Renumber the records 1 to 23

The consolidation left a sparse sequence -- 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18,
19, 25, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 42, 44, 45, 48, 49, 58 -- where the gaps were only
the archaeology of what used to be there.

Renumbered contiguously. Renames run in ascending order, so every target number
is already free and no two files ever collide.

The reference rewrite is one simultaneous pass rather than a sequence of
replacements. Numbers moved into slots other numbers were vacating -- the node
host went 37 to 16 while the lab went 16 to 9 -- so replacing one at a time
would have cascaded and silently pointed things at the wrong record.

Seven plain-text references survived the merges as prose rather than links,
naming records that no longer existed: the enrolment token, the link boundary,
what a declaration is, reachability, the repository structure. Each mapped to
the consolidated record that now holds it.

Verified rather than assumed: every [ADR NNNN](path) link now has matching text
and target, checked across the whole repository, and the checker passes.

Frontmatter `consolidates:` lists dropped -- they named records that are gone,
and each consolidated record already says in prose what it absorbed.
This commit is contained in:
2026-08-28 23:28:34 +02:00
parent 77f3a4cea7
commit e1febe8e0f
84 changed files with 441 additions and 449 deletions
@@ -2,8 +2,8 @@
status: active
initiated: 2026-08-23
touches:
- 02-DECISIONS/0015-mesh-brokers-nodes-host-agents-think.md
- 02-DECISIONS/0044-modules-and-the-graph.md
- 02-DECISIONS/0008-mesh-brokers-nodes-host-agents-think.md
- 02-DECISIONS/0019-modules-and-the-graph.md
- 03-DESIGN/00-as-is/00-overview.md
- 03-DESIGN/01-to-be/00-work-breakdown.md
became: []
@@ -24,9 +24,9 @@ disk, and where today's catalogue lands.
## Why
Every structural decision so far has been a **correction**: eight contexts replacing thirty-three
modules ([ADR 0015](../../02-DECISIONS/0015-mesh-brokers-nodes-host-agents-think.md)), domains
modules ([ADR 0008](../../02-DECISIONS/0008-mesh-brokers-nodes-host-agents-think.md)), domains
replacing single-function modules
([ADR 0044](../../02-DECISIONS/0044-modules-and-the-graph.md)). A
([ADR 0019](../../02-DECISIONS/0019-modules-and-the-graph.md)). A
correction inherits the frame of the thing it corrects, and two of the mesh's oldest problems
look unsolvable from inside that frame:
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ against taste:
circle, self-hosted. Personal cloud infrastructure.
8. **Agents make it self-improving and self-healing.**
9. It is **end-to-end testable on one machine**
([ADR 0016](../../02-DECISIONS/0016-the-lab.md)).
([ADR 0009](../../02-DECISIONS/0009-the-lab.md)).
## Status
@@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ A first skeleton exists, with four design moves that the current shape does not
`active` because two of them are unproven and one contradicts a record that is already
accepted.
**Finding worth stating up front:** [ADR 0015](../../02-DECISIONS/0015-mesh-brokers-nodes-host-agents-think.md)
**Finding worth stating up front:** [ADR 0008](../../02-DECISIONS/0008-mesh-brokers-nodes-host-agents-think.md)
names nine bounded contexts and **none of them owns connectivity** — no overlay, no resolution,
no firewall, no ingress. Requirement 4 has no home in the accepted decomposition, while
[research 005](../005-domain-grouping/analysis.md) found reachability to be the *only* part of
@@ -87,8 +87,8 @@ the catalogue where modules genuinely change together under one intent. The skel
| Question | Why it is open |
|---|---|
| Does the record — the event log contexts integrate through — belong to the substrate or the control plane? | It is infrastructure by shape and domain by content. Placing it wrong reintroduces a circularity. |
| One repository per tier, or per context? | Already open from ADR 0015 as "catalogue destination — one repository or many". The skeleton assumes per tier and does not settle it. |
| ~~Does an unprivileged node earn a place in the inventory, or only a presence?~~ | **Answered 2026-08-25** by the operator: a node is a *managed machine inside the mesh*, not an unprivileged something — and a disconnected node is still a node, in a different situation. The question posed a class distinction; the answer is that there is none, and what varies is **state**. Recorded as [ADR 0036](../../02-DECISIONS/0036-a-node-and-how-it-joins.md). |
| ~~Does absorbing overlay, filtering, packages, supervision and the container runtime make the host too large?~~ | **Answered 2026-08-25** — [`host-size.md`](host-size.md). Measured: the absorption is smaller than the machinery that already applies state, and eight of ten adapters already carry no dependency. The risk is not size but direction, and it is two modules wide. The claim survives with its scope corrected — the host carries one concern, *apply declared state on this machine*, of which the six are instances. Recorded as [ADR 0037](../../02-DECISIONS/0037-the-node-host.md), designed in [`05-the-node-host.md`](../../03-DESIGN/01-to-be/05-the-node-host.md). |
| One repository per tier, or per context? | Already open from ADR 0008 as "catalogue destination — one repository or many". The skeleton assumes per tier and does not settle it. |
| ~~Does an unprivileged node earn a place in the inventory, or only a presence?~~ | **Answered 2026-08-25** by the operator: a node is a *managed machine inside the mesh*, not an unprivileged something — and a disconnected node is still a node, in a different situation. The question posed a class distinction; the answer is that there is none, and what varies is **state**. Recorded as [ADR 0015](../../02-DECISIONS/0015-a-node-and-how-it-joins.md). |
| ~~Does absorbing overlay, filtering, packages, supervision and the container runtime make the host too large?~~ | **Answered 2026-08-25** — [`host-size.md`](host-size.md). Measured: the absorption is smaller than the machinery that already applies state, and eight of ten adapters already carry no dependency. The risk is not size but direction, and it is two modules wide. The claim survives with its scope corrected — the host carries one concern, *apply declared state on this machine*, of which the six are instances. Recorded as [ADR 0016](../../02-DECISIONS/0016-the-node-host.md), designed in [`05-the-node-host.md`](../../03-DESIGN/01-to-be/05-the-node-host.md). |
| ~~Four substrate services or five?~~ | **Answered conditionally**, which is the honest form — [`07-the-substrate.md`](../../03-DESIGN/01-to-be/07-the-substrate.md). The substrate is *what the control plane consumes and cannot grant itself*. The identity provider qualifies only if the control plane delegates authentication; if it authenticates natively it is an ordinary hosted service. The count follows from a decision not yet taken, and asserting four was asserting that decision. |
| Does `feature` survive? | The skeleton splits it in two and argues the conflation is what makes the delivery pipeline hard to reason about. Unproven. |
@@ -160,8 +160,8 @@ neither option covers, and it is the most common one.
| **Absorbed into the host** | It is not a module at all. It is part of what "managing a machine" means, and belongs in tier 0. | overlay membership, packet filtering, package management, service supervision, container runtime, filesystem management |
| **Substrate** | The control plane cannot exist without it. Pinned, host-applied. | relational store, bus, object store, image registry |
| **Control-plane context** | It decides something across nodes. | connectivity policy, inventory, delivery, provisioning, observability |
| **Workload module** | The mesh hosts it. Grouped per [ADR 0044](../../02-DECISIONS/0044-modules-and-the-graph.md). | media library, desktop session, collaboration tooling |
| **Leaves the repository** | A standalone application, per [ADR 0010](../../02-DECISIONS/0010-applications-live-in-their-own-repository.md). | the applications identified in research 005 |
| **Workload module** | The mesh hosts it. Grouped per [ADR 0019](../../02-DECISIONS/0019-modules-and-the-graph.md). | media library, desktop session, collaboration tooling |
| **Leaves the repository** | A standalone application, per [ADR 0006](../../02-DECISIONS/0006-applications-live-in-their-own-repository.md). | the applications identified in research 005 |
**The first fate is the finding.** Research 005 measured the reachability cluster — proxy,
resolver, firewall, overlay — as the only place in the catalogue where modules genuinely change
@@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ mesh-surfaces/ TIER 3
mesh-catalog/ TIER 4
<domain>/<module>/ layout as above
mesh-lab/ mesh-sdk/ hq/ (company-scoped — ADR 0028)
mesh-lab/ mesh-sdk/ hq/ (company-scoped — ADR 0011)
```
## What this does not settle
+11 -11
View File
@@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ mesh-catalog/ TIER 4 — what the mesh hosts
mesh-lab/ the whole mesh, disposable, on one machine
mesh-sdk/ contracts shared across tiers — types, not behaviour
hq/ company-scoped, not a mesh repository — ADR 0028
hq/ company-scoped, not a mesh repository — ADR 0011
```
## The dependency rule
@@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ a second surface would have to reimplement.
This is the whole of the bootstrap answer, and per this repository's own rule it must say how
it is checked: a dependency-direction lint in the build, failing on an upward import. A tier
rule enforced by intention is the same as no tier rule — that is
[ADR 0058](../../02-DECISIONS/0058-delivery.md) applied to architecture.
[ADR 0023](../../02-DECISIONS/0023-delivery.md) applied to architecture.
## Move 1 — the substrate is applied, not delivered
@@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ assumption that every node is equivalent — already false, and today handled by
## Move 3 — connectivity becomes a context
[ADR 0015](../../02-DECISIONS/0015-mesh-brokers-nodes-host-agents-think.md) names nine contexts
[ADR 0008](../../02-DECISIONS/0008-mesh-brokers-nodes-host-agents-think.md) names nine contexts
and none of them owns the overlay, the resolver, the firewall or the ingress. `config` owns
PKI, which is the closest thing, and it is not close.
@@ -162,8 +162,8 @@ So the evidence and the gap point the same way. `connectivity` owns:
- certificates for both name spaces
This is an addition to an accepted record, so it is a decision, not a drafting choice. It
belongs in a new record that extends ADR 0015 the way
[ADR 0044](../../02-DECISIONS/0044-modules-and-the-graph.md) does —
belongs in a new record that extends ADR 0008 the way
[ADR 0019](../../02-DECISIONS/0019-modules-and-the-graph.md) does —
not written here.
### Where the networking actually lives
@@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ The invitation was to check whether the concept survives. It does not, in one pi
Today a **feature** means both *a thing built once* and *a thing selected per node*, and the
delivery pipeline is hard to reason about precisely because those have different cardinality
and one word ([ADR 0058](../../02-DECISIONS/0058-delivery.md)
and one word ([ADR 0023](../../02-DECISIONS/0023-delivery.md)
is the pipeline half of the same confusion).
Split it:
@@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ the fact that it runs its own development on them is dogfooding, not architectur
## What agents are, structurally
Self-improvement and self-healing are not a tier. Agents are participants
([ADR 0012](../../02-DECISIONS/0012-agents-are-persistent-employees.md)) that hold identity in
([ADR 0007](../../02-DECISIONS/0007-agents-are-persistent-employees.md)) that hold identity in
tier 2, act through tier 3 like any other caller, and run as workloads in tier 4.
This matters for one reason: **an agent must not have a privileged path**. Anything an agent
@@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ no human checkpoint.
## How this is tested
The lab ([ADR 0016](../../02-DECISIONS/0016-the-lab.md)) raises the
The lab ([ADR 0009](../../02-DECISIONS/0009-the-lab.md)) raises the
tree above on one machine: virtual machines as nodes, a real overlay between them, the real
substrate bundle, the real control plane, the real delivery path.
@@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ being the one thing nobody exercises until it breaks.
- Where the record lives. It is infrastructure by shape and domain by content, and putting it
in the substrate risks recreating a circularity in the one place the design just removed one.
- Whether tier 2's contexts are one repository or several. Open from ADR 0015 already.
- Whether tier 2's contexts are one repository or several. Open from ADR 0008 already.
- Whether an `edge` node is in the inventory or merely present — which decides whether "node"
is one concept or two.
- The migration. Nothing here says how today's mesh becomes this, and the skeleton is worth
@@ -266,13 +266,13 @@ The tier-0 binary was first called `mesh-agent`, because "node agent" is the ref
else in the industry. That is wrong here, and wrong in the specific way
[`how-we-build.md`](../../00-META/how-we-build.md) §4 exists to catch: **Agent** is a
first-class concept in this mesh — a participant, some of whom are human, holding identity and
memory ([ADR 0012](../../02-DECISIONS/0012-agents-are-persistent-employees.md)). One document
memory ([ADR 0007](../../02-DECISIONS/0007-agents-are-persistent-employees.md)). One document
carried both meanings.
It is the same failure as the anatomy naming in the current runtime: an evocative domain word
pointing at infrastructure.
[ADR 0015](../../02-DECISIONS/0015-mesh-brokers-nodes-host-agents-think.md) supplies the fix in
[ADR 0008](../../02-DECISIONS/0008-mesh-brokers-nodes-host-agents-think.md) supplies the fix in
its own title — *the mesh brokers capabilities; nodes host; agents think.* Three verbs, three
components: the control plane **brokers** (`mesh-control`), the tier-0 binary **hosts**
(`mesh-host`), the participant **thinks** (`agents`, untouched).