diff --git a/04-ISSUES/113-should-the-controller-be-a-container-or-a-process-the-host-supervises/00-report.md b/04-ISSUES/114-should-the-controller-be-a-container-or-a-process/00-report.md
similarity index 83%
rename from 04-ISSUES/113-should-the-controller-be-a-container-or-a-process-the-host-supervises/00-report.md
rename to 04-ISSUES/114-should-the-controller-be-a-container-or-a-process/00-report.md
index ce0e98c..6b03b96 100644
--- a/04-ISSUES/113-should-the-controller-be-a-container-or-a-process-the-host-supervises/00-report.md
+++ b/04-ISSUES/114-should-the-controller-be-a-container-or-a-process/00-report.md
@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ fixed-by:
 amended-design:
 ---
 
-# 113 — Should the controller run as a container, or as a process the host supervises directly?
+# 114 — Should the controller run as a container, or as a process the host supervises directly?
 
 ## What was observed
 
@@ -71,3 +71,16 @@ checked.
   a controller outage tolerable regardless of which resource type it is?
 - If the answer is "keep it a container," what does that answer, precisely, that this issue asked —
   so the next person who notices the same asymmetry finds it answered rather than open again?
+
+## The general case
+
+[Issue 117](../117-a-modules-own-code-is-a-container-and-a-process/00-report.md) is the same
+question asked of every module rather than of the controller: a module's own code is a `container`
+in [ADR 0047](../../02-DECISIONS/0047-a-module-runs-its-code-as-its-own-process-with-its-own-account.md)
+and a `process` in the to-be design, and no record moves it. Its
+[diagnosis](../117-a-modules-own-code-is-a-container-and-a-process/01-diagnosis.md) answers the
+first open question above: the host's `process` shape is built, applied and tested, including the
+restart and run-to-completion semantics — so this would not need host-side work first.
+
+The two do not collapse into one. The controller is not a code-carrying sidecar, and `network: host`
+is what makes the asymmetry visible here and nowhere else.
diff --git a/04-ISSUES/117-a-modules-own-code-is-a-container-and-a-process/01-diagnosis.md b/04-ISSUES/117-a-modules-own-code-is-a-container-and-a-process/01-diagnosis.md
index c6f6b3a..3ec972e 100644
--- a/04-ISSUES/117-a-modules-own-code-is-a-container-and-a-process/01-diagnosis.md
+++ b/04-ISSUES/117-a-modules-own-code-is-a-container-and-a-process/01-diagnosis.md
@@ -150,12 +150,20 @@ controller is declared a `container` with `network: host` — so container netwo
 property that resource type usually buys, is not in use — and it asks what `type: container` buys
 that `type: process` would not.
 
-It is unmerged and numbered 113, which is taken. A sibling branch,
-`issue/113-record-the-repin-and-fold-114`, is why `114` is free.
+It was unmerged and numbered 113, which is taken. A sibling branch,
+`issue/113-record-the-repin-and-fold-114`, is why `114` was free.
 
 **That report and this one are the instance and the general condition**, and they do not conflict:
 it asks about one module that is not a code-carrying sidecar at all, and reaches the same question
-from the opposite end.
+from the opposite end. So it lands in this change as
+[issue 114](../114-should-the-controller-be-a-container-or-a-process/00-report.md), its commit and
+authorship intact, with a section pointing here — rather than being folded in and losing the
+`network: host` observation, which is its own and is not reproduced above.
+
+This diagnosis answers its first open question. The host's `process` shape does support what
+[ADR 0005](../../02-DECISIONS/0005-the-node-host.md) describes for the host's own launcher — the
+unit, the timer, restart, and run-to-completion gating are implemented and tested — so that report
+does not need host-side work before it can be decided.
 
 ## What is located, and what is not