Every decision is a record; the ledger is gone

papa-hq has no ledger. Its root is AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, README.md, every
decision is a numbered record, and its graduation playbook has no path for
an unrecorded decision. hal-hq now matches.

The ledger's 41 entries classified as: 10 restating a record, 11 restating
design docs, 15 describing how this repository works with the reasoning
sitting in a README rather than anywhere citable, 3 small rules with no
home, 2 superseded stubs. Mostly a copy — and a hand-maintained index, the
exact pattern ADR 0022 had just rejected for the decision index on the
grounds it drifted after one addition. Keeping one copy of that while
removing another is not a position. It also collided by name with
02-DECISIONS/ in any directory listing.

Nothing was dropped. Records 0019-0025 give the repository decisions the
reasoning they never had: HQ is its own repository and is public, design
has two layers, work moves through playbooks, status lives in frontmatter,
issues have a front door, the numbering is the flow, HQ is the source of
the constitution. 0026 records the ledger's own removal.

The three orphan rules went to how-we-build, where a rule is enforced and
keeps the incident that earned it — the package rule was genuinely
unwritten anywhere. Two lab decisions stated only in the ledger went into
the lab design. "Deliberately not decided" went to the research effort and
design document each question actually belongs to.

The chronological view the ledger provided is now generated from record
frontmatter, which is what it was for.

The cost, stated in 0026 rather than glossed: a record is more work than a
table row, so the risk is a small decision going unrecorded because nobody
wanted to write a document. how-we-build takes rules cheaply, which is the
mitigation, not a solution.

03-DESIGN/01-to-be/01-end-to-end-testing.md

@@ -18,6 +18,18 @@ This is the Phase 0 prerequisite from [`00-work-breakdown.md`](00-work-breakdown
 
 ---
 
+## Two boundaries this design sets
+
+**Adoption is out of scope.** Bringing a node into being is the lab runner's job. Adopting a
+machine that already exists, with its own configuration, is a legacy path and the lab does not
+reproduce it — a scenario starts from nothing every time, which is what makes it a fixture
+rather than a snapshot.
+
+**The real topology is one test among many, not the baseline.** A scenario declares the mesh
+its question needs. If something can only be tested against the shape the mesh happens to have
+today, that is a gap in the vocabulary rather than a reason to privilege that shape.
+
+
 ## Where this sits in the way work happens
 
 Work reaches the mesh along one path today:
@@ -361,3 +373,9 @@ is, a workstation stops being collateral.
 [`01-RESEARCH/003-service-supervision`](../../01-RESEARCH/003-service-supervision/analysis.md)
 remains open on its own merits — and once this exists, its options are cheap to try rather
 than expensive to argue about.
+
+## Deliberately not decided
+
+**Whether the lab verdict is a workflow guard or an advisory check on the pull request.** Open,
+and deliberately trivial — a policy detail, changeable in an afternoon, not an architectural
+choice. Recorded so it is not mistaken for an oversight.