A pushed statement cannot carry a stated world time without a chat model #1089

Problem

A statements source exists so a system that already holds
{thing, relation, value, when} can push observations without a model in the loop
(ADR 0054). Today such a caller cannot give a statement a stated world time:
when and ended are stored verbatim as time mentions, and the only path from a
mention to valid_from/valid_to is resolve_time, which requires a configured
chat model. A caller that already holds 2026-09-23T08:14:03Z must spell it into
words and pay a model call to read it back — the round trip the contract removed
for the statement itself. On a deployment with no chat model the words never
resolve, and each pushed document additionally leaves a resolve_time job that
fails permanently after its retries.

Current behavior

Observed on main at 0197bd8f (an earlier version of this was also exercised live
against v0.1.0-rc7):

• when/ended in the s tuple are free strings; extra contract keys refuse at
  the door, but the time strings themselves are recorded verbatim as time_mentions
  (utopia-extract/open.rs, api/sources_routes.rs, extraction_open.rs).
• Every pushed document enqueues resolve_time (extraction_open.rs), and
  resolve_document returns "Chat model not configured" before reading mentions
  (time_resolution.rs); jobs retry three times by default, so a model-free
  deployment accumulates one failed job per push.
• doc_time lands on attestation: the open row's attested_from takes it when
  doc_time_source is source/content, and world-axis reads order an undated row
  by COALESCE(valid_from, attested_from) — an observation anchor, not a stated
  interval.
• With a chat model configured, an RFC 3339-looking when resolves as an absolute
  date correctly today — the model does in prose what the caller already had in
  structure.

Why doc_time is not equivalent

doc_time says when the source dated the observation; when/ended say when the
relation held. For live telemetry they coincide and attestation orders the row
correctly. For backfilled history, effective-dated records, event time that differs
from ingest time, or an explicit end, only when/ended can carry it — and today
that means words a model must re-read.

Generic use cases

• An ERP or event-bus connector replaying postings whose effective dates precede
  ingest.
• A robot or sensor log pushed after collection, where event time is a timestamp,
  not a phrase.
• A migration or import tool whose source records carry their own validity dates.
• A security or monitoring pipeline stating "the session was open between T1 and T2".

Design question

This is the open question ADR 0054 left: "Whether when should accept an RFC 3339
instant directly rather than time words, once the instant precision on the roadmap
exists." It is worth deciding on its own terms: may a pushed item carry its world
time in a form code resolves — e.g. an RFC 3339 timestamp at the ladder's finest
current precision (second, ADR 0024) — while everything else in the item remains
time words on the model path?

Smallest useful first cut

A shape to react to, not a prescription: when when/ended parses as a complete
RFC 3339 timestamp, the server resolves it in code — an absolute reference at
second precision, grade A since the payload states it — and still records the
literal string as the mention for evidence. parse_time
(utopia-extract/src/lib.rs) already reads exactly this shape at
hour/minute/second precision for date-typed values and tool arguments, and 0024's
third decision already blesses "a timestamp a machine wrote" at sub-day precision —
the reader exists; the question is only whether the mentions path may call it. Every other value keeps today's model
interpretation. Questions the cut would have to answer:

• Is a bare instant a point or a since? For a state property, do the binding's
  marks decide (as for any statement dated to one moment), or is another shape
  needed given empty_state_span refuses a zero-length state span?
• Does ended take the same form, and how would a caller express "ended, date
  unknown"?
• If resolve_time re-runs over a mention the caller resolved in code, does the
  code resolution stand or defer to the model?
• Polymorphic when/ended, or a sibling structured slot in s?

Non-goals

• No typed writes — no predicate_id, no class, no promise that a pushed
  statement binds before alignment reads it; 0054's "not doing" stands.
• No batch endpoint and no new envelope fields — the response stays
  {"action": …} and caller identity stays external_id.
• No code matching natural-language time words — 0045's eighth decision stands;
  this only removes a model round trip for input that was never a word.
• Correctly dated open statements is the whole deliverable. Typed
  materialization still flows through alignment and a model or a person's binding
  decision; nothing here makes pushed statements reach the typed graph on their own.

Suggested acceptance criteria

If the direction is accepted, a reasonable bar for a first cut:

• A statements push whose when/ended is a complete RFC 3339 timestamp lands as
  an open statement with valid_from/valid_to at second (or coarser, per the
  ladder) precision and grade A — with no chat model configured.
• The literal string stays recorded as the mention for evidence; re-running
  resolve_time does not silently regress it.
• Any when/ended that is not a timestamp takes today's model path unchanged.
• Keys outside the contract still refuse at the door; the e/n/deleted shape is
  untouched.

Questions for maintainers

1. Polymorphic when/ended, a separate structured slot in s, or another form?
2. Is a caller-stated instant correctly read as an absolute reference with grade A?
3. How should a bare instant interact with a state property's marks and
   empty_state_span?
4. Should "ended, date unknown" be expressible, or is that words-only by design?
5. On resolve_time re-runs, does a code-resolved mention stand as resolved or
   defer to the model?

Related

• Let a source push statements in the open contract #884 (Statements source), [Architecture exploration] Utopia + Jev for embodied intelligence: temporal knowledge and closed-loop decisions #875 (observation-style sources), Typed materialization leaves successive functional values open until explicit reconciliation #899/Per-object document updates lose observation-time ordering during reconciliation #900
  (functional-timeline reconciliation, document-version dates), Materialization reconciles the rows it writes, and a version keeps the date it was pushed with #911
  (engine rewrites carry statement links).
• ADR 0054 (open questions), ADR 0045 (time interpretation contract), ADR 0024
  (precision ladder), ADR 0022 (ended-unknown).