Base layer: the mesh as it is, under the mesh as it should be

HQ held only the to-be. Every reader had to already know the system the
decisions were about, and an as-is claim had nowhere to live except inside
an intention.

Adds 02-DESIGN/00-as-is — eleven documents written from the implementation
and the operational record, not from intent, including the parts nobody
would choose again. The two existing designs move under 01-to-be. Layers
are declared in frontmatter and never mix: a design that ships does not
move, its as-is counterpart is written, and both stand.

Back-fills adr/0001-0014 for decisions taken in implementation and never
recorded — the broker, the module abstraction, the mesh database, managed
files, provisioning, migrations, the workspace removal, failing loudly,
the constitution, application placement, linking, the employee model, the
artifact, the three silos. Each marked reconstructed, dated from the
history, and citing the evidence it was recovered from. The two existing
records renumber to 0015 and 0016 so the ledger runs oldest first;
0017 extends 0015 to modules outside the core, principle only — the
domain list is deliberately not invented here.

how-we-build.md becomes the source of the mesh constitution, with a sync
playbook, so the enforced copy stops being the only one that is true.

Process becomes explicit: five playbooks, eight thin skills that defer to
them, a repository map, and AGENTS.md with CLAUDE.md as its include.

The five Observations become 04-ISSUES 001-005 where they can be owned and
closed. 006 is new and uncomfortable: HQ is not indexed into the knowledge
base. That claim is what decision 27 rests on, it was never checked, and
the README now says so instead of repeating it.

Also corrects the ADR index into something generated, the "02-DESIGN is
empty" claim, the VISION.md pointer that did not survive the repo split,
and a note asserting the symlink rule was contradicted — it was a
misreading; the rule forbids hand-made links, the installer links by design.

04-ISSUES/003-firewall-scope-is-read-by-no-code/00-report.md

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+---
+status: open
+opened: 2026-08-22
+located-in: []
+fixed-by:
+amended-design:
+---
+
+# 003 — A firewall rule's `scope:` is read by no code
+
+## Symptom
+
+Five module manifests declare a `scope:` key on firewall rules. The key is not part of the
+firewall rule type and nothing reads it. Real scoping is expressed by a different field.
+
+A manifest can therefore appear to restrict a port and restrict nothing.
+
+## Why this matters
+
+This is the failure mode [`how-we-build.md`](../../00-GENESIS/how-we-build.md) names directly:
+*an unenforced rule is indistinguishable from a wrong one, and costs more, because people
+believe it.* Here it is worse than unenforced — the declaration reads as a restriction, so a
+reviewer checking whether a port is scoped will find that it is, and be wrong.
+
+It also says something about the manifest as a whole: an unknown key is accepted silently. Any
+misspelled or invented key behaves this way, and this one was found by reading rather than by
+any check.
+
+## Evidence
+
+- Five manifests carry the key. Zero code paths consume it.
+- Recorded as an observation on 2026-08-22.
+
+## Open questions
+
+- Should the manifest reject unknown keys outright? That is the general fix; this is one
+  instance of it.
+- Were the five declarations intended to restrict something that is currently open? Each needs
+  checking against what the node actually exposes — the declaration cannot be trusted either
+  way.