Issue 076 opened: a served fact made at first start cannot be served; ADR 0097's refusal of an undeclared base is live

02-DECISIONS/0097-a-vendor-image-is-a-declared-build-input.md

@@ -36,10 +36,11 @@ image the manifest did not declare is refused before the build, naming the image
 its own stages, declared arguments and `scratch` are not fetches. An unpinned vendor image is
 refused: a tag is what somebody else can move.
 
-A recipe whose `FROM` names an undeclared base is **said, not yet refused**: the mesh's own images
-— the control plane's, the builder's, the tool runtime's — start from a public base and declare
-none, and refusing those refuses genesis. They declare their bases next; until then every build
-names the undeclared base and the remedy.
+A recipe whose `FROM` names an undeclared base was at first said, not refused: the mesh's own
+images — the control plane's, the tool runtime's, the route proxy's — started from a public base
+and declared none, and refusing those refuses genesis. *Amended the same day:* those three declare
+their bases now, and an undeclared `FROM` is refused like an undeclared copy. The builder's own
+image and the examples are built by `make`, not by the mesh, and take arguments with defaults.
 
 The package half of the issue is not decided here: the mesh's package registry already proxies
 the public one, and the failure the report saw has to be run again to be placed.

03-DESIGN/01-to-be/18-building-a-module.md

@@ -221,8 +221,8 @@ and nothing uploaded on a second copy.
 entry is a module's artifact or an image published elsewhere, pinned by digest, read from one
 build argument; the image is copied into the mesh's registry before the build and the recipe is
 handed the copy. A recipe whose `COPY --from` names a registry image the manifest did not declare
-is refused before the build, naming it and the remedy; an undeclared `FROM` is said, not yet
-refused, because the mesh's own images start from a public base and declare none. *How it is
+is refused before the build, naming it and the remedy, and so is an undeclared `FROM`: the mesh's
+own images declare the bases they start from. *How it is
 checked:* builder tests on a declared and an unpinned vendor image, and a recipe test on what
 counts as a copy and what as a base.
 

04-ISSUES/074-a-mesh-test-wears-a-catalogue-modules-name/01-diagnosis.md

@@ -27,3 +27,6 @@ sidecar beds proved a sidecar alone, which the module beds prove whole; the mini
 grant beds proved a grant with a second store beside the foundation's, which the grant bed and
 the vault bed prove against the catalogue. Retired, with their scenarios. Two remain declared:
 route-forwarding, which needs the certificate authority beside the proxy, and the large mesh test.
+
+*Route-forwarding's conversion is blocked:* the catalogue's authority cannot be raised as written
+([issue 076](../076-a-served-fact-made-at-first-start-cannot-be-served/00-report.md)).

04-ISSUES/076-a-served-fact-made-at-first-start-cannot-be-served/00-report.md

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+---
+status: located
+opened: 2026-09-21
+located-in: [mesh-catalog modules/step-ca, mesh-controller internal/catalogue (serves)]
+fixed-by:
+amended-design:
+---
+
+# A served fact made at first start cannot be served, so the catalogue's authority cannot start
+
+## Symptom, as observed
+
+The catalogue's certificate authority module declares its root certificate, its root key and
+that key's password as its own secrets, and writes each into a file the container is told to
+initialise from. The mesh mints an own secret as random bytes. Random bytes are not a
+certificate: as written, the authority cannot initialise, and no bed has ever raised it — the
+whole-mesh bed that names it has not run since it was converted. Found while converting the
+route-forwarding bed to the catalogue's proxy, which requires the authority beside it.
+
+The authority can make its own root at first start — the certificate bed raises it that way and
+it issues within a second. What it cannot do then is tell the mesh what that root is: a
+consumer of `acme-ca` is given `${bound:acme-ca:root}` from the provider's `serves`, which is
+written in the manifest before anything runs.
+
+## Why it matters beyond this instance
+
+- **Two kinds of secret the vocabulary does not distinguish.** A value the mesh may invent (a
+  password) and a value only the module can produce (a key pair, a certificate) are both
+  "own secrets", and the mesh invents both.
+- **A served fact that exists only after first start** has no way into a binding. Anything a
+  module generates and its consumers must trust — a root, a public key, a fingerprint — is in
+  the same position.
+- Every consumer of `acme-ca`, which today is the route proxy, is blocked with it.
+
+## What would close it
+
+Either a module may say a secret is *made by the module* — the mesh reserves the name, the
+module writes the value once, the mesh takes custody of it and delivers it where it is bound —
+or a served fact may be *contributed at run time* by the provider's runtime rather than written
+in its manifest. The first is the smaller change and covers the root certificate; the second is
+what a fingerprint or a public key wants. Decided, then the authority raised in the lab beside
+the proxy, which is the route-forwarding bed's conversion.