mesh/merge-gate head 6be8f6eada67 merged into trunk b7e22be7f55f — pass: [release feat/57-config-and-provisioning, judged by its controller cf897e89fe31] t…
mesh/repo-check head 6be8f6eada67 merged into trunk b7e22be7f55f — pass: [release feat/57-config-and-provisioning, judged by its controller cf897e89fe31] i…
mesh/repo-check pass: THE CHANGE ALTERS ITS OWN CHECK (merge-check.sh): main's version judged it; the change's judges the pull requests after it merges; it…
ADR 0290 rule 9: once the import is checked record by record, hq keeps no copy.
The records and efforts are removed; every link or path to them reads "ADR NNNN" or
"research NNN"; a design's decisions: lists "ADR NNNN". 02-DECISIONS keeps a pointer
README with the reading order's six topics, which the knowledge base reads through the
records module; 01-RESEARCH keeps a pointer README. The checks drop the rules that
judged records (the knowledge base holds each at propose; checks/README.md says where)
and refuse a record written here again. Playbooks 01 and 02 and the skills write and
read records with the knowledge base's verbs.
The import of slice 3 (ADR 0275) was checked against every folder: no report changed since the
commit it read, and the tracker holds each report's status, owner, fix, design amendment, replay
and closing day. The keys are removed from all 361 reports, cycle.py refuses them in any report,
and the playbooks, skills and READMEs that still pointed at them name the tracker instead.
Three records were left describing a mechanism a new record had moved,
and a reader arrives at them by following a citation: 0066 still said a
routed name is written into every container after 0148 replaced that with
resolution; 0016 still read as though the lab were the test bed after
0149; and issues 109 and 135 said nothing about 0148 ending the copying
that 135's own fix made comparable. Each was a citation leading to the
wrong answer in a record that was not wrong about anything it decided.
This is the second time in one session. The playbook rule I added last
round did not stop it, so the convention is now written where the record
conventions live, with the shape to use and three worked examples — and
with the honest note that it is NOT machine-checked and cannot be from
`extends:` alone: 102 records extend another, 87 have no back-reference,
and that is correct, because extending usually means building on a
context. Making it mechanical means a record declaring the relationship
in frontmatter, which is a schema change and is not mine to decide.
Also: designs 18 and 20 claimed `updated:` dates from before I edited
them, and 117's `fixed-by` gained the commit beside the record.
**0114 accepted.** The separation it draws — a consumer's resource and a
credential that reaches it are different things — is a data-loss rule,
and a record naming one should not sit unresolved while the code that
could hit it is written. Not built, and accepting it schedules nothing;
accepted-and-not-built is where 0141 and 0142 already are.
**0068 superseded by 0149, the live mesh is the test bed.** Never built,
and contradicted by practice that was written down nowhere but a handoff
note. The faults that cost the most are faults of a mesh that already
exists — bound consumers, containers made against an older roster, an
adopted machine — and a bed is by construction a mesh that does not.
Issue 156 settles it: that change was verified honestly, on the only path
where it cannot fail. The lab is not retired; raising a mesh from bare is
now its whole job.
**117 answered by 0150.** A module's own code runs as supervised
processes under the module's one account. 0047's argument was for a
runtime per module, not for a container — a unit satisfies it and runs as
an account. The invariant is the account, not the process count: its
worry was a second identity to scope and seal, and processes sharing one
account create none. Designs 18 and 20 now cite it and 0047 carries a
dated pointer, which closes the third disagreement — that neither design
knew the record existed.
Filed 2026-09-24 on a branch of its own and never merged, numbered 113, which is taken. 114 is
free because a sibling branch folded it, so it takes that number and keeps its commit.
Kept separate from issue 117 rather than folded into it. 117 asks the same question of every
module and locates the missing decision; this asks it of the controller, where `network: host`
means container network isolation — the property that resource type usually buys — is not in use.
That observation is this report's own and is nowhere in 117, and folding would lose it.
Its first open question is answered by 117's diagnosis and now says so: the host's `process` shape
is built, applied and tested, restart and run-to-completion semantics included, so deciding this
does not wait on host-side work.
Asked what the "sidecar" is and whether a supervised process would do instead. The repository
answers both ways. ADR 0047 (accepted, unsuperseded) says a module with tools or events runs a
container carrying its compiled code. To-be 18 and 20 (both proposed) define a `process` resource
type — the module's own code, a unit the machine's supervisor keeps up — and the worked guide says
plainly "it is why these are `process` rather than four containers." Neither design doc names 0047,
and no decision record mentions a `process` shape at all.
Diagnosed rather than left open, because the ground truth settles what the report could not.
The shape is real: mesh-host defines TypeProcess, applies it, and tests it, and the host's
vocabulary is twelve shapes rather than the nine ADR 0029 counted. So the alternative the report
offered — that two proposed documents describe a type that does not exist — is disproven.
ADR 0029's mechanism is intact and was not enough. The vocabulary-count test names the decision
behind each addition: network 0029, access 0051, opening 0100. The eleventh names a *proposed
design document*, and TypeProcess is the only shape in the vocabulary whose doc comment cites no
ADR. Requiring every addition to name something does not require it to name a decision.
The argument this issue asked for already exists — as a Go test comment. "It is a full-host shape
rather than a portable one: it needs a process supervisor to install into. It does NOT need a
container runtime, which is the point — only software that genuinely needs isolation asks for a
container." That is a decision's context and consequences, in another repository.
What the catalogue does is a third thing: 115 container declarations against 3 process, all three
in showcase — the module to-be 20 documents. There the tools resource is a container running
`sleep infinity` on a bare upstream base with the broker credential mounted, and the tools and
provisioner entrypoints are run by nothing. That is the condition 0047 was written to end, back
in a new shape.
Where the isolation argument leaks is narrower than expected and worth having precisely: the
serving key and the credential shape both conform. But serveTools serves every registered module
over one broker connection, the runtime takes its modules from a comma-separated list, and
x-source is stamped from the single credential — so two modules in one runtime means the second's
events are attributed to the first. Nothing refuses it and no test asserts against it.
Located on hq rather than on a code repository: the implementation and the design layer agree,
and the missing thing is the record. Which shape is right is left open, deliberately — this
establishes that the question was answered in practice and never written down, not which answer
is correct.
One correction kept in the trail: the first search here was for len(Vocabulary()), found nothing,
and was two steps from being written up as "the mechanism ADR 0029 relied on is gone." The test
binds the slice to a local first. A negative search result read as a fact about the world is the
same error issue 113 recorded.
mesh-tools
jschoubben
jochen