Accept ADR 0110 and ADR 0111; the seats design is in progress

The seats half of to-be 27's review is settled, so the two records it rests on are accepted and
the vocabulary catches up: the glossary's *seat* becomes a named role from a closed set, held by
an assignment and possibly delivering a provision, and 23 — Choosing a provider gains the seat
step in resolution, with ambiguity still refused rather than guessed. Both were held back when
0110 was proposed, because a document may not rest on a record that is not accepted.

26 — The seats moves to in-progress rather than designed: it names the files that implement it,
and naming a file claims implementation, which is only defensible once those files are on the
owning repositories' main branches. It becomes implemented when mesh-controller #63 and
mesh-catalog #69 land.

0112, 0113 and 0114 stay proposed; to-be 27 stays proposed with them.

03-DESIGN/01-to-be/23-choosing-a-provider.md

@@ -2,10 +2,11 @@
 layer: to-be
 status: designed
 code: []
-updated: 2026-09-20
+updated: 2026-09-25
 decisions:
   - 02-DECISIONS/0084-which-provider-serves-a-consumer.md
   - 02-DECISIONS/0027-a-provision-names-what-the-consumer-is-coupled-to.md
+  - 02-DECISIONS/0110-a-seat-is-a-module-assignment-from-a-closed-set.md
 ---
 
 # 23 — Choosing a provider
@@ -50,9 +51,16 @@ provider on a different node. That coupling is exactly what may not be guessed,
 names the provider. Naming it is also what makes a later move safe — the mesh knows the binding is
 to that provider and not to whichever one is nearest.
 
+**A seat names the mesh's one provider of a kind.** Where a seat delivers the provision, its holder
+answers for it when several providers exist and the consumer named none. That is not picking: the
+choice was made once, mesh-wide, by assigning the holder, rather than once per consumer by naming it
+([ADR 0110](../../02-DECISIONS/0110-a-seat-is-a-module-assignment-from-a-closed-set.md),
+[26 — The seats](26-the-seats.md)). A named provider still wins over the seat, because a consumer
+coupled to particular contents has said so.
+
 **Ambiguity is refused, never resolved by picking.** If several providers of a kind exist, none is
-named, and none is co-located, the requirement is unsatisfiable and is refused with the candidates
-shown — the same stance
+named, none is co-located, and no seat delivers it, the requirement is unsatisfiable and is refused
+with the candidates shown — the same stance
 [ADR 0027](../../02-DECISIONS/0027-a-provision-names-what-the-consumer-is-coupled-to.md) took
 against a confidently-wrong match, applied to the instance rather than the dialect. A wrong answer
 delivered quietly costs more than a refusal.

03-DESIGN/01-to-be/26-the-seats.md

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 layer: to-be
-status: proposed
+status: in-progress
 code:
   - mesh-controller internal/catalogue/seats.go
   - mesh-controller internal/catalogue/resolve.go