diff --git a/04-ISSUES/043-a-module-cannot-be-given-the-meshs-own-queues/00-report.md b/04-ISSUES/043-a-module-cannot-be-given-the-meshs-own-queues/00-report.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..684c44a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/04-ISSUES/043-a-module-cannot-be-given-the-meshs-own-queues/00-report.md
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+---
+status: resolved
+opened: 2026-09-12
+resolved: 2026-09-12
+located-in: []
+fixed-by: nothing — the capability already existed and the wrong verb was used
+amended-design:
+---
+
+# 043 — A module cannot be given an account for the mesh's own queues
+
+**Withdrawn the day it was opened. The premise was wrong.** Kept rather than deleted, because the
+mistake is repeatable and the reason is worth reading.
+
+## What was claimed
+
+That a build machine could not be given access to the mesh's build queue, because a broker account
+is scoped to what a module `emits` and `consumes`, and the build queue is not a module event. The
+evidence was a builder that authenticated and was then refused:
+
+```
+ACCESS_REFUSED - User 'anchor-builder' doesn't have permissions to queue 'builds'
+```
+
+## Why it was wrong
+
+**The capability exists and is reachable from the command line.** There are two verbs, and they
+create different things:
+
+| Verb | Creates | Scoped to |
+|---|---|---|
+| `module issue <module> --node <n>` | a module's account | what that module emits and consumes |
+| `builder issue <name> [--node <n>]` | a build machine's account | the build queue, and the mesh exchange |
+
+The refusal was produced by using the first for a job the second exists to do. Running
+`builder issue` and pushing produced a builder that starts and takes work — no change to any
+manifest, any code, or the account mechanism.
+
+## The part worth keeping
+
+**The wrong verb succeeds, and says so.** `module issue` reported *"broker account created, scoped
+to what it emits and consumes"* for a module that emits and consumes nothing, producing an account
+that authenticates and can do nothing. The failure then appears one layer away, in the module's own
+log, as a permissions error against a queue — which reads like a missing capability rather than a
+misused command.
+
+That is a small, real sharp edge, and it is the whole of what this issue found. Whether it is worth
+anything — a refusal when a module with no events asks for an account, or a note in the builder
+module pointing at the verb that fits it — is a judgement, not a defect.
+
+**And a lesson that is not about the mesh:** the capability was three lines away in the same file as
+the code being read, under a name that says exactly what it does. The issue was written before
+looking for it.