Consolidate: 65 decision records to 23

Every remaining cluster merged. Each was one design that had been split across several records because it was worked out over days rather than at once. the node host 8 -> 1 applies not decides, depends on nothing, per operating system, root service, the launcher, episodic, what a declaration is, actions from the bundle only a node and how it joins 4 -> 1 what a node is, joining, the link as security boundary, the enrolment token modules and the graph 7 -> 1 everything is a module, no domain modules, three edges, provisioning, the core library substrate and control 6 -> 1 the test, seven contexts, one control plane, plane the authority is not a database, the named products, the pinned bundle connectivity 3 -> 1 a route is a grant, reachability declared, filter rules delivery 5 -> 1 reconciliation not a pipeline, artifacts, the three silos, a failed step, the verdict the lab 5 -> 1 (earlier) how this repository 10 -> 1 (earlier) works Nothing was dropped. Each consolidated record carries the reasoning of the ones it absorbs -- the measurements, the incidents, the alternatives rejected -- because that reasoning is the only reason to keep a record at all. What is gone is the fragmentation: eight files to read to understand tier 0, when tier 0 is one component. The four superseded records went too. They existed to point at their successors, and the successors now contain what they said. The checker made this safe. Each merge left dangling links -- 38 files after the host merge alone -- and it named every one. Nothing was found by reading, and a manual pass would certainly have missed some, including references inside AGENTS.md which every session loads.
2026-08-28 20:03:24 +02:00
parent 5e83ac2c22
commit 77f3a4cea7
90 changed files with 1041 additions and 4187 deletions
@@ -2,14 +2,14 @@
 status: graduated
 initiated: 2026-08-25
 became:
-  - 02-DECISIONS/0044-a-module-declares-presence-instantiation-and-exclusion.md
+  - 02-DECISIONS/0044-modules-and-the-graph.md
  - 02-DECISIONS/0045-a-context-owns-its-store.md
  - 03-DESIGN/01-to-be/06-the-control-plane.md
  - 03-DESIGN/01-to-be/07-the-substrate.md
 touches:
-  - 02-DECISIONS/0002-everything-is-a-module.md
-  - 02-DECISIONS/0017-modules-outside-the-core-are-grouped-by-domain.md
-  - 02-DECISIONS/0036-a-node-is-a-managed-machine.md
+  - 02-DECISIONS/0044-modules-and-the-graph.md
+  - 02-DECISIONS/0044-modules-and-the-graph.md
+  - 02-DECISIONS/0036-a-node-and-how-it-joins.md
  - 03-DESIGN/00-as-is/02-modules-and-manifests.md
  - 03-DESIGN/00-as-is/10-module-catalogue.md
  - 04-ISSUES/007-an-installed-package-is-not-a-capability/00-report.md
@@ -21,9 +21,9 @@ touches:
 > *instantiation*, and both are **runtime** edges — they answer *what does this need in order to
 > run*. Delivery needs a different question answered — *what has to be rebuilt when this changes*
 > — and that is a **build** edge, fixed inside an artifact rather than negotiated when it runs.
-> Recorded by [ADR 0064](../../02-DECISIONS/0064-a-build-edge-is-a-third-kind.md), which also
+> Recorded by [ADR 0044](../../02-DECISIONS/0044-modules-and-the-graph.md), which also
 > notes what this effort's three entities turn out to be good for
-> ([ADR 0065](../../02-DECISIONS/0065-the-core-library-is-the-meshs-domain.md)).
+> ([ADR 0044](../../02-DECISIONS/0044-modules-and-the-graph.md)).

 ## What is being investigated

@@ -76,10 +76,10 @@ concluded — `provider:` is a dependency edge that is not read as one, which ma
 for a working mesh come out without a database; and the resolver continues past a cycle and
 past a missing dependency, contrary to ADR 0008.

-[ADR 0017](../../02-DECISIONS/0017-modules-outside-the-core-are-grouped-by-domain.md) proposes
+[ADR 0044](../../02-DECISIONS/0044-modules-and-the-graph.md) proposes
 grouping modules by domain. [Research 005](../005-domain-grouping/analysis.md) measured that
 proposal and found its evidence holds in exactly one place — reachability — which
-[ADR 0037](../../02-DECISIONS/0037-the-host-applies-it-does-not-decide.md) has since absorbed
+[ADR 0037](../../02-DECISIONS/0037-the-node-host.md) has since absorbed
 into the host. The measured case for domain grouping has therefore been consumed by a decision
 taken for unrelated reasons, and what remains is fifty modules that co-change with nothing.

@@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ and abandoned in favour of one concept with facets, for a reason worth keeping:
 Filing decisions that follow from nothing are the disease research 005 measured. A second
 taxonomy would reproduce it.

-So [ADR 0002](../../02-DECISIONS/0002-everything-is-a-module.md) survives, and the question
+So [ADR 0044](../../02-DECISIONS/0044-modules-and-the-graph.md) survives, and the question
 becomes what a module must be able to **declare**.

 ## The shape being investigated
@@ -111,7 +111,7 @@ Five declarations, of which two exist today.

 | Declaration | Today | Notes |
 |---|---|---|
-| **requires a resource** — a database, a bucket | yes | provisioning, [ADR 0005](../../02-DECISIONS/0005-capabilities-are-provisioned-on-declaration.md) |
+| **requires a resource** — a database, a bucket | yes | provisioning, [ADR 0044](../../02-DECISIONS/0044-modules-and-the-graph.md) |
 | **provides a resource** | yes | as above |
 | **requires another module** | **no** | the dependency edge — the graph's substance |
 | **excludes another module** | **no** | installing A makes B unavailable |
@@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ Struck-through rows are answered, with where. The rest are live.
 | ~~What does the graph **delete**?~~ | For the existing system: nothing, it is already there ([`analysis.md`](analysis.md)). For the design: the module/resource distinction, the interface as a kind of thing, capability checking as a separate mechanism, domain grouping, and — the first clear deletion — **grant kinds**, once a module may only be granted what it exclusively owns ([`worked-provider.md`](worked-provider.md)). |
 | ~~Is an interface a module, or a name?~~ | A **name**, and only where providers are genuinely substitutable. The adapter is what creates one; without an adapter there is a **tag**, which describes and does not bind ([`proposal.md`](proposal.md)). |
 | ~~Where do domain modules fit?~~ | They do not. There is core infrastructure — concrete modules named individually, not flavourable, nothing standing in front of them. |
-| ~~What happens to domain grouping?~~ | Superseded. Folders assert relationships; edges record them. What grouping was for is a tag and a query. [ADR 0017](../../02-DECISIONS/0017-modules-outside-the-core-are-grouped-by-domain.md) is `proposed` and should be superseded rather than narrowed. |
+| ~~What happens to domain grouping?~~ | Superseded. Folders assert relationships; edges record them. What grouping was for is a tag and a query. [ADR 0044](../../02-DECISIONS/0044-modules-and-the-graph.md) is `proposed` and should be superseded rather than narrowed. |
 | ~~Is there one kind of edge?~~ | **No — two.** *Presence*, where a thing must exist, and *instantiation*, where a provider makes something for a consumer and hands back credentials. Instantiation implies presence, not the reverse. |
 | ~~When two modules provide one name, who chooses?~~ | Neither the consumer naming a node nor the consumer not caring. The consumer declares the **scope of its own need** — shared across its instances, or one each — the mesh binds, and the binding is written down and sticky. Where it is written follows the scope. |
 | ~~Can several modules share one database?~~ | **No.** A module is granted only what it exclusively owns — no shared writes and no read role on another's store, because reading couples you to its layout just as firmly. |
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ another module's provision is treated as an implicit edge to that module**, so a
 not have to declare the same relationship twice.

 So *ordering by the graph* — which
-[ADR 0043](../../02-DECISIONS/0043-a-declaration-is-an-ordered-list-of-owned-resources.md) says
+[ADR 0037](../../02-DECISIONS/0037-the-node-host.md) says
 the control plane will do — is not a thing to build. It is a thing to call.

 ## Finding 3 — the most important edges in the mesh are invisible
@@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ means.
 ## Finding 4 — the resolver continues past faults it should stop on

 Two behaviours, both contrary to
-[ADR 0008](../../02-DECISIONS/0008-a-failed-step-fails-the-job.md):
+[ADR 0058](../../02-DECISIONS/0058-delivery.md):

 - **A cycle warns and falls back to input order.** A cycle means no correct order exists; the
  resolver proceeds with an arbitrary one and logs a line.
@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ Two behaviours, both contrary to

 Neither has fired in the current catalogue — there are no cycles and nothing dangling — which
 is why nobody has noticed. They are latent, and they are in the component that
-[ADR 0043](../../02-DECISIONS/0043-a-declaration-is-an-ordered-list-of-owned-resources.md) makes
+[ADR 0037](../../02-DECISIONS/0037-the-node-host.md) makes
 responsible for the ordering a host will apply without question.

 ## Finding 5 — placement is decided in the catalogue
@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ it is simply up. *A relational store, a message broker, an object store, a dashb

 **2 — A system package with configuration.** Not a container. Installed into the machine,
 configured through files, run by the service manager. *A firewall, a resolver, an overlay.*
-Note: [ADR 0037](../../02-DECISIONS/0037-the-host-applies-it-does-not-decide.md) says applying
+Note: [ADR 0037](../../02-DECISIONS/0037-the-node-host.md) says applying
 these is the host's job — so what the module contributes is the *deciding*, not the doing.

 **3 — An application a person launches.** Installed on a node, started by a human, running only
@@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ registry. **Tier 2, delivery.**

 **Resources — desired state on a machine.** `configs`, `service`, `systemd`, `vhost`, `tools`.
 Applied, converged, idempotent — which is exactly what
-[ADR 0043](../../02-DECISIONS/0043-a-declaration-is-an-ordered-list-of-owned-resources.md)
+[ADR 0037](../../02-DECISIONS/0037-the-node-host.md)
 already describes and what the host already does. **Tier 0.**

 **Actions — run once, against something that is not this machine.** `migrations`, `seeds`,
@@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ The question the effort opened with, answered for the design rather than for wha
  to install. There is **core infrastructure**, which is a set of concrete modules named
  individually — a firewall, a store, a resolver — with no flavour and no grouping module
  standing in front of them.
- **Domain grouping as structure** ([ADR 0017](../../02-DECISIONS/0017-modules-outside-the-core-are-grouped-by-domain.md)).
+- **Domain grouping as structure** ([ADR 0044](../../02-DECISIONS/0044-modules-and-the-graph.md)).
  Folders assert relationships; edges record them. What grouping was for — finding things,
  seeing what belongs together — is a **tag** and a *query* over the graph, neither of which
  anybody has to keep true by hand.
@@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ Steps 2 and 3 happen **before there is a mesh to do them**. So provisioning is n
 control-plane service that consumers use; it is part of the bootstrap, and part of what the
 carried bundle has to be able to express.

-**Which strains what a declaration is.** [ADR 0043](../../02-DECISIONS/0043-a-declaration-is-an-ordered-list-of-owned-resources.md)
+**Which strains what a declaration is.** [ADR 0037](../../02-DECISIONS/0037-the-node-host.md)
 has the host applying *declared state on this machine*. A database inside a running store is not
 a file or a unit — and at bootstrap it is, at least, local: the store is on the same machine as
 the host applying the bundle.
@@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ Later it is not. A consumer on one node provisioned from a store on another is t
 case, and reaching it is not the host's job.

 **Resolved as two mechanisms, which is the answer rather than a compromise**
-([ADR 0047](../../02-DECISIONS/0047-the-bundle-may-carry-actions-the-link-may-not.md)). The host
+([ADR 0037](../../02-DECISIONS/0037-the-node-host.md)). The host
 runs bootstrap actions locally from the bundle; the control plane provisions across the mesh
 afterwards. Different actors, different scopes, different trust paths — so there is no single
 operation with a tier boundary running through it.
@@ -279,7 +279,7 @@ of them is work.
 | Group | What happens under the rule |
 |---|---|
 | **The owner and its machinery** — the mesh module, the SDK, the environment and configuration synchronisers, secrets | Nothing. It owns the database. |
-| **Node appliers** — the overlay, the shell daemon, the resolver | **Already resolved.** [ADR 0037](../../02-DECISIONS/0037-the-host-applies-it-does-not-decide.md) stops the host querying the mesh database, decided for tier reasons with nothing to do with this. |
+| **Node appliers** — the overlay, the shell daemon, the resolver | **Already resolved.** [ADR 0037](../../02-DECISIONS/0037-the-node-host.md) stops the host querying the mesh database, decided for tier reasons with nothing to do with this. |
 | **Foreign tenants** — the work engine (10 tables), the knowledge base (2), pipeline logs (1) | They need **their own database**. They are not reading the registry; they are storing their own data in it. |
 | **Genuine cross-context reads** — the work engine reads `nodes`; two others read a handful | The only ones needing an interface or events. |

@@ -312,7 +312,7 @@ not the distinction.
 | when the other side is down | you cannot answer | you answer from your copy |
 | what you must handle | a round trip that can fail | events you missed while you were down |

-**What decides is not taste.** [ADR 0036](../../02-DECISIONS/0036-a-node-is-a-managed-machine.md)
+**What decides is not taste.** [ADR 0036](../../02-DECISIONS/0036-a-node-and-how-it-joins.md)
 makes disconnection an ordinary situation rather than an exception. So:

 > **Anything that must keep working while disconnected cannot use a request** — there is nobody
@@ -354,14 +354,14 @@ proves it cannot be a global rule.

 **What happens to a grant when the consumer is removed?** The game is uninstalled. Its database
 still exists, holding its data. Dropping it silently is data loss; keeping it forever is a leak.
-[ADR 0043](../../02-DECISIONS/0043-a-declaration-is-an-ordered-list-of-owned-resources.md) says
+[ADR 0037](../../02-DECISIONS/0037-the-node-host.md) says
 the host removes what it applied and no longer declares — but this is not on the host, it is
 inside another module's state, and the same reasoning does not obviously carry.

 **Where does node-derived configuration come from?** (3) The control plane composes a
 declaration, and cannot know this machine's memory. Either the host fills in a blank the
 declaration leaves — which makes the host decide something, against
-[ADR 0037](../../02-DECISIONS/0037-the-host-applies-it-does-not-decide.md) — or the control
+[ADR 0037](../../02-DECISIONS/0037-the-node-host.md) — or the control
 plane reads the node's inventory first and composes with it. The second is consistent and means
 a declaration is composed *per node from what the node reported*, which is a stronger claim than
 anything recorded so far.
@@ -421,7 +421,7 @@ But two things differ *between* them, and both matter more than the similarity.

 [ADR 0001](../../02-DECISIONS/0001-nodes-communicate-over-a-broker.md) makes the broker the
 channel every node takes work from, and
-[ADR 0039](../../02-DECISIONS/0039-the-link-is-the-security-boundary.md) makes it the security
+[ADR 0036](../../02-DECISIONS/0036-a-node-and-how-it-joins.md) makes it the security
 boundary — everything a node applies arrives through it.

 So the module providing the broker is also **the way modules are managed**. A declaration cannot
@@ -430,7 +430,7 @@ reconfigured. Nothing else in the catalogue has that property; the store is cons
 control plane but is not how the control plane *reaches* anything.

 This is exactly what the carried bundle exists for
-([ADR 0038](../../02-DECISIONS/0038-a-node-joins-by-linking-first.md)): the broker is raised from
+([ADR 0036](../../02-DECISIONS/0036-a-node-and-how-it-joins.md)): the broker is raised from
 what the host carries, before there is a channel, because there is no other way to raise it.
 Recorded here because it is a constraint on *one module*, not a general rule, and a schema with
 no way to say so hides it.
@@ -439,7 +439,7 @@ no way to say so hides it.

 The broker is one per mesh — a single point of failure and a single point of trust, by decision
 rather than by accident. The store cannot be: a node that must keep working while disconnected
-([ADR 0036](../../02-DECISIONS/0036-a-node-is-a-managed-machine.md)) cannot depend on a database
+([ADR 0036](../../02-DECISIONS/0036-a-node-and-how-it-joins.md)) cannot depend on a database
 somewhere else.

 Same nine properties, opposite answers. Which settles something the cases file left open: **how