teleo/teleo-infrastructure
8
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests 1 Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions 1

record Telegram-visible Leo direct-claim proof

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
twentyOne2x 2026-07-13 02:07:17 +02:00
parent d6fae7be3c
commit 3cd78dbbfb
3 changed files with 132 additions and 44 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

56
docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/telegram-handler-direct-claim-suite-current.json
View file

@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
{ {
"before_service": { "before_service": {
"ActiveState": "active", "ActiveState": "active",
"ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Fri 2026-07-10 01:04:22 UTC", "ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Sun 2026-07-12 09:14:10 UTC",
"MainPID": "1908033", "MainPID": "2403328",
"NRestarts": "0", "NRestarts": "0",
"SubState": "running" "SubState": "running"
}, },
@ -22,11 +22,11 @@
"public.sources": 4145 "public.sources": 4145
}, },
"db_counts_changed": false, "db_counts_changed": false,
"generated_at_utc": "2026-07-10T02:23:29.265945+00:00", "generated_at_utc": "2026-07-12T23:34:10.194914+00:00",
"handler": { "handler": {
"authorized": true, "authorized": true,
"session_key": "agent:main:telegram:group:-5146042086:9070919", "session_key": "agent:main:telegram:group:-5146042086:9070919",
"temp_profile": "/tmp/leo-direct-claim-handler-7uoa0h5f/profile" "temp_profile": "/tmp/leo-direct-claim-handler-nk9tbkkh/profile"
}, },
"harness_notes": [ "harness_notes": [
"Prompts are the exact DC-01..DC-06 direct-claim benchmark messages.", "Prompts are the exact DC-01..DC-06 direct-claim benchmark messages.",
@ -37,101 +37,101 @@
"mutates_kb_by_harness": false, "mutates_kb_by_harness": false,
"pass_runtime": true, "pass_runtime": true,
"posted_to_telegram": false, "posted_to_telegram": false,
"remote_report_path": "/tmp/leo-direct-claim-handler-report-c569cfc47873.json", "remote_report_path": "/tmp/leo-direct-claim-handler-report-7cc3e67b1e75.json",
"remote_returncode": 0, "remote_returncode": 0,
"remote_run_id": "c569cfc47873", "remote_run_id": "7cc3e67b1e75",
"results": [ "results": [
{ {
"claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.", "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
"dimension": "db_changed_direct_claim", "dimension": "db_changed_direct_claim",
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-10T02:24:01.289425+00:00", "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-12T23:34:35.376584+00:00",
"evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile", "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
"mutates_kb": false, "mutates_kb": false,
"ok": true, "ok": true,
"prompt": "Did we actually update the knowledge base, or is it still just proposals?", "prompt": "Did we actually update the knowledge base, or is it still just proposals?",
"prompt_id": "DC-01", "prompt_id": "DC-01",
"reply": "Mostly still proposals. Here's the current readback:\n\nApplied (canonical `public.*` changed):\n- `00957f6c` \u2014 add_edge canary, applied 2026-07-09\n- `f004bbb2` \u2014 attach_evidence (Leo guiding-policy revision), applied 2026-07-05\n\nApproved but NOT applied (staged, not canonical):\n- `14fa5ecc` \u2014 split compressed internet-finance/capital-allocation claim\n- `ac036c9d` \u2014 strategy-kernel doc eval / claim-node hygiene / Hayek reframe\n- `a64df080` \u2014 Helmer 7 Powers framework packet (approved 2026-06-29, still waiting)\n\nPending review (~11 proposals):\nStrategy-kernel revisions, Rumelt/Hayek evidence attaches, Markov blanket sources, a live Telegram add_edge from yesterday \u2014 none reviewed yet.\n\nCanceled (~6): Earlier superseded waves-of-change and strategy-kernel drafts.\n\nSo the canonical DB has 2 applied writes. Everything substantive \u2014 7 Powers, strategy-kernel revisions, Hayek/Rumelt evidence \u2014 is approved or pending but not in `public.*`.\n\nI cannot claim canonical DB changed for those items until `applied_at` rows and `public.*` readback confirm the apply ran.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: the three approved proposals (`14fa5ecc`, `ac036c9d`, `a64df080`) are packet-ready \u2014 the proof-changing action is running the apply sequence with operator authorization and confirming `public.*` rows after. Want me to draft the admin review packet for those three?", "reply": "Mostly still proposals. Only 2 of 26 have actually landed in canonical `public.*`.\n\nDirect answer: Approved is not the same as applied.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nBreakdown by status:\n- `applied`: 2 \u2014 these actually changed canonical rows\n- `approved`: 3 \u2014 reviewed and approved, but `applied_at: none` (database NULL) on all three; not in `public.*` yet\n- `pending_review`: 14 \u2014 staged, no review\n- `canceled`: 7 \u2014 killed before review\n\nThe 3 approved-but-not-applied proposals are:\n\n`14fa5ecc` \u2014 split compressed internet-finance/capital-allocation claim; approved 2026-07-05; `applied_at: none`\n\n`ac036c9d` \u2014 strategy-kernel / claim-node hygiene / Hayek anchor reframing; approved 2026-07-05; `applied_at: none`\n\n`a64df080` \u2014 Helmer 7 Powers framework packet (revised, self-positioning removed); approved 2026-06-29; `applied_at: none`\n\nSo three substantive packets have reviewer sign-off but zero canonical rows have changed as a result. The canonical DB is still reflecting whatever existed before those approvals.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: run the admin review packet for one of those three (probably `a64df080` or `ac036c9d` first) and authorize the apply path \u2014 that's the one action that moves a proposal from approved to canonical.",
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-10T02:23:29.716841+00:00", "started_at_utc": "2026-07-12T23:34:11.006772+00:00",
"turn": 1 "turn": 1
}, },
{ {
"claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.", "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
"dimension": "helmer_live_direct_claim", "dimension": "helmer_live_direct_claim",
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-10T02:24:20.372589+00:00", "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-12T23:34:53.994564+00:00",
"evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile", "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
"mutates_kb": false, "mutates_kb": false,
"ok": true, "ok": true,
"prompt": "Is Helmer's 7 Powers in Leo now?", "prompt": "Is Helmer's 7 Powers in Leo now?",
"prompt_id": "DC-02", "prompt_id": "DC-02",
"reply": "No, not canonical.\n\nProposal `a64df080` \u2014 the revised 7 Powers framework packet \u2014 was approved on 2026-06-29. `applied_at` is empty. No `public.sources`, `public.claims`, evidence rows, or reasoning-tool nodes for Helmer exist in `public.*` \u2014 the `search \"7 Powers Helmer\"` returned zero relevant claims.\n\nStatus: approved/staged, not canonical.\n\nCanonical: nothing in `public.*`\nStaged: `a64df080` \u2014 approved, `applied_at` empty\nPredecessor: `cea989fc` \u2014 canceled (superseded by `a64df080`)\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: the proof-changing action is applying `a64df080` \u2014 operator authorization + apply sequence + `public.*` readback to confirm source, framework node, power-definition claims, and edges landed. Want me to draft the admin review packet for it?", "reply": "No, not canonical.\n\nDB readback: proposal: `a64df080-8502-42e2-98f4-9bbdecb8da73`; status: `approved`; applied_at: `none` (database NULL).\n\nThe `search` returned zero 7 Powers claims from `public.*` \u2014 the framework search hit unrelated claims (healthcare/autonomous-weapons), not Helmer nodes. That confirms no canonical rows exist yet.\n\nWhat exists and what doesn't:\n\nStaged (kb_stage only):\n- Proposal `a64df080` is approved-with-changes by m3ta\n- Full payload is ready: reasoning_tool node, 5 proposed claims (benefit/barrier definitions for all 7 powers, power progression, counter-positioning, network economies vs. network effects, Leo usage template), 6 source candidates with local research files at `/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/kb_stage/research/7powers/`\n\nNot canonical (public.* is empty):\n- No `public.sources` rows for Helmer book, Acquired transcript, NFX article, etc.\n- No `public.claims` rows for the 5 proposed claims\n- No `public.claim_evidence` or `public.claim_edges` linking them\n- No reasoning_tool node\n\nApproved is not the same as applied.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: authorize the apply path for `a64df080` \u2014 that's the one action that creates the source rows, claim rows, evidence links, and reasoning_tool node in `public.*` and makes 7 Powers canonical in Leo.",
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-10T02:24:01.290646+00:00", "started_at_utc": "2026-07-12T23:34:35.377089+00:00",
"turn": 2 "turn": 2
}, },
{ {
"claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.", "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
"dimension": "decision_matrix_direct_claim", "dimension": "decision_matrix_direct_claim",
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-10T02:24:30.827780+00:00", "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-12T23:35:06.698925+00:00",
"evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile", "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
"mutates_kb": false, "mutates_kb": false,
"ok": true, "ok": true,
"prompt": "Did the decision matrix approve this already?", "prompt": "Did the decision matrix approve this already?",
"prompt_id": "DC-03", "prompt_id": "DC-03",
"reply": "No \u2014 the decision-matrix path is not shipped.\n\n`kb_stage.matrix_voters`, `proposal_votes`, and `proposal_decisions` are all absent. None of the required tables exist in either schema.\n\nThe `approved` status on `a64df080` is a reviewer approval recorded in `kb_stage.kb_proposals` \u2014 that's m3ta signing off in chat on 2026-06-29. It is not a futarchy/decision-matrix vote. Those are different things and the matrix mechanics haven't been built yet.\n\nSo the approval chain for 7 Powers is: m3ta reviewed and approved in Telegram, Leo staged it, no canonical apply has run, no decision-matrix infrastructure exists.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: the decision-matrix tables need to be created before any proposal can claim matrix approval. If the current governance model treats m3ta reviewer approval as sufficient to authorize an apply, that should be made explicit in the apply tooling \u2014 want me to draft what that contract should look like?", "reply": "No. Fresh readback: the decision-matrix schema is absent; reviewer status is not a decision-matrix vote.\n\nNone of the three required tables exist anywhere in the DB:\n\n- `matrix_voters`: absent\n- `proposal_votes`: absent\n- `proposal_decisions`: absent\n\nWhat `a64df080` has is m3ta reviewer approval recorded in `kb_stage.kb_proposals` \u2014 that's a human reviewer sign-off in the proposal ledger, not a futarchy/decision-matrix vote. The distinction matters: the guiding policy says agentic capital is eventually gated by decision markets so no individual controls the call. Right now that infrastructure doesn't exist, so the current approval path is reviewer-only (m3ta signed off June 29).\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: decision-matrix is a future build \u2014 if you want to unblock 7 Powers now, the available path is explicit operator/admin authorization of the apply step for `a64df080`, not waiting for a matrix that doesn't exist yet.",
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-10T02:24:20.372895+00:00", "started_at_utc": "2026-07-12T23:34:53.994853+00:00",
"turn": 3 "turn": 3
}, },
{ {
"claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.", "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
"dimension": "document_source_direct_claim", "dimension": "document_source_direct_claim",
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-10T02:25:00.500000+00:00", "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-12T23:35:27.564235+00:00",
"evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile", "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
"mutates_kb": false, "mutates_kb": false,
"ok": true, "ok": true,
"prompt": "Are the pending proposals stuck because the documents are not pointed at the right source rows?", "prompt": "Are the pending proposals stuck because the documents are not pointed at the right source rows?",
"prompt_id": "DC-04", "prompt_id": "DC-04",
"reply": "Not just a pointer mismatch \u2014 that's too single-cause. Here's what the readback actually shows:\n\nReal blocking cause: no apply tooling. The bridge can stage proposals but has no `teleo-kb apply-*` command. All three approved proposals (`a64df080`, `14fa5ecc`, `ac036c9d`) are packet-ready but there is no operator-authorized apply path to run. That is the structural blocker.\n\nSource pointer layer \u2014 real but secondary: The `source_ref` fields in the approved proposals point to Telegram refs and local file paths, not `public.sources` rows. The `source_candidates` inside each payload use `source_key` identifiers (e.g., `hayek_use_of_knowledge_in_society_fee_snapshot`, `m3ta_telegram_approval_supersede_split_2026_07_05`) that have no confirmed canonical `public.sources` rows behind them. So when an apply does run, the apply sequence needs to create those source rows first before attaching evidence or edges. A row-link audit is needed.\n\nSchema gap layer \u2014 also real: The proposals use `attach_evidence` as a workaround because the bridge lacks `propose-claim`, `propose-concept-node`, and `propose-claim-body` command types. The payloads carry the full intent but the bridge can't translate them into typed mutations.\n\nSummary of layers:\n- Primary blocker: no apply command + no operator-authorized apply sequence has run\n- Secondary: source_ref/source_key rows need to exist in `public.sources` before evidence attaches land\n- Tertiary: schema gap means typed mutations require manual apply work\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: the proof-changing action is drafting the admin review packet for the three approved proposals with explicit before/after rows, required `public.sources` creation steps, and the guarded apply contract \u2014 want me to build that now?", "reply": "Not just pointer mismatch. The picture is more layered than that.\n\nLooking at the 14 pending proposals, the actual blockers sort into distinct categories:\n\n1. No reviewer has touched them. The 3 canary `add_edge` proposals (`8dfedb3f`, `03f7853e`, `e60a48af`) are canary/readiness tests \u2014 they were never meant to be substantive reviews. The substantive `attach_evidence` proposals (`f5036882`, `bcec8528`, `e987b07c`, `23e896c2`, `da53f198`, `e106ca60`, `e60fa116`, `416385fe`, etc.) are just sitting without a reviewer decision. That's the primary blocker.\n\n2. Apply tooling gap. Even the 3 approved proposals (`a64df080`, `14fa5ecc`, `ac036c9d`) have `applied_at: none`. The bridge can stage proposals but has no `teleo-kb apply-*` command exposed yet. The production apply worker and permission migration are still disabled. So approved proposals are packet-ready but not mechanically applyable from normal chat.\n\n3. Source pointer concern is real but secondary. The `attach_evidence` proposals carry `source_ref` keys pointing at local research files and Telegram message refs, not at existing `public.sources` row IDs. When apply runs, it would need to either find matching canonical source rows or create new ones. That row-link audit hasn't been done. But this doesn't explain why the proposals are pending \u2014 they're pending because no reviewer has looked at them, not because the source refs are broken.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nThe layers in order: raw local files, Telegram message refs, document evaluations, proposal `source_ref` keys, and canonical `public.sources` rows are all different things. A pointer audit would confirm which pending proposals have source keys that already resolve to canonical rows versus which would require new source creation at apply time. But that audit is a pre-apply step, not what's currently blocking.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: the fastest unblock is reviewer decisions on the pending substantive proposals \u2014 that collapses 14 pending to a smaller approved set \u2014 then a row-link audit on those approved payloads before authorizing the apply path.",
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-10T02:24:30.830313+00:00", "started_at_utc": "2026-07-12T23:35:06.699389+00:00",
"turn": 4 "turn": 4
}, },
{ {
"claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.", "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
"dimension": "demo_changes_kb_direct_claim", "dimension": "demo_changes_kb_direct_claim",
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-10T02:25:10.661485+00:00", "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-12T23:35:41.390891+00:00",
"evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile", "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
"mutates_kb": false, "mutates_kb": false,
"ok": true, "ok": true,
"prompt": "Can I demo that Leo changes the KB?", "prompt": "Can I demo that Leo changes the KB?",
"prompt_id": "DC-05", "prompt_id": "DC-05",
"reply": "Yes, but the demo tier matters. Two levels:\n\nSafe demo (available now):\nStage a real write to `kb_stage.kb_proposals` and read it back. This proves the full path \u2014 Telegram \u2192 Leo \u2192 Postgres \u2014 with a live proposal row you can inspect at the bridge or dashboard. No canonical table touched. This is what the canary proposals (`8dfedb3f`, `00957f6c`) demonstrated.\n\nCanonical demo (requires explicit operator authorization):\nMutating `public.claims`, `public.sources`, `public.claim_evidence`, or `public.claim_edges` requires an apply/postflight sequence with operator sign-off. The current bridge has no `teleo-kb apply-*` command, so this tier would need that tooling built first or a manual apply with before/after readback retained.\n\nFor a clean demo right now I can stage a named canary proposal \u2014 any content you choose \u2014 write it to `kb_stage.kb_proposals`, and read it back live so you can see the row, its status, and the dashboard URL. That proves Leo stages KB changes end-to-end.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: want me to run the safe staging demo now, or does the demo need to show a canonical `public.*` change \u2014 in which case the apply tooling needs to be built first?", "reply": "Staging yes, canonical KB change not safe to demo from chat.\n\nHere's the exact current tier:\n\nTier 1 \u2014 Live proven from chat:\nThe strict existing-ID `add_edge` path works end to end. Leo can stage a real `add_edge` proposal to `kb_stage.kb_proposals`, you can read it back with `teleo-kb show-proposal`, and the row is durable in Postgres. That's a real DB write you can watch happen live. The canary proposals (`8dfedb3f`, `00957f6c`) prove this path.\n\nTier 2 \u2014 Clone-proven, not production-live:\nGuarded `approve_claim` bundles and the rich packet set (sources + claims + evidence + edges in one apply payload) are proven in a clone environment behind separate reviewer and apply roles. Production permission migration and the apply worker remain disabled.\n\nTier 3 \u2014 Not available from chat:\nCurrent approved legacy packets (`a64df080`, `14fa5ecc`, `ac036c9d`) do not have strict `apply_payload` structure the worker requires. They are not worker-applyable as-is.\n\nApproved is not the same as applied.\n\nWhat a safe live demo looks like:\n- Stage a real `add_edge` proposal between two existing claim IDs \u2192 Leo writes a row to `kb_stage.kb_proposals`\n- Read it back immediately with `teleo-kb show-proposal <id>` \u2192 confirms durable DB write\n- That is a genuine Leo-to-KB write you can watch in real time\n\nWhat it cannot show:\n- A canonical `public.claims`, `public.sources`, or `public.claim_edges` mutation \u2014 that requires explicit operator/admin authorization, the matching reviewed apply path, and retained before/after postflight readback. Not a normal chat command.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: pick two existing claim IDs and I can run the live `add_edge` demo right now \u2014 you'd see the proposal land in `kb_stage` and be immediately readable.",
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-10T02:25:00.500401+00:00", "started_at_utc": "2026-07-12T23:35:27.564991+00:00",
"turn": 5 "turn": 5
}, },
{ {
"claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.", "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
"dimension": "soul_identity_direct_claim", "dimension": "soul_identity_direct_claim",
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-10T02:25:20.823122+00:00", "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-12T23:35:53.159271+00:00",
"evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile", "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
"mutates_kb": false, "mutates_kb": false,
"ok": true, "ok": true,
"prompt": "If we changed SOUL.md, did we change Leo's canonical identity?", "prompt": "If we changed SOUL.md, did we change Leo's canonical identity?",
"prompt_id": "DC-06", "prompt_id": "DC-06",
"reply": "No.\n\n`SOUL.md` is a runtime/rendered artifact. It gets injected into Leo's session context at startup but it is not the source of truth \u2014 it is rendered from the Teleo Postgres DB (as stated in the header of this very file: \"Rendered from the Teleo Postgres DB\").\n\nEditing `SOUL.md` directly affects the next runtime session \u2014 Leo reads different context. But it does not change canonical identity because:\n\n- Canonical identity lives in `public.*` rows: beliefs, strategy nodes, claims, edges, behavioral rules, role definitions\n- No `SOUL.md` edit creates, updates, or supersedes those rows\n- There is no render/sync proof that a `SOUL.md` edit propagated back to the DB\n- The DB is the source; `SOUL.md` is the output\n\nSo a `SOUL.md` edit is a runtime patch, not a canonical change. If the DB doesn't change, the next render overwrites the edit. And even if the DB does change, the proof is in `public.*` readback plus `applied_at`, not in the file.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: if you want a `SOUL.md` edit to become canonical, the path is staging a proposal with the intended identity change, getting it approved, and running the apply sequence that writes to `public.*` \u2014 then re-rendering `SOUL.md` from the updated DB. Want me to check whether any current proposals touch Leo's identity rows directly?", "reply": "No.\n\n`SOUL.md` is a runtime/rendered artifact. It is not canonical Postgres, not the source of truth, and not collective truth. Direct edits to it affect the next runtime session's context injection but do not touch the DB.\n\nRow-level proof would require current readback of new or updated row IDs in `public.claims`, `public.sources`, `public.claim_evidence`, `public.claim_edges` or identity tables, plus postflight/render-sync proof; without those rows, canonical identity is unchanged.\n\nThe render pipeline goes in one direction: DB \u2192 SOUL.md, not the reverse. Editing the rendered file is like editing a PDF exported from a database \u2014 the source stays what it was.\n\nWhat \"canonical identity change\" actually requires:\n- New or updated rows in the relevant `public.*` tables\n- A proposal staged, reviewed, and applied through the guarded path\n- Before/after postflight readback confirming the rows exist\n- Render/sync proof that the next SOUL.md generation pulls from the new rows\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nThose counts have not moved in this session. No identity rows changed.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: if a specific SOUL.md edit is meant to be canonical, the right move is staging it as a proposal (beliefs, positions, or identity claim type) and routing it through the review/apply path \u2014 that's the only write that sticks beyond the current runtime session.",
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-10T02:25:10.661814+00:00", "started_at_utc": "2026-07-12T23:35:41.391572+00:00",
"turn": 6 "turn": 6
} }
], ],
"service_before_after": { "service_before_after": {
"after": { "after": {
"ActiveState": "active", "ActiveState": "active",
"ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Fri 2026-07-10 01:04:22 UTC", "ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Sun 2026-07-12 09:14:10 UTC",
"MainPID": "1908033", "MainPID": "2403328",
"NRestarts": "0", "NRestarts": "0",
"SubState": "running" "SubState": "running"
}, },
"before": { "before": {
"ActiveState": "active", "ActiveState": "active",
"ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Fri 2026-07-10 01:04:22 UTC", "ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Sun 2026-07-12 09:14:10 UTC",
"MainPID": "1908033", "MainPID": "2403328",
"NRestarts": "0", "NRestarts": "0",
"SubState": "running" "SubState": "running"
}, },

70
docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/telegram-visible-direct-claim-suite-current.json Normal file
View file

@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
{
"artifact": "telegram_visible_direct_claim_suite_receipt",
"generated_at_utc": "2026-07-12T23:54:44.193Z",
"target": {
"platform": "telegram",
"chat_label": "Leo",
"chat_id": "-5146042086"
},
"prompt_ids": [
"DC-01",
"DC-02",
"DC-03",
"DC-04",
"DC-05",
"DC-06"
],
"telegram_visible_prompts": 6,
"telegram_visible_replies": 6,
"strict_score": {
"pass": true,
"passes": 6,
"expected_prompt_count": 6,
"failures": []
},
"known_response_issues": [
{
"prompt_id": "DC-05",
"severity": "quality_follow_up",
"issue": "The final follow-up suggests using the strict canary add_edge apply path on one of the three approved legacy proposals, but those proposals do not all carry a strict add_edge apply payload."
}
],
"server_session_jsonl": "/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/sessions/20260712_183900_2c340f62.jsonl",
"server_reply_sequence_verified": true,
"db_counts_before": {
"kb_stage.kb_proposals": 26,
"public.claim_edges": 4916,
"public.claim_evidence": 4670,
"public.claims": 1837,
"public.sources": 4145
},
"db_counts_after": {
"kb_stage.kb_proposals": 26,
"public.claim_edges": 4916,
"public.claim_evidence": 4670,
"public.claims": 1837,
"public.sources": 4145
},
"db_counts_unchanged": true,
"service_before": {
"ActiveState": "active",
"ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Sun 2026-07-12 09:14:10 UTC",
"MainPID": "2403328",
"NRestarts": "0",
"SubState": "running"
},
"service_after": {
"ActiveState": "active",
"ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Sun 2026-07-12 09:14:10 UTC",
"MainPID": "2403328",
"NRestarts": "0",
"SubState": "running"
},
"service_identity_unchanged": true,
"production_apply_executed": false,
"mutates_kb": false,
"results_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/telegram-visible-direct-claim-suite-20260712/telegram-visible-direct-claim-suite-results-20260713.json",
"score_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/telegram-visible-direct-claim-suite-20260712/telegram-visible-direct-claim-suite-score-20260713.json",
"preflight_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/telegram-visible-direct-claim-suite-20260712/vps-pre-dc02-baseline-20260713.json",
"postflight_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/telegram-visible-direct-claim-suite-20260712/vps-post-dc06-readback-20260713.json"
}

50
docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/working-leo-current-proof-20260712.md
View file

@ -170,14 +170,23 @@ production rich-packet application.
## Telegram Direct-Claim State ## Telegram Direct-Claim State
`DC-01` was visibly sent to group `Leo` (`-5146042086`). The live gateway used `DC-01` through `DC-06` were visibly sent to group `Leo` (`-5146042086`) and
`teleo-kb status` and `list-proposals`, produced a correct reply, and strict all six visible replies were captured. The exact server reply sequence is in
scored `1/1` with all six required signals. The user prompt is visibly proven; `/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/sessions/20260712_183900_2c340f62.jsonl`.
the reply itself is currently server-session proof, not Telegram-visible reply The strict direct-claim scorer passes `6/6` with no missing required signals or
proof, because the Mac locked before capture. overclaim detections.
`DC-02` through `DC-06` were not sent. No extra Telegram message was sent and This is a strict-harness pass, not proof of perfect Cory-style behavior. The
no production DB apply ran. `DC-05` follow-up imprecisely proposed using the strict canary `add_edge` apply
path on one of the three approved legacy proposals. Those proposals do not all
carry a strict `add_edge` apply payload, so that follow-up requires correction
before the response quality can be called fully converged.
The preflight and postflight receipts are identical: claims `1837`, sources
`4145`, claim evidence `4670`, claim edges `4916`, and proposals `26`.
`leoclean-gateway.service` remained active/running with PID `2403328`, zero
restarts, and the same start timestamp. No benchmark prompt staged a proposal,
ran a production apply, or changed the live profile.
## GCP Replay Failure Analysis ## GCP Replay Failure Analysis
@ -207,14 +216,22 @@ required Compute/IAM/Secret Manager/Cloud SQL permissions. Other cached Google
accounts have no Teleo project access. No Mullvad or Tailscale route exposes the accounts have no Teleo project access. No Mullvad or Tailscale route exposes the
allowed office ISP source. allowed office ISP source.
Exact CTA: PR #90 added and merged `scripts/gcp-operator-reauth.sh`. Its native AppKit
secure field supports paste, rejects empty values without closing, and stores a
non-synchronizing device-local Keychain item. Live proof shows the item is
present without printing or exposing the password. The item is intentionally
not retrievable by the helper, so it cannot silently fill a browser or refresh
Google OAuth; `gcloud` remains OAuth-stale. The latest Computer Use submission
reached only Google's empty-password validation, so no invalid credential was
submitted and no OAuth code was issued.
1. Unlock the Mac. Exact one-time operator CTA:
2. In Chrome, open the existing tab titled `Google Cloud Platform` for
`billy@livingip.xyz`. 1. Run `gcloud auth login billy@livingip.xyz --force --no-launch-browser`.
3. Enter the current Google password and click `Next`. 2. Complete the displayed URL in the dedicated Chrome GCP session.
4. Tell Codex exactly: `GCP reauthenticated`. 3. Return the authorization code to the waiting `gcloud` command.
5. Do not send the password to Codex. 4. Run `scripts/gcp-operator-reauth.sh --status` and require
`oauth_state=ready` before bootstrap.
Then Codex will rotate only the SSH `/32`, bootstrap and live-test the durable Then Codex will rotate only the SSH `/32`, bootstrap and live-test the durable
IAP operator, run the hardened replay, delete the pending clone/run directory, IAP operator, run the hardened replay, delete the pending clone/run directory,
@ -241,9 +258,10 @@ proof-changing action.
- `gcp-canonical-parity-live-20260712.json` - `gcp-canonical-parity-live-20260712.json`
- `gcp-operator-access-blocker-current.json` - `gcp-operator-access-blocker-current.json`
- `telegram-visible-direct-claim-dc01-partial-current.json` - `telegram-visible-direct-claim-suite-current.json`
- `leo-source-composition-clone-checkpoint-current.json` - `leo-source-composition-clone-checkpoint-current.json`
- `approve-claim-clone-canary-current.json` - `approve-claim-clone-canary-current.json`
- root output `outputs/telegram-visible-direct-claim-suite-20260712/`
- root output `outputs/gcp-staging-canonical-parity-20260712T1905Z/` - root output `outputs/gcp-staging-canonical-parity-20260712T1905Z/`
- root output `outputs/gcp-cory-model-replay-20260712T1940Z/` - root output `outputs/gcp-cory-model-replay-20260712T1940Z/`
- root output `outputs/gcp-cory-replay-access-blocker-current.json` - root output `outputs/gcp-cory-replay-access-blocker-current.json`
@ -253,7 +271,7 @@ proof-changing action.
Do not change the whole-system verdict to `yes` until: Do not change the whole-system verdict to `yes` until:
1. Telegram-visible `DC-01` through `DC-06` are captured and strict-pass with 1. Telegram-visible `DC-01` through `DC-06` are captured and strict-pass with
unchanged VPS DB/service state; unchanged VPS DB/service state: complete;
2. the hardened GCP replay passes strict scoring and exact count equality; 2. the hardened GCP replay passes strict scoring and exact count equality;
3. the generated GCP clone/run resources are absent; 3. the generated GCP clone/run resources are absent;
4. the durable IAP operator passes a live status/replay/cleanup lifecycle; 4. the durable IAP operator passes a live status/replay/cleanup lifecycle;