The mesh has a session of its own, and it is the node session's mechanism

A session for the mesh itself, addressed as the mesh, differing from a
node's in exactly three things: the context it starts in, its engram,
and its licence binding. Not a new kind of agent — the same mechanism
pointed at a different root. Two implementations of one mechanism drift,
and the vocabulary collision 0001 exists to undo began exactly that way.

It runs on the control-plane node, and the reasoning is easy to get
backwards: not "the important agent on the important machine", but that
this node is already the one place excepted from "compromise of a node
is compromise of that node". Placed anywhere else it would create a
second such place.

It is an addition to per-node messaging and never a replacement. 0001
holds that losing the control plane costs change, not operation — and a
mesh whose only conversational surface lived there would lose the
ability to ask anything while every machine kept running perfectly.

Writing it up exposed that the node session's setup was never designed
at all. 0004 gives behaviour and stops: nothing said how a session
starts, where its context lives, or how a broker message becomes a
prompt. That gap was invisible until something had to be built *like* a
node session. 15-the-agent-session.md covers both as one mechanism.

It also makes "a consumer that is not a machine" undeferrable. The
control-plane node now hosts two sessions that must hold different
licences, and a per-machine binding cannot express that at all. Noted in
14-model-access.md against the gap it was already recorded as.

Also completes the to-be index, which stopped at 10 and omitted four
documents. Pre-existing broken ADR references in the older rows are left
alone rather than guessed at.

03-DESIGN/01-to-be/14-model-access.md

@@ -81,6 +81,13 @@ to a node. What is delivered still lands on a machine; what is **chosen** is cho
 the provisions model has no consumer identity other than a node. What exists today is per module
 per machine, which is a step toward it and is not it.
 
+*2026-08-31: this gap now has named consumers rather than hypothetical ones.*
+[ADR 0026](../../02-DECISIONS/0026-the-mesh-has-a-session-of-its-own.md) puts two sessions on the
+control-plane node — the node's own and the mesh's — each bound in its own right. **A per-machine
+binding cannot express that at all**, not merely awkwardly: the two sessions share a machine and
+must be able to hold different licences. See
+[`15-the-agent-session.md`](15-the-agent-session.md).
+
 **Switching is a reaction, not a declaration.** A licence that hits its limit and must be swapped is
 a response to something observed. Expressing it as a declaration would make the declaration mean
 *whatever is working right now*, which is not a thing anybody declared. It belongs with