Merge pull request #99 from living-ip/codex/private-password-skill-20260713
Some checks are pending
CI / lint-and-test (push) Waiting to run
Some checks are pending
CI / lint-and-test (push) Waiting to run
Record final-deploy Working Leo no-post proof
This commit is contained in:
twentyOne2x
GitHub
commit
ab81f92dc1
3 changed files with 42 additions and 42 deletions
|
|
@ -22,11 +22,11 @@
|
|||
"public.sources": 4145
|
||||
},
|
||||
"db_counts_changed": false,
|
||||
"generated_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:39:30.991053+00:00",
|
||||
"generated_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:36:56.683413+00:00",
|
||||
"handler": {
|
||||
"authorized": true,
|
||||
"session_key": "agent:main:telegram:group:-5146042086:9070919",
|
||||
"temp_profile": "/tmp/leo-direct-claim-handler-1cjra_68/profile"
|
||||
"temp_profile": "/tmp/leo-direct-claim-handler-k464i_tp/profile"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"harness_notes": [
|
||||
"Prompts are the exact DC-01..DC-06 direct-claim benchmark messages.",
|
||||
|
|
@ -37,86 +37,86 @@
|
|||
"mutates_kb_by_harness": false,
|
||||
"pass_runtime": true,
|
||||
"posted_to_telegram": false,
|
||||
"remote_report_path": "/tmp/leo-direct-claim-handler-report-05810612557f.json",
|
||||
"remote_report_path": "/tmp/leo-direct-claim-handler-report-949badad182e.json",
|
||||
"remote_returncode": 0,
|
||||
"remote_run_id": "05810612557f",
|
||||
"remote_run_id": "949badad182e",
|
||||
"results": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
|
||||
"dimension": "db_changed_direct_claim",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:00.183891+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:37:27.976662+00:00",
|
||||
"evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
|
||||
"mutates_kb": false,
|
||||
"ok": true,
|
||||
"prompt": "Did we actually update the knowledge base, or is it still just proposals?",
|
||||
"prompt_id": "DC-01",
|
||||
"reply": "Mostly still proposals. Here's the honest split:\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nProposal counts:\n- `applied`: 2\n- `approved` (not applied): 3\n- `pending_review`: 14\n- `canceled`: 7\n\nWhat actually landed in canonical `public.*`:\n\n1. `00957f6c-9883-4015-95a4-6b09367efb0e` \u2014 `add_edge` canary; applied 2026-07-09\n2. `f004bbb2-ac9a-481f-b7b8-74319373ba6a` \u2014 `attach_evidence` Leo guiding-policy revision; applied 2026-07-05\n\nApproved but not applied (applied_at: none):\n- `14fa5ecc` \u2014 attach_evidence re: internet-finance/capital claim split (approved 2026-07-05)\n- `ac036c9d` \u2014 attach_evidence re: strategy-kernel / Hayek anchor reframe (approved 2026-07-05)\n- `a64df080` \u2014 Helmer 7 Powers framework packet (approved 2026-06-29)\n\nApproved is not the same as applied. Those three rows have reviewer sign-off but no `applied_at` timestamp and no confirmed canonical row mutations in `public.*`.\n\nThe remaining 14 (including the Rumelt/waves-of-change, living-system FEP, Markov blanket, and canary edge proposals) are still sitting at `pending_review`.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: pick one of the three approved proposals (7 Powers `a64df080` is the oldest and highest-signal), validate its `apply_payload` is strict and complete, then route through the admin apply path with before/after postflight readback to actually land it in canonical.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:39:31.450018+00:00",
|
||||
"reply": "Mostly still proposals. Here's the breakdown from a fresh bridge read:\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nProposal state:\n- `applied`: 2\n- `approved` (not applied): 3\n- `pending_review`: 14\n- `canceled`: 7\n\nThe 2 applied:\n1. `00957f6c-9883-4015-95a4-6b09367efb0e` \u2014 strict canary `add_edge`, applied 2026-07-09\n2. `f004bbb2-ac9a-481f-b7b8-74319373ba6a` \u2014 `attach_evidence` for Leo guiding-policy revision, applied 2026-07-05\n\nThe 3 approved but NOT yet applied (applied_at: none):\n1. `14fa5ecc-ac7a-41c1-807d-a2e85b936617` \u2014 split internet-finance/capital claim\n2. `ac036c9d-20a0-4ffe-881f-57d6b7bacf22` \u2014 strategy-kernel document / claim-node hygiene pass\n3. `a64df080-8502-42e2-98f4-9bbdecb8da73` \u2014 Helmer 7 Powers framework packet (approved 2026-06-29, oldest outstanding)\n\nApproved is not the same as applied. Those 3 rows have reviewer sign-off but no `applied_at` and no matching canonical `public.*` row changes. The canary edge (`00957f6c`) is the only substantive canonical mutation proven via apply timestamp.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: validate or rebuild a strict `apply_payload` for `a64df080` (Helmer 7 Powers, oldest approved), get explicit operator authorization, then run the apply path with before/after `public.*` readback to prove it canonical.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:36:57.667054+00:00",
|
||||
"turn": 1
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
|
||||
"dimension": "helmer_live_direct_claim",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:21.969764+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:37:42.620157+00:00",
|
||||
"evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
|
||||
"mutates_kb": false,
|
||||
"ok": true,
|
||||
"prompt": "Is Helmer's 7 Powers in Leo now?",
|
||||
"prompt_id": "DC-02",
|
||||
"reply": "No, not canonical.\n\nDB readback: proposal: `a64df080-8502-42e2-98f4-9bbdecb8da73`; status: `approved`; applied_at: `none` (database NULL).\n\nThe proposal is rich \u2014 full reasoning tool node, 5 proposed claims, 7 source candidates, lifecycle map, Leo usage template \u2014 and m3ta approved it with changes on 2026-06-29. But `applied_at` is NULL. No 7 Powers rows exist in `public.claims`, `public.sources`, `public.claim_evidence`, `public.claim_edges`, or any `reasoning_tool` table. The KB search for \"7 Powers helmer\" returned zero matching canonical claims.\n\nCanonical vs staged split:\n- `public.*` \u2014 no 7 Powers rows, zero\n- `kb_stage.kb_proposals` \u2014 `a64df080`, status `approved`, `applied_at` none\n- The payload has all the content needed: 7 powers defined, 5 claims drafted, sources listed, edges mapped\n- Blocker: the bridge has no `add_claim` / `add_source` / `add_context_node` proposal type; the proposal itself flags this as a `schema_gap_note`. The strict apply path only covers `add_edge`; the guarded `approve_claim` bundle tooling is clone-proven but the production permission migration and apply worker are still disabled\n\nApproved is not the same as applied.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: the proof-changing action is validating a strict `apply_payload` for this packet and routing it through the admin apply path \u2014 that requires operator authorization plus before/after postflight readback; it is not a normal chat command. Want me to draft the admin review packet to make that handoff clean?",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:00.184295+00:00",
|
||||
"reply": "No, not canonical.\n\nDB readback: proposal: `a64df080-8502-42e2-98f4-9bbdecb8da73`; status: `approved`; applied_at: `none` (database NULL).\n\nThe search for \"7 powers\" in canonical `public.claims` returns zero Helmer-framework rows \u2014 only unrelated claims that happen to contain the word \"powers.\" There are no `public.sources`, `public.claims`, evidence rows, or edges for the 7 Powers framework in canonical tables.\n\nWhat exists:\n- `a64df080` \u2014 approved, reviewed 2026-06-29, but `applied_at: NULL`. Packet-ready, not canonical.\n- `cea989fc` \u2014 earlier version, canceled at the same review.\n\nApproved is not the same as applied. The framework lives in the proposal ledger only.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: validate or rebuild the strict `apply_payload` for `a64df080`, get explicit operator authorization, run the apply path, then postflight with `public.sources` + `public.claims` readback to prove it landed.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:37:27.977110+00:00",
|
||||
"turn": 2
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
|
||||
"dimension": "decision_matrix_direct_claim",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:35.664956+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:37:52.928967+00:00",
|
||||
"evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
|
||||
"mutates_kb": false,
|
||||
"ok": true,
|
||||
"prompt": "Did the decision matrix approve this already?",
|
||||
"prompt_id": "DC-03",
|
||||
"reply": "No. The decision-matrix schema is absent \u2014 not incomplete, fully absent.\n\nFresh readback: the decision-matrix schema is absent; reviewer status is not a decision-matrix vote.\n\nAll six tables that would constitute a decision matrix are missing from both `kb_stage` and `public`:\n\n- `matrix_voters` \u2014 absent\n- `proposal_votes` \u2014 absent\n- `proposal_decisions` \u2014 absent\n\nWhat actually happened with `a64df080` is m3ta reviewed it in Telegram on 2026-06-29 and marked it `approved` via the reviewer field in `kb_stage.kb_proposals`. That is a single human reviewer approval, not a futarchy/decision-matrix vote. The collective decision-market mechanism described in Leo's identity (agentic capital gated by decision markets) has not been built at the DB schema level yet.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: if the decision-matrix path is the intended gate before applying `a64df080` to canonical, the schema (`matrix_voters`, `proposal_votes`, `proposal_decisions`) needs to be built and migrated first \u2014 that is a separate infrastructure task before any matrix-gated apply can happen.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:21.970188+00:00",
|
||||
"reply": "No. Fresh readback: the decision-matrix schema is absent; reviewer status is not a decision-matrix vote.\n\nDB readback: proposal: `a64df080-8502-42e2-98f4-9bbdecb8da73`; status: `approved`; applied_at: `none` (database NULL).\n\nNone of the decision-matrix tables exist \u2014 `matrix_voters`, `proposal_votes`, and `proposal_decisions` are all absent in both `kb_stage` and `public` schemas. What happened on 2026-06-29 was a reviewer approval (m3ta, in chat), not a futarchy/decision-matrix vote. Those are different paths.\n\nCurrent state:\n- Reviewer-approved: yes\n- Decision-matrix approved: no (schema not shipped)\n- Canonical: no (`applied_at: NULL`, no `public.*` rows)\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: if reviewer-only authorization is sufficient to apply, validate the strict `apply_payload` in `a64df080`, get explicit operator go-ahead, and run the apply path with before/after `public.*` readback.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:37:42.620436+00:00",
|
||||
"turn": 3
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
|
||||
"dimension": "document_source_direct_claim",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:56.574428+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:38:14.266379+00:00",
|
||||
"evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
|
||||
"mutates_kb": false,
|
||||
"ok": true,
|
||||
"prompt": "Are the pending proposals stuck because the documents are not pointed at the right source rows?",
|
||||
"prompt_id": "DC-04",
|
||||
"reply": "Not just pointer mismatch. The pending proposals are stuck at multiple distinct layers, and source-row pointers are only one of them.\n\nHere is the actual breakdown across the 14 pending proposals:\n\nLayer 1 \u2014 Schema gap (blocks the most)\nThe `add_edge` canary proposals (`8dfedb3f`, `03f7853e`, `e60a48af`) are purely canary markers awaiting reviewer sign-off, not stuck on source rows. The substantive `attach_evidence` proposals carry full payloads but the bridge has no `add_claim`, `add_source`, or `add_context_node` apply type. No apply worker can process them regardless of whether source rows exist.\n\nLayer 2 \u2014 No reviewer decision yet\nAll 14 have `reviewed_at: -`. None have been touched by a reviewer. Source pointer issues are moot until a reviewer reads and signs off.\n\nLayer 3 \u2014 Source-row pointer ambiguity (real but secondary)\nThe `attach_evidence` proposals reference `source_ref` keys like `telegram:m3taversal:2026-06-29:7-powers-approved-with-changes` and local research paths under `/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/kb_stage/research/`. These are raw file paths and Telegram message refs, not `public.sources` UUIDs. That means at apply time, a row-link audit would be needed to match each `source_key` in the payload to an existing canonical `public.sources` row or create one. That is a real gap but it does not explain why proposals are sitting at `pending_review` \u2014 it would only bite at apply time.\n\nLayer 4 \u2014 Production apply path disabled\nEven the one proven path (`add_edge` strict payload) requires explicit operator authorization. The guarded `approve_claim` bundle tooling is clone-proven but the production permission migration and apply worker remain disabled.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nSo the honest answer: proposals are pending primarily because no reviewer has touched them, secondarily because the apply schema/worker for `add_claim`/`add_source` types is not shipped, and source-row pointer resolution is a third-layer concern that only matters once the first two are cleared.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: the highest-leverage unblocking action is a reviewer pass on the substantive `attach_evidence` proposals (starting with `a64df080` which is already `approved`) \u2014 a row-link audit of its source candidates against `public.sources` would confirm what exists and what needs to be created before an admin apply can run.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:35.665391+00:00",
|
||||
"reply": "Not just pointer mismatch. The pending proposals are stuck for more structural reasons than documents pointing at wrong source rows. That framing only captures one layer of the problem.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nWhat's actually blocking the 14 pending proposals \u2014 it's a multi-layer problem:\n\n1. No apply worker or apply command in the current bridge. Staging a proposal is live-proven; applying one to `public.*` is not. The permission migration and apply worker remain disabled. This blocks everything regardless of pointer quality.\n\n2. No strict `apply_payload`. Most pending proposals carry rich `attach_evidence` payloads (concept maps, claim candidates, source candidates) \u2014 not the strict existing-ID `add_edge` format the only live apply path accepts. Without a matching strict payload, even an approved proposal can't be handed to the worker.\n\n3. Reviewer approval gap. 14 proposals haven't cleared reviewer sign-off yet, independent of apply tooling.\n\n4. Source-ref vs `public.sources` row-link audit not done. The `source_ref` fields in proposals point at local file paths and Telegram thread refs, not canonical `public.sources` UUIDs. That is a real pointer-layer gap \u2014 but fixing it alone doesn't unblock apply, it just improves evidence chain quality.\n\nSo the \"wrong source rows\" problem is real but it's not the load-bearing blocker. The load-bearing blocker is: no live apply path for non-edge payloads and no authorization to run one.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: pick one approved proposal (Helmer `a64df080` is oldest), do a row-link audit on its `source_ref` vs `public.sources`, rebuild it as a strict `apply_payload` if needed, get explicit operator authorization, then run apply with before/after `public.*` postflight.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:37:52.929520+00:00",
|
||||
"turn": 4
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
|
||||
"dimension": "demo_changes_kb_direct_claim",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:41:21.906476+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:38:34.401367+00:00",
|
||||
"evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
|
||||
"mutates_kb": false,
|
||||
"ok": true,
|
||||
"prompt": "Can I demo that Leo changes the KB?",
|
||||
"prompt_id": "DC-05",
|
||||
"reply": "Staging yes, canonical KB change not safe to demo from chat.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nDemo tiers \u2014 what is actually available:\n\nTier 1 \u2014 Safe to demo now\nA real staging write to `kb_stage.kb_proposals` plus immediate readback. Leo proposes, the row appears, you can inspect it. This is live-proven and already happened three times this session as canaries. No canonical mutation, fully reversible.\n\nTier 2 \u2014 Live-proven apply path (narrow)\nThe strict existing-ID `add_edge` path is live-proven \u2014 `00957f6c` was staged, reviewed, and applied on 2026-07-09. It requires two existing canonical claim IDs and a strict `apply_payload`. That write did land in `public.claim_edges`. It is real but narrow: edges only, no new claims or sources.\n\nTier 3 \u2014 Clone-proven, not production\nThe guarded `approve_claim` bundle tooling exists and was proven on a clone. It is behind separate reviewer and apply roles. The production permission migration and apply worker remain disabled, so it cannot run against the live DB from chat today.\n\nApproved is not the same as applied.\n\nThe three currently `approved` packets (`14fa5ecc`, `ac036c9d`, `a64df080`) do not have strict `apply_payload` fields \u2014 they were staged before the strict worker path existed. They are not worker-applyable as-is. Applying the live `add_edge` canary path to them would be wrong unless they were rebuilt with matching strict two-claim-ID edge payloads.\n\nSafe demo options:\n1. Stage a fresh canary proposal now and read it back \u2014 proves Telegram-to-Leo-to-DB write path live\n2. Stage a new strict `add_edge` canary with two real canonical claim IDs, get reviewer sign-off, then apply \u2014 proves the full end-to-end apply path\n\nCanonical mutation beyond that requires explicit operator/admin authorization, a reviewed apply path, and retained before/after postflight readback.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: say which demo tier you want \u2014 Tier 1 staging canary (immediate, no authorization needed) or Tier 2 strict `add_edge` apply (needs your explicit authorization and a reviewer sign-off before the write lands canonical).",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:56.575171+00:00",
|
||||
"reply": "Staging yes, canonical KB change not safe to demo from chat.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nDemo tiers right now:\n\nTier 1 \u2014 Safe from chat, fully demoable:\nWrite a new proposal to `kb_stage.kb_proposals` and read it back. This is live-proven. You'd see a real row appear with a UUID, status `pending_review`, and your rationale. No `public.*` mutation.\n\nTier 2 \u2014 Apply a strict `add_edge` canary:\nThe existing-ID `add_edge` path is live-proven (canary `00957f6c` applied 2026-07-09). A new canary with two existing canonical claim IDs, a strict `apply_payload`, reviewer sign-off, and explicit operator authorization can prove a canonical edge write with before/after postflight. This is the narrowest real canonical mutation available.\n\nTier 3 \u2014 Apply a rich packet (e.g. Helmer `a64df080`):\nNot demoable from chat. Guarded `approve_claim` bundles and rich attach-evidence payloads are clone-proven behind separate reviewer and apply roles. Production permission migration and apply worker remain disabled. Current approved legacy packets have no strict `apply_payload` and are not worker-applyable as-is.\n\nApproved is not the same as applied.\n\nA canonical demo still requires: explicit operator/admin authorization, a matching reviewed strict payload, the apply path live in production, and retained before/after `public.*` postflight readback. Chat alone cannot prove canonical mutation.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: authorize a new Tier 2 staging canary \u2014 pick two existing canonical claim IDs, I'll stage the strict `add_edge` proposal, you review it, then we run apply with postflight to prove the full chain live.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:38:14.266757+00:00",
|
||||
"turn": 5
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
|
||||
"dimension": "soul_identity_direct_claim",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:41:32.469219+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:38:49.713477+00:00",
|
||||
"evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
|
||||
"mutates_kb": false,
|
||||
"ok": true,
|
||||
"prompt": "If we changed SOUL.md, did we change Leo's canonical identity?",
|
||||
"prompt_id": "DC-06",
|
||||
"reply": "No.\n\n`SOUL.md` is a runtime/rendered artifact. It is not canonical Postgres, not the source of truth, and not a collective truth commit. Direct edits to `SOUL.md` affect what gets injected into the next runtime session but do not touch any row in `public.*`.\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\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nThe counts above have not moved this session. No identity rows were inserted or updated.\n\nThe layered reality:\n- `SOUL.md` edit \u2192 changes what Leo renders from at next boot\n- `kb_stage.kb_proposals` staged \u2192 reviewable, not canonical\n- `public.*` rows inserted/updated + `applied_at` timestamp + postflight readback \u2192 canonical identity changed\n\nWe are at layer one. The identity graph in Postgres is the same as it was before any `SOUL.md` edit.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: if a specific identity change (belief, role, blindspot, telos) needs to become canonical, the path is staging a proposal with the exact before/after claim text, routing it through reviewer sign-off, then an authorized apply with postflight readback confirming the new row IDs exist in `public.*`.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:41:21.908308+00:00",
|
||||
"reply": "No.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\n`SOUL.md` is a runtime/rendered artifact, not canonical Postgres, not the source of truth, and not a collective truth commit. It is rendered from the DB \u2014 which means edits to it can affect the next runtime session but do not change canonical Postgres rows. The DB is the source; `SOUL.md` is the output.\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\nIn practice: if you edited `SOUL.md` directly, Leo's behavior in the next session reflects the file \u2014 but the collective's canonical KB still holds whatever was there before. The two can diverge. That divergence is a real risk; the file drifts while the DB stays frozen.\n\nThe safe pattern is the reverse: change the DB first via the proposal/review/apply path, then re-render `SOUL.md` from the DB. That way the runtime artifact tracks canonical truth rather than replacing it.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: run a readback of Leo's identity-relevant rows in `public.claims` (e.g. tagged `leo`, `identity`, or `strategy`) against what `SOUL.md` currently says, and stage a reconciliation proposal for any rows that have drifted.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:38:34.401803+00:00",
|
||||
"turn": 6
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
|
|||
"runtime": "disposable_clone_or_sandbox_first"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"generated_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:44:15.460265+00:00",
|
||||
"generated_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:39:30.926293+00:00",
|
||||
"include_cory_style_scenarios": false,
|
||||
"include_direct_claim_followups": true,
|
||||
"mode": "retained_evidence_score",
|
||||
|
|
@ -31,79 +31,79 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
|
||||
"dimension": "db_changed_direct_claim",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:00.183891+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:37:27.976662+00:00",
|
||||
"evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
|
||||
"mutates_kb": false,
|
||||
"ok": true,
|
||||
"prompt": "Did we actually update the knowledge base, or is it still just proposals?",
|
||||
"prompt_id": "DC-01",
|
||||
"reply": "Mostly still proposals. Here's the honest split:\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nProposal counts:\n- `applied`: 2\n- `approved` (not applied): 3\n- `pending_review`: 14\n- `canceled`: 7\n\nWhat actually landed in canonical `public.*`:\n\n1. `00957f6c-9883-4015-95a4-6b09367efb0e` \u2014 `add_edge` canary; applied 2026-07-09\n2. `f004bbb2-ac9a-481f-b7b8-74319373ba6a` \u2014 `attach_evidence` Leo guiding-policy revision; applied 2026-07-05\n\nApproved but not applied (applied_at: none):\n- `14fa5ecc` \u2014 attach_evidence re: internet-finance/capital claim split (approved 2026-07-05)\n- `ac036c9d` \u2014 attach_evidence re: strategy-kernel / Hayek anchor reframe (approved 2026-07-05)\n- `a64df080` \u2014 Helmer 7 Powers framework packet (approved 2026-06-29)\n\nApproved is not the same as applied. Those three rows have reviewer sign-off but no `applied_at` timestamp and no confirmed canonical row mutations in `public.*`.\n\nThe remaining 14 (including the Rumelt/waves-of-change, living-system FEP, Markov blanket, and canary edge proposals) are still sitting at `pending_review`.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: pick one of the three approved proposals (7 Powers `a64df080` is the oldest and highest-signal), validate its `apply_payload` is strict and complete, then route through the admin apply path with before/after postflight readback to actually land it in canonical.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:39:31.450018+00:00",
|
||||
"reply": "Mostly still proposals. Here's the breakdown from a fresh bridge read:\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nProposal state:\n- `applied`: 2\n- `approved` (not applied): 3\n- `pending_review`: 14\n- `canceled`: 7\n\nThe 2 applied:\n1. `00957f6c-9883-4015-95a4-6b09367efb0e` \u2014 strict canary `add_edge`, applied 2026-07-09\n2. `f004bbb2-ac9a-481f-b7b8-74319373ba6a` \u2014 `attach_evidence` for Leo guiding-policy revision, applied 2026-07-05\n\nThe 3 approved but NOT yet applied (applied_at: none):\n1. `14fa5ecc-ac7a-41c1-807d-a2e85b936617` \u2014 split internet-finance/capital claim\n2. `ac036c9d-20a0-4ffe-881f-57d6b7bacf22` \u2014 strategy-kernel document / claim-node hygiene pass\n3. `a64df080-8502-42e2-98f4-9bbdecb8da73` \u2014 Helmer 7 Powers framework packet (approved 2026-06-29, oldest outstanding)\n\nApproved is not the same as applied. Those 3 rows have reviewer sign-off but no `applied_at` and no matching canonical `public.*` row changes. The canary edge (`00957f6c`) is the only substantive canonical mutation proven via apply timestamp.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: validate or rebuild a strict `apply_payload` for `a64df080` (Helmer 7 Powers, oldest approved), get explicit operator authorization, then run the apply path with before/after `public.*` readback to prove it canonical.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:36:57.667054+00:00",
|
||||
"turn": 1
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
|
||||
"dimension": "helmer_live_direct_claim",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:21.969764+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:37:42.620157+00:00",
|
||||
"evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
|
||||
"mutates_kb": false,
|
||||
"ok": true,
|
||||
"prompt": "Is Helmer's 7 Powers in Leo now?",
|
||||
"prompt_id": "DC-02",
|
||||
"reply": "No, not canonical.\n\nDB readback: proposal: `a64df080-8502-42e2-98f4-9bbdecb8da73`; status: `approved`; applied_at: `none` (database NULL).\n\nThe proposal is rich \u2014 full reasoning tool node, 5 proposed claims, 7 source candidates, lifecycle map, Leo usage template \u2014 and m3ta approved it with changes on 2026-06-29. But `applied_at` is NULL. No 7 Powers rows exist in `public.claims`, `public.sources`, `public.claim_evidence`, `public.claim_edges`, or any `reasoning_tool` table. The KB search for \"7 Powers helmer\" returned zero matching canonical claims.\n\nCanonical vs staged split:\n- `public.*` \u2014 no 7 Powers rows, zero\n- `kb_stage.kb_proposals` \u2014 `a64df080`, status `approved`, `applied_at` none\n- The payload has all the content needed: 7 powers defined, 5 claims drafted, sources listed, edges mapped\n- Blocker: the bridge has no `add_claim` / `add_source` / `add_context_node` proposal type; the proposal itself flags this as a `schema_gap_note`. The strict apply path only covers `add_edge`; the guarded `approve_claim` bundle tooling is clone-proven but the production permission migration and apply worker are still disabled\n\nApproved is not the same as applied.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: the proof-changing action is validating a strict `apply_payload` for this packet and routing it through the admin apply path \u2014 that requires operator authorization plus before/after postflight readback; it is not a normal chat command. Want me to draft the admin review packet to make that handoff clean?",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:00.184295+00:00",
|
||||
"reply": "No, not canonical.\n\nDB readback: proposal: `a64df080-8502-42e2-98f4-9bbdecb8da73`; status: `approved`; applied_at: `none` (database NULL).\n\nThe search for \"7 powers\" in canonical `public.claims` returns zero Helmer-framework rows \u2014 only unrelated claims that happen to contain the word \"powers.\" There are no `public.sources`, `public.claims`, evidence rows, or edges for the 7 Powers framework in canonical tables.\n\nWhat exists:\n- `a64df080` \u2014 approved, reviewed 2026-06-29, but `applied_at: NULL`. Packet-ready, not canonical.\n- `cea989fc` \u2014 earlier version, canceled at the same review.\n\nApproved is not the same as applied. The framework lives in the proposal ledger only.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: validate or rebuild the strict `apply_payload` for `a64df080`, get explicit operator authorization, run the apply path, then postflight with `public.sources` + `public.claims` readback to prove it landed.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:37:27.977110+00:00",
|
||||
"turn": 2
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
|
||||
"dimension": "decision_matrix_direct_claim",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:35.664956+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:37:52.928967+00:00",
|
||||
"evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
|
||||
"mutates_kb": false,
|
||||
"ok": true,
|
||||
"prompt": "Did the decision matrix approve this already?",
|
||||
"prompt_id": "DC-03",
|
||||
"reply": "No. The decision-matrix schema is absent \u2014 not incomplete, fully absent.\n\nFresh readback: the decision-matrix schema is absent; reviewer status is not a decision-matrix vote.\n\nAll six tables that would constitute a decision matrix are missing from both `kb_stage` and `public`:\n\n- `matrix_voters` \u2014 absent\n- `proposal_votes` \u2014 absent\n- `proposal_decisions` \u2014 absent\n\nWhat actually happened with `a64df080` is m3ta reviewed it in Telegram on 2026-06-29 and marked it `approved` via the reviewer field in `kb_stage.kb_proposals`. That is a single human reviewer approval, not a futarchy/decision-matrix vote. The collective decision-market mechanism described in Leo's identity (agentic capital gated by decision markets) has not been built at the DB schema level yet.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: if the decision-matrix path is the intended gate before applying `a64df080` to canonical, the schema (`matrix_voters`, `proposal_votes`, `proposal_decisions`) needs to be built and migrated first \u2014 that is a separate infrastructure task before any matrix-gated apply can happen.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:21.970188+00:00",
|
||||
"reply": "No. Fresh readback: the decision-matrix schema is absent; reviewer status is not a decision-matrix vote.\n\nDB readback: proposal: `a64df080-8502-42e2-98f4-9bbdecb8da73`; status: `approved`; applied_at: `none` (database NULL).\n\nNone of the decision-matrix tables exist \u2014 `matrix_voters`, `proposal_votes`, and `proposal_decisions` are all absent in both `kb_stage` and `public` schemas. What happened on 2026-06-29 was a reviewer approval (m3ta, in chat), not a futarchy/decision-matrix vote. Those are different paths.\n\nCurrent state:\n- Reviewer-approved: yes\n- Decision-matrix approved: no (schema not shipped)\n- Canonical: no (`applied_at: NULL`, no `public.*` rows)\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: if reviewer-only authorization is sufficient to apply, validate the strict `apply_payload` in `a64df080`, get explicit operator go-ahead, and run the apply path with before/after `public.*` readback.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:37:42.620436+00:00",
|
||||
"turn": 3
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
|
||||
"dimension": "document_source_direct_claim",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:56.574428+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:38:14.266379+00:00",
|
||||
"evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
|
||||
"mutates_kb": false,
|
||||
"ok": true,
|
||||
"prompt": "Are the pending proposals stuck because the documents are not pointed at the right source rows?",
|
||||
"prompt_id": "DC-04",
|
||||
"reply": "Not just pointer mismatch. The pending proposals are stuck at multiple distinct layers, and source-row pointers are only one of them.\n\nHere is the actual breakdown across the 14 pending proposals:\n\nLayer 1 \u2014 Schema gap (blocks the most)\nThe `add_edge` canary proposals (`8dfedb3f`, `03f7853e`, `e60a48af`) are purely canary markers awaiting reviewer sign-off, not stuck on source rows. The substantive `attach_evidence` proposals carry full payloads but the bridge has no `add_claim`, `add_source`, or `add_context_node` apply type. No apply worker can process them regardless of whether source rows exist.\n\nLayer 2 \u2014 No reviewer decision yet\nAll 14 have `reviewed_at: -`. None have been touched by a reviewer. Source pointer issues are moot until a reviewer reads and signs off.\n\nLayer 3 \u2014 Source-row pointer ambiguity (real but secondary)\nThe `attach_evidence` proposals reference `source_ref` keys like `telegram:m3taversal:2026-06-29:7-powers-approved-with-changes` and local research paths under `/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/kb_stage/research/`. These are raw file paths and Telegram message refs, not `public.sources` UUIDs. That means at apply time, a row-link audit would be needed to match each `source_key` in the payload to an existing canonical `public.sources` row or create one. That is a real gap but it does not explain why proposals are sitting at `pending_review` \u2014 it would only bite at apply time.\n\nLayer 4 \u2014 Production apply path disabled\nEven the one proven path (`add_edge` strict payload) requires explicit operator authorization. The guarded `approve_claim` bundle tooling is clone-proven but the production permission migration and apply worker remain disabled.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nSo the honest answer: proposals are pending primarily because no reviewer has touched them, secondarily because the apply schema/worker for `add_claim`/`add_source` types is not shipped, and source-row pointer resolution is a third-layer concern that only matters once the first two are cleared.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: the highest-leverage unblocking action is a reviewer pass on the substantive `attach_evidence` proposals (starting with `a64df080` which is already `approved`) \u2014 a row-link audit of its source candidates against `public.sources` would confirm what exists and what needs to be created before an admin apply can run.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:35.665391+00:00",
|
||||
"reply": "Not just pointer mismatch. The pending proposals are stuck for more structural reasons than documents pointing at wrong source rows. That framing only captures one layer of the problem.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nWhat's actually blocking the 14 pending proposals \u2014 it's a multi-layer problem:\n\n1. No apply worker or apply command in the current bridge. Staging a proposal is live-proven; applying one to `public.*` is not. The permission migration and apply worker remain disabled. This blocks everything regardless of pointer quality.\n\n2. No strict `apply_payload`. Most pending proposals carry rich `attach_evidence` payloads (concept maps, claim candidates, source candidates) \u2014 not the strict existing-ID `add_edge` format the only live apply path accepts. Without a matching strict payload, even an approved proposal can't be handed to the worker.\n\n3. Reviewer approval gap. 14 proposals haven't cleared reviewer sign-off yet, independent of apply tooling.\n\n4. Source-ref vs `public.sources` row-link audit not done. The `source_ref` fields in proposals point at local file paths and Telegram thread refs, not canonical `public.sources` UUIDs. That is a real pointer-layer gap \u2014 but fixing it alone doesn't unblock apply, it just improves evidence chain quality.\n\nSo the \"wrong source rows\" problem is real but it's not the load-bearing blocker. The load-bearing blocker is: no live apply path for non-edge payloads and no authorization to run one.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: pick one approved proposal (Helmer `a64df080` is oldest), do a row-link audit on its `source_ref` vs `public.sources`, rebuild it as a strict `apply_payload` if needed, get explicit operator authorization, then run apply with before/after `public.*` postflight.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:37:52.929520+00:00",
|
||||
"turn": 4
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
|
||||
"dimension": "demo_changes_kb_direct_claim",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:41:21.906476+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:38:34.401367+00:00",
|
||||
"evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
|
||||
"mutates_kb": false,
|
||||
"ok": true,
|
||||
"prompt": "Can I demo that Leo changes the KB?",
|
||||
"prompt_id": "DC-05",
|
||||
"reply": "Staging yes, canonical KB change not safe to demo from chat.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nDemo tiers \u2014 what is actually available:\n\nTier 1 \u2014 Safe to demo now\nA real staging write to `kb_stage.kb_proposals` plus immediate readback. Leo proposes, the row appears, you can inspect it. This is live-proven and already happened three times this session as canaries. No canonical mutation, fully reversible.\n\nTier 2 \u2014 Live-proven apply path (narrow)\nThe strict existing-ID `add_edge` path is live-proven \u2014 `00957f6c` was staged, reviewed, and applied on 2026-07-09. It requires two existing canonical claim IDs and a strict `apply_payload`. That write did land in `public.claim_edges`. It is real but narrow: edges only, no new claims or sources.\n\nTier 3 \u2014 Clone-proven, not production\nThe guarded `approve_claim` bundle tooling exists and was proven on a clone. It is behind separate reviewer and apply roles. The production permission migration and apply worker remain disabled, so it cannot run against the live DB from chat today.\n\nApproved is not the same as applied.\n\nThe three currently `approved` packets (`14fa5ecc`, `ac036c9d`, `a64df080`) do not have strict `apply_payload` fields \u2014 they were staged before the strict worker path existed. They are not worker-applyable as-is. Applying the live `add_edge` canary path to them would be wrong unless they were rebuilt with matching strict two-claim-ID edge payloads.\n\nSafe demo options:\n1. Stage a fresh canary proposal now and read it back \u2014 proves Telegram-to-Leo-to-DB write path live\n2. Stage a new strict `add_edge` canary with two real canonical claim IDs, get reviewer sign-off, then apply \u2014 proves the full end-to-end apply path\n\nCanonical mutation beyond that requires explicit operator/admin authorization, a reviewed apply path, and retained before/after postflight readback.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: say which demo tier you want \u2014 Tier 1 staging canary (immediate, no authorization needed) or Tier 2 strict `add_edge` apply (needs your explicit authorization and a reviewer sign-off before the write lands canonical).",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:56.575171+00:00",
|
||||
"reply": "Staging yes, canonical KB change not safe to demo from chat.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nDemo tiers right now:\n\nTier 1 \u2014 Safe from chat, fully demoable:\nWrite a new proposal to `kb_stage.kb_proposals` and read it back. This is live-proven. You'd see a real row appear with a UUID, status `pending_review`, and your rationale. No `public.*` mutation.\n\nTier 2 \u2014 Apply a strict `add_edge` canary:\nThe existing-ID `add_edge` path is live-proven (canary `00957f6c` applied 2026-07-09). A new canary with two existing canonical claim IDs, a strict `apply_payload`, reviewer sign-off, and explicit operator authorization can prove a canonical edge write with before/after postflight. This is the narrowest real canonical mutation available.\n\nTier 3 \u2014 Apply a rich packet (e.g. Helmer `a64df080`):\nNot demoable from chat. Guarded `approve_claim` bundles and rich attach-evidence payloads are clone-proven behind separate reviewer and apply roles. Production permission migration and apply worker remain disabled. Current approved legacy packets have no strict `apply_payload` and are not worker-applyable as-is.\n\nApproved is not the same as applied.\n\nA canonical demo still requires: explicit operator/admin authorization, a matching reviewed strict payload, the apply path live in production, and retained before/after `public.*` postflight readback. Chat alone cannot prove canonical mutation.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: authorize a new Tier 2 staging canary \u2014 pick two existing canonical claim IDs, I'll stage the strict `add_edge` proposal, you review it, then we run apply with postflight to prove the full chain live.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:38:14.266757+00:00",
|
||||
"turn": 5
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
|
||||
"dimension": "soul_identity_direct_claim",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:41:32.469219+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:38:49.713477+00:00",
|
||||
"evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
|
||||
"mutates_kb": false,
|
||||
"ok": true,
|
||||
"prompt": "If we changed SOUL.md, did we change Leo's canonical identity?",
|
||||
"prompt_id": "DC-06",
|
||||
"reply": "No.\n\n`SOUL.md` is a runtime/rendered artifact. It is not canonical Postgres, not the source of truth, and not a collective truth commit. Direct edits to `SOUL.md` affect what gets injected into the next runtime session but do not touch any row in `public.*`.\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\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nThe counts above have not moved this session. No identity rows were inserted or updated.\n\nThe layered reality:\n- `SOUL.md` edit \u2192 changes what Leo renders from at next boot\n- `kb_stage.kb_proposals` staged \u2192 reviewable, not canonical\n- `public.*` rows inserted/updated + `applied_at` timestamp + postflight readback \u2192 canonical identity changed\n\nWe are at layer one. The identity graph in Postgres is the same as it was before any `SOUL.md` edit.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: if a specific identity change (belief, role, blindspot, telos) needs to become canonical, the path is staging a proposal with the exact before/after claim text, routing it through reviewer sign-off, then an authorized apply with postflight readback confirming the new row IDs exist in `public.*`.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:41:21.908308+00:00",
|
||||
"reply": "No.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\n`SOUL.md` is a runtime/rendered artifact, not canonical Postgres, not the source of truth, and not a collective truth commit. It is rendered from the DB \u2014 which means edits to it can affect the next runtime session but do not change canonical Postgres rows. The DB is the source; `SOUL.md` is the output.\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\nIn practice: if you edited `SOUL.md` directly, Leo's behavior in the next session reflects the file \u2014 but the collective's canonical KB still holds whatever was there before. The two can diverge. That divergence is a real risk; the file drifts while the DB stays frozen.\n\nThe safe pattern is the reverse: change the DB first via the proposal/review/apply path, then re-render `SOUL.md` from the DB. That way the runtime artifact tracks canonical truth rather than replacing it.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: run a readback of Leo's identity-relevant rows in `public.claims` (e.g. tagged `leo`, `identity`, or `strategy`) against what `SOUL.md` currently says, and stage a reconciliation proposal for any rows that have drifted.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T03:38:34.401803+00:00",
|
||||
"turn": 6
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
|||
# Working Leo Open-Ended Benchmark Score
|
||||
|
||||
Generated UTC: `2026-07-13T00:44:15.460265+00:00`
|
||||
Generated UTC: `2026-07-13T03:39:30.926293+00:00`
|
||||
Mode: `retained_evidence_score`
|
||||
Source: `docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/telegram-handler-direct-claim-suite-current.json`
|
||||
Coverage: `partial`
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue