150 lines
15 KiB
JSON
150 lines
15 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"before_service": {
|
|
"ActiveState": "active",
|
|
"ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Sun 2026-07-12 09:14:10 UTC",
|
|
"MainPID": "2403328",
|
|
"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": "2026-07-12T23:34:10.194914+00:00",
|
|
"handler": {
|
|
"authorized": true,
|
|
"session_key": "agent:main:telegram:group:-5146042086:9070919",
|
|
"temp_profile": "/tmp/leo-direct-claim-handler-nk9tbkkh/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-7cc3e67b1e75.json",
|
|
"remote_returncode": 0,
|
|
"remote_run_id": "7cc3e67b1e75",
|
|
"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": "2026-07-12T23:34:35.376584+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. Only 2 of 26 have actually landed in canonical `public.*`.\n\nDirect answer: Approved is not the same as applied.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nBreakdown by status:\n- `applied`: 2 \u2014 these actually changed canonical rows\n- `approved`: 3 \u2014 reviewed and approved, but `applied_at: none` (database NULL) on all three; not in `public.*` yet\n- `pending_review`: 14 \u2014 staged, no review\n- `canceled`: 7 \u2014 killed before review\n\nThe 3 approved-but-not-applied proposals are:\n\n`14fa5ecc` \u2014 split compressed internet-finance/capital-allocation claim; approved 2026-07-05; `applied_at: none`\n\n`ac036c9d` \u2014 strategy-kernel / claim-node hygiene / Hayek anchor reframing; approved 2026-07-05; `applied_at: none`\n\n`a64df080` \u2014 Helmer 7 Powers framework packet (revised, self-positioning removed); approved 2026-06-29; `applied_at: none`\n\nSo three substantive packets have reviewer sign-off but zero canonical rows have changed as a result. The canonical DB is still reflecting whatever existed before those approvals.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: run the admin review packet for one of those three (probably `a64df080` or `ac036c9d` first) and authorize the apply path \u2014 that's the one action that moves a proposal from approved to canonical.",
|
|
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-12T23:34:11.006772+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": "2026-07-12T23:34:53.994564+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 `search` returned zero 7 Powers claims from `public.*` \u2014 the framework search hit unrelated claims (healthcare/autonomous-weapons), not Helmer nodes. That confirms no canonical rows exist yet.\n\nWhat exists and what doesn't:\n\nStaged (kb_stage only):\n- Proposal `a64df080` is approved-with-changes by m3ta\n- Full payload is ready: reasoning_tool node, 5 proposed claims (benefit/barrier definitions for all 7 powers, power progression, counter-positioning, network economies vs. network effects, Leo usage template), 6 source candidates with local research files at `/home/teleo/.hermes/profiles/leoclean/kb_stage/research/7powers/`\n\nNot canonical (public.* is empty):\n- No `public.sources` rows for Helmer book, Acquired transcript, NFX article, etc.\n- No `public.claims` rows for the 5 proposed claims\n- No `public.claim_evidence` or `public.claim_edges` linking them\n- No reasoning_tool node\n\nApproved is not the same as applied.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: authorize the apply path for `a64df080` \u2014 that's the one action that creates the source rows, claim rows, evidence links, and reasoning_tool node in `public.*` and makes 7 Powers canonical in Leo.",
|
|
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-12T23:34:35.377089+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": "2026-07-12T23:35:06.698925+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 three required tables exist anywhere in the DB:\n\n- `matrix_voters`: absent\n- `proposal_votes`: absent\n- `proposal_decisions`: absent\n\nWhat `a64df080` has is m3ta reviewer approval recorded in `kb_stage.kb_proposals` \u2014 that's a human reviewer sign-off in the proposal ledger, not a futarchy/decision-matrix vote. The distinction matters: the guiding policy says agentic capital is eventually gated by decision markets so no individual controls the call. Right now that infrastructure doesn't exist, so the current approval path is reviewer-only (m3ta signed off June 29).\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: decision-matrix is a future build \u2014 if you want to unblock 7 Powers now, the available path is explicit operator/admin authorization of the apply step for `a64df080`, not waiting for a matrix that doesn't exist yet.",
|
|
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-12T23:34:53.994853+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": "2026-07-12T23:35:27.564235+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 picture is more layered than that.\n\nLooking at the 14 pending proposals, the actual blockers sort into distinct categories:\n\n1. No reviewer has touched them. The 3 canary `add_edge` proposals (`8dfedb3f`, `03f7853e`, `e60a48af`) are canary/readiness tests \u2014 they were never meant to be substantive reviews. The substantive `attach_evidence` proposals (`f5036882`, `bcec8528`, `e987b07c`, `23e896c2`, `da53f198`, `e106ca60`, `e60fa116`, `416385fe`, etc.) are just sitting without a reviewer decision. That's the primary blocker.\n\n2. Apply tooling gap. Even the 3 approved proposals (`a64df080`, `14fa5ecc`, `ac036c9d`) have `applied_at: none`. The bridge can stage proposals but has no `teleo-kb apply-*` command exposed yet. The production apply worker and permission migration are still disabled. So approved proposals are packet-ready but not mechanically applyable from normal chat.\n\n3. Source pointer concern is real but secondary. The `attach_evidence` proposals carry `source_ref` keys pointing at local research files and Telegram message refs, not at existing `public.sources` row IDs. When apply runs, it would need to either find matching canonical source rows or create new ones. That row-link audit hasn't been done. But this doesn't explain why the proposals are pending \u2014 they're pending because no reviewer has looked at them, not because the source refs are broken.\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nThe layers in order: raw local files, Telegram message refs, document evaluations, proposal `source_ref` keys, and canonical `public.sources` rows are all different things. A pointer audit would confirm which pending proposals have source keys that already resolve to canonical rows versus which would require new source creation at apply time. But that audit is a pre-apply step, not what's currently blocking.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: the fastest unblock is reviewer decisions on the pending substantive proposals \u2014 that collapses 14 pending to a smaller approved set \u2014 then a row-link audit on those approved payloads before authorizing the apply path.",
|
|
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-12T23:35:06.699389+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": "2026-07-12T23:35:41.390891+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\nHere's the exact current tier:\n\nTier 1 \u2014 Live proven from chat:\nThe strict existing-ID `add_edge` path works end to end. Leo can stage a real `add_edge` proposal to `kb_stage.kb_proposals`, you can read it back with `teleo-kb show-proposal`, and the row is durable in Postgres. That's a real DB write you can watch happen live. The canary proposals (`8dfedb3f`, `00957f6c`) prove this path.\n\nTier 2 \u2014 Clone-proven, not production-live:\nGuarded `approve_claim` bundles and the rich packet set (sources + claims + evidence + edges in one apply payload) are proven in a clone environment behind separate reviewer and apply roles. Production permission migration and the apply worker remain disabled.\n\nTier 3 \u2014 Not available from chat:\nCurrent approved legacy packets (`a64df080`, `14fa5ecc`, `ac036c9d`) do not have strict `apply_payload` structure the worker requires. They are not worker-applyable as-is.\n\nApproved is not the same as applied.\n\nWhat a safe live demo looks like:\n- Stage a real `add_edge` proposal between two existing claim IDs \u2192 Leo writes a row to `kb_stage.kb_proposals`\n- Read it back immediately with `teleo-kb show-proposal <id>` \u2192 confirms durable DB write\n- That is a genuine Leo-to-KB write you can watch in real time\n\nWhat it cannot show:\n- A canonical `public.claims`, `public.sources`, or `public.claim_edges` mutation \u2014 that requires explicit operator/admin authorization, the matching reviewed apply path, and retained before/after postflight readback. Not a normal chat command.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: pick two existing claim IDs and I can run the live `add_edge` demo right now \u2014 you'd see the proposal land in `kb_stage` and be immediately readable.",
|
|
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-12T23:35:27.564991+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": "2026-07-12T23:35:53.159271+00:00",
|
|
"evidence_tier": "live_vps_gatewayrunner_temp_profile",
|
|
"mutates_kb": false,
|
|
"ok": true,
|
|
"prompt": "If we changed SOUL.md, did we change Leo's canonical identity?",
|
|
"prompt_id": "DC-06",
|
|
"reply": "No.\n\n`SOUL.md` is a runtime/rendered artifact. It is not canonical Postgres, not the source of truth, and not collective truth. Direct edits to it affect the next runtime session's context injection but do not touch the DB.\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\nThe render pipeline goes in one direction: DB \u2192 SOUL.md, not the reverse. Editing the rendered file is like editing a PDF exported from a database \u2014 the source stays what it was.\n\nWhat \"canonical identity change\" actually requires:\n- New or updated rows in the relevant `public.*` tables\n- A proposal staged, reviewed, and applied through the guarded path\n- Before/after postflight readback confirming the rows exist\n- Render/sync proof that the next SOUL.md generation pulls from the new rows\n\nDB readback: claims: `1837`; sources: `4145`; claim_edges: `4916`; claim_evidence: `4670`; kb_proposals: `26`.\n\nThose counts have not moved in this session. No identity rows changed.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: if a specific SOUL.md edit is meant to be canonical, the right move is staging it as a proposal (beliefs, positions, or identity claim type) and routing it through the review/apply path \u2014 that's the only write that sticks beyond the current runtime session.",
|
|
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-12T23:35:41.391572+00:00",
|
|
"turn": 6
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"service_before_after": {
|
|
"after": {
|
|
"ActiveState": "active",
|
|
"ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Sun 2026-07-12 09:14:10 UTC",
|
|
"MainPID": "2403328",
|
|
"NRestarts": "0",
|
|
"SubState": "running"
|
|
},
|
|
"before": {
|
|
"ActiveState": "active",
|
|
"ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Sun 2026-07-12 09:14:10 UTC",
|
|
"MainPID": "2403328",
|
|
"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
|
|
}
|