Remove two disclosures, and record Nox as the answer to 006

Found by a full scan before making the repository public, which is the
moment the public rule stops being aspirational.

A module name identified a specific laptop model — hardware inventory,
which is operational detail about one installation rather than a lesson
that travels. Generalised.

ADR 0028 named a forge username in a repository path, which the public
rule forbids, and the sentence had also gone stale: the repository it
described was subsequently verified empty of anything unique and removed.
Rewritten to state what happened without the username. Removing a
disclosure from a record is the same class as fixing a path — the rule
that permits it outranks the one that forbids editing.

Issue 006 gains its proposed direction: Nox works from within this
repository rather than these documents being synced into the knowledge
base. Better on three counts — no copy, so no drift; no fourth knowledge
system, which was the original objection; always current.

But it changes the promise, and the issue says so. ADR 0019 promised these
documents would surface BESIDE everything else in a symptom search. An
agent that must be asked is reachable, not surfacing, and the two differ
in precisely the case the operational memory exists for — someone
debugging an error with no reason to suspect HQ knows anything about it.
The question narrows to whether a symptom search finds this content
without the searcher already suspecting it.

04-ISSUES/006-hq-is-not-indexed-into-the-knowledge-base/00-report.md

@@ -55,3 +55,36 @@ checked it — including in the same commit that wrote the rule.
   and this content is governed rather than incidental.
 - Public repository, private mesh: the sync direction must not become a path for mesh-specific
   content to arrive **into** these documents.
+
+## Proposed direction — Nox is the search
+
+*Added 2026-08-23.* Rather than syncing these documents into the knowledge base, **Nox
+([ADR 0027](../../02-DECISIONS/0027-the-product-is-novox-mesh.md)) works from within this
+repository and holds its knowledge directly.** Retrieval becomes an agent reading the source,
+not a copy living in a second store.
+
+This is a better answer than the one the README originally promised, on three counts:
+
+- **No sync, so no drift.** The failure mode of a derived copy — the enforced copy winning
+  while the reasoned one quietly stops being true — cannot occur when there is no copy.
+- **It dissolves the original objection properly.** The argument against a separate repository
+  was that it adds a fourth knowledge *system*. An agent with read access adds no store at all.
+- **It is always current**, including for uncommitted work in progress.
+
+**But it changes the promise, and that is worth stating rather than glossing.** ADR 0019's
+answer was that these documents would be returned *beside everything else* in a symptom search.
+An agent that must be **asked** is reachable; it is not surfacing. The two differ in exactly
+the case the operational memory is designed for: someone debugging an error who has no reason
+to think HQ knows anything about it.
+
+So the open question narrows to one thing:
+
+> When a symptom is searched and the answer happens to live in a design document or a decision
+> record here, does the searcher find it without already suspecting it exists?
+
+If Nox is the only path, the answer is no, and the reasoning in ADR 0019 needs amending rather
+than satisfying. If Nox also contributes what it knows to a symptom search — or the search
+consults Nox — the answer is yes and the original promise holds.
+
+That is a design question for Nox, not a defect in this repository, and it should be settled
+before ADR 0019 is treated as answered.