diff --git a/04-ISSUES/028-two-things-want-one-port-and-nothing-says-so/00-report.md b/04-ISSUES/028-two-things-want-one-port-and-nothing-says-so/00-report.md
index 37fc251..83b4754 100644
--- a/04-ISSUES/028-two-things-want-one-port-and-nothing-says-so/00-report.md
+++ b/04-ISSUES/028-two-things-want-one-port-and-nothing-says-so/00-report.md
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 ---
-status: located
+status: fixed
 opened: 2026-09-01
-located-in: [mesh-control]
-fixed-by:
+located-in: [mesh-control, mesh-host]
+fixed-by: mesh-control 1f5b70a, 41f7c51; mesh-host b91342a
 amended-design: 02-DECISIONS/0038-the-mesh-assigns-the-port.md
 ---
 
@@ -71,3 +71,29 @@ The record also names what this issue missed: the same number is written **three
 module — once for the rule set, once for what a consumer is told, once for what the runtime
 publishes — and nothing checks that they agree. A module whose `serves` and whose container
 disagreed would hand every consumer a port that answers nothing.
+
+## Fixed
+
+**The mesh assigns the machine-side port**, from a high unprivileged range, recorded per machine
+and module and kept once chosen. A module says the port its software uses, once, in `listens`. The
+container's mapping, the rule set, and what a consumer is told are all derived from the assignment
+— so the three copies that agreed only because one person wrote them are now one fact.
+
+**A port the protocol fixes says so**, and is then a claim: one holder per machine, and the second
+refused by name at assignment rather than by a container runtime at apply.
+
+**And the machine says what it already holds.** This was the half that made the issue: the
+substrate is not a module, so nothing in the mesh had heard of the store or the broker. The host
+already distinguished what it carried from what the mesh sent — that distinction exists so the two
+never remove each other — and now records what each resource binds and reports the carried ones.
+The allocator treats those as taken.
+
+What the declaration binds, not what is open: a machine's open ports are a moving target, and
+assigning around those would mean a port that was free when it was asked for and taken when it was
+used.
+
+## What it does not settle
+
+The question underneath, unchanged: **whether a module should publish to the machine at all**.
+Assignment makes publishing safe without making it necessary, and consumers reaching a provider on
+the module's own network by name would make the question moot for anything inside the mesh.