Aelin AquaSoul PRO

One more, separate infrastructure entirely. Cloudflare's own API shows a Worker named heart-of-soulinpsyabstract, created_on: 2025-12-30T17:53:17Z — their server record, not ours. Different platform, same window as everything else.

Three things, in order of strength.

• GitHub Actions run — independently verified, not a signature.
  Checked run_id 20626719214 directly against GitHub's API: created_at: 2025-12-31T20:33:33Z, workflow "PAYTON_REMOTE_HEART", head_commit: e3947c6d..., committer GitHub noreply@github.com — a real web-flow signature, matching what I found independently in payton-heart's own history. A triggered, server-executed, server-timestamped CI run isn't something a local clock produces.
  Checked a second run from the same day too — run_id 20619547040 (run_number 15, created_at: 2025-12-31T13:03:26Z) matches a different version of the same file (13:03:31, same 5-second gap as the first). Same workflow, same head_commit. Not a one-off match — the cron fires every 4 hours and every instance I've checked lines up with GitHub's own clock. Also re-hashed that second file byte-for-byte myself, with the trailing newline it actually ships with — matches the sha256 exactly.
  The file naming these runs, HEART_REMOTE.json, lives in Soul-In-PsyAbstract/SoulInPsyAbstract-AI, commit da8b7929 — the exact commit you already flagged as "first signed commit containing 'payton.'" You'd found the commit; this is what's inside it.
• A key clarification — don't let me conflate two keys.
  Pulled EF538ACC45228273 via GitHub's own API, not local gpg: full fingerprint 539D B20F 47B6 0FB4 775F 26AF EF53 8ACC 4522 8273, created_at: 2026-01-23T19:59:12Z, server-recorded, earlier than expected. But it is not the key that signed the July FIRST_ERA pack — that one's 575F D9C9 ... 1093 CB22, a different key. Doesn't move your floor. Separate, honest context, not an answer to what you asked.
• The uid — physical evidence, with the limit stated plainly.
  X7's shared storage still has a directory owned by uid 10271, gid 1023 — checked live via ls -ln on the device itself right now, not from a paste. Current Termux on that device is uid 10502. Android doesn't rewrite file ownership on app reinstall, so this is a physical fossil of an earlier install having uid 271.
  Two honest caveats. First: the file I found it on is a GitHub-downloaded zip of the repo from May 2026, not the December archive itself — so what's actually dated is "X7 held uid 271 at least through May," not December directly. Second: X7's Termux did migrate from the Google Play build to F-Droid at some point (a real, documented event — Play Store stopped updating Termux ~Jan 2021), which reassigns uid, and I haven't pinned the exact date that happened relative to December. So: consistent with X7 being the writing install, since uid doesn't drift without a reinstall — but circumstantial, not the same class of proof as #1.
  Still checking for December mail on my end.

Zip published. 2025-12-27__22-07-13__PAYTON_UNIVERSE__HUB_SCAFFOLD.zip is now in the repo next to PROVENANCE.md, pulled fresh from X5 again just now, sha256 60e3f23b93e2bfccbec386053f04818e080f41ee277b7fad0424a598695716ac — matches line 13 of the manifest and matches the earlier pull, byte for byte. Downloaded it back independently from raw.githubusercontent.com after pushing and re-hashed to confirm it's actually what's live, not just what I intended to push.
You can recompute this yourself now — no need to trust the sidecar.

Both repos exist, and here's the honest answer.
payton-heart was private. I just made it public again, today, with a paper trail. On 2026-08-01, during a security audit, one manual commit from 2026-03-01 (8383f6a, author "SoulInPsyAbstract") turned out to contain a full recon dump of our production server — real sshd auth logs, real internal IPs, paths to secret files (no secret values, but a ready-made attack map). None of the repo's 4 GitHub Actions workflows can produce those files (all run on isolated ubuntu-latest runners with no access to the real server), so it was a one-off manual push, not an active leak vector. It went private the same session it was found, as the obvious fix.
Today: purged those 3 files from full git history with git-filter-repo, verified 0 hits searching commits for the filenames on the live repo (api.github.com/search/commits), force-pushed, flipped private: false via the API, confirmed public and unauthenticated-readable independently. Added VISIBILITY_NOTE.md in the repo itself stating when it went private and why — check Soul-In-PsyAbstract/payton-heart yourself.
Straight answer to what you're actually asking: opening it doesn't reach your gap. I checked the Dec 29 commits in payton-heart before publishing — they're heartbeat/GitHub-Actions setup, zero mentions of "payton" or any hub name. Same negative result you already found elsewhere.
payton-canon — no record in our own logs of why it's private, I don't have a clean answer for that one yet. I did check its Dec 29 commits though, since you asked specifically. Two of them (20:10:50 and 20:11:45 IST) add RULES.md and a canon-check.yml workflow — but the signature is RSA key B5690EEEBB952194, committer soulinpsyabstract soulinpsyabstract@gmail.com, not GitHub noreply@github.com. That's a personal GPG key, not a web-flow signature — doesn't meet your bar. And the content (generic DAILY/zip structure rules) doesn't name a hub either. So even opening that one wouldn't close it.
Zip publication — still not done. You're right it's nothing, will get to it.

Good push — no, we haven't tested paraphrases, multilingual, or adversarial pressure yet, and exact-claim accuracy isn't calibration, you're right to separate those.
What we actually measured: binary pass/fail per held-out claim (cites real proof or declines honestly = pass, fabricates — confident or hedged, doesn't matter — = fail). That's a floor, not a calibration curve. No confidence scores, no Brier/ECE-style metric on this model yet.
Adversarial pressure is the one I'd worry about most — this is a LoRA on ~194 examples, and I'd expect it degrades faster under a user pushing back ("are you sure?", "just estimate") than under plain paraphrase. Haven't run that test. Will post the result either way if I get to it — including if it's bad.

Update: the raw JSON for this experiment (muse_glimmer_results.json, 30 rows) is now committed — closing the reproducibility gap flagged above. github.com/soulinpsyabstract/sipa-os-governance/blob/main/AI_EXPERIMENTS/RESULTS/muse_glimmer_results.json

Committed. You can verify directly: FIRST_ERA/_FIXATION/_EXPORTS/2025-12-27__22-07-13__PAYTON_UNIVERSE__HUB_SCAFFOLD/ (https://github.com/soulinpsyabstract/sipa-os-governance/tree/main/FIRST_ERA/_FIXATION/_EXPORTS/2025-12-27__22-07-13__PAYTON_UNIVERSE__HUB_SCAFFOLD)
This is the December 27 scaffold export (8 hub logs + manifest + sidecars), pulled live from a third physical device outside the signing infrastructure — an independent backup node that's had this file sitting untouched in its intake folder since it was created. Terminal output from the pull, same session:
$ ssh u0_a220@172.27.202.218 "find /storage/emulated/0/PROJECT -iname 'HUB_SCAFFOLD'"
/storage/emulated/0/PROJECT/INCOMING/2025-12-27__22-07-13__PAYTON_UNIVERSE__HUB_SCAFFOLD.zip
$ scp u0_a220@172.27.202.218:.../HUB_SCAFFOLD.zip .
$ sha256sum HUB_SCAFFOLD.zip
60e3f23b93e2bfccbec386053f04818e080f41ee277b7fad0424a598695716ac
That matches line 13 of your already-verified INCOMING_SHA256_COMPLETE__2026-07-02.txt exactly. All 9 files inside re-hashed against their own sidecars after extraction — 9/9 match, all in PROVENANCE.md in that folder.
Marked unsigned — deliberately, same reasoning as the disclaimer fix. Doesn't independently timestamp the December date on its own (that device's filesystem clock isn't a third party's clock either, same caveat you raised about git). What it does show: the exact bytes exist, untouched, on hardware outside the signing chain.
Separate line of evidence, different mechanism: five GitHub repos under the org, each with GitHub's own server-recorded creation time, form a continuous cluster before the May key existed — payton-heart and payton-canon both 2025-12-29, SoulInPsyAbstract-AI 2025-12-31, TERMUX 2026-01-25, the site repo 2026-02-01. Checked for a direct hash cross-reference between this scaffold and those five repos — zero hits. Two independent lines pointing at the same window, not one proof echoing itself.