teleo-infrastructure/docs/reports/leo-working-state-20260709/telegram-live-canary-current.json

{
  "generated_at_local": "2026-07-09T19:34:00.405Z",
  "surface": "Telegram Web in authenticated Chrome, Leo group web.telegram.org/a/#-5146042086",
  "authorization": "User explicitly authorized live Telegram bot testing in the Leo group in the current turn.",
  "messages_sent": [
    {
      "turn": 1,
      "text": "leo LIVE-VPS-CORY-CANARY-20260709-T1 read-only Telegram-visible test. Do not change the KB. Remember marker WL-LIVE-TG-CORY-20260709 and correction: approved is not the same as applied. Reply with LIVE_TG_TURN1_ACK and one short sentence.",
      "visible_send_time": "2026-07-09 21:31 Europe/Zurich"
    },
    {
      "turn": 2,
      "text": "leo LIVE-VPS-CORY-CANARY-20260709-T2 what marker and correction are in scope from the previous turn? Then do a read-only KB audit: say whether proposal 00957f6c-9883-4015-95a4-6b09367efb0e is applied and whether edge c167933e-d513-4f43-9335-d5d8aeb259f2 exists in public.claim_edges. Do not change the KB.",
      "visible_send_time": "2026-07-09 21:32 Europe/Zurich"
    }
  ],
  "observed_replies": {
    "turn1_summary": "LIVE_TG_TURN1_ACK Marker WL-LIVE-TG-CORY-20260709 noted: approved != applied.",
    "turn2_summary": "Read-only audit complete. Marker WL-LIVE-TG-CORY-20260709; proposal 00957f6c-9883-4015-95a4-6b09367efb0e status applied; edge c167933e-d513-4f43-9335-d5d8aeb259f2 exists in public.claim_edges and canonical row exists."
  },
  "proof_screenshots": {
    "turn1": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/telegram-live-canary-20260709/telegram-live-turn1-reply.jpeg",
    "turn2": "/Users/user/Documents/Codex/2026-07-09/019f34eb-d297-72d0-b7e2-b222d5515ab9-load/outputs/telegram-live-canary-20260709/telegram-live-turn2-reply.jpeg"
  },
  "turn1_relevant_lines": [
    {
      "line": 66,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t64 link Description: Leo Leo 21:31 Leo : LIVE_TG_TURN1_ACK Marker WL-LIVE-TG-CORY-20260709 noted: approved \u2260 applied., Value: web.telegram.org/a/#-5146042086"
    },
    {
      "line": 403,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t401 text Leo, m3taversal later asked: \"was this implemented? seems like it would require creating new rows, no?\" Context: the approved split was to supersede the compressed claim \"Internet finance is the coordination mechanism for capital allocation\" into separate claims about capital allocation as civilizational steering, Hayek/distributed knowledge, internet finance structural advantages, and internet finance as mechanism not telos. Check canonical KB and staged proposals, then answer: applied, pending, or missing 02:02"
    },
    {
      "line": 413,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t411 text Clear picture. Here's the full honest answer. --- Status: approved but not applied. Proposal 14fa5ecc is marked "
    },
    {
      "line": 471,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t469 text field (settable, string) public.claim_edges"
    },
    {
      "line": 472,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t470 text public.claim_edges"
    },
    {
      "line": 492,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t490 text Good. Full picture now. Here's the clean breakdown. --- Which part is only edges (no new rows needed) One thing and one thing only fits this: the Hayek reframing edge. Claim 7da4851c already exists canonically. The approved proposal ac036c9d includes a "
    },
    {
      "line": 505,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t503 text field (settable, string) public.claim_edges"
    },
    {
      "line": 506,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t504 text public.claim_edges"
    },
    {
      "line": 508,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t506 text field (settable, string) public.claim_edges"
    },
    {
      "line": 509,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t507 text public.claim_edges"
    },
    {
      "line": 523,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t521 text field (settable, string) public.claim_edges"
    },
    {
      "line": 524,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t522 text public.claim_edges"
    },
    {
      "line": 534,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t532 text Note on c0000000-0000-0000-0000-00000000000c: \"Capital allocation is civilizational infrastructure, not a financial service\" already exists canonically at 0.80 confidence. Claim A in the split is adjacent to but distinct from this \u2014 it's about allocation as steering, not just infrastructure. They should be wired together via an edge, not collapsed. --- What should appear in an admin review panel before apply Three clear groups: Group 1 \u2014 edges only, safe to apply immediately, no new rows: - Wire 7da4851c (Hayek) "
    },
    {
      "line": 549,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t547 text This can only run after at least one successor row from Group 3 exists to put in the "
    },
    {
      "line": 566,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t564 text field (settable, string) public.claim_edges"
    },
    {
      "line": 567,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t565 text public.claim_edges"
    },
    {
      "line": 569,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t567 text field (settable, string) applied"
    },
    {
      "line": 570,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t568 text applied"
    },
    {
      "line": 628,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t626 text field (settable, string) applied"
    },
    {
      "line": 629,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t627 text applied"
    },
    {
      "line": 631,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t629 text field (settable, string) applied_at 2026-07-05 00:14:36"
    },
    {
      "line": 632,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t630 text applied_at 2026-07-05 00:14:36"
    },
    {
      "line": 633,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t631 text . That's the guiding-policy revision proposal that contained these anchors. So m3ta's recollection is right that they were approved \u2014 and the DB confirms they were also applied. --- What was NOT implemented and where the review queue actually sits These done. The outstanding items are different proposals: 14fa5ecc \u2014 "
    },
    {
      "line": 636,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t634 text , not applied. The internet-finance/capital-allocation claim split (4 new successor claims + supersession of d0000000). Requires new claim rows. Not touched. ac036c9d \u2014 "
    },
    {
      "line": 639,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t637 text , not applied. KB node format standard + Hayek reframe claim. Requires new rows. Not touched. a64df080 \u2014 "
    },
    {
      "line": 642,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t640 text , not applied. Helmer 7 Powers framework. Requires new reasoning_tool row + concept nodes. Not touched. One live complication: anchor 47f128a0 currently wires the \"Multi-agent public intelligence\" policy node "
    },
    {
      "line": 645,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t643 text the old compressed claim d0000000 (\"Internet finance is the coordination mechanism for capital allocation...\"). That claim is the one flagged for supersession in 14fa5ecc. When the split is applied and d0000000 is retired, that anchor will point to a retired claim. It should be replaced with an anchor to one of the successor claims (probably Claim D: \"internet finance is a candidate mechanism, not the telos\"). --- What should happen next in the review flow Step 1 \u2014 no new rows needed, safe now: confirm edges 1-4 are applied (done, confirmed above). No action needed here. Step 2 \u2014 apply 14fa5ecc (claim split): create 4 successor claim rows, source rows, evidence links, edges, retire d0000000, update anchor 47f128a0 to point to Claim D. Requires authorized direct SQL. Step 3 \u2014 apply ac036c9d (Hayek reframe + format standard): create the reframed Hayek claim row, source/evidence rows. Requires authorized direct SQL. Step 4 \u2014 apply a64df080 (7 Powers): create reasoning_tool row + child concept nodes. Requires authorized direct SQL. Step 5 \u2014 mark all three proposals "
    },
    {
      "line": 646,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t644 text field (settable, string) applied"
    },
    {
      "line": 647,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t645 text applied"
    },
    {
      "line": 659,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t657 text Leo, on that same approved-vs-applied point: what should the next admin review panel show before any apply happens? 02:14"
    },
    {
      "line": 666,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t664 text Leo, on that same approved-vs-applied point: what should the next admin review panel show before any apply happens? Billy | attn.markets"
    },
    {
      "line": 670,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t668 text \u00d7 4 (A: civilizational steering 0.65, B: distributed knowledge 0.70, C: structural advantages 0.45, D: mechanism not telos 0.80) - INSERT public.claim_evidence \u00d7 N linking each claim to source rows - INSERT public.claim_edges \u00d7 N wiring successors to each other and to 7da4851c, c0000000-0000-0000-0000-00000000000c, d2dc817d - UPDATE "
    },
    {
      "line": 672,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t670 text SET superseded_by = [Claim A uuid], status = 'retired' WHERE id = 'd0000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000005' - UPDATE public.strategy_node_anchors SET claim_id = [Claim D uuid] WHERE id = '47f128a0-36c5-4b60-97d4-48c32fa48bc7' (replaces the stale anchor pointing to the retiring claim) - UPDATE kb_stage.kb_proposals SET status = 'applied' ... WHERE id = '14fa5ecc...' The panel should also show what will NOT be created \u2014 C is approved as a research-queue thesis only, confidence 0.45, and should be flagged as such in the row preview so the applier doesn't accidentally treat it as a canonical structural claim. For ac036c9d: - INSERT public.sources \u00d7 1 (Hayek FEE snapshot, already staged locally) - INSERT "
    },
    {
      "line": 674,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t672 text \u00d7 2 (reframed Hayek claim 0.80, claim-nodes-need-bodies governance claim 0.85) - INSERT public.claim_evidence \u00d7 N - UPDATE kb_stage.kb_proposals SET status = 'applied'... For a64df080: - INSERT public.reasoning_tools \u00d7 1 (helmer-7-powers, shared scope) - INSERT "
    },
    {
      "line": 676,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t674 text \u00d7 8 (one concept node per power + one parent framework node \u2014 type='concept') - INSERT public.claim_edges linking powers to each other, to existing competitive-advantage neighbors (8f3e773e, 2ef388ab), and to the conceptual neighborhood - UPDATE kb_stage.kb_proposals SET status = 'applied'... - No Teleo self-positioning claims \u2014 those were explicitly deferred. --- Section 3 \u2014 Dependency and ordering constraints Shown as a blocking graph, not prose: 14fa5ecc has an internal ordering constraint: source INSERTs must precede claim INSERTs (FK), claim INSERTs must precede evidence INSERTs (FK), all of those must precede the d0000000 UPDATE (superseded_by FK must point to an existing row), and the anchor UPDATE must come last. 14fa5ecc and ac036c9d are independent \u2014 can apply in either order. a64df080 is independent of both. (1/2) 02:15"
    },
    {
      "line": 684,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t682 text leo LIVE-VPS-CORY-CANARY-20260709-T1 read-only Telegram-visible test. Do not change the KB. Remember marker WL-LIVE-TG-CORY-20260709 and correction: approved is not the same as applied. Reply with LIVE_TG_TURN1_ACK and one short sentence. 21:31"
    },
    {
      "line": 692,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t690 text leo LIVE-VPS-CORY-CANARY-20260709-T1 read-only Telegram-visible test. Do not change the KB. Remember marker WL-LIVE-TG-CORY-20260709 and correction: approved is not the same as applied. Reply with LIV... Billy | attn.markets"
    },
    {
      "line": 694,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t692 text LIVE_TG_TURN1_ACK Marker WL-LIVE-TG-CORY-20260709 noted: approved \u2260 applied. 21:31"
    }
  ],
  "turn2_relevant_lines": [
    {
      "line": 66,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t64 link Value: web.telegram.org/a/#-5146042086, Description: Leo Leo 21:33 Leo : Read-only audit complete. Marker in scope: WL-LIVE-TG-CORY-20260709, correction: approved is not the same as applied. Proposal 00957f6c-9883-4015-95a4-6b09367efb0e Status: applied (per kb_stage.kb_pr..."
    },
    {
      "line": 403,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t401 text Leo, m3taversal later asked: \"was this implemented? seems like it would require creating new rows, no?\" Context: the approved split was to supersede the compressed claim \"Internet finance is the coordination mechanism for capital allocation\" into separate claims about capital allocation as civilizational steering, Hayek/distributed knowledge, internet finance structural advantages, and internet finance as mechanism not telos. Check canonical KB and staged proposals, then answer: applied, pending, or missing 02:02"
    },
    {
      "line": 413,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t411 text Clear picture. Here's the full honest answer. --- Status: approved but not applied. Proposal 14fa5ecc is marked "
    },
    {
      "line": 471,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t469 text field (settable, string) public.claim_edges"
    },
    {
      "line": 472,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t470 text public.claim_edges"
    },
    {
      "line": 492,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t490 text Good. Full picture now. Here's the clean breakdown. --- Which part is only edges (no new rows needed) One thing and one thing only fits this: the Hayek reframing edge. Claim 7da4851c already exists canonically. The approved proposal ac036c9d includes a "
    },
    {
      "line": 505,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t503 text field (settable, string) public.claim_edges"
    },
    {
      "line": 506,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t504 text public.claim_edges"
    },
    {
      "line": 508,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t506 text field (settable, string) public.claim_edges"
    },
    {
      "line": 509,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t507 text public.claim_edges"
    },
    {
      "line": 523,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t521 text field (settable, string) public.claim_edges"
    },
    {
      "line": 524,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t522 text public.claim_edges"
    },
    {
      "line": 534,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t532 text Note on c0000000-0000-0000-0000-00000000000c: \"Capital allocation is civilizational infrastructure, not a financial service\" already exists canonically at 0.80 confidence. Claim A in the split is adjacent to but distinct from this \u2014 it's about allocation as steering, not just infrastructure. They should be wired together via an edge, not collapsed. --- What should appear in an admin review panel before apply Three clear groups: Group 1 \u2014 edges only, safe to apply immediately, no new rows: - Wire 7da4851c (Hayek) "
    },
    {
      "line": 549,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t547 text This can only run after at least one successor row from Group 3 exists to put in the "
    },
    {
      "line": 566,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t564 text field (settable, string) public.claim_edges"
    },
    {
      "line": 567,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t565 text public.claim_edges"
    },
    {
      "line": 569,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t567 text field (settable, string) applied"
    },
    {
      "line": 570,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t568 text applied"
    },
    {
      "line": 628,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t626 text field (settable, string) applied"
    },
    {
      "line": 629,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t627 text applied"
    },
    {
      "line": 631,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t629 text field (settable, string) applied_at 2026-07-05 00:14:36"
    },
    {
      "line": 632,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t630 text applied_at 2026-07-05 00:14:36"
    },
    {
      "line": 633,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t631 text . That's the guiding-policy revision proposal that contained these anchors. So m3ta's recollection is right that they were approved \u2014 and the DB confirms they were also applied. --- What was NOT implemented and where the review queue actually sits These done. The outstanding items are different proposals: 14fa5ecc \u2014 "
    },
    {
      "line": 636,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t634 text , not applied. The internet-finance/capital-allocation claim split (4 new successor claims + supersession of d0000000). Requires new claim rows. Not touched. ac036c9d \u2014 "
    },
    {
      "line": 639,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t637 text , not applied. KB node format standard + Hayek reframe claim. Requires new rows. Not touched. a64df080 \u2014 "
    },
    {
      "line": 642,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t640 text , not applied. Helmer 7 Powers framework. Requires new reasoning_tool row + concept nodes. Not touched. One live complication: anchor 47f128a0 currently wires the \"Multi-agent public intelligence\" policy node "
    },
    {
      "line": 645,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t643 text the old compressed claim d0000000 (\"Internet finance is the coordination mechanism for capital allocation...\"). That claim is the one flagged for supersession in 14fa5ecc. When the split is applied and d0000000 is retired, that anchor will point to a retired claim. It should be replaced with an anchor to one of the successor claims (probably Claim D: \"internet finance is a candidate mechanism, not the telos\"). --- What should happen next in the review flow Step 1 \u2014 no new rows needed, safe now: confirm edges 1-4 are applied (done, confirmed above). No action needed here. Step 2 \u2014 apply 14fa5ecc (claim split): create 4 successor claim rows, source rows, evidence links, edges, retire d0000000, update anchor 47f128a0 to point to Claim D. Requires authorized direct SQL. Step 3 \u2014 apply ac036c9d (Hayek reframe + format standard): create the reframed Hayek claim row, source/evidence rows. Requires authorized direct SQL. Step 4 \u2014 apply a64df080 (7 Powers): create reasoning_tool row + child concept nodes. Requires authorized direct SQL. Step 5 \u2014 mark all three proposals "
    },
    {
      "line": 646,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t644 text field (settable, string) applied"
    },
    {
      "line": 647,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t645 text applied"
    },
    {
      "line": 659,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t657 text Leo, on that same approved-vs-applied point: what should the next admin review panel show before any apply happens? 02:14"
    },
    {
      "line": 666,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t664 text Leo, on that same approved-vs-applied point: what should the next admin review panel show before any apply happens? Billy | attn.markets"
    },
    {
      "line": 670,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t668 text \u00d7 4 (A: civilizational steering 0.65, B: distributed knowledge 0.70, C: structural advantages 0.45, D: mechanism not telos 0.80) - INSERT public.claim_evidence \u00d7 N linking each claim to source rows - INSERT public.claim_edges \u00d7 N wiring successors to each other and to 7da4851c, c0000000-0000-0000-0000-00000000000c, d2dc817d - UPDATE "
    },
    {
      "line": 672,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t670 text SET superseded_by = [Claim A uuid], status = 'retired' WHERE id = 'd0000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000005' - UPDATE public.strategy_node_anchors SET claim_id = [Claim D uuid] WHERE id = '47f128a0-36c5-4b60-97d4-48c32fa48bc7' (replaces the stale anchor pointing to the retiring claim) - UPDATE kb_stage.kb_proposals SET status = 'applied' ... WHERE id = '14fa5ecc...' The panel should also show what will NOT be created \u2014 C is approved as a research-queue thesis only, confidence 0.45, and should be flagged as such in the row preview so the applier doesn't accidentally treat it as a canonical structural claim. For ac036c9d: - INSERT public.sources \u00d7 1 (Hayek FEE snapshot, already staged locally) - INSERT "
    },
    {
      "line": 674,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t672 text \u00d7 2 (reframed Hayek claim 0.80, claim-nodes-need-bodies governance claim 0.85) - INSERT public.claim_evidence \u00d7 N - UPDATE kb_stage.kb_proposals SET status = 'applied'... For a64df080: - INSERT public.reasoning_tools \u00d7 1 (helmer-7-powers, shared scope) - INSERT "
    },
    {
      "line": 676,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t674 text \u00d7 8 (one concept node per power + one parent framework node \u2014 type='concept') - INSERT public.claim_edges linking powers to each other, to existing competitive-advantage neighbors (8f3e773e, 2ef388ab), and to the conceptual neighborhood - UPDATE kb_stage.kb_proposals SET status = 'applied'... - No Teleo self-positioning claims \u2014 those were explicitly deferred. --- Section 3 \u2014 Dependency and ordering constraints Shown as a blocking graph, not prose: 14fa5ecc has an internal ordering constraint: source INSERTs must precede claim INSERTs (FK), claim INSERTs must precede evidence INSERTs (FK), all of those must precede the d0000000 UPDATE (superseded_by FK must point to an existing row), and the anchor UPDATE must come last. 14fa5ecc and ac036c9d are independent \u2014 can apply in either order. a64df080 is independent of both. (1/2) 02:15"
    },
    {
      "line": 684,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t682 text leo LIVE-VPS-CORY-CANARY-20260709-T1 read-only Telegram-visible test. Do not change the KB. Remember marker WL-LIVE-TG-CORY-20260709 and correction: approved is not the same as applied. Reply with LIVE_TG_TURN1_ACK and one short sentence. 21:31"
    },
    {
      "line": 692,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t690 text leo LIVE-VPS-CORY-CANARY-20260709-T1 read-only Telegram-visible test. Do not change the KB. Remember marker WL-LIVE-TG-CORY-20260709 and correction: approved is not the same as applied. Reply with LIV... Billy | attn.markets"
    },
    {
      "line": 694,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t692 text LIVE_TG_TURN1_ACK Marker WL-LIVE-TG-CORY-20260709 noted: approved \u2260 applied. 21:31"
    },
    {
      "line": 699,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t697 text leo LIVE-VPS-CORY-CANARY-20260709-T2 what marker and correction are in scope from the previous turn? Then do a read-only KB audit: say whether proposal 00957f6c-9883-4015-95a4-6b09367efb0e is applied and whether edge c167933e-d513-4f43-9335-d5d8aeb259f2 exists in public.claim_edges. Do not change the KB. 21:32"
    },
    {
      "line": 707,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t705 text leo LIVE-VPS-CORY-CANARY-20260709-T2 what marker and correction are in scope from the previous turn? Then do a read-only KB audit: say whether proposal 00957f6c-9883-4015-95a4-6b09367efb0e is applied ... Billy | attn.markets"
    },
    {
      "line": 709,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t707 text Read-only audit complete. Marker in scope: WL-LIVE-TG-CORY-20260709, correction: approved is not the same as applied. Proposal 00957f6c-9883-4015-95a4-6b09367efb0e Status: "
    },
    {
      "line": 710,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t708 text field (settable, string) applied"
    },
    {
      "line": 711,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t709 text applied"
    },
    {
      "line": 721,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t719 text Edge c167933e-d513-4f43-9335-d5d8aeb259f2 Exists in "
    },
    {
      "line": 722,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t720 text field (settable, string) public.claim_edges"
    },
    {
      "line": 723,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t721 text public.claim_edges"
    },
    {
      "line": 734,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t732 text field (settable, string) applied"
    },
    {
      "line": 735,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t733 text applied"
    },
    {
      "line": 736,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t734 text AND the canonical row exists in "
    },
    {
      "line": 737,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t735 text field (settable, string) public.claim_edges"
    },
    {
      "line": 738,
      "text": "\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t736 text public.claim_edges"
    }
  ],
  "vps_stability_after_live_test": {
    "service": "leoclean-gateway.service",
    "MainPID": 3252143,
    "NRestarts": 0,
    "ExecMainStartTimestamp": "Thu 2026-07-09 06:59:44 UTC",
    "ActiveState": "active",
    "SubState": "running",
    "WorkingDirectory": "/home/teleo",
    "User": "teleo",
    "journal_summary": "Turn 2 audit ran through live gateway; Leo recovered from wrong edge_id/from_claim_id/to_claim_id query shape by inspecting public.claim_edges and using id/from_claim/to_claim/edge_type."
  }
}