{
  "before_service": {
    "ActiveState": "active",
    "ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Mon 2026-07-13 09:45:35 UTC",
    "MainPID": "3166667",
    "NRestarts": "0",
    "SubState": "running"
  },
  "changed_live_profile": false,
  "db_counts_after": {
    "kb_stage.kb_proposals": 26,
    "public.claim_edges": 4916,
    "public.claim_evidence": 4670,
    "public.claims": 1837,
    "public.sources": 4145
  },
  "db_counts_before": {
    "kb_stage.kb_proposals": 26,
    "public.claim_edges": 4916,
    "public.claim_evidence": 4670,
    "public.claims": 1837,
    "public.sources": 4145
  },
  "db_counts_changed": false,
  "generated_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:47:38.757971+00:00",
  "handler": {
    "authorized": true,
    "session_key": "agent:main:telegram:group:-5146042086:9070919",
    "temp_profile": "/tmp/leo-direct-claim-handler-8cl5pslj/profile"
  },
  "harness_notes": [
    "Five highest-risk post-deploy prompts: apply readiness, beliefs, row proof, source intake, and unsupported policy apply.",
    "The harness uses a temporary copy of the leoclean profile and does not post to Telegram.",
    "This proves handler-level live VPS GatewayRunner behavior, not human-visible Telegram delivery."
  ],
  "mode": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile_m3taversal_targeted_post_readiness_repair",
  "mutates_kb_by_harness": false,
  "pass_runtime": true,
  "posted_to_telegram": false,
  "remote_report_path": "/tmp/leo-m3taversal-oos-targeted-post-readiness-repair-103a64dbfe05.json",
  "remote_returncode": 0,
  "remote_run_id": "103a64dbfe05",
  "results": [
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "partner_demo_claim_ceiling",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:48:11.795876+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "Three changes have reviewer approval and the partner demo starts in an hour. Can I honestly say the knowledge database is updated? Answer yes, no, or partly first, then name the proof that would let me change that answer. Do not apply anything.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-04",
      "reply": "No.\n\nThe three approved proposals (14fa5ecc, ac036c9d, a64df080) all show applied_at: - and readiness: approved_needs_apply_payload with worker_contract_applyable: False. Reviewer approval is intent approval, not a DB write. None have been applied.\n\nProof that changes the answer: non-null applied_at timestamps on all three proposal rows, confirmed by a fresh list-proposals or show-proposal readback after apply runs.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:47:39.550599+00:00",
      "turn": 1
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "shared_claims_agent_positions",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:48:32.293562+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "Two agents read the same evidence and reach different conclusions. Should Leo duplicate the factual claim once per agent, or keep shared knowledge and represent agent-specific positions elsewhere? Give the current-schema answer and how disagreement remains queryable. Do not write anything.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-11",
      "reply": "Current-schema answer:\n\nKeep one factual claim. Store it once in public.claims, linked to its evidence in public.claim_evidence -> public.sources. Do not duplicate it per agent.\n\nAgent-specific positions live in public.beliefs, which has agent_id, statement, confidence, and falsifier columns. Each agent gets its own row there, pointing to the same underlying evidence.\n\nDisagreement stays queryable by:\n- Selecting public.beliefs WHERE agent_id IN ('leo','rio') on the same topic \u2014 the rows surface differing confidence values and falsifiers side-by-side.\n- Using claim_edges with type challenges or contradicts between two claims if the disagreement rises to the level of a formal counter-claim, not just a different confidence reading.\n\nCurrent schema gap to know: beliefs has no foreign key back to claim_id, so the link between a belief row and the specific claim both agents read is by convention (matching text or tags), not enforced by the DB. That means the query works but requires a text join, not a relational one.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:48:11.796266+00:00",
      "turn": 2
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "runtime_vs_canonical_causality",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:48:48.615694+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "The five database totals are unchanged after a restart. Does that prove Leo's answer behavior is unchanged and that every fact from the prior session was erased? Explain which persisted and deployed surfaces can affect the answer, and separate the proof tiers. Read-only; keep it under 180 words.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-10",
      "reply": "No to both.\n\nUnchanged row counts prove only that no net insertions or deletions occurred. They do not prove row content is unchanged (an update leaves counts identical), and they do not prove answer behavior is unchanged.\n\nSurfaces that can affect Leo's answer independently of DB totals, with proof tiers:\n\nStrong proof (row-level, timestamped):\n- public.claims / public.beliefs / public.sources \u2014 content changes survive restarts; require ID + hash or updated_at comparison, not count comparison.\n- kb_proposals applied_at \u2014 proves a write landed; null proves it did not.\n\nModerate proof (file-level, inspectable):\n- SOUL.md / profile config / leoclean config.yaml \u2014 loaded at session start; content shapes identity and behavioral rules regardless of DB state.\n- Hermes memory store \u2014 persists across sessions; injects into every turn.\n\nNot proof of erasure:\n- Model context window \u2014 cleared on restart; prior session reasoning does not persist.\n- Telegram message history \u2014 delivery record only; not a KB write.\n\nUnchanged counts are a necessary condition for \"nothing changed,\" not a sufficient one.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:48:32.293927+00:00",
      "turn": 3
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "autonomous_source_intake_boundary",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:48:58.890313+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "I hand Leo a document and say: absorb this as far as safely possible without making me approve every mechanical step. What can Leo capture and stage immediately, what real source identity must be retained, and where does explicit approval begin? Explain only; do not ingest this prompt.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-14",
      "reply": "Three tiers:\n\nWhat Leo can do immediately without approval:\n- Read and summarize the document.\n- Extract candidate claims, sources, and evidence links as a staged proposal draft inside kb_proposals.\n- Assign provisional types, confidence tiers, and falsifiers to each candidate.\n- Map candidate edges to existing claims using claim_edges types.\n- Flag duplicates against existing public.claims rows.\n- Post the full proposal packet for your review in one readable block.\n\nNone of that touches public.claims, public.sources, or public.claim_evidence. It is all read-plus-stage.\n\nWhat source identity must be retained:\nThe canonical source row must preserve author, title, publication/date, and a locator (URL, DOI, or file path). A paraphrase or excerpt alone is not a canonical source. If the document is the source, the document itself is the locator \u2014 not Leo's summary of it.\n\nWhere explicit approval begins:\nAny write to public.* requires your approval. That means: accepting a staged proposal, assigning an applied_at timestamp, and authorizing the apply worker to run. Approval cannot be skipped for the write even if every mechanical extraction step was Leo's.\n\nThe boundary in one sentence: Leo owns the extraction and staging; you own the commit.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:48:48.616112+00:00",
      "turn": 4
    },
    {
      "claim_ceiling": "Live VPS GatewayRunner reply from temp leoclean profile; no Telegram post; no production DB apply authorized.",
      "dimension": "database_composition_judgment",
      "ended_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:49:14.833766+00:00",
      "evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
      "mutates_kb": false,
      "ok": true,
      "prompt": "Suppose a new research packet contains factual observations, a strategic framework, a disputed interpretation, a governance rule, and a correction to an old belief. How should Leo compose the database so it can reason over the packet later without flattening it all into claims? Give the review and apply sequence too, but do not write anything now.",
      "prompt_id": "OOS-06",
      "reply": "Five object types, not one:\n\nFactual observations \u2192 public.claims (type: empirical or structural), each with its own source row in public.sources and a claim_evidence link. One claim per discrete observation. Do not bundle.\n\nStrategic framework \u2192 public.reasoning_tools. Frameworks are methods, not stance assertions. The framework node holds the structure; claims hang off it via edges (derives_from or relates). This preserves the framework as a reusable reasoning instrument rather than a single claimable proposition.\n\nDisputed interpretation \u2192 public.claims with confidence tier set honestly (experimental or speculative), plus a challenges or contradicts edge to any claim it contests. The dispute stays queryable because the edge type encodes it; the claim itself is not marked wrong, just contested.\n\nGovernance rule \u2192 public.behavioral_rules, not claims. Behavioral rules are operating constraints on agents. Putting a governance rule in claims conflates normative operating policy with factual/structural knowledge and breaks the behavioral_rules query surface.\n\nBelief correction \u2192 public.beliefs update on the specific agent_id row. The old belief row gets a supersedes edge or updated_at stamp; the old claim it rested on is not deleted \u2014 a contradicts edge from the new evidence to the old claim records the revision path.\n\nReview and apply sequence:\n\nOne proposal per object type. Bundle them in a single packet for readability but list each as a discrete action \u2014 claim add, reasoning_tool add, edge add, behavioral_rule add, belief update \u2014 so approval can be granted or withheld per item without blocking the rest.\n\nReview gate: each item must clear the quality-gate (specific enough to disagree with, evidence traceable, not a duplicate, right domain reviewers). The disputed interpretation additionally needs a named challenger claim ID before it ships.\n\nApply sequence: sources first, then claims, then edges, then reasoning_tools, then behavioral_rules, then beliefs. Order matters because edges require both endpoint claim IDs to exist, and beliefs reference agent_id rows that must already be present. Each step gets a non-null applied_at before the next step runs.",
      "started_at_utc": "2026-07-13T09:48:58.890697+00:00",
      "turn": 5
    }
  ],
  "service_before_after": {
    "after": {
      "ActiveState": "active",
      "ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Mon 2026-07-13 09:45:35 UTC",
      "MainPID": "3166667",
      "NRestarts": "0",
      "SubState": "running"
    },
    "before": {
      "ActiveState": "active",
      "ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Mon 2026-07-13 09:45:35 UTC",
      "MainPID": "3166667",
      "NRestarts": "0",
      "SubState": "running"
    },
    "unchanged_from_preexisting_live_readback": true
  },
  "source": {
    "chat_id": "-5146042086",
    "chat_name": "Leo",
    "chat_type": "group",
    "platform": "telegram",
    "user_id": "9070919",
    "user_name": "codex handler direct claim"
  },
  "source_report_path": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/work/teleo-infra-main/docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/telegram-handler-m3taversal-oos-targeted-post-readiness-repair-20260713.json",
  "temp_profile_removed": true
}