Phase 1.2 done, and it is the same surprise as 1.1

A session as a licence consumer needed no change either: the two
sessions are two modules, so the existing (node, module) binding already
names them apart. 14-model-access.md's "a step toward it and not it" is
true of a worker and not of a session, and the difference is that there
is one session per node rather than many per machine.

Records what stays open: the worker half of that gap is real and
unaffected, and belongs with 0003, which is unbuilt.

Two tasks in a row that were already possible. Both were written from
the design rather than from the code — the review's own finding arriving
in the plan it produced. The remaining Phase 1 items should be checked
against the code before being started rather than after.

03-DESIGN/01-to-be/00-work-breakdown.md

@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ Found by taking real modules and asking what they would require. Each is a gap i
 | # | task | done when |
 |---|---|---|
 | ~~1.1~~ | ~~An **object-store provision**~~ — **done 2026-08-31**, and it needed no change to the mesh: see below | seven assertions against a real store |
-| 1.2 | **A session as a consumer of a licence** | the two sessions on one machine hold different licences and each uses its own ([`14-model-access.md`](14-model-access.md), [ADR 0026](../../02-DECISIONS/0026-the-mesh-has-a-session-of-its-own.md)) |
+| ~~1.2~~ | ~~**A session as a consumer of a licence**~~ — **done 2026-08-31**, and it also needed no change: see below | two sessions on one machine, different licences, each its own key |
 | 1.3 | A **network** shape, and ordering within a module | a module of several containers reaches itself, and one that must start after another does |
 | 1.4 | **Public certificate issuance** | a name reachable from outside is served with a certificate from a public authority, obtained against a **staging** endpoint unless told otherwise ([`04-ISSUES/004`](../../04-ISSUES/004-certificate-issuance-targets-production/00-report.md)) |
 
@@ -67,6 +67,20 @@ a mail system needs and nothing else so far does.
 
 **Checkpoint:** each is demonstrated in the lab before the module needing it is attempted.
 
+### 1.2, and the same surprise twice
+
+**A binding is per module per machine, and the two sessions are two modules** — the same mechanism
+in different context roots, and a context root is what a module delivers. So `(node, module)`
+already names them apart, and nothing needed adding.
+[`14-model-access.md`](14-model-access.md) had called per-module-per-machine *a step toward it and
+not it*, which is true of a **worker** — many run on one machine from one module — and not true of
+a session, of which there is one per node and one for the mesh.
+
+**Two tasks in a row that were already possible.** Both were written from the design rather than
+from the code, which is the review's finding arriving in the plan: *a claim here is counted, not
+reasoned.* The remaining Phase 1 items should be checked against the code before being started,
+not after.
+
 ### 1.1, and what it turned out to be
 
 *Done 2026-08-31. Worth recording because the task was not the one written down.*

03-DESIGN/01-to-be/14-model-access.md

@@ -83,11 +83,23 @@ per machine, which is a step toward it and is not it.
 
 *2026-08-31: this gap now has named consumers rather than hypothetical ones.*
 [ADR 0026](../../02-DECISIONS/0026-the-mesh-has-a-session-of-its-own.md) puts two sessions on the
-control-plane node — the node's own and the mesh's — each bound in its own right. **A per-machine
-binding cannot express that at all**, not merely awkwardly: the two sessions share a machine and
-must be able to hold different licences. See
+control-plane node — the node's own and the mesh's — each bound in its own right. See
 [`15-the-agent-session.md`](15-the-agent-session.md).
 
+**And for sessions the gap is already closed, which was not obvious.** A binding is per module per
+machine, and this document called that *a step toward it and not it* — reasoning that a machine
+cannot name an agent. It cannot; but the two sessions are **two modules**, because they are the
+same mechanism started in different context roots and a context root is what a module delivers.
+So `(node, module)` tells them apart, and asking for a licence per session needed no new consumer
+identity. Checked rather than argued: two sessions on one machine hold different licences, each is
+given its own key, and releasing one leaves the other.
+
+**What is still open is the rest of the gap, and it is the harder half.** A *worker* is not one
+per machine — many can run on one, from one module — so `(node, module)` cannot name them apart
+and this reasoning does not extend to them. That belongs with
+[ADR 0003](../../02-DECISIONS/0003-agents-are-persistent-employees.md), which is unbuilt, and it
+is the reason this section stays open rather than being struck out.
+
 **Switching is a reaction, not a declaration.** A licence that hits its limit and must be swapped is
 a response to something observed. Expressing it as a declaration would make the declaration mean
 *whatever is working right now*, which is not a thing anybody declared. It belongs with