Order the records the way the system is learned

Jochen asked whether the order made sense. It did not -- it followed when
things happened to be decided, which after consolidation is fictional anyway
since record 5 alone folds decisions taken across a week.

Concretely wrong before: the domain statement sat at 8, after five engineering
rules; the constitution was scattered across 5, 12 and 17; the tiers landed at
15, 16, 21 and 22 with process records in between.

Now it walks: what the mesh is (1-3), its tiers from the bottom up (4-8), what
runs on them and how it gets there (9-10), how it is built (11-16), how it is
checked (17-18), how we work (19-23).

Two things made this safe rather than free. It is a permutation, not a
compaction, so the renames go through temporary names -- otherwise two files
want one slot and one is lost. And the reference rewrite is a single
simultaneous pass, because almost every number moved into a slot another number
was vacating; replacing one at a time would have cascaded and pointed things at
the wrong record while still resolving.

Verified: 284 [ADR NNNN](path) links across the repository, all with matching
text and target.

The ordering principle is now stated in 19 rather than left implicit -- the
repository already said "the numbering is the flow" about its folders, and
there was no reason for the records to be the exception.

01-RESEARCH/005-domain-grouping/analysis.md

@@ -10,7 +10,7 @@ updated: 2026-08-23
 Every commit in the code repository's main branch that touches the module catalogue, reduced
 to the set of modules it touched. Platform-namespace modules are excluded — their
 decomposition is settled by
-[ADR 0008](../../02-DECISIONS/0008-mesh-brokers-nodes-host-agents-think.md). Modules that no
+[ADR 0001](../../02-DECISIONS/0001-mesh-brokers-nodes-host-agents-think.md). Modules that no
 longer exist are excluded, because pre-rename names dominate the raw signal and describe a
 catalogue nobody works in.
 
@@ -95,14 +95,14 @@ remainder are genuine:
 | 2026-08-06 | firewall mesh-only by default, public by declaration |
 
 Each is one intent — *change how a node is reachable* — landing across the proxy, the
-resolver, the firewall and the VPN together. That is exactly the shape ADR 0017 describes, and
+resolver, the firewall and the VPN together. That is exactly the shape ADR 0022 describes, and
 it is the only place in the catalogue where the measurement finds it.
 
 The 2026-08-23 scoping commit is the sharpest case: it spans the reachability cluster **and**
 two providers, because "which network is this exposed on" is a reachability question asked of
 a database.
 
-## What this means for ADR 0017
+## What this means for ADR 0022
 
 The record's principle stands, and its scope needs narrowing. Grouping by domain is:
 
@@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ Asked directly, and stated as an opinion because it is not yet decided.
    is implementation selection, a substantially larger design with its own failure modes, and
    nothing currently asks for it.
 3. **It would hide which implementation serves a requirement** — the one place the mesh most
-   needs to be explicit, and precisely the indirection ADR 0017 warns grouping causes.
+   needs to be explicit, and precisely the indirection ADR 0022 warns grouping causes.
 
 A provider module is already exactly one purpose: it provisions one resource type. That is a
 boundary, not an accident of installation.