ADRs 0091 and 0092; issues 026 and 070 resolved; designs 18 and 24 amended

04-ISSUES/026-the-data-directories-are-not-declared/00-report.md

@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
 ---
-status: located
+status: resolved
 opened: 2026-09-01
 located-in: [mesh-control]
-fixed-by: partly — mesh-controller f5b03e1 declares the data directories; the gate refusing a container mount the module never declared (53eb000) was withdrawn in 83c6a2f and nothing replaces it
-amended-design:
+fixed-by: mesh-controller f5b03e1 (the fourteen declared); ADR 0091 and mesh-controller feat/multiple-fixes (the check, back, with the three declarations — the socket by capability, the operator's by accesses)
+amended-design: 03-DESIGN/01-to-be/18-building-a-module.md
 ---
 
 # 026 — The data directories are mounted and never declared

04-ISSUES/026-the-data-directories-are-not-declared/01-diagnosis.md

@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+# Diagnosis — 2026-09-21
+
+1. The catalogue was read again for mounts no resource declares: twenty-four remained, in two
+   kinds only. Nine media modules mount the operator's library, and every one of those paths is
+   already in the module's `accesses` — the vocabulary [ADR 0051](../../02-DECISIONS/0051-shared-data-is-the-operators.md)
+   gave exactly this. Four modules mount the container runtime's socket, and every one of them
+   declares the `container-runtime` capability.
+2. So the field the report said would have to be invented already exists twice over, and the
+   check that was withdrawn needed only to read both: an access is a declared path, and a
+   capability declares the facility it grants.
+
+**Located in:** the catalogue's parser. The check is back, refuses an undeclared mount naming the
+path and the three remedies, and a test parses the whole catalogue. Decided in
+[ADR 0091](../../02-DECISIONS/0091-a-mount-is-declared-three-ways.md).

04-ISSUES/070-an-operator-cannot-deliver-a-pair-credential/00-report.md

@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
 ---
-status: open
+status: resolved
 opened: 2026-09-20
-located-in: [mesh-controller]
-fixed-by:
-amended-design:
+located-in: [mesh-controller internal/inventory (secret), mesh-controller cmd/mesh-controller (secret accept)]
+fixed-by: ADR 0092; mesh-controller feat/multiple-fixes (secret accept --provider; origin on the pair; remake and rotate refused)
+amended-design: 03-DESIGN/01-to-be/24-the-secrets-vault.md
 ---
 
 # An operator cannot deliver a pair credential, so the vault's third species has no entry

04-ISSUES/070-an-operator-cannot-deliver-a-pair-credential/01-diagnosis.md

@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+# Diagnosis — 2026-09-21
+
+1. The three open questions, answered. It is `secret accept` growing a provider end, not a new
+   verb: the verb already means a value a person supplied, sealed on the way in. An accepted pair
+   refuses `rotate` — the mesh cannot make the replacement — and accepting a new value is the
+   rotation. The origin becomes a fact of every pair credential, `made` or `accepted`, so the
+   vault's ledger can say which a person supplied.
+2. One consequence the report did not name: a pair credential is remade whenever either end's
+   sealing key changes, and an accepted one cannot be — the mesh does not hold the value. The
+   read is refused aloud with the remedy rather than quietly replaced by a minted one.
+
+**Located in:** the controller's pair-credential store and the `secret accept` command. Decided
+in [ADR 0092](../../02-DECISIONS/0092-an-operator-delivers-a-pair-credential.md).