The derived-value record is renumbered a second time: the key-value-buckets
record took 0201 while this waited to merge, as the bundles record took 0188
before it. Both times free when chosen, taken by the time it landed. cycle.py
caught it; three repositories cite this record, so the number matters.
225 — a provisioner has not been able to read its grant secrets since 01:30,
when a module's own code left its container and the files stayed root's. Four
thousand refusals, each worded as patience, and two consumers unserved. Not
from ADR 0202 or 0189, which landed hours later; dates in the report.
226 — the store's sweep stops at the first reference recorded with an address
and collects nothing. A guard that cannot tell 'I will not ask about this'
from 'it would not answer' stops the wrong amount of work.
227 — the photo app's admin client asks for the port the proxy holds. A module
pinned months behind carries everything its branch gained, the first time
anything makes it move.
The bundles refactor took 0188 on main while this waited in a pull request,
and the mesh's own code cites that one, so this record moves. Only the number
moved; the decision is the one taken on 2026-10-02, and the record says so.
Issue 202 re-checked against the refactored main: the fault stands, and the
test that surfaced it now fails one step earlier on issue 203's new credential
guard. Proven again past both — mint the credential, compose twice, and all
eight of dnsmasq's resources appear only with the setting set. ADR 0164 is
noted as the decision that answers half of it, and is not built.
Issue 124: a value the mesh's own rule produced reached neither end as a
statement. The object store's provisioner derived each consumer's bucket in
its own code; all three consumers transcribed the rule into their own
definitions, one of them wrong, and each of the three also named the machine
it happens to run on.
A served value may now name the consumer the mesh is serving. Design 27
amended; issue 124 resolved.
The object store derives each consumer's bucket from the login the mesh minted, and never reads the
one a definition named. The consumer still has to tell its own software which bucket to use, and has
no way to be told: bound values come from the provider's serves, which is a literal block identical
for every consumer, and a provisioner returns nothing. So all three consumers wrote the answer down
by hand and one of them wrote the predecessor's bucket — a key scoped to one bucket and software
asking for another, which reads like a credential fault and is not one.
Records the general shape: any interface where the provider names the resource forces the consumer to
reproduce the provider's rule, kept in agreement by hand and checked by nothing.
jschoubben
jochen