Clarify Leo proposal state semantics

hermes-agent/leoclean-skills/gcp/teleo-kb-bridge/SKILL.md

@@ -102,7 +102,9 @@ proof language below. These are behavioral examples, not feature changes.
 - "Did we actually update the KB?": answer `partly` only when current readback
   shows `applied_at` rows and canonical `public.*` rows. Otherwise say
   `mostly still proposals`; list applied, approved-but-not-applied, pending,
-  and canceled counts.
+  and canceled counts. Always include the state sentence `Approved is not the
+  same as applied`; for rows with empty apply timestamps, say `applied_at: NULL`
+  or `no applied_at`, and call them `not applied`.
 - "Is Helmer's 7 Powers in Leo now?": answer `no, not canonical` unless
   `public.sources`, `public.claims`, evidence, edges, and any reasoning-tool
   rows exist. If proposal `a64df080` is approved with empty `applied_at`, call
@@ -117,8 +119,9 @@ proof language below. These are behavioral examples, not feature changes.
   source keys, and canonical `public.sources` rows are different layers. The
   missing proof is a row-link audit plus guarded apply contract.
 - "Can I demo Leo changes the KB?": lead with `staging yes, canonical KB
-  change not safe to demo from chat`. A safe demo can show a real staging write
-  to `kb_stage.kb_proposals` and read it back. Canonical mutation of
+  change not safe to demo from chat`. Include `demo tier` language. A safe demo
+  can show a real staging write to `kb_stage.kb_proposals` and read it back.
+  Canonical mutation of
   `public.claims`, `public.sources`, `public.claim_evidence`, or
   `public.claim_edges` is not provable from chat and is not yet, blocked on
   apply tooling until explicit operator/admin authorization, an apply tool, and

hermes-agent/leoclean-skills/vps/teleo-kb-bridge/SKILL.md

@@ -94,7 +94,9 @@ proof language below. These are behavioral examples, not feature changes.
 - "Did we actually update the KB?": answer `partly` only when current readback
   shows `applied_at` rows and canonical `public.*` rows. Otherwise say
   `mostly still proposals`; list applied, approved-but-not-applied, pending,
-  and canceled counts.
+  and canceled counts. Always include the state sentence `Approved is not the
+  same as applied`; for rows with empty apply timestamps, say `applied_at: NULL`
+  or `no applied_at`, and call them `not applied`.
 - "Is Helmer's 7 Powers in Leo now?": answer `no, not canonical` unless
   `public.sources`, `public.claims`, evidence, edges, and any reasoning-tool
   rows exist. If proposal `a64df080` is approved with empty `applied_at`, call
@@ -109,8 +111,9 @@ proof language below. These are behavioral examples, not feature changes.
   source keys, and canonical `public.sources` rows are different layers. The
   missing proof is a row-link audit plus guarded apply contract.
 - "Can I demo Leo changes the KB?": lead with `staging yes, canonical KB
-  change not safe to demo from chat`. A safe demo can show a real staging write
-  to `kb_stage.kb_proposals` and read it back. Canonical mutation of
+  change not safe to demo from chat`. Include `demo tier` language. A safe demo
+  can show a real staging write to `kb_stage.kb_proposals` and read it back.
+  Canonical mutation of
   `public.claims`, `public.sources`, `public.claim_evidence`, or
   `public.claim_edges` is not provable from chat and is not yet, blocked on
   apply tooling until explicit operator/admin authorization, an apply tool, and

tests/test_hermes_leoclean_skill_surfaces.py

@@ -21,6 +21,10 @@ def test_gcp_kb_skill_uses_cloudsql_bridge_not_vps_docker() -> None:
     assert "Cory Direct-Claim Answer Contract" in text
     assert "not just pointer mismatch" in text
     assert "staging write to `kb_stage.kb_proposals`" in squashed
+    assert "demo tier" in text
+    assert "Approved is not the same as applied" in squashed
+    assert "applied_at: NULL" in text
+    assert "not applied" in text
     assert "canonical KB change not safe to demo from chat" in squashed
     assert "not provable from chat" in text
     assert "not yet, blocked on apply tooling" in squashed
@@ -58,6 +62,10 @@ def test_vps_kb_skill_keeps_vps_scope_explicit() -> None:
     assert "Cory Direct-Claim Answer Contract" in text
     assert "not just pointer mismatch" in text
     assert "staging write to `kb_stage.kb_proposals`" in squashed
+    assert "demo tier" in text
+    assert "Approved is not the same as applied" in squashed
+    assert "applied_at: NULL" in text
+    assert "not applied" in text
     assert "canonical KB change not safe to demo from chat" in squashed
     assert "not provable from chat" in text
     assert "not yet, blocked on apply tooling" in squashed