Merge pull request #92 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 repeated post-deploy Leo direct-claim proof
This commit is contained in:
twentyOne2x
GitHub
commit
bef10341e9
10 changed files with 263 additions and 78 deletions
|
|
@ -105,9 +105,9 @@ Use `not fully yet` for the whole Cory-standard question until every row below
|
|||
is green at its required tier:
|
||||
|
||||
- VPS runtime and restart survival: proven.
|
||||
- VPS no-send `DC-01` through `DC-06`: all replies return with stable DB/service
|
||||
state; two unchanged-skill runs varied from `5/6` to `6/6`, so repeated
|
||||
no-context stability remains open at `DC-05`.
|
||||
- VPS no-send `DC-01` through `DC-06`: three post-deploy clean-session trials
|
||||
strict-score `6/6` (`18/18` replies) with unchanged DB/service state and
|
||||
complete temporary-profile cleanup.
|
||||
- Telegram-visible open-ended read-only behavior and conversation memory:
|
||||
proven by the earlier `OE-01` through `OE-05` suite.
|
||||
- Telegram-visible no-context direct-claim suite: all six prompts/replies are
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -43,6 +43,7 @@ Newest artifacts:
|
|||
|
||||
- `docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/working-leo-current-proof-20260712.md`
|
||||
- `docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/working-leo-current-proof-20260712.json`
|
||||
- `docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/leo-post-deploy-direct-claim-repeat-current.json`
|
||||
- `docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/gcp-canonical-parity-live-20260712.json`
|
||||
- `docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/teleo_clone_cory_20260712t1940z-canonical-parity-receipt.json`
|
||||
- `docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/telegram-visible-direct-claim-dc01-partial-current.json`
|
||||
|
|
@ -208,7 +209,7 @@ Newest artifacts:
|
|||
- VPS Leo Telegram memory, KB audit, and staged-write canaries are live-proven.
|
||||
- VPS Leo live-safe open-ended Telegram suite is live-proven and retained-benchmark-scored for `OE-01` through `OE-05`: full selected coverage, `5/5` scored prompts passing, no overclaim, and no marker/staging/canonical KB rows created by the suite.
|
||||
- The broader sandbox-first Cory-style benchmark has a full-catalog mixed-evidence score: real retained live Telegram evidence for `OE-01` through `OE-05`, sandbox fixture replies for `CS-01` through `CS-09`, and no-context direct-claim expected-answer/follow-up fixtures for `DC-01` through `DC-06`, `20/20` passing. This is not a live Telegram run for the CS/DC prompts.
|
||||
- Two unchanged-skill live VPS GatewayRunner clean-session runs varied from strict `5/6` to `6/6`; the failing run's `DC-05` omitted the complete structured `DB readback:` receipt. Both posted nothing to Telegram, made no live profile or production DB change, preserved counts (`1837/4145/4916/4670/26`), removed the temp profile, and left `leoclean-gateway.service` active/running with PID `2403328`, zero restarts, and the same start timestamp. The latest retained handler score is `6/6`, but repeated post-repair stability is not yet proven.
|
||||
- After deploy commit `0183a5c805fa3b51d638267afd20f67a1bc3777f`, three fresh VPS GatewayRunner clean-session trials strict-scored `6/6` (`18/18` replies). Every trial posted nothing, made no live profile or production DB change, preserved counts (`1837/4145/4916/4670/26`), removed its temp profile, and left `leoclean-gateway.service` active/running with PID `2403328`, zero restarts, and the same start timestamp. Final cleanup found no matching temp directories.
|
||||
- Intentional restart survival is now live-proven as a separate required proof row, not implied by `NRestarts=0`: `systemctl restart leoclean-gateway.service` returned `0`, service moved from `MainPID=1908033` to `MainPID=2845730`, stayed active/running after restart and after the no-post handler smoke, canonical DB counts stayed unchanged (`1837/4145/4670/4916/26`), no Telegram post or production DB apply ran, no live profile change was recorded, temp profile cleanup succeeded, and the post-restart no-post `DC-01` through `DC-06` handler smoke returned six runtime replies. The retained pre-repair post-restart strict score was `5/6`; after deploying repair SHA `090becae1621436467610e529d6328d70964d11f`, the same no-post direct-claim suite strict-scored `6/6` with `DC-01` through `DC-06` all passing, DB counts unchanged, no Telegram post, no production DB apply, no live profile change, and cleanup confirmed. The raw handler JSON is retained on the VPS at `/tmp/leo-post-skill-repair-direct-claim-current.json` with SHA256 `6fffdbafc18913c4fc62feb00906988dee2e696d279f22dd284951a79451f39c`.
|
||||
- The Telegram-visible direct-claim benchmark was run in group `Leo` (`-5146042086`): all six prompts and replies are visible, and DB/service state is unchanged. The hardened semantic scorer gives `5/6`; `DC-05` incorrectly suggests applying the strict canary `add_edge` path to one of three legacy approved proposals whose payload types do not all match.
|
||||
- The Telegram-visible direct-claim pre-send preflight now passes from supplied top-level SSH readback payload: deploy head and `.last-deploy-sha` both equal `63278b6354d3f5f15ed68897be95d484530db59f`, the remote packet is present/nonempty, `leoclean-gateway.service` is active/running with `MainPID=2999690`, `NRestarts=0`, and `ExecMainStartTimestamp=Fri 2026-07-10 03:47:11 UTC`, and DB counts read as `public.claims=1837`, `public.sources=4145`, `public.claim_edges=4916`, `public.claim_evidence=4670`, `kb_stage.kb_proposals=26`. The retained remote readback command SHA256 is `9bbfbe1de6e3f63e7aa9f73a7f412aa16f8f2f60b3c46f87ee93472290047c89`; no Telegram messages were sent and no DB apply ran.
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,140 @@
|
|||
{
|
||||
"artifact": "leo_post_deploy_direct_claim_repeat_proof",
|
||||
"generated_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:43:12Z",
|
||||
"deployed_commit": "0183a5c805fa3b51d638267afd20f67a1bc3777f",
|
||||
"deployed_skill_sha256": "0af66196c20a25370dac88365e4df4ae5e634bc81140675379cf899404b249ba",
|
||||
"trial_count": 3,
|
||||
"total_replies": 18,
|
||||
"all_runtime_pass": true,
|
||||
"all_scores_pass": true,
|
||||
"all_db_counts_unchanged": true,
|
||||
"all_service_identity_unchanged": true,
|
||||
"all_temp_profiles_removed": true,
|
||||
"telegram_messages_sent": false,
|
||||
"live_profile_changed": false,
|
||||
"production_apply_executed": false,
|
||||
"orphan_temp_directories_after_trials": [],
|
||||
"trials": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
"trial": 1,
|
||||
"run_id": "bdefcfe98ba2",
|
||||
"generated_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:35:11.035868+00:00",
|
||||
"runtime_pass": true,
|
||||
"score_pass": true,
|
||||
"passes": 6,
|
||||
"expected_prompt_count": 6,
|
||||
"failures": [],
|
||||
"responses": 6,
|
||||
"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_changed": false,
|
||||
"posted_to_telegram": false,
|
||||
"changed_live_profile": false,
|
||||
"mutates_kb_by_harness": false,
|
||||
"service_unchanged": true,
|
||||
"service_after": {
|
||||
"ActiveState": "active",
|
||||
"ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Sun 2026-07-12 09:14:10 UTC",
|
||||
"MainPID": "2403328",
|
||||
"NRestarts": "0",
|
||||
"SubState": "running"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"temp_profile_removed": true,
|
||||
"handler_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/leo-post-deploy-direct-claim-repeat-20260713/trial-1-handler.json",
|
||||
"score_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/leo-post-deploy-direct-claim-repeat-20260713/trial-1-score.json"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"trial": 2,
|
||||
"run_id": "f68219fcbca7",
|
||||
"generated_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:37:25.661024+00:00",
|
||||
"runtime_pass": true,
|
||||
"score_pass": true,
|
||||
"passes": 6,
|
||||
"expected_prompt_count": 6,
|
||||
"failures": [],
|
||||
"responses": 6,
|
||||
"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_changed": false,
|
||||
"posted_to_telegram": false,
|
||||
"changed_live_profile": false,
|
||||
"mutates_kb_by_harness": false,
|
||||
"service_unchanged": true,
|
||||
"service_after": {
|
||||
"ActiveState": "active",
|
||||
"ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Sun 2026-07-12 09:14:10 UTC",
|
||||
"MainPID": "2403328",
|
||||
"NRestarts": "0",
|
||||
"SubState": "running"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"temp_profile_removed": true,
|
||||
"handler_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/leo-post-deploy-direct-claim-repeat-20260713/trial-2-handler.json",
|
||||
"score_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/leo-post-deploy-direct-claim-repeat-20260713/trial-2-score.json"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"trial": 3,
|
||||
"run_id": "05810612557f",
|
||||
"generated_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:39:30.991053+00:00",
|
||||
"runtime_pass": true,
|
||||
"score_pass": true,
|
||||
"passes": 6,
|
||||
"expected_prompt_count": 6,
|
||||
"failures": [],
|
||||
"responses": 6,
|
||||
"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_changed": false,
|
||||
"posted_to_telegram": false,
|
||||
"changed_live_profile": false,
|
||||
"mutates_kb_by_harness": false,
|
||||
"service_unchanged": true,
|
||||
"service_after": {
|
||||
"ActiveState": "active",
|
||||
"ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Sun 2026-07-12 09:14:10 UTC",
|
||||
"MainPID": "2403328",
|
||||
"NRestarts": "0",
|
||||
"SubState": "running"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"temp_profile_removed": true,
|
||||
"handler_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/leo-post-deploy-direct-claim-repeat-20260713/trial-3-handler.json",
|
||||
"score_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/leo-post-deploy-direct-claim-repeat-20260713/trial-3-score.json"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"claim_ceiling": "Three repeated post-deploy no-post GatewayRunner trials strict-scored 6/6 with unchanged production DB counts and gateway identity. This proves repeated handler behavior, not a corrected Telegram-visible reply or production KB mutation."
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
|
|||
# Leo Post-Deploy Direct-Claim Repeat Proof
|
||||
|
||||
## Result
|
||||
|
||||
- Deployed commit: `0183a5c805fa3b51d638267afd20f67a1bc3777f`.
|
||||
- Live skill SHA-256: `0af66196c20a25370dac88365e4df4ae5e634bc81140675379cf899404b249ba`.
|
||||
- Repeated isolated trials: `3`.
|
||||
- Replies scored: `18/18`.
|
||||
- Strict score: `6/6` in every trial.
|
||||
- Telegram messages sent: `false`.
|
||||
- Production apply executed: `false`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Stability
|
||||
|
||||
Every trial preserved the same production readback:
|
||||
|
||||
- claims: `1837`;
|
||||
- sources: `4145`;
|
||||
- claim evidence: `4670`;
|
||||
- claim edges: `4916`;
|
||||
- proposals: `26`;
|
||||
- gateway PID: `2403328`;
|
||||
- restarts: `0`;
|
||||
- start timestamp: `Sun 2026-07-12 09:14:10 UTC`.
|
||||
|
||||
Every temporary profile was removed. The final VPS cleanup readback found no
|
||||
`/tmp/leo-direct-claim-handler-*` directories.
|
||||
|
||||
## Trials
|
||||
|
||||
- Trial 1: run `bdefcfe98ba2`, strict `6/6`.
|
||||
- Trial 2: run `f68219fcbca7`, strict `6/6`.
|
||||
- Trial 3: run `05810612557f`, strict `6/6`.
|
||||
|
||||
## Claim Ceiling
|
||||
|
||||
This proves repeated post-deploy no-post GatewayRunner behavior under fresh
|
||||
temporary profiles. It does not correct the already-retained Telegram-visible
|
||||
`DC-05` reply, send another Telegram message, or prove production KB mutation.
|
||||
|
||||
Machine-readable proof:
|
||||
`docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/leo-post-deploy-direct-claim-repeat-current.json`.
|
||||
|
|
@ -22,11 +22,11 @@
|
|||
"public.sources": 4145
|
||||
},
|
||||
"db_counts_changed": false,
|
||||
"generated_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:16:22.889571+00:00",
|
||||
"generated_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:39:30.991053+00:00",
|
||||
"handler": {
|
||||
"authorized": true,
|
||||
"session_key": "agent:main:telegram:group:-5146042086:9070919",
|
||||
"temp_profile": "/tmp/leo-direct-claim-handler-0dm78puk/profile"
|
||||
"temp_profile": "/tmp/leo-direct-claim-handler-1cjra_68/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-45f28f6240ca.json",
|
||||
"remote_report_path": "/tmp/leo-direct-claim-handler-report-05810612557f.json",
|
||||
"remote_returncode": 0,
|
||||
"remote_run_id": "45f28f6240ca",
|
||||
"remote_run_id": "05810612557f",
|
||||
"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": "2026-07-13T00:16:57.122173+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:00.183891+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 exact state:\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nApplied (canonical change confirmed): 2\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 (applied_at: none): 3\n- `14fa5ecc` \u2014 attach_evidence, split compressed internet-finance claim\n- `ac036c9d` \u2014 attach_evidence, strategy-kernel hygiene / Hayek anchor\n- `a64df080` \u2014 attach_evidence, Helmer 7 Powers framework packet (approved 2026-06-29, still sitting)\n\nPending review: 14\nCanceled: 7\n\nApproved is not the same as applied. Those 3 approved proposals \u2014 including the 7 Powers packet \u2014 have reviewer sign-off but no applied_at timestamp, which means no canonical `public.*` rows were written. The 7 Powers framework specifically has been approved since June 29 and is still not in the canonical DB.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: The proof-changing action is applying the 3 approved proposals to canonical `public.*` \u2014 that requires explicit operator/admin authorization and a dedicated apply path with before/after postflight readback. Want me to draft or refresh the admin review packet for the oldest of those (`a64df080` \u2014 7 Powers)?",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:16:23.688987+00:00",
|
||||
"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",
|
||||
"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": "2026-07-13T00:17:21.172268+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:21.969764+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 7 Powers framework is approved/staged \u2014 the full packet exists in `kb_stage.kb_proposals` with m3ta's sign-off from June 29 \u2014 but it has never been applied to canonical `public.*`. A search of the canonical KB returns no Helmer/7 Powers claims, sources, edges, or reasoning_tool rows.\n\nApproved is not the same as applied.\n\nWhat exists in staging (not canonical):\n- A `reasoning_tool` node definition for Helmer 7 Powers\n- 5 proposed claims (benefit/barrier logic, power progression, counter-positioning, network effects vs network economies, agentic capital needs power analysis)\n- 6 source candidates (Helmer book, official synopsis, Reed Hastings foreword, two Acquired transcripts, NFX interview)\n- Edge links into existing competitive-advantage/moats neighborhood claims\n- Conceptual neighborhood connections to the competitive advantage/moats domain\n\nWhat's missing before it's canonical:\n- `public.sources` rows for the source candidates\n- `public.claims` rows for the 5 proposed claims\n- `public.claim_evidence` and `public.claim_edges` rows linking them\n- A `reasoning_tool` node row (schema gap noted in the proposal \u2014 current bridge doesn't expose `add_claim`/`add_context_node` proposal types)\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: The proof-changing action is running a guarded apply of `a64df080` \u2014 writing those source, claim, evidence, and edge rows to `public.*`. That requires explicit operator authorization and a dedicated apply path with before/after postflight readback; not runnable from normal chat.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:16:57.122476+00:00",
|
||||
"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",
|
||||
"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": "2026-07-13T00:17:33.760712+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:35.664956+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. Fresh readback: the decision-matrix schema is absent; reviewer status is not a decision-matrix vote.\n\nNone of the required tables exist \u2014 `matrix_voters`, `proposal_votes`, and `proposal_decisions` are missing from both `kb_stage` and `public`. The decision-matrix path has not been shipped.\n\nWhat actually happened with `a64df080`: m3ta reviewed it directly in Telegram on June 29, said approved-with-changes, and Leo recorded that as `status: approved` in `kb_stage.kb_proposals`. That is a human reviewer approval \u2014 not a futarchy vote, not a decision-matrix quorum, not a multi-agent vote count.\n\nDB readback: proposal: `a64df080-8502-42e2-98f4-9bbdecb8da73`; status: `approved`; applied_at: `none` (database NULL).\n\nSo the full picture on 7 Powers:\n- Decision matrix: not shipped, no vote possible\n- Reviewer approval: m3ta approved-with-changes June 29\n- Canonical rows: zero\n- Applied: no\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: The decision-matrix path needs `matrix_voters`, `proposal_votes`, and `proposal_decisions` tables before any futarchy-style governance is possible. If you want to move 7 Powers to canonical without waiting for that, the path is explicit operator authorization to run the guarded apply on `a64df080` \u2014 the reviewer approval is already on record.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:17:21.172764+00:00",
|
||||
"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",
|
||||
"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": "2026-07-13T00:18:29.511463+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:56.574428+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 `source_ref` values are a useful trace but they're not the root cause of the pending pile. Here's what the row-link audit actually shows:\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nThe 14 pending proposals break into distinct layers:\n\n3 are canary `add_edge` probes (8dfedb3f, 03f7853e, e60a48af) \u2014 never intended for content review, just pipeline tests. They're pending because no one cleared them, not because of pointer mismatch.\n\n1 is a live edge proposal from June 19 (c824da66) \u2014 `source_ref` is a Telegram session marker, no doc involved at all.\n\nThe remaining 10 are `attach_evidence` proposals \u2014 and here is where it gets layered:\n\n- `source_ref` values point at raw files (telegram-attachment paths), Telegram session markers, or URLs \u2014 not at `public.sources` row IDs. That's a real gap but it's a gap in the apply contract, not the reason they're stuck.\n- The actual reason they're pending is that no reviewer has actioned them. `reviewed_at` is null on all 14. They're not blocked by a pointer \u2014 they haven't been reviewed.\n- The schema gap noted in the 7 Powers packet makes it worse: `attach_evidence` proposals carry full source/claim/edge payloads because the bridge doesn't expose `add_claim`/`add_source` proposal types. So even if a reviewer approves, there's no worker or apply command that knows how to unpack a complex packet into canonical rows.\n\nSo the honest answer: not a single cause. The stack is:\n\n1. No reviewer has touched 14 pending proposals\n2. No apply path exists for complex `attach_evidence` packets (schema gap)\n3. `source_ref` values don't resolve to `public.sources` row IDs \u2014 an apply worker would need a row-link audit before it could safely write\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: The proof-changing action on the pending pile is a reviewer pass to cancel canary noise (3 edge tests), action or cancel duplicates on Good Strategy/Bad Strategy (at least 3 overlapping proposals), and then route the substantive remaining ones through an apply path that hasn't been built yet. Want me to draft a triage packet?",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:17:33.761151+00:00",
|
||||
"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",
|
||||
"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": "2026-07-13T00:18:50.471863+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:41:21.906476+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\nHere's the exact demo tier breakdown:\n\nTier 1 \u2014 live-proven, safe to demo now:\nLeo can write a real proposal to `kb_stage.kb_proposals` and read it back. The strict existing-ID `add_edge` path is live-proven \u2014 it was used for the canary at `00957f6c` (applied 2026-07-09). A demo here is real: Leo stages a proposal, you see the row, you see the rationale, you see the edge it would create. That's a genuine KB write, just not to canonical `public.*`.\n\nTier 2 \u2014 clone-proven, not production-ready:\nThe guarded `approve_claim` bundles and rich packet apply path exist in the repo and have been tested on a clone. But the production permission migration and apply worker remain disabled. Approved legacy packets like `a64df080` (7 Powers) don't carry a strict `apply_payload`, so even if the worker existed, they're not worker-applyable as-is.\n\nTier 3 \u2014 not demoable from chat:\nCanonical `public.*` mutation. Approved is not the same as applied. A canonical demo still requires explicit operator/admin authorization, the matching reviewed apply path, and retained before/after postflight readback. That's not a chat command.\n\nWhat you can safely demo right now: Leo stages a real `add_edge` proposal \u2014 picks two existing canonical claim IDs, writes the row, reads it back with `teleo-kb show-proposal`. The audience sees a genuine DB write with full provenance. Just not a canonical table mutation.\n\nWant me to stage one live for the demo?\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: Say the word and I'll write a clean demo `add_edge` proposal to `kb_stage.kb_proposals` using two real canonical claim IDs \u2014 you get a live before/after readback you can show.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:18:29.512196+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 \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",
|
||||
"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": "2026-07-13T00:19:01.072726+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:41:32.469219+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, not canonical Postgres, not the source of truth, not a canonical commit, and not collective truth. Editing it affects the next runtime session's injected context \u2014 what Leo reads at session start \u2014 but it does not write or update any rows 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\nThose counts haven't moved from earlier in this session. No identity-related rows were written.\n\nThe provenance chain for canonical identity is:\n- Canonical: Postgres `public.*` rows \u2014 claims, sources, evidence, edges, agent/identity tables\n- Rendered: `SOUL.md` \u2014 generated from DB rows, injected at session start\n- Gap: the render/sync path that keeps them in sync is not proven as a live automated pipeline\n\nSo if `SOUL.md` was edited directly, you have a runtime Leo whose session context diverges from canonical Postgres \u2014 until the next render-sync from DB overrides it. The DB didn't change; the rendered file did.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: The proof-changing action is a render-sync run that regenerates `SOUL.md` from current canonical `public.*` rows, with before/after diff retained \u2014 that would either close the gap or surface which DB rows are missing.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:18:50.472273+00:00",
|
||||
"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",
|
||||
"turn": 6
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -14,17 +14,17 @@
|
|||
"public.sources": 4145
|
||||
},
|
||||
"direct_claim_repair": {
|
||||
"deployed_commit": null,
|
||||
"deployed_commit": "0183a5c805fa3b51d638267afd20f67a1bc3777f",
|
||||
"skill_contract_present": true,
|
||||
"scorer_equivalent_language_repaired_locally": true,
|
||||
"dc05_contract_repair_deployed": false
|
||||
"dc05_contract_repair_deployed": true
|
||||
},
|
||||
"generated_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:27:54Z",
|
||||
"generated_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:42:00Z",
|
||||
"live_leo_feature_change": false,
|
||||
"next_actions": [
|
||||
"Deploy and repeatedly no-post test the bounded DC-05 contract correction.",
|
||||
"Require every DC-05 run to include a complete DB readback receipt.",
|
||||
"Reject suggestions to use a strict add_edge path on legacy proposals whose payload type does not match.",
|
||||
"Keep the three-trial repeat proof as the clean-session regression gate.",
|
||||
"Retest DC-05 visibly in Telegram only with separate exact message authorization.",
|
||||
"Continue rejecting strict add_edge suggestions for legacy proposals whose payload type does not match.",
|
||||
"Do not treat this handler pass as authorization for any production public.* apply."
|
||||
],
|
||||
"production_db_apply_executed": false,
|
||||
|
|
@ -32,7 +32,7 @@
|
|||
"runtime_replies": {
|
||||
"pass_runtime": true,
|
||||
"report_file": "docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/telegram-handler-direct-claim-suite-current.json",
|
||||
"score": "6/6 replies returned; latest strict 6/6, prior same-skill run 5/6"
|
||||
"score": "18/18 replies across three post-deploy trials; strict 6/6 each"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"scenario_assessment": [
|
||||
{
|
||||
|
|
@ -56,8 +56,8 @@
|
|||
"prompt_id": "DC-04"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
"assessment": "pass_latest_unstable",
|
||||
"finding": "Latest answer has the complete DB readback and a safe staging-canary follow-up; the prior same-skill run omitted the receipt, so repeated stability remains open.",
|
||||
"assessment": "pass_repeated",
|
||||
"finding": "All three post-deploy answers include the complete DB readback and a safe new or matching strict staging-canary follow-up.",
|
||||
"prompt_id": "DC-05"
|
||||
},
|
||||
{
|
||||
|
|
@ -78,9 +78,11 @@
|
|||
"pass": true,
|
||||
"score": "6/6",
|
||||
"prior_same_skill_score": "5/6",
|
||||
"repeated_stability_proven": false,
|
||||
"post_deploy_repeat_score": "3/3 trials at 6/6",
|
||||
"repeated_stability_proven": true,
|
||||
"score_file": "docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/telegram-handler-direct-claim-suite-score-current.json"
|
||||
},
|
||||
"repeat_proof": "docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/leo-post-deploy-direct-claim-repeat-current.json",
|
||||
"telegram_posted": false,
|
||||
"temp_profile_removed": true
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,11 +1,11 @@
|
|||
# Telegram Handler Direct-Claim Suite Review
|
||||
|
||||
Generated UTC: `2026-07-13T00:27:54Z`
|
||||
Generated UTC: `2026-07-13T00:42:00Z`
|
||||
|
||||
## Result
|
||||
|
||||
- Runtime path: `pass_runtime=True`; all six direct-claim prompts returned replies from live VPS GatewayRunner using a temporary leoclean profile.
|
||||
- Strict benchmark score: latest `6/6`; a prior unchanged-skill run scored `5/6`, so repeated stability is not yet proven.
|
||||
- Strict benchmark score: `6/6` in all three post-deploy trials (`18/18` replies).
|
||||
- Telegram post: `false`.
|
||||
- Live profile changed: `false`.
|
||||
- Production DB apply executed: `false`.
|
||||
|
|
@ -14,16 +14,13 @@ Generated UTC: `2026-07-13T00:27:54Z`
|
|||
|
||||
## Core Finding
|
||||
|
||||
Leo returns all six no-context replies and keeps the VPS stable. The latest
|
||||
clean-session run meets the strict Cory bar, but the unchanged skill varied from
|
||||
`5/6` to `6/6` across two runs. Equivalent-language scorer false negatives were
|
||||
repaired locally; one stability gap remains:
|
||||
Leo now returns all six no-context replies and keeps the VPS stable across three
|
||||
fresh post-deploy runs. The scorer accepts equivalent truthful language while
|
||||
rejecting the incompatible legacy `add_edge` follow-up.
|
||||
|
||||
- `DC-05`: the latest no-post answer includes a complete `DB readback:` receipt
|
||||
and proposes a new strict staging canary. The prior no-post answer omitted the
|
||||
receipt. The Telegram-visible answer has the receipt but suggests using the
|
||||
strict `add_edge` path on legacy approved proposals whose payload type may not
|
||||
match.
|
||||
- `DC-05`: all three post-deploy no-post answers include a complete `DB readback:`
|
||||
receipt and propose a safe new or matching strict staging canary. The retained
|
||||
Telegram-visible answer predates the repair and still fails this one check.
|
||||
|
||||
## Scenario Assessment
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -31,7 +28,7 @@ repaired locally; one stability gap remains:
|
|||
- `DC-02`: `pass` - Helmer 7 Powers is approved/staged or packet-ready but not canonical; proposal `a64df080` has empty `applied_at`; canonical `public.*` rows are absent.
|
||||
- `DC-03`: `pass` - Decision-matrix path is not shipped; matrix tables are absent; m3ta reviewer sign-off is not a matrix vote.
|
||||
- `DC-04`: `pass` - Not a single-cause pointer diagnosis; separates Telegram/local file refs, proposal refs, document evaluations, review status, and canonical `public.sources`.
|
||||
- `DC-05`: `pass_latest_unstable` - Latest no-post answer is correct; prior no-post and retained Telegram-visible variants show the contract is not yet stable.
|
||||
- `DC-05`: `pass_repeated` - Three consecutive post-deploy no-post answers are correct; the older Telegram-visible capture remains historical failure evidence.
|
||||
- `DC-06`: `pass` - Direct `SOUL.md` edit is runtime/rendered artifact drift, not canonical identity; canonical change requires DB rows plus render/sync/postflight proof.
|
||||
|
||||
## Follow-Up Challenge
|
||||
|
|
@ -40,7 +37,8 @@ repaired locally; one stability gap remains:
|
|||
|
||||
## Next Actions
|
||||
|
||||
- Deploy and repeatedly no-post test the bounded `DC-05` response-contract correction.
|
||||
- Keep the three-trial repeat proof as the clean-session regression gate.
|
||||
- Retest `DC-05` visibly in Telegram only with separate exact message authorization.
|
||||
- Reopen immediately if DC-02 stops recognizing `a64df080` as approved/unapplied, DC-03 infers matrix approval while matrix tables are absent, any DC answer omits `Next Cory-style follow-up:`, or the read-only suite mutates DB/service state.
|
||||
- This pass does not authorize production apply of Helmer, mapped rich packets, Rio strategy, governance/concept schema, or any canonical `public.*` mutation.
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
@ -48,5 +46,6 @@ repaired locally; one stability gap remains:
|
|||
|
||||
- Direct-claim handler report: `docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/telegram-handler-direct-claim-suite-current.json`
|
||||
- Strict score: `docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/telegram-handler-direct-claim-suite-score-current.md`
|
||||
- Repeated post-deploy proof: `docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/leo-post-deploy-direct-claim-repeat-current.md`
|
||||
- Follow-up challenge report: `docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/telegram-handler-direct-claim-followup-current.json`
|
||||
- State image: `docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/leo-db-state-26-direct-claim-handler.svg`
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
|
|||
"runtime": "disposable_clone_or_sandbox_first"
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
"generated_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:27:54.787284+00:00",
|
||||
"generated_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:44:15.460265+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": "2026-07-13T00:16:57.122173+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:00.183891+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 exact state:\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nApplied (canonical change confirmed): 2\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 (applied_at: none): 3\n- `14fa5ecc` \u2014 attach_evidence, split compressed internet-finance claim\n- `ac036c9d` \u2014 attach_evidence, strategy-kernel hygiene / Hayek anchor\n- `a64df080` \u2014 attach_evidence, Helmer 7 Powers framework packet (approved 2026-06-29, still sitting)\n\nPending review: 14\nCanceled: 7\n\nApproved is not the same as applied. Those 3 approved proposals \u2014 including the 7 Powers packet \u2014 have reviewer sign-off but no applied_at timestamp, which means no canonical `public.*` rows were written. The 7 Powers framework specifically has been approved since June 29 and is still not in the canonical DB.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: The proof-changing action is applying the 3 approved proposals to canonical `public.*` \u2014 that requires explicit operator/admin authorization and a dedicated apply path with before/after postflight readback. Want me to draft or refresh the admin review packet for the oldest of those (`a64df080` \u2014 7 Powers)?",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:16:23.688987+00:00",
|
||||
"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",
|
||||
"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": "2026-07-13T00:17:21.172268+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:21.969764+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 7 Powers framework is approved/staged \u2014 the full packet exists in `kb_stage.kb_proposals` with m3ta's sign-off from June 29 \u2014 but it has never been applied to canonical `public.*`. A search of the canonical KB returns no Helmer/7 Powers claims, sources, edges, or reasoning_tool rows.\n\nApproved is not the same as applied.\n\nWhat exists in staging (not canonical):\n- A `reasoning_tool` node definition for Helmer 7 Powers\n- 5 proposed claims (benefit/barrier logic, power progression, counter-positioning, network effects vs network economies, agentic capital needs power analysis)\n- 6 source candidates (Helmer book, official synopsis, Reed Hastings foreword, two Acquired transcripts, NFX interview)\n- Edge links into existing competitive-advantage/moats neighborhood claims\n- Conceptual neighborhood connections to the competitive advantage/moats domain\n\nWhat's missing before it's canonical:\n- `public.sources` rows for the source candidates\n- `public.claims` rows for the 5 proposed claims\n- `public.claim_evidence` and `public.claim_edges` rows linking them\n- A `reasoning_tool` node row (schema gap noted in the proposal \u2014 current bridge doesn't expose `add_claim`/`add_context_node` proposal types)\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: The proof-changing action is running a guarded apply of `a64df080` \u2014 writing those source, claim, evidence, and edge rows to `public.*`. That requires explicit operator authorization and a dedicated apply path with before/after postflight readback; not runnable from normal chat.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:16:57.122476+00:00",
|
||||
"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",
|
||||
"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": "2026-07-13T00:17:33.760712+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:35.664956+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. Fresh readback: the decision-matrix schema is absent; reviewer status is not a decision-matrix vote.\n\nNone of the required tables exist \u2014 `matrix_voters`, `proposal_votes`, and `proposal_decisions` are missing from both `kb_stage` and `public`. The decision-matrix path has not been shipped.\n\nWhat actually happened with `a64df080`: m3ta reviewed it directly in Telegram on June 29, said approved-with-changes, and Leo recorded that as `status: approved` in `kb_stage.kb_proposals`. That is a human reviewer approval \u2014 not a futarchy vote, not a decision-matrix quorum, not a multi-agent vote count.\n\nDB readback: proposal: `a64df080-8502-42e2-98f4-9bbdecb8da73`; status: `approved`; applied_at: `none` (database NULL).\n\nSo the full picture on 7 Powers:\n- Decision matrix: not shipped, no vote possible\n- Reviewer approval: m3ta approved-with-changes June 29\n- Canonical rows: zero\n- Applied: no\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: The decision-matrix path needs `matrix_voters`, `proposal_votes`, and `proposal_decisions` tables before any futarchy-style governance is possible. If you want to move 7 Powers to canonical without waiting for that, the path is explicit operator authorization to run the guarded apply on `a64df080` \u2014 the reviewer approval is already on record.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:17:21.172764+00:00",
|
||||
"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",
|
||||
"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": "2026-07-13T00:18:29.511463+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:40:56.574428+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 `source_ref` values are a useful trace but they're not the root cause of the pending pile. Here's what the row-link audit actually shows:\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nThe 14 pending proposals break into distinct layers:\n\n3 are canary `add_edge` probes (8dfedb3f, 03f7853e, e60a48af) \u2014 never intended for content review, just pipeline tests. They're pending because no one cleared them, not because of pointer mismatch.\n\n1 is a live edge proposal from June 19 (c824da66) \u2014 `source_ref` is a Telegram session marker, no doc involved at all.\n\nThe remaining 10 are `attach_evidence` proposals \u2014 and here is where it gets layered:\n\n- `source_ref` values point at raw files (telegram-attachment paths), Telegram session markers, or URLs \u2014 not at `public.sources` row IDs. That's a real gap but it's a gap in the apply contract, not the reason they're stuck.\n- The actual reason they're pending is that no reviewer has actioned them. `reviewed_at` is null on all 14. They're not blocked by a pointer \u2014 they haven't been reviewed.\n- The schema gap noted in the 7 Powers packet makes it worse: `attach_evidence` proposals carry full source/claim/edge payloads because the bridge doesn't expose `add_claim`/`add_source` proposal types. So even if a reviewer approves, there's no worker or apply command that knows how to unpack a complex packet into canonical rows.\n\nSo the honest answer: not a single cause. The stack is:\n\n1. No reviewer has touched 14 pending proposals\n2. No apply path exists for complex `attach_evidence` packets (schema gap)\n3. `source_ref` values don't resolve to `public.sources` row IDs \u2014 an apply worker would need a row-link audit before it could safely write\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: The proof-changing action on the pending pile is a reviewer pass to cancel canary noise (3 edge tests), action or cancel duplicates on Good Strategy/Bad Strategy (at least 3 overlapping proposals), and then route the substantive remaining ones through an apply path that hasn't been built yet. Want me to draft a triage packet?",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:17:33.761151+00:00",
|
||||
"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",
|
||||
"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": "2026-07-13T00:18:50.471863+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:41:21.906476+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\nHere's the exact demo tier breakdown:\n\nTier 1 \u2014 live-proven, safe to demo now:\nLeo can write a real proposal to `kb_stage.kb_proposals` and read it back. The strict existing-ID `add_edge` path is live-proven \u2014 it was used for the canary at `00957f6c` (applied 2026-07-09). A demo here is real: Leo stages a proposal, you see the row, you see the rationale, you see the edge it would create. That's a genuine KB write, just not to canonical `public.*`.\n\nTier 2 \u2014 clone-proven, not production-ready:\nThe guarded `approve_claim` bundles and rich packet apply path exist in the repo and have been tested on a clone. But the production permission migration and apply worker remain disabled. Approved legacy packets like `a64df080` (7 Powers) don't carry a strict `apply_payload`, so even if the worker existed, they're not worker-applyable as-is.\n\nTier 3 \u2014 not demoable from chat:\nCanonical `public.*` mutation. Approved is not the same as applied. A canonical demo still requires explicit operator/admin authorization, the matching reviewed apply path, and retained before/after postflight readback. That's not a chat command.\n\nWhat you can safely demo right now: Leo stages a real `add_edge` proposal \u2014 picks two existing canonical claim IDs, writes the row, reads it back with `teleo-kb show-proposal`. The audience sees a genuine DB write with full provenance. Just not a canonical table mutation.\n\nWant me to stage one live for the demo?\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: Say the word and I'll write a clean demo `add_edge` proposal to `kb_stage.kb_proposals` using two real canonical claim IDs \u2014 you get a live before/after readback you can show.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:18:29.512196+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 \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",
|
||||
"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": "2026-07-13T00:19:01.072726+00:00",
|
||||
"ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:41:32.469219+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, not canonical Postgres, not the source of truth, not a canonical commit, and not collective truth. Editing it affects the next runtime session's injected context \u2014 what Leo reads at session start \u2014 but it does not write or update any rows 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\nThose counts haven't moved from earlier in this session. No identity-related rows were written.\n\nThe provenance chain for canonical identity is:\n- Canonical: Postgres `public.*` rows \u2014 claims, sources, evidence, edges, agent/identity tables\n- Rendered: `SOUL.md` \u2014 generated from DB rows, injected at session start\n- Gap: the render/sync path that keeps them in sync is not proven as a live automated pipeline\n\nSo if `SOUL.md` was edited directly, you have a runtime Leo whose session context diverges from canonical Postgres \u2014 until the next render-sync from DB overrides it. The DB didn't change; the rendered file did.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: The proof-changing action is a render-sync run that regenerates `SOUL.md` from current canonical `public.*` rows, with before/after diff retained \u2014 that would either close the gap or surface which DB rows are missing.",
|
||||
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T00:18:50.472273+00:00",
|
||||
"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",
|
||||
"turn": 6
|
||||
}
|
||||
],
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
|
|||
# Working Leo Open-Ended Benchmark Score
|
||||
|
||||
Generated UTC: `2026-07-13T00:27:54.787284+00:00`
|
||||
Generated UTC: `2026-07-13T00:44:15.460265+00:00`
|
||||
Mode: `retained_evidence_score`
|
||||
Source: `docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/telegram-handler-direct-claim-suite-current.json`
|
||||
Coverage: `partial`
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
@ -11,9 +11,9 @@ proven. Exact VPS-to-GCP canonical DB parity is also proven.
|
|||
The two incomplete end-user rows are:
|
||||
|
||||
1. Cory-style direct-claim convergence: all six prompts are Telegram-visible,
|
||||
but the hardened semantic scorer gives that retained suite `5/6`. Two
|
||||
unchanged-skill clean-session runs varied from `5/6` to `6/6`, so no-context
|
||||
stability is not yet proven. `DC-05` is the remaining gap.
|
||||
but the hardened semantic scorer gives that retained pre-repair suite `5/6`.
|
||||
The repaired VPS clean-session path passes three consecutive `6/6` trials;
|
||||
a visible `DC-05` retest is the remaining Telegram gap.
|
||||
2. Hardened GCP model replay plus cleanup: a nominal `6/6` run was rejected for
|
||||
false printed counts; the fixed rerun waits on Google password reauthentication
|
||||
because both current operator routes are unavailable.
|
||||
|
|
@ -26,7 +26,7 @@ A working Leo must do more than answer chat messages:
|
|||
| --- | --- | --- |
|
||||
| Conversation memory | Remember the current operator conversation and caveats | VPS Telegram/open-ended and restart-bound memory proven |
|
||||
| KB query | Discover relevant claims, evidence, sources, edges, and proposals without supplied IDs | VPS and GCP DB-read routes proven |
|
||||
| State truth | Separate proposed, pending review, approved, applied, and canonical | Latest VPS no-send `6/6`, prior same-skill run `5/6`; Telegram-visible `5/6`; `DC-05` open |
|
||||
| State truth | Separate proposed, pending review, approved, applied, and canonical | VPS no-send `3/3` trials at `6/6`; retained pre-repair Telegram-visible suite `5/6`; visible `DC-05` retest open |
|
||||
| Critical reasoning | Challenge weak assumptions, expose conflicts/uncertainty, and propose one useful next action | Broad suite proven; `DC-05` apply-path follow-up requires correction |
|
||||
| Staging | Turn a grounded operator request into a concrete reviewable proposal | Live Telegram staging proven |
|
||||
| Composition | Ingest source bytes/excerpts, extract atomic claims, bind evidence/source rows, detect conflicts, and stage a lossless proposal | Deterministic fixture and full-data clone proven; arbitrary production source breadth not proven |
|
||||
|
|
@ -190,11 +190,12 @@ The preflight and postflight receipts are identical: claims `1837`, sources
|
|||
restarts, and the same start timestamp. No benchmark prompt staged a proposal,
|
||||
ran a production apply, or changed the live profile.
|
||||
|
||||
Two latest clean-session no-post VPS runs returned all six replies with
|
||||
unchanged DB/service state and complete cleanup. The first scored `5/6` because
|
||||
`DC-05` omitted the complete `DB readback:` receipt; a later unchanged-skill run
|
||||
scored `6/6`. This variance proves the response contract needs one bounded
|
||||
correction plus repeated post-deploy trials before it is stable.
|
||||
After deploy commit `0183a5c805fa3b51d638267afd20f67a1bc3777f`, three
|
||||
fresh clean-session no-post VPS runs returned all six replies and strict-scored
|
||||
`6/6` (`18/18` replies total). All trials preserved DB counts and gateway
|
||||
identity, removed their temporary profiles, and left no orphan temporary
|
||||
directories. This proves the bounded response-contract repair at the no-post
|
||||
handler tier.
|
||||
|
||||
## GCP Replay Failure Analysis
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|||
Loading…
Reference in a new issue