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 The four superseded records went too.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. |