{
  "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": "2026-07-13T07:47:20.957276+00:00",
  "handler": {
    "authorized": true,
    "session_key": "agent:main:telegram:group:-5146042086:9070919",
    "temp_profile": "/tmp/leo-direct-claim-handler-iql3lv67/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-867fe26094b7.json",
  "remote_returncode": 0,
  "remote_run_id": "867fe26094b7",
  "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": "2026-07-13T07:48:03.346322+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 what the live bridge returned.\n\n---\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\n---\n\nVerdict: mostly true, with one nuance.\n\nThe canonical tables (`public.claims`, `public.sources`, `public.claim_edges`, `public.claim_evidence`) show no new rows since the last apply on `2026-07-09 16:54:40`. That is four days ago, not just yesterday \u2014 so the complaint understates how long things have been frozen.\n\nWhat I checked live:\n- `teleo-kb status` \u2014 full count receipt above\n- `teleo-kb list-proposals --status all --limit 50` \u2014 all 26 proposals\n\nWhat the full proposal ledger shows:\n- `applied: 2` \u2014 both are `add_edge` canaries (infrastructure probes, not substantive knowledge). Applied July 9.\n- `approved: 3` \u2014 approved but `applied_at: NULL` on all three. These carry real content. The most substantive is the Helmer 7 Powers framework (`a64df080`, approved `2026-06-29`), plus two Leo guiding-policy/evidence packets (`14fa5ecc`, `ac036c9d`, both approved `2026-07-05`). Approved is not the same as applied.\n- `pending_review: 14` \u2014 the bulk of staged work, including Rumelt grounding, living-system concept map, Markov blanket primary sources, and the Leo strategy-kernel v2. None reviewed.\n- `canceled: 7` \u2014 superseded drafts from iterative proposal work.\n\nThe most recent proposal creation was `8dfedb3f`, a canary staging test, created July 9 at 20:06 UTC. Nothing has been staged or applied since then.\n\nSo the canonical DB is frozen. Staging is active (proposals land), but nothing moves from `approved` to canonical rows.\n\n---\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: validate the strict `apply_payload` on one of the three approved proposals \u2014 starting with `a64df080` (Helmer 7 Powers) or `14fa5ecc`/`ac036c9d` (Leo strategy-kernel evidence) \u2014 then explicit operator authorization to run the guarded apply path so those rows actually land in `public.*`. That is the only action that changes the canonical count. Applying approved proposals to canonical tables requires explicit operator/admin authorization and should not run from normal chat without it.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T07:47:21.635233+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": "2026-07-13T07:48:40.272408+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": "This is the full ingestion pipeline, layer by layer.\n\n---\n\nLAYER 1 \u2014 PROVENANCE: REGISTER SOURCES BEFORE CLAIMS\n\nEvery piece of material gets a `public.sources` row before any claim is extracted. The row carries `source_type` (pdf, telegram, social), `url` or `storage_path`, an `excerpt` of the most load-bearing passage, a content `hash` so duplicates are detectable, and `captured_at`.\n\nThe PDF becomes one source row. The Telegram thread becomes one row per distinct message that carries a claim-relevant statement (or one row for the whole thread if the thread itself is the unit). Each tweet becomes its own row. No source row, no claim that cites it \u2014 that is the rule that keeps the graph traceable.\n\nWhat this buys you: every downstream claim can be walked back to the exact passage that grounded it. You never have a claim floating in the graph with no anchor.\n\n---\n\nLAYER 2 \u2014 EXTRACTION: CLAIMS, NOT SENTENCES\n\nNot every sentence becomes a claim. The extraction filter asks: is this specific enough to disagree with, is it falsifiable, and does it assert something about the world rather than just describe what the source said?\n\nExtracted claims go into `public.claims` with a `type` (belief, hypothesis, observation, axiom), a `confidence` score, `status` (active by default), and `tags`. Each extracted claim then gets a `public.claim_evidence` row linking it to its source row with a `role` of `grounds`, `illustrates`, or `contradicts`, and a `weight`.\n\nFor your five tweets: if three of them assert the same directional claim (\"institutional capital is rotating into X\"), that is one candidate claim, not three. The three tweets become three evidence rows pointing at the same claim node, each with weight proportional to how strongly that tweet grounds the assertion.\n\n---\n\nLAYER 3 \u2014 DEDUPLICATION: CHECK BEFORE INSERTING\n\nBefore any extracted claim is proposed for insertion, it goes through a search against existing canonical claims. The questions are: does a claim with materially the same assertion already exist? If yes, the right action is to attach the new sources as additional evidence on the existing claim, not create a duplicate node. A duplicate node with stronger evidence silently competes with the original and pollutes the graph.\n\nIf the incoming claim is a narrower or more precise version of an existing one, a `supersedes` edge is appropriate and the old claim gets `superseded_by` set to the new ID.\n\nIf it is genuinely orthogonal, it warrants a new row.\n\n---\n\nLAYER 4 \u2014 CONTRADICTIONS: SURFACE, DO NOT SUPPRESS\n\nIf the PDF says \"institutional inflows are accelerating\" and one of the tweets says \"net outflows in Q2 exceeded inflows,\" those are not duplicates \u2014 they are a live contradiction. The KB handles this with a `contradicts` edge between the two claims, both of which remain `active`. The contradiction is preserved as a first-class object in the graph, not resolved by picking a winner.\n\nIf the Telegram thread contains an argument that partially resolves the contradiction (e.g., \"the PDF covers gross inflows, the tweet covers net\"), that scoping distinction becomes a third claim linked to both with `relates` or `constrains` edges, and the contradiction edge stays until there is actual evidence that one side is wrong.\n\nReal divergences that the edge structure cannot capture go into a divergence schema entry. Scope mismatches \u2014 which is what about 85% of apparent contradictions turn out to be \u2014 get resolved through wording on the claim text, not by deleting an edge.\n\n---\n\nLAYER 5 \u2014 PROPOSAL PACKET: NOTHING GOES CANONICAL WITHOUT REVIEW\n\nThe output of extraction, deduplication, and contradiction mapping is a staged proposal in `kb_stage.kb_proposals`, not a direct write to `public.*`. The proposal carries: the candidate source rows, the candidate claim rows, the evidence link rows, the edge rows, and a `source_ref` tying every candidate row back to the originating material. The `apply_payload` must be strict \u2014 it names existing canonical IDs for any rows that already exist, and only proposes new rows for genuinely novel material.\n\nThe proposal sits at `pending_review` until a reviewer inspects it. The reviewer's job is to check: are the source rows real and traceable, are the claims specific enough, are the confidence scores honest, are the contradictions surfaced not suppressed, are the edges typed correctly, and is the evidence weighting defensible?\n\n---\n\nLAYER 6 \u2014 RECEIPTS: WHAT YOU SHOULD SEE\n\nBefore apply, you should see:\n- Source candidates with `hash`, `source_type`, and `excerpt` for each of the seven inputs (PDF, N Telegram messages, 5 tweets)\n- Extracted claim candidates with `type`, `confidence`, and falsification criteria\n- A deduplication report: which candidates matched existing claims, which are new, which triggered supersedes\n- A contradiction map: which claim pairs have `contradicts` edges and why\n- A full `apply_payload` listing exact row operations (new source IDs, new claim IDs, evidence links, edges)\n\nAfter apply, you should see:\n- `applied_at` timestamp on the proposal\n- Before/after counts on `public.claims`, `public.sources`, `public.claim_evidence`, `public.claim_edges` \u2014 not all five need to increase, but the delta must match the payload declaration exactly\n- Row-level proof: the specific new or updated row IDs visible in canonical `public.*` via a postflight readback\n\nIf `applied_at` is `NULL`, the work is staged, not canonical. Approved is not the same as applied.\n\n---\n\nTHE INTEGRITY GUARANTEE\n\nThe pipeline's integrity rests on four constraints working together: source-first (no claim without a source row), evidence-explicit (no claim without at least one evidence link), contradiction-preserved (no silent resolution), and review-gated (no canonical write without a reviewer approving a strict payload). Any shortcut on any of these four degrades the graph from durable knowledge toward annotated opinion.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T07:48:03.346966+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": "2026-07-13T07:49:09.762209+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, the correction is not part of canonical identity after a restart. Here is the exact truth test.\n\n---\n\nTHE THREE SURFACES AND WHAT EACH ONE ACTUALLY IS\n\nSurface 1 \u2014 Chat correction. Lives only in the session context window. Vanishes on restart. Has no row anywhere.\n\nSurface 2 \u2014 SOUL.md edit. A runtime/rendered artifact on disk. It affects the next session's injected prompt, so Leo will behave differently tomorrow \u2014 but this is not canonical identity. It is a rendered file, not a DB row, not a collective commit, not a peer-reviewed change.\n\nSurface 3 \u2014 Canonical Postgres (`public.claims`, `public.sources`, `public.claim_evidence`, `public.claim_edges`, identity tables). This is the only surface that is the source of truth for collective identity.\n\n---\n\nTHE EXACT TRUTH TEST, STEP BY STEP\n\nStep 1 \u2014 Check for a KB proposal. Run `teleo-kb search-proposals` against the corrected claim text. A correction that matters should have produced a `kb_stage.kb_proposals` row. If there is no proposal row, the correction never entered the review pipeline at all.\n\nStep 2 \u2014 Check proposal status. If a proposal exists, it must have `status: approved` and a non-null `applied_at` timestamp. Approved with `applied_at: NULL` means it is staged/packet-ready, not canonical. The correction has not landed.\n\nStep 3 \u2014 Check canonical rows. Even with `applied_at` populated, run a postflight readback against `public.claims` to confirm the specific new or updated row IDs exist in the canonical table. The `applied_at` timestamp on the proposal and the actual row in `public.*` must both be present. One without the other is not proof.\n\nStep 4 \u2014 Check the render/sync path. Confirm that whatever process generates SOUL.md (or its equivalent runtime identity artifact) has pulled from those canonical rows since the `applied_at` timestamp. A render that ran before the apply means the runtime artifact is stale even if canonical rows are correct.\n\nStep 5 \u2014 Verify the SOUL.md edit is consistent with the canonical row. If SOUL.md was edited by hand, check whether its content matches what the canonical row says. A hand-edited SOUL.md that contradicts or diverges from canonical rows means runtime and canonical are split \u2014 Leo will behave according to SOUL.md in the next session but the canonical collective truth says something different. These are two separate failure modes.\n\n---\n\nTHE CURRENT STATE\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nWith no new canonical rows since July 9 and 14 proposals still at `pending_review`, the working assumption is: the chat correction exists nowhere durable, and the SOUL.md edit exists on disk only. Leo tomorrow will reflect the SOUL.md edit (because that file is injected at startup) but not as canonical identity \u2014 it is a unilateral runtime change with no row-level proof, no peer review, no postflight, and no collective ratification.\n\nRow-level proof would require: a new or updated row ID visible in `public.claims` or the relevant identity tables, matching `applied_at` on its proposal, and a render-sync proof showing SOUL.md was regenerated from that row after apply. None of those exist right now.\n\n---\n\nTHE FAILURE MODE TO NAME PLAINLY\n\nSOUL.md drift is the specific risk here. If SOUL.md is edited by hand repeatedly without canonical backing, the rendered identity and the DB diverge silently. Leo behaves according to SOUL.md. The KB believes something different. The next time a synthesis claim is evaluated against \"what Leo believes,\" the answer depends on which surface you ask. That is not calibration \u2014 that is two sources of truth.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: route the correction through the proposal pipeline \u2014 extract the corrected belief as a candidate claim, stage it in `kb_stage.kb_proposals`, get reviewer approval, validate the strict `apply_payload`, then apply with postflight readback confirming the row ID in `public.claims` and a render-sync timestamp on SOUL.md. That chain is the only path from \"Leo said it in chat\" to \"canonical identity tomorrow.\"",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T07:48:40.272790+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": "2026-07-13T07:49:23.055192+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\n---\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nThe three approved proposals are `a64df080` (Helmer 7 Powers, approved 2026-06-29), `14fa5ecc` (Leo strategy-kernel evidence, approved 2026-07-05), and `ac036c9d` (Leo guiding-policy revision, approved 2026-07-05). All three have `applied_at: NULL`. Approved is not the same as applied.\n\nCanonical `public.*` row counts are identical to four days ago. No new claims, sources, edges, or evidence rows exist. Reviewer approval is a gate, not a write. The knowledge database has not changed.\n\nWhat you can honestly say at the demo: Leo has a live staging pipeline with three reviewed and approved knowledge packets ready to apply. The canonical DB itself has not been updated yet.\n\n---\n\nThe proof that would let you change the answer to \"yes\":\n\nAfter explicit operator authorization and a guarded apply run against one or more of those three proposals, you need to see: a non-null `applied_at` timestamp on the proposal row, a postflight readback showing new row IDs in `public.claims`, `public.sources`, `public.claim_evidence`, or `public.claim_edges` that match the declared `apply_payload`, and the before/after count delta matching exactly what the payload declared. All three pieces \u2014 timestamp, row IDs, count delta \u2014 are required. Any one of them alone is not proof.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: validate the strict `apply_payload` on the highest-value approved proposal (recommend starting with `a64df080` or `ac036c9d`), then explicit operator authorization to run the guarded apply path with retained postflight readback. That is the only action that moves the answer from no to yes before the demo.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T07:49:09.762586+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": "2026-07-13T07:50:04.665789+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "A proposal points to a Telegram attachment and its extracted text exists on disk. Does that mean the claim already has canonical evidence? Walk the link chain I should audit and tell me what a valid before-and-after receipt looks like. Read-only only.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-05",
      "reply": "No. A Telegram attachment and its extracted text on disk are not canonical evidence. They are raw material. Here is every link in the chain you need to audit, and what a valid receipt looks like at each one.\n\n---\n\nTHE FOUR LAYERS, NONE OF WHICH IMPLIES THE NEXT\n\nLayer 1 \u2014 Telegram delivery. The file arrived in the chat and Hermes ingested it. Proof: the message exists in Telegram's history and the file is retrievable. This proves delivery only.\n\nLayer 2 \u2014 Extracted text on disk. A file at some path under the leoclean profile or a temp directory contains the parsed content. Proof: the file exists and is non-empty. This proves extraction only. The file is not a DB row. It has no `hash`, no `source_type`, no `captured_at`, no `id`. Leo cannot cite it. It does not exist to the KB.\n\nLayer 3 \u2014 `public.sources` row. The extracted text must have been written into `public.sources` with a `source_type`, `url` or `storage_path`, `excerpt`, `hash`, and `captured_at`. Proof: a row ID in `public.sources` that resolves to this file. Without this row, no claim can be evidence-linked to this material \u2014 the schema requires `claim_evidence.source_id` to be a foreign key into `public.sources`. The disk file cannot serve as that foreign key.\n\nLayer 4 \u2014 `public.claim_evidence` row. The source row must then be linked to a specific claim via `public.claim_evidence` with a `claim_id`, `source_id`, `role` (`grounds`, `illustrates`, or `contradicts`), and `weight`. Proof: a row in `claim_evidence` where `source_id` matches the `public.sources` row from layer 3 and `claim_id` matches the claim you care about. This is the row that makes the claim \"have evidence\" in the canonical sense.\n\n---\n\nWHERE THE CURRENT PROPOSALS ACTUALLY SIT\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nThe `attach_evidence` proposals with `applied_at: NULL` \u2014 including the two approved strategy-kernel ones (`14fa5ecc`, `ac036c9d`) and the Rumelt/living-system pending ones \u2014 carry source candidates and evidence link candidates inside the proposal payload. Those candidates are described in the proposal rationale but they are not yet rows. They are intentions. The `sources` count of `4145` and `claim_evidence` count of `4670` have not moved since July 9. No new source rows, no new evidence links.\n\n---\n\nTHE LINK CHAIN TO AUDIT (in order)\n\n1. Telegram message ID \u2014 confirm the attachment was delivered and ingested.\n2. Disk path \u2014 confirm extracted text exists and is complete.\n3. `public.sources` \u2014 query for a row whose `storage_path` or `url` matches the disk path, or whose `hash` matches the file's content hash. If no row, stop here: the source is not canonical.\n4. `public.claim_evidence` \u2014 query for rows where `source_id` equals the `public.sources` row ID found in step 3. If no rows, stop here: the claim has no canonical evidence from this source even if the source row exists.\n5. `public.claims` \u2014 confirm the linked `claim_id` from step 4 is an `active` claim, not `superseded`.\n6. Proposal `applied_at` \u2014 confirm the proposal that declared this source+evidence link has a non-null `applied_at` and that its declared row IDs match what steps 3\u20135 returned. This is the postflight proof that the apply transaction completed.\n\n---\n\nWHAT A VALID BEFORE-AND-AFTER RECEIPT LOOKS LIKE\n\nBefore (what you read now):\n- `public.sources` count: `4145`\n- `public.claim_evidence` count: `4670`\n- Target proposal `applied_at: NULL`\n- No `public.sources` row matching the Telegram attachment's path or hash\n- No `public.claim_evidence` row linking that source to the target claim\n\nAfter (what a completed apply must show):\n- `public.sources` count: `4145 + N` where N equals the number of new source rows declared in the `apply_payload` (could be 1 for this attachment, could be more if the packet includes other sources)\n- `public.claim_evidence` count: `4670 + M` where M equals the declared new evidence links\n- Target proposal `applied_at`: a real timestamp\n- A specific new `public.sources` row ID visible by direct read, with matching `hash` and `storage_path`\n- A specific new `public.claim_evidence` row ID visible by direct read, `source_id` pointing to that source row, `claim_id` pointing to the correct claim\n- The delta on both counts matches the payload declaration exactly \u2014 not approximately, exactly\n\nIf any one of those six after-conditions is missing, the apply is incomplete or the payload was wrong.\n\n---\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: run a bounded read-only audit \u2014 `teleo-kb show-proposal` on the specific proposal carrying this attachment, check whether its `apply_payload` includes an explicit `public.sources` row candidate with the correct `storage_path` or `hash`, then cross-check `public.sources` directly to confirm whether that row already exists or is still only a candidate. That tells you whether the gap is a missing apply or a missing source row in the payload itself.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T07:49:23.055535+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": "2026-07-13T07:50:58.840719+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 distinct objects, five distinct DB destinations. The point of the decomposition is that the graph can later traverse each object differently \u2014 cite the framework, test the observation against evidence, track the dispute, enforce the gate, or follow the belief correction chain \u2014 without those operations colliding.\n\n---\n\nOBJECT 1 \u2014 FACTUAL OBSERVATIONS \u2192 `public.claims`, type `observation`\n\nObservations are the most constrained claims in the graph. `confidence` should be high only if the source is primary and the statement is directly verifiable. Each observation gets its own row so it can be independently challenged or supported later. Evidence links (`public.claim_evidence` with role `grounds`) attach the source excerpt to each observation row, not to the packet as a whole. If two observations from different sources say the same thing, one row with two evidence rows is correct \u2014 not two claim rows.\n\nEdges from observations typically go outward: an observation `supports` a hypothesis, `causes` a mechanism claim, or `cites` a source-level claim. Observations are building blocks, not conclusions.\n\n---\n\nOBJECT 2 \u2014 STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK \u2192 `public.reasoning_tools`\n\nA framework is not a claim about the world. It is a structured lens for evaluating claims. It belongs in `public.reasoning_tools`, not `public.claims`. The row carries a name, description, and the structured criteria or steps the framework applies.\n\nThe schema constraint to name explicitly: current v1 has no generic edge type connecting a `reasoning_tools` row directly to a `claims` row through `public.claim_edges`. Both endpoints of a claim edge must be claim IDs. So the connection between the framework and the claims it informs is made by: (a) citing the framework by name in the claim's `tags` or in the proposal rationale, and (b) staging a separate schema proposal if you need a first-class framework-to-claim link. Do not invent a `reasoning_tool_id` foreign key in `public.claim_edges` \u2014 that column does not exist in v1. Name the gap, do not paper over it.\n\n---\n\nOBJECT 3 \u2014 DISPUTED INTERPRETATION \u2192 `public.claims` with a `contradicts` edge\n\nA disputed interpretation means at least two claims exist with incompatible assertions about the same phenomenon. Each side gets its own `public.claims` row, typed `hypothesis` or `belief` depending on evidence density, with honest `confidence` scores. A `contradicts` edge runs between them in `public.claim_edges`. Both rows stay `active` \u2014 the dispute is the knowledge, not a defect to be cleaned up.\n\nIf the packet contains a scoping argument that partially explains the dispute (these two claims are measuring different things, or different time horizons), that argument becomes a third claim with `constrains` or `relates` edges to both sides. The `contradicts` edge stays until one side is falsified by evidence. Suppressing it is miscalibration.\n\n---\n\nOBJECT 4 \u2014 GOVERNANCE RULE \u2192 `public.governance_gates`\n\nA governance rule fits `public.governance_gates` if and only if it has a `name`, `criteria`, `evidence_bar`, and `pass_condition`. Those four fields are the contract. If the rule is an evaluative gate \u2014 \"this proposal passes if all four quality criteria are met\" \u2014 it belongs there.\n\nIf the rule is a behavioral policy (\"no self-merge\"), it does not fit the `governance_gates` contract, which is designed for evaluative gates not operational directives. In that case the rule belongs in the proposal rationale with an explicit note that the current schema has no generic policy table, and a schema gap proposal should be staged separately before the rule is treated as a first-class DB object.\n\nDo not put a governance rule into `public.claims` to avoid naming the gap. That flattens a structural constraint into an assertion, which breaks the reasoning graph.\n\n---\n\nOBJECT 5 \u2014 BELIEF CORRECTION \u2192 new `public.claims` row plus `supersedes` edge plus `superseded_by` column update\n\nA correction to an existing belief requires three coordinated operations, not one:\n\nFirst, a new `public.claims` row with the corrected text, honest `confidence`, appropriate type, and its own evidence links to whatever grounded the correction.\n\nSecond, a `supersedes` edge in `public.claim_edges` from the new claim to the old one.\n\nThird, `superseded_by` set on the old claim row to the new claim's ID. This is a column update on `public.claims`, not an additional edge. Both the edge and the column update are required \u2014 the edge makes the supersession traversable in the graph; the column makes the old claim's status explicit on the row itself.\n\nThe old claim's `status` moves to `superseded`. It stays in the DB. The correction chain is permanent and auditable. Deleting the old row would destroy the provenance of why the new belief exists.\n\n---\n\nTHE REVIEW AND APPLY SEQUENCE\n\nStage one \u2014 a single proposal packet. All five objects go into one `kb_stage.kb_proposals` entry as a single `apply_payload`. They go together because they are semantically coupled: the framework informs the observations, the disputed interpretation depends on those observations, the governance rule applies to the dispute resolution process, and the belief correction may cite the framework. Splitting them into five separate proposals risks applying them out of order and leaving dangling references.\n\nThe payload declares, in dependency order: new source rows first, then new claim rows for the observations, then the reasoning tool row, then the disputed interpretation claims with their contradicts edge, then the governance gate row (or a schema gap note if it does not fit the contract), then the corrected belief claim, then all edge rows, then all evidence rows, then the `superseded_by` column update on the old belief. Dependency order matters because `claim_edges` rows reference claim IDs that must already exist.\n\nStage two \u2014 review. The reviewer checks: are the five objects mapped to the right table destinations, is the disputed interpretation preserved as a contradiction rather than resolved silently, does the framework have a schema gap note if the v1 edge contract cannot connect it to claims, does the belief correction include both the supersedes edge and the superseded_by column update, and is the `apply_payload` strict \u2014 meaning every referenced ID either already exists in canonical tables or is declared as a new row in this same payload with no forward references unresolved.\n\nStage three \u2014 apply with postflight. After explicit operator authorization, the apply runs in one transaction. Postflight reads back: new row IDs visible in each affected canonical table, count deltas matching the payload declaration exactly, `applied_at` timestamp on the proposal, and the old belief row showing `superseded_by` populated and `status: superseded`. If any of those are absent the transaction is either incomplete or the payload was wrong, and the answer to \"was this applied\" is no.\n\n---\n\nTHE ANTI-FLATTENING RULE\n\nThe temptation is to put all five objects into `public.claims` because that is the table you know. The cost is: you lose the governance gate's enforceability, you lose the framework's reusability as a lens, you conflate observations with interpretations, and you make the belief correction invisible as a structural event in the graph. The decomposition above preserves the reasoning surface for each object type so that traversal later \u2014 \"what grounds this observation,\" \"what does this framework evaluate,\" \"which side of this dispute has stronger evidence,\" \"when was this belief corrected and why\" \u2014 returns the right kind of answer without conflating the five different epistemic operations.\n\nNext proof-changing follow-up: before building the payload, run `teleo-kb search` against the old belief text to confirm its exact canonical claim ID \u2014 that ID is required in the `supersedes` edge and the `superseded_by` column update, and getting it wrong means the correction applies to a ghost row, not the live claim.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T07:50:04.666481+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": "2026-07-13T07:51:08.993835+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-84cf197e. 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-84cf197e\n\nBlocker: three proposals carry reviewer approval but all three have `applied_at: NULL` \u2014 meaning zero approved knowledge has landed in canonical `public.*`. The counts have not moved since July 9. You cannot demo \"Leo's knowledge database is updated\" because it factually is not. The entire approved backlog (`a64df080`, `14fa5ecc`, `ac036c9d`) is staged, not canonical. Until at least one of those runs a validated guarded apply with postflight row-level proof, the demo claim is false.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T07:50:58.841397+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": "2026-07-13T07:51:19.155930+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-84cf197e\n\nBlocker: three reviewer-approved proposals (`a64df080`, `14fa5ecc`, `ac036c9d`) all have `applied_at: NULL`. No approved content has landed in canonical `public.*`. The row counts have not moved since July 9. The demo claim \"the knowledge database is updated\" is false.\n\nExact proof that closes it:\n\n1. Validate the strict `apply_payload` on at least one of the three proposals \u2014 confirm every referenced ID either already exists in canonical tables or is declared as a new row within the same payload with no unresolved forward references.\n\n2. Explicit operator authorization to run the guarded apply path.\n\n3. After apply: `applied_at` timestamp is non-null on the proposal row.\n\n4. Postflight readback shows specific new row IDs visible in `public.claims`, `public.sources`, `public.claim_evidence`, or `public.claim_edges` matching the payload declaration.\n\n5. Before/after count delta on each affected table matches the payload exactly \u2014 not approximately, exactly.\n\nAll five conditions must be present. Any one missing and the answer is still no.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T07:51:08.994391+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": "2026-07-13T07:51:29.319460+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": "Address this participant as `@m3taversal` exactly \u2014 no shortening, no inferred personal name, no substitution from memory or session headers.\n\nAllowed identity sources: the current Telegram update only \u2014 the visible sender handle on this specific message.\n\nProhibited: runtime memory, soul documents, environment labels, other sessions, other participants' messages, and any inferred personal name including ones previously hallucinated in this conversation.\n\nWhen another user replies, resolve their identity from their own current Telegram update independently \u2014 never carry a prior participant's identity forward or assign it to a different sender.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T07:51:19.156864+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
}
