The operator's agent is a module: three records and to-be 36 for the claude-code successor

The predecessor's agent module was retired and its six files stayed on both workstations telling
every session to use tools that no longer exist. Before a successor module is written, the design
needs the decisions it rests on and nothing in the record stated them:

- ADR 0169 (reconstructed) records what the controller shipped on 2026-09-27 without a record: the
  operator account is a node fact stated by the operator, the home is derived unless stated, a
  resource may be placed under it owned by the account, and a node with no account refuses one.
- ADR 0170 generalises to-be 29 §3's found-vs-owned boundary to every directory under a home: the
  module owns the directory and the files it places, writes into the tool's own files for its few
  keys, never declares a credential's content, and holds everything else as found — a predecessor's
  leftovers included, which the operator removes once.
- ADR 0171 draws the licence line the operator asked to have drawn rather than assumed: the mesh
  binds and delivers (to-be 14 and 15 stand), the module alone writes the credential file, refresh
  stays central (ADR 0050), a switch is the binding changed through a controller seat verb asked
  for via the console, and the token-carrying shell helper is retired. The controller learns
  nothing about the agent; that is what "no part" means.

To-be 36 is the module's design: the ownership map per path, the fate of the six predecessor
files, what the three instruction documents say, the licence tools and skill, the console as a
node-scoped provision, the package gap stated honestly, and the order of the build. To-be 14, 29
and 34 carry dated notes; the glossary gains "operator account".

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

@@ -4,9 +4,10 @@ status: in-progress
 code:
   - mesh-controller internal/licences
   - mesh-controller cmd/mesh-controller/licence.go
-updated: 2026-09-05
+updated: 2026-10-02
 decisions:
   - 02-DECISIONS/0024-model-access-is-a-provision.md
+  - 02-DECISIONS/0178-the-mesh-binds-and-delivers-a-licence-and-the-module-writes-the-tools-credential.md
   - 02-DECISIONS/0009-modules-and-the-graph.md
   - 02-DECISIONS/0054-model-usage-is-recorded-at-two-grains.md
   - 02-DECISIONS/0055-model-access-is-answered-by-a-licence-or-a-node.md
@@ -96,6 +97,13 @@ So `(node, module)` tells them apart, and asking for a licence per session neede
 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.
 
+*2026-10-02:* the operator's own interactive agent on a workstation is a consumer the same way —
+`(node, claude-code)`, one licence at a time per machine, delivered by the mesh and written by the
+module, switched through the console
+([ADR 0178](../../02-DECISIONS/0178-the-mesh-binds-and-delivers-a-licence-and-the-module-writes-the-tools-credential.md),
+[36 — The operator's agent on a machine](36-the-operators-agent-on-a-machine.md)). The licence commands
+become verbs on the controller's seat for it; none was one before.
+
 **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