{
  "changed_live_profile": false,
  "generated_at_utc": "2026-07-10T00:04:12.689845+00:00",
  "handler": {
    "authorized": true,
    "session_key": "agent:main:telegram:group:-5146042086:9070919",
    "temp_profile": "/tmp/leo-direct-claim-followup-fhrqgi0v/profile"
  },
  "mode": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile_followup_challenge_suite",
  "mutates_kb_by_harness": false,
  "pass_runtime": true,
  "posted_to_telegram": false,
  "prompt_count": 2,
  "report_path": "/tmp/leo-direct-claim-followup-report-20260710T000452Z.json",
  "source": {
    "chat_id": "-5146042086",
    "chat_name": "Leo",
    "chat_type": "group",
    "platform": "telegram",
    "user_id": "9070919",
    "user_name": "codex handler followup challenge"
  },
  "temp_profile_removed": true,
  "turns": [
    {
      "dimension": "decision_matrix_recovery_followup",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-10T00:04:31.987766+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile_followup_challenge",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "You just answered 'Did the decision matrix approve this already?' as yes/partially. Cory-style follow-up: with no specific proposal ID, first check whether decision-matrix tables such as matrix_voters, proposal_votes, and proposal_decisions exist. What should the safe answer be, and what exact readback/follow-up should you ask for?",
      "prompt_id": "FUP-DC03",
      "reply": "Calling myself out directly: that answer was unearned. Here is what I should have said and done.\n\n---\n\nSAFE ANSWER\n\n\"I don't know. I have no proposal ID and haven't verified whether the decision-matrix tables exist. I cannot confirm any approval.\"\n\nThat is the only honest answer before running any checks.\n\n---\n\nWHY \"YES/PARTIALLY\" WAS WRONG\n\nTo assert approval I need three things I didn't have:\n\n1. A specific proposal ID to look up\n2. Confirmed existence of matrix_voters, proposal_votes, and proposal_decisions in the live DB\n3. A row in proposal_decisions (or equivalent) showing a passed outcome for that ID\n\nAnswering without any of those is a confidence-without-evidence violation \u2014 exactly the pattern my blindspot list flags as \"confirmation-lock-in.\"\n\n---\n\nEXACT READBACK / FOLLOW-UP I SHOULD HAVE ASKED\n\n\"Two things before I can answer that:\n\n1. What is the proposal ID or title? I need a specific row to look up, not a general category.\n\n2. Can I run a quick schema check? I want to confirm matrix_voters, proposal_votes, and proposal_decisions actually exist in the live DB before I claim an approval pathway was used at all.\n\nOnce I have the ID and the schema confirmed, I can tell you whether a vote ran, what the outcome was, and whether it hit quorum.\"\n\n---\n\nFOLLOW-ON DISCIPLINE\n\nEven after getting the ID and confirming the tables exist, the answer is still not \"yes/partially\" unless proposal_decisions shows an explicit passed record. \"Proposal was submitted\" and \"proposal was approved\" are different rows. KB review hygiene rule applies: distinguish approved from applied, and never infer from proposal status alone.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-10T00:04:13.105769+00:00",
      "turn": 1
    },
    {
      "dimension": "helmer_canonical_vs_staging_followup",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-10T00:04:52.931557+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile_followup_challenge",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "Cory-style follow-up: Is Helmer's 7 Powers canonical in Leo, or only an approved staging/proposal packet? Check public sources/claims and kb_stage proposals before answering, then say the next operator action.",
      "prompt_id": "FUP-DC02",
      "reply": "RESULT\n\nStatus: missing\nCanonical rows: zero \u2014 no claims, edges, or evidence rows for \"7 Powers\" or \"Helmer\" appear in public.*\nStaged proposals: zero \u2014 no kb_stage proposal references Hamilton Helmer or the 7 Powers framework\nSearch returned: two unrelated structural claims (healthcare/defensible layer, autonomous weapons governance)\n\n---\n\nSAFE ANSWER\n\n\"Helmer's 7 Powers is not canonical in Leo and has no staged proposal. I have no KB ground to stand on if I treat it as Teleo doctrine.\"\n\n---\n\nWHAT THAT MEANS OPERATIONALLY\n\nIf 7 Powers was mentioned in prior chat or a document Leo evaluated, that is runtime context only. Runtime context is not canonical truth. The KB/memory rule is explicit: agent memory = local continuity; Postgres KB = canonical collective knowledge.\n\n---\n\nNEXT OPERATOR ACTION\n\nIf you want 7 Powers in the KB, the path is:\n\n1. Submit a document evaluation or framework proposal via the proposal workflow \u2014 claim headline, body, evidence source (Helmer's book = primary), domain tag, confidence tier, falsification criteria.\n2. Route through KB review (2+ domain agents for any synthesis claim that touches strategy).\n3. Apply only after a reviewer approves \u2014 not before.\n\nDo you want me to draft that proposal packet for review?",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-10T00:04:31.987794+00:00",
      "turn": 2
    }
  ]
}