diff --git a/02-DECISIONS/0056-public-routing-is-name-agnostic.md b/02-DECISIONS/0066-public-routing-is-name-agnostic.md
similarity index 99%
rename from 02-DECISIONS/0056-public-routing-is-name-agnostic.md
rename to 02-DECISIONS/0066-public-routing-is-name-agnostic.md
index 954f7e2..ce711fd 100644
--- a/02-DECISIONS/0056-public-routing-is-name-agnostic.md
+++ b/02-DECISIONS/0066-public-routing-is-name-agnostic.md
@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ reconstructed: false
 extends: 0007-connectivity.md
 ---
 
-# 56. Public routing is name-agnostic, its names are resolved inside the mesh, and an internal authority can certify them
+# 66. Public routing is name-agnostic, its names are resolved inside the mesh, and an internal authority can certify them
 
 ## Context
 
diff --git a/03-DESIGN/01-to-be/08-connectivity.md b/03-DESIGN/01-to-be/08-connectivity.md
index 897b6f8..5e2ae8e 100644
--- a/03-DESIGN/01-to-be/08-connectivity.md
+++ b/03-DESIGN/01-to-be/08-connectivity.md
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ decisions:
   - 02-DECISIONS/0004-a-node-and-how-it-joins.md
   - 02-DECISIONS/0007-connectivity.md
   - 02-DECISIONS/0006-the-substrate-and-the-control-plane.md
-  - 02-DECISIONS/0056-public-routing-is-name-agnostic.md
+  - 02-DECISIONS/0066-public-routing-is-name-agnostic.md
 ---
 
 # Connectivity
@@ -363,7 +363,7 @@ that serves it, mesh-wide, by the same mechanism that writes the node names. It
 mesh, not chosen by a module*, for the same reason the node names are: a module listing the routes
 would go stale the day one changes. The mesh propagates the names it was told to serve and still
 knows nothing about what they mean
-([ADR 0056](../../02-DECISIONS/0056-public-routing-is-name-agnostic.md)).
+([ADR 0066](../../02-DECISIONS/0066-public-routing-is-name-agnostic.md)).
 
 ## 3 — Exposure
 
@@ -430,7 +430,7 @@ module.
 domain into a module's label, so the composition is done by a per-node override — which reproduces
 exactly the per-module cost it is meant to remove. The design is the composition; the override is a
 stopgap until the manifest layer can carry a label and a domain separately
-([ADR 0056](../../02-DECISIONS/0056-public-routing-is-name-agnostic.md)).
+([ADR 0066](../../02-DECISIONS/0066-public-routing-is-name-agnostic.md)).
 
 ## 4 — Filtering
 
@@ -598,7 +598,7 @@ once that name is in internal resolution; a public authority is handed that depe
 DNS, and an internal one has to be handed it by the mesh. *Checked by a handshake to a routed name
 that verifies against the internal root and nothing else — which cannot succeed unless the issuer
 first reached the name to certify it*
-([ADR 0056](../../02-DECISIONS/0056-public-routing-is-name-agnostic.md)).
+([ADR 0066](../../02-DECISIONS/0066-public-routing-is-name-agnostic.md)).
 
 ## What this removes
 
@@ -634,7 +634,7 @@ The list is worth having in one place, because it is most of the argument:
 - **Reporting declared-versus-observed.** ADR 0007 makes the disagreement detectable and does not
   say who looks or what they are told.
 - **Composing a route name from a label and a node's domain.**
-  [ADR 0056](../../02-DECISIONS/0056-public-routing-is-name-agnostic.md) makes the public name the
+  [ADR 0066](../../02-DECISIONS/0066-public-routing-is-name-agnostic.md) makes the public name the
   operator's to move between meshes, but the manifest layer still stores it as a literal — so today
   the composition is a per-node override rather than the design. The interpolation that would let a
   module carry a label and a node carry the domain, and the mesh join them, does not yet exist.