Consolidate: 65 decision records to 52

Jochen: a normal application has 3-5 ADRs, maybe 10 for a large one, and we are
at 65. Fair, and the cause is mine -- I recorded every FINDING as a decision
rather than every fork in the road.

Two merges, both cases where one decision had been split across many records
because it was taken over several days rather than at once.

0019 absorbs ten records about how this repository works: what it is and that
it is public, the folder flow, the two design layers, the issue front door,
status in frontmatter, playbooks, the naming rule, the product name. Those were
never ten decisions -- they were one, seen from ten angles as the repository
took shape.

0016 absorbs the five about the lab: a node is a virtual machine, a router is
scenery, a scenario declares the underlay, a scenario is a closed address
space, and the two scenario classes. Same pattern -- one design, split by the
order it was worked out in.

The consolidated 0019 also raises the bar for what earns a record, since that
is what produced 65: a record is warranted when there is a genuine fork -- a
direction reversed, an alternative that will be proposed again, something
contested. A finding is not a decision, and a bug is certainly not. Everything
else belongs in the design document where the reasoning is actually read.

The checker earned its place here. Deleting nine records left 13 dangling links
across the repository and it named every one, including in AGENTS.md. Nothing
was found by reading.

Remaining clusters worth the same treatment: the host (8 records), delivery
(5), modules (6), connectivity (4), substrate and control plane (4). That would
be 52 down to roughly 30.

03-DESIGN/01-to-be/02-scenario-declaration.md

@@ -4,9 +4,9 @@ status: in-progress
 code: [mesh-lab]
 updated: 2026-08-25
 decisions:
-  - 02-DECISIONS/0029-the-labs-first-scenario-has-no-pipeline.md
-  - 02-DECISIONS/0031-the-lab-provides-the-underlay.md
-  - 02-DECISIONS/0016-a-lab-node-is-a-virtual-machine.md
+  - 02-DECISIONS/0016-the-lab.md
+  - 02-DECISIONS/0016-the-lab.md
+  - 02-DECISIONS/0016-the-lab.md
 ---
 
 # The scenario declaration
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ A scenario is a **declaration of an underlay**, plus what to put on it. It is th
 everything in the lab hangs off, so it is worth getting small.
 
 It states what a hosting provider and a home router would provide, and nothing the mesh is
-responsible for ([ADR 0031](../../02-DECISIONS/0031-the-lab-provides-the-underlay.md)).
+responsible for ([ADR 0016](../../02-DECISIONS/0016-the-lab.md)).
 
 ## Public networks are unrelated, and routed rather than bridged
 
@@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ otherwise explicit declaration, and it exists because NAT has to run somewhere.
 
 It is a **container, not a virtual machine** — a router is scenery rather than something under
 test, so the fidelity argument that makes a node a virtual machine does not reach it
-([ADR 0033](../../02-DECISIONS/0033-a-router-is-scenery-not-a-node.md)). What a router must
+([ADR 0016](../../02-DECISIONS/0016-the-lab.md)). What a router must
 reproduce is kernel behaviour, and a container has the same kernel.
 
 **`machines[].at`** — segment and addresses, or a **list** of them for a machine on several
@@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ belongs to a router it does not control, and asleep.
 
 Whether the overlay survives that, re-forms, and is noticed to have changed endpoint is
 **observed**, never arranged
-([ADR 0031](../../02-DECISIONS/0031-the-lab-provides-the-underlay.md)).
+([ADR 0016](../../02-DECISIONS/0016-the-lab.md)).
 
 ## Why the addresses are load-bearing
 
@@ -326,7 +326,7 @@ file: the failure it prevents is silent, so the check has to be loud.
 ## The same declaration serves both classes
 
 The bootstrap and full scenarios differ **only in `place:`**
-([ADR 0029](../../02-DECISIONS/0029-the-labs-first-scenario-has-no-pipeline.md)). Everything
+([ADR 0016](../../02-DECISIONS/0016-the-lab.md)). Everything
 about the underlay is identical, which is what makes one a strict subset of the other rather
 than a fork.
 
@@ -354,7 +354,7 @@ not first.
 ## What a scenario deliberately cannot say
 
 - **Overlay addresses, the hub, peer configuration.** Outcomes, not inputs
-  ([ADR 0031](../../02-DECISIONS/0031-the-lab-provides-the-underlay.md)).
+  ([ADR 0016](../../02-DECISIONS/0016-the-lab.md)).
 - **What a machine is in mesh terms** — server or workstation, its site, its names. Mesh
   configuration, established by the mesh.
 - **A host's capability profile.** Detected, never declared.
@@ -543,7 +543,7 @@ cannot yet express.
 
 Nothing here mentions overlay addresses, which node is the hub, who peers with whom, any name,
 or any certificate. Research 004 recorded all of those for this topology, and **a scenario must
-not state them** ([ADR 0031](../../02-DECISIONS/0031-the-lab-provides-the-underlay.md)): they
+not state them** ([ADR 0016](../../02-DECISIONS/0016-the-lab.md)): they
 are what the mesh does, and a scenario that supplied them would be certifying its own work.
 
 The absence is the point. Given the declaration above, whether a hub is elected, whether the