150 lines
15 KiB
JSON
150 lines
15 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"before_service": {
|
|
"ActiveState": "active",
|
|
"ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Fri 2026-07-10 01:04:22 UTC",
|
|
"MainPID": "1908033",
|
|
"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": "2026-07-10T01:17:32.789493+00:00",
|
|
"handler": {
|
|
"authorized": true,
|
|
"session_key": "agent:main:telegram:group:-5146042086:9070919",
|
|
"temp_profile": "/tmp/leo-direct-claim-handler-2bihztqc/profile"
|
|
},
|
|
"harness_notes": [
|
|
"Prompts are the exact DC-01..DC-06 direct-claim benchmark messages.",
|
|
"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_direct_claim_suite",
|
|
"mutates_kb_by_harness": false,
|
|
"pass_runtime": true,
|
|
"posted_to_telegram": false,
|
|
"remote_report_path": "/tmp/leo-direct-claim-handler-report-123eae87c0b2.json",
|
|
"remote_returncode": 0,
|
|
"remote_run_id": "123eae87c0b2",
|
|
"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": "2026-07-10T01:18:04.147708+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 breakdown from current readback:\n\nApplied (canonical DB changed): 2\n- `00957f6c` \u2014 add_edge canary (applied 2026-07-09)\n- `f004bbb2` \u2014 attach_evidence, guiding-policy revision (applied 2026-07-05)\n\nApproved but NOT applied (staged, not canonical): 3\n- `14fa5ecc` \u2014 claim-splitting / internet-finance hygiene\n- `ac036c9d` \u2014 strategy-kernel document evaluation / Hayek reframing\n- `a64df080` \u2014 Helmer 7 Powers framework packet (approved 2026-06-29, applied_at empty)\n\nPending review: 11+ proposals including canary edges, concept maps, Rumelt/Hayek evidence, and strategy-kernel revisions.\n\nCanceled: ~6 (earlier drafts superseded).\n\nSo the canonical `public.*` tables only reflect the 2 applied rows. Everything else \u2014 including the 7 Powers framework and the strategy-kernel revisions \u2014 is approved or pending in `kb_stage.kb_proposals` but has not been written to canonical rows. I cannot claim the KB changed for those until `applied_at` and a `public.*` readback confirm it.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: The highest-value move is applying the 3 approved proposals (`14fa5ecc`, `ac036c9d`, `a64df080`). That requires explicit operator/admin authorization and a dedicated apply + postflight sequence \u2014 not something to run from chat. Want me to draft the admin review packet for those three?",
|
|
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-10T01:17:33.238147+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": "2026-07-10T01:18:24.075030+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\nDirect answer: No. Helmer 7 Powers is NOT in the canonical KB.\n\nReadback used:\n- `show-proposal a64df080` \u2014 confirms `approved`, `applied_at: -`\n- `search \"7 Powers Helmer\"` on canonical `public.*` \u2014 zero matching claims, sources, or reasoning_tool rows returned\n\nCanonical vs staged split:\n- `public.claims` / `public.sources` / `public.claim_evidence` / `public.claim_edges` \u2014 no 7 Powers rows exist\n- `kb_stage.kb_proposals` \u2014 proposal `a64df080` is `approved` (reviewed 2026-06-29), but `applied_at` is empty\n- The full payload is rich: reasoning_tool node, 5 claims, 6 sources, lifecycle map, usage template, all staged \u2014 but none of it has been written to canonical tables\n\nStatus in one line: approved/staged, packet-ready, not canonical.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: Applying `a64df080` would write the reasoning_tool node, 5 claims, source rows, evidence links, and conceptual-neighborhood edges to `public.*` \u2014 but that apply requires explicit operator/admin authorization and a dedicated apply + postflight sequence, not a chat command. Want me to draft the admin review packet for that apply?",
|
|
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-10T01:18:04.148162+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": "2026-07-10T01:18:35.847964+00:00",
|
|
"evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
|
|
"mutates_kb": false,
|
|
"ok": true,
|
|
"prompt": "Did the decision matrix approve this already?",
|
|
"prompt_id": "DC-03",
|
|
"reply": "No. The decision-matrix path is not shipped.\n\nCurrent readback shows all three decision-matrix tables are absent in both schemas:\n\n- `kb_stage.matrix_voters` \u2014 missing\n- `kb_stage.proposal_votes` \u2014 missing\n- `kb_stage.proposal_decisions` \u2014 missing\n- Same for `public.*` \u2014 all missing\n\nWhat happened with `a64df080` is a human reviewer approval \u2014 m3ta reviewed and approved the proposal directly in `kb_stage.kb_proposals` on 2026-06-29. That is a single-reviewer sign-off, not a futarchy/decision-matrix vote.\n\nThe decision matrix described in Leo's telos (agentic capital gated by decision markets, no individual controls the call) does not exist yet as a working DB mechanism. Reviewer approval in the proposal ledger is not equivalent to a matrix vote.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: The proof-changing action here is two separate things \u2014 applying `a64df080` to canonical `public.*` (needs admin apply tooling), and shipping the decision-matrix schema (`matrix_voters`, `proposal_votes`, `proposal_decisions`) before any claim that the collective's governance path is live. Want me to draft the apply packet for `a64df080`, or flag the matrix schema gap as a proposal?",
|
|
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-10T01:18:24.075567+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": "2026-07-10T01:18:58.242285+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 a pointer mismatch \u2014 that's not the right single cause.\n\nLooking at the 14 pending proposals, they break into distinct categories with different blockers:\n\n3 canary add_edge proposals (8dfedb3f, 03f7853e, e60a48af) \u2014 these are infrastructure probes, not stuck. They are pending because they need human reviewer sign-off, not because of any source-pointer problem.\n\n1 add_edge (c824da66) \u2014 simple edge between two existing canonical claims. No source-pointer issue. Stuck on reviewer attention only.\n\n10 attach_evidence proposals \u2014 this is where your question has most traction, but the picture is layered:\n\n- Some (e987b07c, da53f198, e106ca60) are attaching primary source evidence to existing canonical reasoning-tool or claim nodes \u2014 the canonical claim row exists, the source just hasn't been formally linked. The pointer isn't broken, it's just not applied.\n- Some (416385fe, e60fa116, 23e896c2, a59311ae, 124942fd) carry concept maps, revised claim sets, or new framework nodes \u2014 the canonical source rows they reference may not exist yet because the proposal itself is what would create them. The \"pointer\" issue there is that `attach_evidence` is the wrong proposal type for create_claim/add_source work \u2014 the bridge doesn't expose those types, so the packets were shoehorned into `attach_evidence`.\n- bcec8528 (Agents United document) and f5036882 (strategy-kernel doc) are document evaluation proposals \u2014 truly pending human review, not pointer problems.\n\nThe actual blockers across the 14 pending:\n\n1. No reviewer attention \u2014 most are simply not reviewed yet\n2. Schema gap \u2014 the bridge lacks `add_claim` and `add_source` proposal types, so create-heavy packets are staged as `attach_evidence`, which makes apply logic ambiguous\n3. Apply tooling doesn't exist \u2014 even for the 3 approved proposals, there's no `teleo-kb apply-*` command, so canonical writes require manual operator action\n\nSource-pointer mismatch is a real layer but it's not the binding constraint. The binding constraint is missing apply tooling and missing reviewer action.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: The highest-leverage unblock is either (a) shipping a `teleo-kb apply-proposal <id>` command with postflight readback so approved proposals can be applied without ad hoc SQL, or (b) doing a concentrated review session on the 10 attach_evidence pending proposals to approve or cancel them. Want me to draft the apply-tooling spec or prep a review packet for the pending queue?",
|
|
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-10T01:18:35.848425+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": "2026-07-10T01:19:11.177130+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": "Yes, but the demo tier matters. Here's the split:\n\nSafe to demo right now \u2014 staging a proposal:\nLeo can write a real reviewable proposal to `kb_stage.kb_proposals` and read it back live. That's the proven path \u2014 canary proposals like `8dfedb3f` and `00957f6c` were created exactly this way from Telegram. You'd see the proposal appear in `list-proposals` with a real UUID, rationale, and payload. That's a genuine DB write, not a simulation.\n\nNot safe to demo from chat \u2014 canonical mutation:\nWriting to `public.claims`, `public.sources`, `public.claim_evidence`, or `public.claim_edges` requires explicit operator/admin authorization plus an apply + postflight sequence. No `teleo-kb apply-*` command exists yet, so canonical writes currently require manual operator SQL. Running that from chat without the apply tooling and retained before/after readback would be outside the guarded write policy.\n\nSo the demo question is really: what do you want to show?\n\n- \"Leo can propose KB changes\" \u2014 fully live, works now, compelling\n- \"Leo can apply approved proposals to canonical tables\" \u2014 not yet, blocked on apply tooling\n- \"The full loop: propose \u2192 review \u2192 apply \u2192 readback\" \u2014 partially live; propose and review work, apply is the missing step\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: If you want to run the staging demo now I can write a real test proposal to `kb_stage` and read it back in this chat. Or if the goal is the full loop demo, the proof-changing action is shipping `teleo-kb apply-proposal <id>` \u2014 want me to draft that spec?",
|
|
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-10T01:18:58.242992+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": "2026-07-10T01:19:21.982369+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\nSOUL.md is a runtime/rendered artifact. It's what gets injected into the session context at startup \u2014 the rendered output of the DB, not the source of truth. Editing the file changes what Leo reads at next wake, but it does not change canonical Postgres rows.\n\nCanonical Leo identity lives in:\n- `public.claims` \u2014 belief and position nodes\n- `public.sources` \u2014 evidence provenance\n- `public.claim_evidence` \u2014 evidence links\n- `public.claim_edges` \u2014 structural relationships between claims\n- Plus any reasoning_tool or agent-identity rows once those are applied\n\nA SOUL.md edit that isn't backed by a proposal \u2192 review \u2192 apply \u2192 postflight sequence to those tables is a runtime patch, not a canonical change. The next render cycle could overwrite it if the render pulls from DB.\n\nThe practical risk: if you made a correction in SOUL.md that should be collective truth \u2014 a belief revision, a strategy change, a falsification \u2014 and it's only in the file, it's at risk of being lost or diverging from what the DB says. It also can't be audited, reviewed, or traced back to evidence.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: If there are SOUL.md edits that should be canonical, the proof-changing action is staging them as a proposal to `kb_stage.kb_proposals` with the affected claim IDs and proposed changes, then applying after review. Want me to diff the current SOUL.md against what's in canonical `public.claims` to find any divergence?",
|
|
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-10T01:19:11.178010+00:00",
|
|
"turn": 6
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"service_before_after": {
|
|
"after": {
|
|
"ActiveState": "active",
|
|
"ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Fri 2026-07-10 01:04:22 UTC",
|
|
"MainPID": "1908033",
|
|
"NRestarts": "0",
|
|
"SubState": "running"
|
|
},
|
|
"before": {
|
|
"ActiveState": "active",
|
|
"ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Fri 2026-07-10 01:04:22 UTC",
|
|
"MainPID": "1908033",
|
|
"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-direct-claim-suite-current.json",
|
|
"temp_profile_removed": true
|
|
}
|