Merge pull request 'ADR 0156: an artifact is what a build produces, and the store's seat is named for its scope (group 4, step 3)' (#233) from feat/the-artifact-store-seat-is-named-for-its-scope into main

Reviewed-on: #233

04-ISSUES/123-the-image-registry-is-named-after-a-role/00-report.md

@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
 ---
-status: located
+status: resolved
 opened: 2026-09-26
 located-in: [hq 00-META/glossary.md, hq 02-DECISIONS/0075-two-stores-and-which-provides-what.md, mesh-controller internal/catalogue/seats.go, mesh-catalog modules/distribution]
-fixed-by:
-amended-design:
+fixed-by: ADR 0156; mesh-controller migration 0048 (feat/the-artifact-store-seat-is-named-for-its-scope); mesh-catalog modules/distribution
+amended-design: 03-DESIGN/01-to-be/26-the-seats.md
 ---
 
 # 123 — The image registry is named after a role, and *artifact* is defined as one format
@@ -72,3 +72,15 @@ adopted, rather than on protocols.
   exercise that leaves the code disagreeing?
 - What check would keep the glossary honest — a definition tested against the kinds a definition may
   actually declare, rather than restated by hand?
+
+## Resolved, 2026-09-30
+
+Read from what the store serves rather than from what it was called: both shapes of a kept reference
+— an image and an archive's blob — go to the same registry by digest, which is exactly the provision
+ADR 0075 defined. So the word was wrong and the seat's name was odd, and the provision was right.
+[ADR 0156](../../02-DECISIONS/0156-an-artifact-is-what-a-build-produces-and-the-store-is-named-for-its-scope.md):
+*artifact* means what a build produces, of any of the four kinds; the seat is `mesh-artifact-store`
+with the old name as its alias (one migration, ADR 0122's mechanism); the provision keeps its name.
+The two-implementations question stays as 0075 answered it, with the day to retire the second server
+named. The mechanical check the report asked for is the alias test and the glossary naming the same
+four kinds as design 18's table.