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.

03-DESIGN/01-to-be/02-scenario-declaration.md

@@ -4,9 +4,9 @@ status: in-progress
 code: [mesh-lab]
 updated: 2026-08-25
 decisions:
-  - 02-DECISIONS/0016-the-lab.md
-  - 02-DECISIONS/0016-the-lab.md
-  - 02-DECISIONS/0016-the-lab.md
+  - 02-DECISIONS/0009-the-lab.md
+  - 02-DECISIONS/0009-the-lab.md
+  - 02-DECISIONS/0009-the-lab.md
 ---
 
 # The scenario declaration
@@ -15,7 +15,7 @@ A scenario is a **declaration of an underlay**, plus what to put on it. It is th
 everything in the lab hangs off, so it is worth getting small.
 
 It states what a hosting provider and a home router would provide, and nothing the mesh is
-responsible for ([ADR 0016](../../02-DECISIONS/0016-the-lab.md)).
+responsible for ([ADR 0009](../../02-DECISIONS/0009-the-lab.md)).
 
 ## Public networks are unrelated, and routed rather than bridged
 
@@ -258,7 +258,7 @@ otherwise explicit declaration, and it exists because NAT has to run somewhere.
 
 It is a **container, not a virtual machine** — a router is scenery rather than something under
 test, so the fidelity argument that makes a node a virtual machine does not reach it
-([ADR 0016](../../02-DECISIONS/0016-the-lab.md)). What a router must
+([ADR 0009](../../02-DECISIONS/0009-the-lab.md)). What a router must
 reproduce is kernel behaviour, and a container has the same kernel.
 
 **`machines[].at`** — segment and addresses, or a **list** of them for a machine on several
@@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ belongs to a router it does not control, and asleep.
 
 Whether the overlay survives that, re-forms, and is noticed to have changed endpoint is
 **observed**, never arranged
-([ADR 0016](../../02-DECISIONS/0016-the-lab.md)).
+([ADR 0009](../../02-DECISIONS/0009-the-lab.md)).
 
 ## Why the addresses are load-bearing
 
@@ -320,13 +320,13 @@ it must be.
 The format should make getting this wrong hard rather than merely documented: a segment without
 a `gateway:` is a public segment, and an address in it — including a gateway's `address:` — that
 is not documentation space is a declaration error, refused before anything is raised. That is
-[ADR 0058](../../02-DECISIONS/0058-delivery.md) applied to a configuration
+[ADR 0023](../../02-DECISIONS/0023-delivery.md) applied to a configuration
 file: the failure it prevents is silent, so the check has to be loud.
 
 ## The same declaration serves both classes
 
 The bootstrap and full scenarios differ **only in `place:`**
-([ADR 0016](../../02-DECISIONS/0016-the-lab.md)). Everything
+([ADR 0009](../../02-DECISIONS/0009-the-lab.md)). Everything
 about the underlay is identical, which is what makes one a strict subset of the other rather
 than a fork.
 
@@ -354,7 +354,7 @@ not first.
 ## What a scenario deliberately cannot say
 
 - **Overlay addresses, the hub, peer configuration.** Outcomes, not inputs
-  ([ADR 0016](../../02-DECISIONS/0016-the-lab.md)).
+  ([ADR 0009](../../02-DECISIONS/0009-the-lab.md)).
 - **What a machine is in mesh terms** — server or workstation, its site, its names. Mesh
   configuration, established by the mesh.
 - **A host's capability profile.** Detected, never declared.
@@ -543,7 +543,7 @@ cannot yet express.
 
 Nothing here mentions overlay addresses, which node is the hub, who peers with whom, any name,
 or any certificate. Research 004 recorded all of those for this topology, and **a scenario must
-not state them** ([ADR 0016](../../02-DECISIONS/0016-the-lab.md)): they
+not state them** ([ADR 0009](../../02-DECISIONS/0009-the-lab.md)): they
 are what the mesh does, and a scenario that supplied them would be certifying its own work.
 
 The absence is the point. Given the declaration above, whether a hub is elected, whether the