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": "2026-07-10T01:28:19.543524+00:00",
|
|
"handler": {
|
|
"authorized": true,
|
|
"session_key": "agent:main:telegram:group:-5146042086:9070919",
|
|
"temp_profile": "/tmp/leo-direct-claim-handler-n5n57xjg/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-1fdfff0f6daa.json",
|
|
"remote_returncode": 0,
|
|
"remote_run_id": "1fdfff0f6daa",
|
|
"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": "2026-07-10T01:28:49.936440+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 is the exact state from current readback:\n\nApplied to canonical public.* (2 rows):\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 \u2014 applied_at still empty (3 rows):\n- `14fa5ecc` \u2014 attach_evidence, internet-finance/capital-allocation claim split\n- `ac036c9d` \u2014 attach_evidence, strategy-kernel/claim hygiene + Hayek reframe\n- `a64df080` \u2014 attach_evidence, Helmer 7 Powers framework packet (approved 2026-06-29, sitting for 10 days)\n\nPending review (not yet approved or applied): ~18 proposals across concept maps, source groundings, edge links, and canary tests\n\nCancelled: ~6 drafts superseded during revision cycles\n\nTruth ceiling: I cannot claim the KB changed beyond those 2 applied rows until public.* readback plus applied_at/postflight proof says otherwise. The 3 approved proposals are staged and packet-ready but not canonical.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: The most overdue action is applying the 3 approved proposals \u2014 especially `a64df080` (Helmer 7 Powers, 10 days stale) and `ac036c9d`/`14fa5ecc` (strategy-kernel hygiene). That requires explicit operator/admin authorization and a dedicated apply-with-postflight sequence, not a chat command.",
|
|
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-10T01:28:20.000051+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": "2026-07-10T01:29:12.540917+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\nClaim: proposal `a64df080` is approved (m3ta approved-with-changes on 2026-06-29) but `applied_at` is empty. Nothing from this packet has landed in `public.*`.\n\nWhat the search confirmed:\n- `public.claims` \u2014 no Helmer 7 Powers rows; search returned two unrelated healthcare and autonomous-weapons claims\n- `kb_stage.kb_proposals` \u2014 proposal `a64df080` is `approved`, not `applied`\n\nWhat the proposal contains (staged but not canonical):\n- A `reasoning_tool` node: Helmer 7 Powers framework\n- 5 proposed claims (benefit/barrier logic, power progression, counter-positioning, network effects, agentic capital)\n- 6 source candidates (book, official site, Acquired transcripts, NFX article)\n- Edge links into moats/competitive-advantage neighborhood\n- 1 deferred downstream Teleo self-positioning claim (correctly separated per m3ta's changes)\n\nStatus summary:\n- Canonical public.* rows: 0\n- Staging: fully detailed packet in `a64df080`, approved 10 days ago\n- applied_at: empty\n\nI cannot claim 7 Powers is in Leo until `public.sources`, `public.claims`, `public.claim_evidence`, `public.claim_edges`, and a `reasoning_tool` row exist with postflight proof.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: apply proposal `a64df080` \u2014 that requires explicit operator/admin authorization and a dedicated apply-with-postflight sequence. If no `teleo-kb apply-proposal` command exists yet, the next step is drafting or refreshing the admin review packet so a reviewer can authorize and run it.",
|
|
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-10T01:28:49.936851+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": "2026-07-10T01:29:25.235636+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 has not approved this \u2014 the decision matrix does not exist yet.\n\nCurrent readback:\n\n- `kb_stage.matrix_voters`: absent\n- `kb_stage.proposal_votes`: absent\n- `kb_stage.proposal_decisions`: absent\n- Same for all `public.*` equivalents\n\nThe decision-matrix approval path is not shipped. Zero tables, zero votes, zero decisions.\n\nWhat actually happened: m3ta approved proposal `a64df080` directly via chat on 2026-06-29. That reviewer approval is recorded in `kb_stage.kb_proposals.reviewed_at` and the proposal status is `approved`. That is a human reviewer sign-off, not a futarchy/decision-matrix vote.\n\nCanonical split:\n- Reviewer approval (m3ta in chat): yes, done\n- Decision-matrix vote: not possible, schema not built\n- Applied to public.*: no\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: decide whether `a64df080` should be applied on the strength of m3ta's direct reviewer approval alone (the current governance reality), or wait until decision-matrix infrastructure ships before any KB apply counts as matrix-gated. That policy call changes what \"approved\" means for the apply step.",
|
|
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-10T01:29:12.541359+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": "2026-07-10T01:30:36.785028+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 the picture is more layered than that.\n\nWhat the readback shows:\n\npublic.sources has 15 rows, all article type, all seeded on 2026-06-15. None of them are the Rumelt PDF, 7 Powers transcripts, Hayek paper, Markov blanket paper, or any Telegram-attached document.\n\nThe 14 pending proposals break down by source_ref type:\n- `telegram-attachment:Good Strategy_Bad Strategy.pdf` \u2014 3 proposals pointing at a raw Telegram file path, not a public.sources row\n- `telegram-resolved-attachment:doc_996e2e86cd94_...` \u2014 resolved local cache path, still not a public.sources row\n- `telegram-thread:...` \u2014 chat thread refs with no canonical source row\n- `telegram-doc:/home/teleo/...` \u2014 local file path, not a source row\n- `codex:...` \u2014 canary test refs, never meant to land as sources\n- `telegram-url:https://luma.com/...` \u2014 external URL, no source row yet\n- `telegram-live-leo-kb-edge-test-...` \u2014 test marker\n\nkb_stage.document_evaluations has exactly 1 row \u2014 rejected as out of scope. No documents have been evaluated and promoted to source candidates.\n\nSo the real diagnosis:\n\nThe proposals are not stuck because they point at the wrong source rows. They are stuck because the source rows do not exist at all. There is no path from \"PDF ingested via Telegram\" through document_evaluations into public.sources. That canonicalization step was never run.\n\nThree separate layers are missing, not one:\n1. Raw files and Telegram refs are not the same as document evaluations\n2. Document evaluations are not the same as public.sources rows\n3. public.sources rows are not the same as approved+applied proposals\n\nThe add_edge proposals (c824da66, the canary tests) are differently stuck \u2014 their claim row refs exist, but they have no reviewer sign-off.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: the missing proof is a document-to-source canonicalization pass \u2014 run record-document-evaluation or propose-attachment-evaluation for the Rumelt PDF, 7 Powers sources, and Hayek/Schrodinger papers, get them into public.sources, then re-link the dependent proposals before requesting reviewer sign-off.",
|
|
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-10T01:29:25.236019+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": "2026-07-10T01:30:49.249945+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, with two distinct tiers. Here is what is safe vs. what requires authorization:\n\nSafe demo (no authorization needed):\n- Stage a real write to `kb_stage.kb_proposals` via the bridge and read it back immediately\n- This proves the full path: Telegram message \u2192 Leo \u2192 `propose-edge` or `propose-attachment-evaluation` \u2192 DB row appears \u2192 `show-proposal` confirms it\n- That is the canonical write surface Leo has \u2014 the proposal ledger is designed for this\n- You can watch the row appear in real time\n\nRequires explicit operator/admin authorization (not from chat alone):\n- Writing to `public.claims`, `public.sources`, `public.claim_evidence`, or `public.claim_edges`\n- Applying an approved proposal to canonical tables\n- Any INSERT/UPDATE that changes what the KB actually says\n\nWhat the safe demo would look like in practice:\n1. I call `propose-edge` with two real claim IDs and a rationale\n2. Bridge returns a proposal ID\n3. I call `show-proposal <id>` and we see the row live in the DB\n4. That is a real write, not a simulation\n\nWhat it does NOT show:\n- The claim actually changing \u2014 the proposal sits in `pending_review` until a reviewer applies it\n- The decision-matrix path \u2014 that schema doesn't exist yet\n\nSay the word and I'll run the staging write now. I'd pick two existing claims with a defensible edge so the demo row is also useful, not throwaway noise.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: confirm whether you want the demo staged now, and whether you want a canary throwaway edge or a real pending proposal worth keeping.",
|
|
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-10T01:30:36.785538+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": "2026-07-10T01:31:03.031887+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 \u2014 it is what gets injected into this session as context. Editing it changes what Leo reads at session start. It does not touch the DB.\n\nCanonical identity lives in Postgres:\n- `public.claims` \u2014 belief and position nodes\n- `public.sources` \u2014 evidence backing those nodes\n- `public.claim_evidence` and `public.claim_edges` \u2014 the provenance graph\n\nA SOUL.md edit can affect the next runtime session immediately. It cannot change a single canonical row.\n\nThe gap matters in practice:\n- If you edited SOUL.md to add a belief, Leo will act on it this session \u2014 but no DB row records it, no reviewer approved it, no provenance chain exists\n- If the SOUL.md file is regenerated or overwritten from the DB, the edit disappears\n- The behavioral rule in my identity confirms this: \"Canonical KB writes are locked... Do not treat a chat statement, runtime memory, or a staged proposal as canonical truth\"\n\nWhat canonical identity change actually requires:\n1. A proposal staged to `kb_stage.kb_proposals`\n2. Reviewer approval (`reviewed_at` set)\n3. Applied to `public.*` with postflight proof\n4. SOUL.md regenerated from the updated DB rows\n\nReadback used: doctrine from the teleo-kb-bridge skill plus the `public.sources` / `public.claims` schema confirmed in this session. No DB query needed \u2014 this is a structural answer, not a data question.\n\nNext Cory-style follow-up: if a specific SOUL.md edit was made and you want it canonical, the path is staging it as a proposal now and running the apply sequence with authorization \u2014 I can draft that proposal from the edit if you share what changed.",
|
|
"started_at_utc": "2026-07-10T01:30:49.250360+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
|
|
}
|