Approve 0054-0056, apply them, and fix the two smaller findings

0003 is now superseded by 0056. Nothing is left proposed.

Applied:
- 06 corrected from ten contexts to seven plus the api, each row now stating
  why it passes the more-than-one-node test. work, knowledge and stream are
  named as mesh-hosted rather than dropped; `ai` folds into config; `record`
  is deferred explicitly rather than listed. Its frontmatter now cites 0055.
- how-we-build §4 amended per 0054, and the derived page republished by
  playbook 05.

The sync found the drift the playbook exists to catch: the published §4 and
the source did not say the same thing. The source said "four accidents, not
four boundaries"; the published page said "one intent expressed four times",
and only the published page carried the scope caveat. Same rule, two texts,
already diverging. Verified the republish by reading back -- the new rule is
present and the old section's body returns nothing -- rather than trusting the
success message.

The two smaller findings:
- 0051 separated the transport identity from the declaring authority. It said
  the token carries "an address" and "the identity to expect" without saying
  what the node dials. It dials the broker, so pinning only that would make the
  control plane's authority transitive and let a compromised broker forge
  declarations -- which, since the host applies whatever the link delivers, is
  the whole machine. The token now carries four things, and declarations are
  signed and verified per declaration. Cost recorded: rotating the signing
  identity is fleet-wide.
- 0026 no longer restates 0022's rule about generated views. 0022's own words
  are "prose does not restate status; one place, and two is one too many",
  which is what 0026 was doing to it.

02-DECISIONS/0003-the-mesh-database-is-the-source-of-truth.md

@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
 ---
-status: accepted
+status: superseded
+superseded-by: 02-DECISIONS/0056-the-authority-is-the-control-plane-not-a-database.md
 date: 2026-04-02
 deciders: jochen
 reconstructed: true

02-DECISIONS/0026-every-decision-is-a-record.md

@@ -47,9 +47,16 @@ beside `02-DECISIONS/`, holding different things.
 **If a decision is worth recording, it is worth a record. If it is not worth a record, it is
 not recorded.**
 
-`02-DECISIONS` holds every decision. There is no ledger, no index file, and no central status
-of any kind. The chronological view — decisions in the order they were taken — is *generated*
-from record frontmatter, which is what the ledger was actually for.
+`02-DECISIONS` holds every decision, and **there is no ledger** — no separate document in which
+a decision is also summarised, ranked or tracked. The chronological view — decisions in the order
+they were taken — is *generated* from record frontmatter, which is what the ledger was actually
+for.
+
+That generation is not this record's rule. It is
+[ADR 0022](0022-status-lives-in-frontmatter.md), which already decides repository-wide that
+status lives in frontmatter and every cross-cutting view is generated rather than written. This
+record does not restate it — 0022's own words are *prose does not restate status; one place, and
+two is one too many*, and an earlier version of this paragraph did exactly that.
 
 Content that was only in the ledger was rehomed rather than dropped:
 

02-DECISIONS/0051-the-enrolment-token-carries-the-mesh.md

@@ -55,14 +55,35 @@ mesh.
 
 ## Decision
 
-**The enrolment token carries three things**, and it is the only thing a joining node needs:
+**The enrolment token carries four things**, and it is the only thing a joining node needs:
 
 | | | |
 |---|---|---|
-| **where** | an **address**, not a name | there is no resolution yet, and this is why none is needed |
-| **who** | the fingerprint of the identity to expect | what makes the mesh provable rather than assumed |
+| **where** | the **broker's address**, not a name | a node dials the broker ([ADR 0001](0001-nodes-communicate-over-a-broker.md)); there is no resolution yet, and this is why none is needed |
+| **what it is connecting to** | the fingerprint of the **broker's** certificate | so the node reaches the mesh's bus and not something answering in its place |
+| **who it will believe** | the **control plane's** signing identity | what makes the mesh provable rather than assumed |
 | **the right to join** | the one-time secret ADR 0039 already specifies | useless once used, useless after it expires |
 
+### The endpoint and the authority are two identities, not one
+
+This is worth separating because collapsing it is the easy mistake, and the collapsed version
+silently fails to deliver what [ADR 0039](0039-the-link-is-the-security-boundary.md) asks for.
+
+A node connects to the **broker** and takes instruction from the **control plane**, which sits
+behind it. Pinning only the broker would make the control plane's authority *transitive* — the
+node would believe a declaration because of where it arrived from. **A compromised broker could
+then forge declarations**, and since the host applies whatever the link delivers, that is the
+whole machine.
+
+So the node verifies **the transport** and **each declaration** separately:
+
+- the broker, by its certificate, at connect time;
+- the control plane, by a **signature on the declaration itself**, every time.
+
+Then 0039's *the control plane proves it is the mesh* holds against a hostile broker rather than
+assuming a friendly one — which matters because the broker is the one component every node must
+reach and the one most exposed.
+
 The token is issued by the mesh for one enrolment and **carried out of band** — by the person
 adopting the machine. That is what breaks both circles: its authenticity comes from the channel
 it travelled, not from anything the node can check afterwards.
@@ -104,6 +125,13 @@ being a design statement and being a fact.
 - **The address in the token can go stale.** If the control plane moves, unissued tokens point
   somewhere wrong. Tokens are short-lived, which bounds it; moving the control plane is
   [`06`](../03-DESIGN/01-to-be/06-the-control-plane.md)'s undesigned territory regardless.
+- **Declarations must be signed, and that is a real requirement rather than a note.** The host
+  verifies a signature before applying anything, which adds a key to what it must carry and a
+  failure mode it must report legibly — *this declaration is not from the mesh I joined* is a
+  different condition from *this declaration is malformed*, and they must not read alike.
+- **Rotating the control plane's signing identity is a fleet-wide operation**, because every node
+  holds the previous one. That is the cost of not trusting the broker, it is accepted, and it
+  needs a rollover that overlaps rather than a flag day.
 - **A rejoining node is an ordinary case, not a special one.** A node that has lost its identity
   gets a new token. There is no recovery path to design because there is no long-lived secret to
   recover.

02-DECISIONS/0054-things-that-change-together-share-an-authority.md

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ---
-status: proposed
+status: accepted
 date: 2026-08-27
 deciders: jochen
 reconstructed: false
@@ -91,10 +91,16 @@ replacement keeps the observation and changes the instruction:
 
 - **The instruction now matches the design.** An agent reading the constitution and an agent
   reading 0044 reach the same answer, which they currently do not.
-- **The republication is the point, not a formality.** Until the derived page is regenerated the
-  mesh is still governed by the old rule, and this record has changed nothing where it matters.
-  Verified by reading the rule back out of the published page
-  ([ADR 0035](0035-a-picture-is-read-from-what-runs.md)), not by the publish reporting success.
+- **Synced 2026-08-27**, playbook [05](../00-META/process/05-constitution-sync.md). The derived
+  page carries the new rule and §4 keeps its number. **Verified by reading back**, not by the
+  publish reporting success: the replacement text is present, and the old section's body — *scope
+  under measurement: grouping is evidenced for reachability* — returns nothing.
+- **The sync found a drift the playbook exists to catch.** The published §4 and the source did not
+  say the same thing: the source spoke of *four accidents, not four boundaries*, the published
+  page of *one intent expressed four times*, and only the published page carried the scope
+  caveat. Same rule, two texts, already diverging — which is the exact failure
+  [ADR 0025](0025-hq-is-the-source-of-the-constitution.md) predicted and the reason the playbook
+  re-publishes the whole page rather than patching a section.
 - **`context` becomes a word the constitution uses**, which raises the obvious next question —
   *which contexts are there* — and that is
   [ADR 0055](0055-the-control-plane-is-the-node-coordinating-contexts.md), not this record.

02-DECISIONS/0055-the-control-plane-is-the-node-coordinating-contexts.md

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ---
-status: proposed
+status: accepted
 date: 2026-08-27
 deciders: jochen
 reconstructed: false

02-DECISIONS/0056-the-authority-is-the-control-plane-not-a-database.md

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 ---
-status: proposed
+status: accepted
 date: 2026-08-27
 deciders: jochen
 reconstructed: false