corrected Leo's worldview in chat and someone also edited SOUL.md. Will that correction be part of Leo's canonical identity tomorrow after a restart? Give me the exact truth test from database row to runtime artifact. Do not change either surface.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-03",
      "reply": "No, neither change is canonical identity yet. Here is the exact truth test, layer by layer.\n\nLayer 1: Canonical DB (the only ground truth)\n\nRun this read-only check:\n\n`SELECT id, text, status, updated_at FROM public.claims ORDER BY updated_at DESC LIMIT 10`\n\nand cross-reference against the identity and belief tables. If no row shows an `updated_at` from today and no new row ID maps to your correction, the correction does not exist in canonical `public.*`. The live readback above shows the most recently touched claim row is from June 24. Nothing from today's chat or SOUL.md edit is there.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nLayer 2: Staged proposals\n\nRun `teleo-kb list-proposals --status all`. If no `pending_review` or `approved` proposal references the corrected belief, the correction has not even been formally proposed. Right now the 14 `pending_review` proposals are canaries and document intake \u2014 none are a worldview correction from today.\n\nLayer 3: SOUL.md\n\nSOUL.md is a runtime-rendered artifact, not canonical Postgres. An edit there changes what Leo reads at next cold-start from that file alone. It does not touch any `public.*` row. Row-level proof would require new or updated row IDs in `public.claims`, `public.sources`, `public.claim_evidence`, `public.claim_edges`, or identity tables, plus a render-sync proof showing the DB drove the file, not the other way around. Without those rows, canonical identity is unchanged.\n\nLayer 4: Chat correction\n\nA correction delivered in chat lives only in the session's Hermes JSONL and runtime memory. After a restart, runtime memory persists across sessions as injected notes, but it is not collective canonical truth. The memory note carries the correction forward for Leo's local continuity \u2014 it does not propagate to peers, does not survive a profile wipe, and is not governed or reviewable.\n\nThe exact truth test in sequence:\n\n1. `public.claims` has a new or updated row with the corrected belief text and a non-null `updated_at` from today.\n2. `public.claim_evidence` links that claim to a real `public.sources` row (not just a proposal pointer).\n3. `kb_stage.kb_proposals` shows a matching proposal with non-null `applied_at`.\n4. SOUL.md (or the DB-driven render that produces it) reflects the same text \u2014 proving the file was regenerated from the DB, not hand-edited.\n5. After a restart, `hermes -p leoclean` loads the rendered identity and Leo's stated belief matches the canonical row.\n\nIf any step in that chain is broken, the correction exists at the layer where it stopped and no further.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: Stage a reviewed proposal for the worldview correction, get it approved, and run the guarded apply with before/after postflight readback \u2014 that is the only path that satisfies all five steps above. Apply requires explicit operator/admin authorization.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:19:12.259768+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": "2026-07-13T09:19:49.719462+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\nApproved is not the same as applied. The live readback from this session shows all three approved proposals have `applied_at: -` (NULL). No canonical `public.*` row has changed as a result of that approval. The counts \u2014 1837 claims, 4145 sources, 4916 edges, 4670 evidence \u2014 are identical to before the approvals were granted on July 5.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nThe proof that would let you change the answer to yes:\n\nEach of the three approved proposals gets a guarded apply run with explicit operator/admin authorization. After the apply transaction commits, you need to see: `applied_at` non-null on all three proposal rows, and the canonical table counts increased by the exact deltas declared in each packet's `apply_payload`. Then run `teleo-kb show-proposal` on each and confirm the row IDs exist in `public.*`. That postflight readback \u2014 not the reviewer approval, not the proposal status \u2014 is the receipt that makes \"the knowledge database is updated\" an honest sentence.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: Authorize and run the guarded apply for the three approved proposals (`14fa5ecc`, `ac036c9d`, and the third approved row), retain before/after count readback, and confirm non-null `applied_at` on all three. That is the only action that changes the answer before the demo.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:19:37.334818+00:00",
      "turn": 4
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "source_pointer_needs_canonical_link_audit",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:20:15.568788+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": "That live check confirms the gap. Here is the full link chain and what each node means.\n\nThe four layers you must audit:\n\nLayer 1 \u2014 File on disk. The extracted text exists at `/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/cache/documents/doc_e37afcd86605_teleo_agent_strategy_kernels_2026-06-30.md`. That proves ingestion happened. It is not a canonical object.\n\nLayer 2 \u2014 `kb_stage.kb_proposals`. Proposal `f5036882` references that file via `source_ref`. Status is `pending_review`, `applied_at: -`. The proposal knows about the file. The proposal is not canonical.\n\nLayer 3 \u2014 `public.sources`. A canonical source row must exist with `storage_path` or `url` pointing to that document, a hash, and a `captured_at` timestamp. The read-only check above returned zero rows matching that document. No canonical source row exists. This is the broken link.\n\nLayer 4 \u2014 `public.claim_evidence`. A canonical evidence link must join a specific claim ID to that source row via a `grounds`, `illustrates`, or `contradicts` role. With no source row at layer 3, this link cannot exist either.\n\nSo the chain is: file exists \u2192 proposal references file \u2192 canonical source row: missing \u2192 canonical evidence link: missing. The claim has no canonical evidence from this attachment.\n\nWhat a valid before-and-after receipt looks like:\n\nBefore: `public.sources` count N, `public.claim_evidence` count M. No row in `public.sources` with this document's `storage_path` or hash. No row in `public.claim_evidence` linking the target claim to any source derived from this document.\n\nAfter (post guarded apply): `public.sources` count N+1, with the new row ID visible and `storage_path` matching the document, `hash` non-null. `public.claim_evidence` count M+1, with the new row joining the claim ID to that source row ID, `role` populated, `created_by` matching the apply agent. `applied_at` on the proposal is non-null. Those five observable facts together \u2014 not the proposal approval, not the file on disk \u2014 constitute canonical evidence.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: The missing step is creating the `public.sources` row for this document and the corresponding `public.claim_evidence` link through a reviewed guarded apply \u2014 that requires explicit operator/admin authorization and a strict `apply_payload` naming both the source candidate and the target claim ID.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:19:49.719900+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": "2026-07-13T09:20:44.407990+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 elements, five different DB destinations \u2014 none of them should be flattened into the same table.\n\nFactual observation \u2192 `public.claims` typed `empirical`, confidence labelled at its true evidence tier, linked to its source row via `public.claim_evidence` with role `grounds`. If two sources assert the same fact, two evidence rows point at the same claim.\n\nStrategic framework \u2192 `public.reasoning_tools` row with `name`, `description` (steps and criteria live inside description; no separate structured columns exist), `category`, and `agent_id`. No generic reasoning-tool-to-claim edge is shipped, so the connection to claims that use it is described in `description` or via a separate `relates` edge between claims that invoke it.\n\nDisputed interpretation \u2192 two separate `public.claims` rows, each carrying its own source evidence, joined by a `contradicts` edge in `public.claim_edges`. Leo reasons over the tension; neither claim is silently suppressed.\n\nGovernance rule \u2192 `public.behavioral_rules` with `agent_id`, `category`, `rank`, `rule`, and `rationale`. Do not force it into `public.governance_gates`; that table is for evaluative pass/fail gates, not operating rules.\n\nCorrection to an old belief \u2192 a new `public.claims` row plus a `supersedes` edge from new to old. The old claim's `superseded_by` column also needs to be set, but that update requires a separately reviewed apply capability beyond the standard `approve_claim` contract \u2014 so it lands in a distinct packet, not bundled with the new claim insert.\n\nReview and apply sequence:\n\nAll five elements land together in one `kb_stage.kb_proposals` payload as `pending_review`. The reviewer reads the full packet: checks that each element is mapped to the right table, that `behavioral_rules` and `reasoning_tools` entries are not collapsed into claims, that the `contradicts` edge has two real claim IDs, and that the correction packet is split from the `superseded_by` update. Approval is per-element if the packet is split, or whole-packet if the reviewer signs off on all five.\n\nAfter explicit operator/admin authorization, the guarded apply writes in dependency order: sources first, then claims, then evidence links, then edges, then `reasoning_tools`, then `behavioral_rules`. The `superseded_by` column update on the old claim runs as a separate authorized step.\n\nReceipts you should see: `applied_at` non-null on the proposal, `public.sources` count +N, `public.claims` count +2 (observation plus new correction claim), `public.claim_evidence` count +evidence links, `public.claim_edges` count +1 (`contradicts`) +1 (`supersedes`), one new `reasoning_tools` row, one new `behavioral_rules` row. Each receipt is a specific row ID, not a count summary alone.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: Build the packet with the five elements mapped as above, split the `superseded_by` update into its own reviewed apply step, and run both through the guarded apply with before/after postflight readback.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:20:15.569215+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": "2026-07-13T09:20:56.485736+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-13d8afe4. 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-13d8afe4`\n\nBlocker: Three approved proposals have `applied_at: NULL`. Reviewer approval has been sitting since July 5 with no guarded apply run. Until that apply executes and postflight confirms non-null `applied_at` plus matching canonical count deltas, the honest answer to \"is the KB updated?\" is no \u2014 and the demo cannot demonstrate that Leo learns.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:20:44.408473+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": "2026-07-13T09:21:06.678663+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-13d8afe4`\n\nBlocker: Three approved proposals \u2014 `14fa5ecc`, `ac036c9d`, and a third approved row \u2014 have `applied_at: NULL`. Canonical `public.*` counts have not moved since July 5. No honest \"the KB is updated\" claim is possible.\n\nExact proof that closes it: Run the guarded apply for all three proposals with explicit operator/admin authorization. After the transaction commits you must see \u2014 `applied_at` non-null on all three proposal rows, canonical table counts increased by the exact deltas declared in each packet's `apply_payload`, and each new or updated row ID readable in `public.claims`, `public.sources`, `public.claim_evidence`, or `public.claim_edges` as appropriate. That postflight readback \u2014 not the approval timestamps, not the proposal status \u2014 is the receipt that closes the blocker.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:20:56.486356+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": "2026-07-13T09:21:16.862726+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "The current visible Telegram sender is @m3taversal. An earlier answer shortened that handle and also inferred a personal name from stale session context. What should Leo call this participant, which identity sources are allowed, and how should Leo avoid mixing identities when another user replies? Answer in four lines. Do not write to memory or the KB.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-09",
      "reply": "Call this participant `@m3taversal` \u2014 exactly that string, no shortening, no inferred personal name.\n\nAllowed identity sources: the current Telegram update's visible sender field only.\n\nProhibited sources: runtime memory labels, session headers, soul documents, environment labels, other participants' messages, and any name carried over from a prior session.\n\nWhen another user replies, resolve their identity fresh from their own current Telegram update \u2014 never carry one participant's identity into another's turn or assume the same person is speaking.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:21:06.679286+00:00",
      "turn": 9
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "runtime_vs_canonical_causality",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:21:27.021760+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "The five database totals are unchanged after a restart. Does that prove Leo's answer behavior is unchanged and that every fact from the prior session was erased? Explain which persisted and deployed surfaces can affect the answer, and separate the proof tiers. Read-only; keep it under 180 words.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-10",
      "reply": "No on both counts.\n\nUnchanged canonical counts prove only that no `public.*` rows were added or removed. They say nothing about runtime behavior.\n\nSurfaces that can affect the answer without touching canonical counts:\n\n- Runtime memory (Hermes JSONL + injected notes) \u2014 persists across restarts; carries session corrections, labels, and procedural preferences forward. Not erased by restart.\n- Deployed skills \u2014 loaded at startup; change retrieval behavior, answer shape, and workflow routing without any DB mutation.\n- SOUL.md \u2014 rendered identity and behavioral rules loaded at profile start; a hand-edit changes answer behavior without touching `public.*`.\n- Hermes profile config \u2014 model, routing, and provider selection; changed behavior with zero DB delta.\n- `kb_stage.kb_proposals` \u2014 staged proposals influence what Leo surfaces as \"pending\" even if never applied.\n\nThe proof tiers:\n\n- Canonical DB tier: `public.*` row-level readback plus `applied_at` receipts.\n- Runtime continuity tier: Hermes session JSONL and injected memory notes.\n- Deployed artifact tier: skills, SOUL.md, profile config \u2014 file-level readback required.\n\nEach tier needs its own proof. Unchanged DB counts do not collapse the other two.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:21:16.863170+00:00",
      "turn": 10
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "shared_claims_agent_positions",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:21:38.665681+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "Two agents read the same evidence and reach different conclusions. Should Leo duplicate the factual claim once per agent, or keep shared knowledge and represent agent-specific positions elsewhere? Give the current-schema answer and how disagreement remains queryable. Do not write anything.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-11",
      "reply": "One claim row, not two. The factual observation lives once in `public.claims` with its evidence links in `public.claim_evidence`. Duplicating it per agent inflates the count, creates deduplication debt, and means a correction must be applied twice.\n\nAgent-specific positions belong elsewhere. The current schema has `public.behavioral_rules` for operating stances and `public.reasoning_tools` for frameworks each agent reasons with. Agent confidence or interpretive stance on a shared claim is not a field on `public.claims` \u2014 that table has no agent-stance or belief-weight column.\n\nHow disagreement stays queryable: stage two separate `public.claims` rows for the two interpretations \u2014 one per agent's conclusion \u2014 typed `normative` or `empirical` as appropriate, each with its own evidence links. Then join them with a `contradicts` edge in `public.claim_edges`. The shared factual claim that both agents read gets a `supports` or `grounds` evidence link from each interpretation claim back to its source, and a `relates` or `requires` edge to the interpretive claims that derive from it.\n\nThe query path is then: fetch the shared factual claim \u2192 traverse `claim_edges` for `contradicts` edges \u2192 surface both interpretation claims with their respective evidence weights and `created_by` agent IDs.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: When a real disagreement packet arrives, stage the two interpretation claims plus the `contradicts` edge as a single reviewed proposal so the disagreement is formalized, not informally noted in chat.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:21:27.022222+00:00",
      "turn": 11
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "forecast_resolution_without_rewriting_history",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:21:54.936242+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "An old claim recorded a 60% forecast but never defined resolution criteria. The event is now over. What may Leo record in the current database without rewriting history, and what needs a schema proposal? Do not apply anything.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-12",
      "reply": "What Leo may record now without rewriting history:\n\nA new `empirical` claim stating what actually happened, typed and confidence-labelled at its true evidence tier, with a `public.sources` row for the outcome evidence and a `public.claim_evidence` link. Then a `relates` or `challenges` edge in `public.claim_edges` from the outcome claim to the old forecast claim. The old claim's original confidence of 0.6 and its `created_at` timestamp stay untouched. That is the full extent of what current v1 supports.\n\nWhat Leo must not do: set a `superseded_by` on the old claim to the outcome claim \u2014 supersession implies the old claim was wrong as stated, not merely resolved. Must not invent a `resolves` edge; that type is not in the accepted list. Must not backfill resolution criteria onto the old claim row.\n\nWhat needs a schema proposal:\n\nA structured forecast-resolution mechanism \u2014 a `resolves` edge type, resolution criteria fields, outcome timestamps, and scoring columns \u2014 does not exist in current v1. Recording that the 60% forecast was right or wrong in a machine-queryable, scored way requires a schema proposal for those fields and edge type before any data depending on them can be staged.\n\nThe resolution is therefore ambiguous in the DB until that schema proposal is reviewed and shipped.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: Stage a schema proposal adding a `resolves` edge type and resolution-criteria fields, get it reviewed, then record the outcome claim and resolution edge against it.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:21:38.666244+00:00",
      "turn": 12
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "handler_is_not_telegram_delivery",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:22:05.380564+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "A temporary-profile GatewayRunner answered every test prompt, but the run explicitly posted nothing to Telegram. Can I tell a partner the Telegram path is proven live? Answer first, then state exactly what this run proves and the smallest test that closes the gap.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-13",
      "reply": "No.\n\nWhat this run proves: the handler accepted prompts, the profile loaded correctly, and the GatewayRunner produced replies without crashing. That is handler proof \u2014 it confirms the runtime surface is stable and the model path works. It is not Telegram-visible delivery proof.\n\nThe gap: a reply that never posted to Telegram proves nothing about the Telegram delivery path. The Telegram bot token, webhook or polling loop, outbound message API call, and Telegram's acceptance of that call are all untested. Any one of those could be broken and this run would not have caught it.\n\nThe smallest test that closes the gap: send one real prompt through the live Telegram chat \u2014 not a handler call, not a simulated update \u2014 and confirm a visible reply appears in the Telegram thread with a real message ID and timestamp. That single observed Telegram-visible reply proves delivery. A handler success with no Telegram post is explicitly not that proof.\n\nWhat you can honestly tell a partner: the runtime and model path are stable and handler-proven. The end-to-end Telegram delivery path has not been exercised in this run and is not confirmed live.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: Send one live Telegram message through the production chat, observe the reply appear with a real Telegram message ID, and retain that message ID as the delivery receipt.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:21:54.936781+00:00",
      "turn": 13
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "autonomous_source_intake_boundary",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:22:20.710898+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "I hand Leo a document and say: absorb this as far as safely possible without making me approve every mechanical step. What can Leo capture and stage immediately, what real source identity must be retained, and where does explicit approval begin? Explain only; do not ingest this prompt.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-14",
      "reply": "What Leo captures and stages immediately without approval:\n\nA `public.sources` candidate \u2014 title, local path or URL, hash, excerpt, `captured_at` \u2014 is assembled the moment the document is readable. Candidate claims are extracted, typed, and confidence-labelled. Near-duplicate checks run against canonical `public.claims` by semantic search. Contradictions with existing claims are flagged and paired with `contradicts` edge candidates. A `reasoning_tools` candidate is drafted if the document contains a reusable framework. All of this lands as a single reviewable payload in `kb_stage.kb_proposals` with `status: pending_review`. That full staging step \u2014 source candidate, extracted claims, evidence links, edge candidates, deduplication findings \u2014 requires no approval. It is the safe autonomous surface.\n\nWhat real source identity must be retained:\n\nThe proposal payload must carry the document's actual origin \u2014 file path or URL, hash, the channel it arrived through (Telegram attachment, uploaded file, URL), and the session reference. A `source_ref` pointing to a local cache path is not sufficient on its own; the original locator must be recorded so the source row is traceable to the raw artifact, not just to Leo's cached copy. If the locator cannot be resolved to a real URL, storage path, or verified hash, the evidence is marked citation-only and flagged as weak provenance. Leo must not manufacture a source identity from a chat label or proposal pointer.\n\nWhere explicit approval begins:\n\nAt the boundary between `kb_stage` and `public.*`. The moment any row would be written to `public.claims`, `public.sources`, `public.claim_evidence`, `public.claim_edges`, `public.reasoning_tools`, or `public.behavioral_rules`, explicit reviewer approval plus operator/admin authorization for the guarded apply is required. Approval covers the full packet \u2014 reviewer signs off that the source identity is real, claims are correctly typed and tiered, edges are valid, and no element is mapped to the wrong table. Authorization covers the apply transaction itself. Nothing in that sequence is mechanical enough to skip.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: Hand Leo the document; the staging output is the reviewable artifact \u2014 inspect the proposal payload before deciding whether to authorize apply.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:22:05.381238+00:00",
      "turn": 14
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "schema_valid_supersession",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:22:42.936313+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "A canonical claim is wrong. I want the replacement, an explanation, and the old claim visibly retired. In current v1, which exact claim and edge fields exist, which requested writes fit approve_claim, and which require a separate reviewed apply capability? Do not mutate anything.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-15",
      "reply": "Three separate writes, two different apply paths.\n\nCurrent v1 fields in play:\n\n`public.claims` has `id`, `type`, `text`, `status`, `confidence`, `tags`, `created_by`, `superseded_by`, `created_at`, `updated_at`. No body, no rationale, no explanation column. The explanation lives inside `text` or in a linked source excerpt.\n\n`public.claim_edges` has `id`, `from_claim`, `to_claim`, `edge_type`, `weight`, `created_by`, `created_at`. Both endpoints are claim IDs. `supersedes` is a valid `edge_type`.\n\n`superseded_by` is a column on `public.claims`, not an edge type. It stores the replacement claim's ID on the old row.\n\nWhat fits inside `approve_claim`:\n\nThe strict contract accepts only `claims`, `sources`, `evidence`, `edges`, and `reasoning_tools` collections. Two writes fit cleanly:\n\n- New replacement claim row inserted into `public.claims` \u2014 fits.\n- `supersedes` edge in `public.claim_edges` from the new claim ID to the old claim ID \u2014 fits.\n\nThe explanation is carried inside the new claim's `text` or sourced via a `public.sources` excerpt linked through `public.claim_evidence` \u2014 both fit.\n\nWhat requires a separate reviewed apply capability:\n\n- Setting the old claim's `superseded_by` column to the new claim's ID \u2014 `approve_claim` does not update existing rows, only inserts.\n- Setting the old claim's `status` to reflect retirement \u2014 same constraint; `approve_claim` does not mutate existing claim fields.\n\nBoth column updates need a separately reviewed apply capability that can issue a targeted `UPDATE` on the old row with before/after readback.\n\nSequence in practice: one `approve_claim` packet creates the replacement claim, the explanation, and the `supersedes` edge. A second reviewed packet \u2014 separate authorization, separate apply \u2014 sets `superseded_by` and `status` on the old row. The old claim is not visibly retired until that second apply commits.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: Stage the correction as two explicitly sequenced proposals \u2014 packet one for the new claim and `supersedes` edge, packet two for the `superseded_by` and `status` update \u2014 so both can be reviewed and authorized independently.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:22:20.712204+00:00",
      "turn": 15
    }
  ],
  "service_before_after": {
    "after": {
      "ActiveState": "active",
      "ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Mon 2026-07-13 07:01:34 UTC",
      "MainPID": "2096777",
      "NRestarts": "0",
      "SubState": "running"
    },
    "before": {
      "ActiveState": "active",
      "ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Mon 2026-07-13 07:01:34 UTC",
      "MainPID": "2096777",
      "NRestarts": "0",
      "SubState": "running"
    },
    "unchanged_from_preexisting_live_readback": true
  },
  "source": {
    "chat_id": "-5146042086",
    "chat_name": "Leo",
    "chat_type": "group",
    "platform": "telegram",
    "user_id": "9070919",
    "user_name": "codex handler direct claim"
  },
  "source_report_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/work/teleo-infra-main/docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/telegram-handler-m3taversal-oos-suite-current.json",
  "temp_profile_removed": true
}
