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.
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. |