Issues 106 and 138 resolved (ADR 0161 built and live); 187 notes a report lost without retry

2026-10-01 17:18:17 +02:00
parent a7e9e6dea0
commit 86d1763cfa
3 changed files with 29 additions and 4 deletions
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 ---
-status: located
+status: resolved
 opened: 2026-09-23
 located-in: [mesh-controller internal/catalogue/seats.go (the seed lacks mesh-vault), mesh-catalog modules/mesh-vault/module.json (claims nothing)]
-fixed-by: 
+fixed-by: mesh-controller PR 192 (the seat row), mesh-catalog PR 205 (the claim; the vault's events renamed to its own)
 amended-design: [03-DESIGN/01-to-be/26-the-seats.md]
 ---

@@ -39,3 +39,11 @@ own set, mesh-scoped, delivering `secret`, and the vault claims it; a second pro
 claimant, refused by name. The record also answers the second question: a provision the mesh's own
 code dereferences by name gets a seat, every other mesh-scoped provision may have several providers.
 Design 26's *reserved* for `secret` named an effect no rule produced; corrected there.
+
+## Resolved, 2026-10-01
+
+`seats` on the live mesh lists `mesh-vault` at mesh scope, delivering `secret`, held by the vault on
+the control node. A second provider of `secret` is now a second claimant and refused by name
+(`CanHold`'s test). Found on the way: the vault's definition could not be rebuilt at all — it emitted
+`secret.provisioned` and the like, which the builder reads as another module's events — so the events
+are now the vault's own, `provisioned`, `rotated`, `deprovisioned`.