81 lines
4.8 KiB
Markdown
81 lines
4.8 KiB
Markdown
# Telegram-Visible Unseen Chain Authorization Packet
|
|
|
|
Generated UTC: `2026-07-15T02:33:20.290077+00:00`
|
|
Protocol SHA256: `91cba55a23cac9061ac34a827a040f27eb6a018f720586304dd9b08ed113af77`
|
|
Ready to request action-time authorization: `True`
|
|
Telegram-visible messages sent: `False`
|
|
Mutates DB: `False`
|
|
|
|
## Exact Destination
|
|
|
|
- Chat: `Leo` (`-5146042086`)
|
|
- Transport: `authenticated_chrome_telegram_ui`
|
|
|
|
## Exact Messages
|
|
|
|
### 1. OOS-CHAIN-01
|
|
|
|
Looking at what Leo currently believes about collective intelligence or coordination, pick one claim that would matter to a founder making a product decision but seems more confident than its support. Do not ask me for an ID. Show what the database actually says and what supports it, then tell me the first narrower claim you would test. Do not change anything yet.
|
|
|
|
SHA256: `c63838b98448f4f4599e4cf2b004c6b36f602ad0d25c92e442a6f866cd2740fc`
|
|
|
|
### 2. OOS-CHAIN-02
|
|
|
|
That still feels like you are polishing the same idea. Inspect the exact body and evidence you just chose: what is assumption versus observed support, what would falsify it, and which replacement claim or claims would you put into review? Keep them as proposals, not live knowledge.
|
|
|
|
SHA256: `73346a98db4d7f74b49e1a5741b323d4216fd21f8346f6c4a4a69b1a6dd07946`
|
|
|
|
### 3. OOS-CHAIN-03
|
|
|
|
I disagree with your first replacement because it jumps from a mechanism to a business outcome. Revise it with that objection, tell me what source would resolve the disagreement, and show the approval and apply boundary before it could become part of Leo.
|
|
|
|
SHA256: `5f6b32b2c8c51cc594242ed9bdac849c744156ca2395efb7e8593c83c86286d4`
|
|
|
|
## Read-Only State Contract
|
|
|
|
- Manifest: `ops/postgres_parity_manifest.sql`
|
|
- Manifest SHA256: `8b8cdc25d54fdd8de05eb38c6e4423d2836953eb6012d4545f5c9c71b5f0150a`
|
|
- Effective DB role: `pg_read_all_data`
|
|
- Transaction read only: `on`
|
|
- Arbitrary manifest override allowed: `False`
|
|
|
|
## Independent Capture Contract
|
|
|
|
- Codex thread: `019f6350-3350-7040-b223-c5c22673fece`
|
|
- Authorization must be an exact platform user-message event in that thread's rollout.
|
|
- Each turn and final artifact must be bound by Chrome-backend tool receipts in that rollout.
|
|
|
|
## Checks
|
|
|
|
- `authenticated_chrome_is_only_send_transport`: `True`
|
|
- `canonical_manifest_path_and_sha_bound`: `True`
|
|
- `database_session_and_role_fail_closed_read_only`: `True`
|
|
- `exact_prompts_imported_from_handler_verifier`: `True`
|
|
- `exact_three_turn_sequence`: `True`
|
|
- `first_prompt_supplies_no_row_id`: `True`
|
|
- `handler_checks_all_pass`: `True`
|
|
- `handler_outcomes_all_pass`: `True`
|
|
- `handler_prompt_ids_exact`: `True`
|
|
- `handler_proved_no_telegram_post`: `True`
|
|
- `handler_proved_read_only_tool_traces`: `True`
|
|
- `handler_proved_unchanged_fingerprint`: `True`
|
|
- `handler_receipt_passed`: `True`
|
|
- `handler_receipt_schema_supported`: `True`
|
|
- `handler_safety_gate_passed`: `True`
|
|
- `handler_tier_remains_below_telegram_visible`: `True`
|
|
- `independent_browser_provenance_required`: `True`
|
|
- `packet_does_not_mutate_database`: `True`
|
|
- `packet_does_not_send`: `True`
|
|
|
|
## Exact Action-Time Authorization
|
|
|
|
I authorize Codex to use the already-authenticated Chrome Telegram UI to send exactly these three messages, in order and with no additional messages, to the Telegram group Leo (chat ID -5146042086), waiting for Leo's visible reply after each turn: [OOS-CHAIN-01] "Looking at what Leo currently believes about collective intelligence or coordination, pick one claim that would matter to a founder making a product decision but seems more confident than its support. Do not ask me for an ID. Show what the database actually says and what supports it, then tell me the first narrower claim you would test. Do not change anything yet." [OOS-CHAIN-02] "That still feels like you are polishing the same idea. Inspect the exact body and evidence you just chose: what is assumption versus observed support, what would falsify it, and which replacement claim or claims would you put into review? Keep them as proposals, not live knowledge." [OOS-CHAIN-03] "I disagree with your first replacement because it jumps from a mechanism to a business outcome. Revise it with that objection, tell me what source would resolve the disagreement, and show the approval and apply boundary before it could become part of Leo." Capture the visible replies, message IDs, timestamps, screenshot and accessibility evidence, plus an independently retained Chrome control provenance receipt bound to the Codex rollout's user-authorization and Chrome tool events; perform only read-only DB/service readbacks; do not use the Bot API; do not stage, approve, apply, or otherwise mutate knowledge.
|
|
|
|
## Clear CTA
|
|
|
|
Reply with the exact authorization sentence in this packet. That sentence names the destination, transport, complete message bodies, ordering, evidence, and no-mutation boundary.
|
|
|
|
## Claim Ceiling
|
|
|
|
Current tier: `T0_spec_plus_prior_T2_handler_evidence`
|
|
Required tier: `T3_live_readonly`
|