Continuing the sweep. Both were answered by records that did not cite them,
which is the same pattern 003 showed -- an effort stays active because the
decision that resolved it was reached from another direction.
005 graduates. Three of its four questions are answered: provider modules do
not group (0044), the ~50 modules that co-change with nothing stay as they are,
and 'group or leave' was never the right pair -- 0054 reframes it as authority
versus package. Worth noting the debt runs the other way too: this effort's
measurement, that reachability is the ONLY place modules genuinely co-change,
is what 0054 rests on and why connectivity is a context while nothing else
needed one.
Its fourth question moves rather than closes. Whether applications leave the
monorepo before or after they group is a sequencing question, so it belongs to
009-migration.
008 stays active, with its central question marked answered: the coordinator
converges nodes on a declaration rather than dispatching stages (0058). The
three-silo split survives with the third redefined. What 0058 explicitly does
NOT answer is how a change becomes a pipeline reliably -- detection is upstream
of everything it changed and remains the fragile input.
The identity provider is settled as not-substrate: the mesh does not
require one, tier 2 authenticates natively, and it is a hosted service
like any other. Four substrate services, not five. The tier test's second
step gains the verb that matters — can the control plane START without it,
not function fully without it.
That verb answers the forge and the registries. They are not substrate and
they are not duplicated: the control plane starts and manages nodes
without a forge, it just cannot change itself. One gitea module, tier 4,
and the mesh's own instance is distinguished by what it is bound to rather
than by being a different module — the same answer as postgres, from the
same test. It also buys a property worth having: if the forge dies the
mesh keeps running.
Delivery needing them is not an upward dependency, resolved the way the
constitution already says to: tier 2 declares requirements, tier 4
provides implementations, the binding is data. The mechanism is
provisioning, and the new idea is that the control plane is itself a
consumer.
Self-hosting therefore becomes a state the mesh REACHES, not a
precondition. A first node comes up from pinned external artifacts and
re-binds to internal providers once they exist. Today's mesh assumes the
second state from the first moment, which is why the first-node path needs
a script that papers over an impossibility and is the least-exercised code
in the system. Made explicit, the transition is also reversible.
Research 007 and 008 opened for the two areas flagged as important and
complex, scoped from the weaknesses the as-is layer already documents
rather than started blank.
And the origin: this began as a dotfiles repository. The first two days
adopt dotfiles, add per-node overrides, and introduce service symlinking
with an ignore file. The flat one-directory-per-tool catalogue, linking
over copying, adoption of already-configured machines, per-node overrides
and the desktop modules are all inherited rather than chosen for a mesh.
That is the single most useful fact for anyone changing the catalogue, it
strengthens ADR 0018 — the case for links was never made for a mesh — and
it explains research 005's silent fifty: dotfiles-era entries for one tool
never shared a domain because they never had one.
jschoubben