Commit Graph
5 Commits
Author SHA1 Message Date
jschoubben 333356cff3 Order the records the way the system is learned
Jochen asked whether the order made sense. It did not -- it followed when
things happened to be decided, which after consolidation is fictional anyway
since record 5 alone folds decisions taken across a week.

Concretely wrong before: the domain statement sat at 8, after five engineering
rules; the constitution was scattered across 5, 12 and 17; the tiers landed at
15, 16, 21 and 22 with process records in between.

Now it walks: what the mesh is (1-3), its tiers from the bottom up (4-8), what
runs on them and how it gets there (9-10), how it is built (11-16), how it is
checked (17-18), how we work (19-23).

Two things made this safe rather than free. It is a permutation, not a
compaction, so the renames go through temporary names -- otherwise two files
want one slot and one is lost. And the reference rewrite is a single
simultaneous pass, because almost every number moved into a slot another number
was vacating; replacing one at a time would have cascaded and pointed things at
the wrong record while still resolving.

Verified: 284 [ADR NNNN](path) links across the repository, all with matching
text and target.

The ordering principle is now stated in 19 rather than left implicit -- the
repository already said "the numbering is the flow" about its folders, and
there was no reason for the records to be the exception.
2026-08-28 23:30:42 +02:00
jschoubben e1febe8e0f 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
jschoubben 5e83ac2c22 Consolidate: 65 decision records to 52
Jochen: a normal application has 3-5 ADRs, maybe 10 for a large one, and we are
at 65. Fair, and the cause is mine -- I recorded every FINDING as a decision
rather than every fork in the road.

Two merges, both cases where one decision had been split across many records
because it was taken over several days rather than at once.

0019 absorbs ten records about how this repository works: what it is and that
it is public, the folder flow, the two design layers, the issue front door,
status in frontmatter, playbooks, the naming rule, the product name. Those were
never ten decisions -- they were one, seen from ten angles as the repository
took shape.

0016 absorbs the five about the lab: a node is a virtual machine, a router is
scenery, a scenario declares the underlay, a scenario is a closed address
space, and the two scenario classes. Same pattern -- one design, split by the
order it was worked out in.

The consolidated 0019 also raises the bar for what earns a record, since that
is what produced 65: a record is warranted when there is a genuine fork -- a
direction reversed, an alternative that will be proposed again, something
contested. A finding is not a decision, and a bug is certainly not. Everything
else belongs in the design document where the reasoning is actually read.

The checker earned its place here. Deleting nine records left 13 dangling links
across the repository and it named every one, including in AGENTS.md. Nothing
was found by reading.

Remaining clusters worth the same treatment: the host (8 records), delivery
(5), modules (6), connectivity (4), substrate and control plane (4). That would
be 52 down to roughly 30.
2026-08-28 18:53:19 +02:00
jschoubben c0b35652d0 The numbering is the flow: decisions are 02, design is 03
papa-hq reads 01 research -> 03 decision -> 02 design. The order is a
scar, not a choice: 02-DESIGN existed from its initial commit, and when
adr/ was finally promoted on 2026-07-13 it took the next free number
rather than its place in the sequence. By then design was too settled to
renumber.

hal-hq was three commits old, so it is not. adr/ becomes 02-DECISIONS and
02-DESIGN becomes 03-DESIGN, and following the folder numbers now walks
the process in the order it happens: research produces a decision, the
decision authorises a design.

00-GENESIS becomes 00-META, matching papa's rename from the same
restructure.

Every path reference rewritten across documents, frontmatter, playbooks
and skills. All links resolve; all 58 frontmatter blocks parse and their
path fields still point at files that exist.
2026-08-23 18:05:11 +02:00
jschoubben f05e4a0dce Follow papa-hq's research convention; the mesh links nothing
Research efforts move from status.md to 00-overview.md with active /
graduated / abandoned, matching papa-hq so the two repositories read the
same way. Playbooks, skills, README and the ledger follow.

Reverses yesterday's withdrawal of the symlink note in GENESIS. The note
was right and the withdrawal was wrong: the intent is that the mesh
creates no symlinks at all, so a founding document listing "symlinks, not
copies" as a design principle does point the opposite way from where this
is going, and that is a contradiction rather than a stale detail.

ADR 0018 records the position, proposed. ADR 0011 stays as it is — it is
the historical decision and the incident behind it is why anyone believes
either record — and is superseded in intent, not edited. Its one
editorial line, which called the wider reading false, is corrected to
state what is actually true: centralising who may link narrowed the
incident class without closing it, because a link the installer makes
resolves exactly like one made by hand.

The argument that kept linking was staleness. ADR 0004 removed it: every
managed file is already derived and reconciled, so a copy is the natural
form and a pointer into source is the shape the mesh's own model forbids
everywhere else. What is not settled, and is marked open, is how
staleness gets detected — which is the decision that makes or breaks it.
2026-08-23 09:29:09 +02:00