diff --git a/02-DECISIONS/0009-modules-and-the-graph.md b/02-DECISIONS/0009-modules-and-the-graph.md
index 24615df..aca46f5 100644
--- a/02-DECISIONS/0009-modules-and-the-graph.md
+++ b/02-DECISIONS/0009-modules-and-the-graph.md
@@ -173,11 +173,55 @@ address of its database on another, as a file, and reaches it by a name the mesh
 stated absence looks like a boundary, and somebody wiring this up should not spend an afternoon
 looking for a password that was never going to be there.
 
-**What remains is the secret itself**, and it is the larger half: it must exist, be stored, reach
-one node and not the others, and rotate with every holder informed — which is
-[the invariant set](0001-mesh-brokers-nodes-host-agents-think.md) that was found violated three
-ways at once, and the reason it is not something to add in passing. What is built is the shape it
-will arrive in.
+### And the secret, which is delivered without ever being held
+
+*Written 2026-08-30, after looking at how the existing mesh does it. The design here is a reaction
+to a measurement, not a preference.*
+
+**The obvious arrangement is a credentials column, encrypted at rest.** It exists, and its own
+tooling records what it bought:
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| the tool for finding a secret matches **by value**, not by name | because one password is in the provisions table, the environment table, each node's environment file in plain text, and **inside every connection string composed from it** — copies its documentation calls *"often the only copies actually in use"* |
+| a query against the encrypted column **returns zero rows and proves nothing** | so auditing moved to the decrypted copies on the machines |
+
+**Two faults, and encryption at rest addresses neither.** The control plane can read what it
+stores, so a copy of its database is a copy of every credential in the mesh. And one secret has
+many homes with nothing tracking them — **composition is what mints the untracked ones**, because
+building a connection string centrally creates a new secret-bearing value no rotation path knows
+about.
+
+**So the value is sealed to the node that will use it before it is stored.** With a key that node
+generated and whose private half the mesh has never seen — a third key beside the identity and the
+overlay, for the same reason those are two rather than one. What is stored is unusable by whoever
+holds it, the mesh included, and the broker relays a blob it cannot read. This is what makes
+[ADR 0004](0004-a-node-and-how-it-joins.md)'s *compromise of a node is compromise of that node*
+true of secrets rather than true of identity and quietly false of everything that matters.
+
+**And nothing is composed centrally.** A connection string is assembled on the machine that needs
+one, if at all. The mesh delivers parts.
+
+**What it costs, stated because it is real:** the mesh cannot audit by value. That is the right
+trade rather than an oversight — a query over an encrypted column could not either, so the audit
+was never real. What *is* answerable is which node holds what, which is the question rotation
+actually asks.
+
+**A consequence that shapes the mechanism.** The mesh discarded the plaintext, so it cannot
+compose a file containing it. The credential is therefore **its own file**, holding the value and
+nothing else, beside the readable one. That is better than the alternative it was forced into:
+the readable half stays readable in the declaration, and the secret half changes only when the
+secret does, so a service reloading on it reloads for a real reason.
+
+**Rotation is generating a new one**, because reading the old one back is not possible. Both ends
+are re-sealed and reach their machines in the same push — which removes the window where half the
+mesh holds a dead credential, the failure
+[recorded in ADR 0001](0001-mesh-brokers-nodes-host-agents-think.md) as consumers on three nodes
+holding one for two days.
+
+**What remains is a provisioner** — something that creates the database user the credential is
+for. The mesh now generates the secret, tells the provider to create it and the consumer to use
+it; nothing yet acts on the telling.
 
 **One check that only became possible now.** Two machines wired together across no private network
 is a mesh that reports itself configured and does not work, and the failure surfaces as a