The skeleton's biggest unproven claim was that absorbing six concerns makes a
binary whose whole argument is having no dependencies carry six of them.
Measured against origin/main, and the question turns out to ask about the wrong
axis. By size the absorption is SMALLER than the machinery that already applies
state on a node — 2755 lines of adapters against 3059 lines of meshware,
env-sync and config-sync. The host is not a new large thing; it already exists,
spread across three core modules.
The real risk is direction, and it is two modules wide rather than six concerns
wide. Eight of ten adapters already receive derived state and only apply it, so
absorbing them moves code that has no dependency to move. Two — wireguard and
traefik — open a Postgres connection to the control plane and compute their own
configuration, which inside tier 0 would be an upward dependency and is exactly
what the tier rule forbids.
And the split has already been happening without being named: dnsmasq-app needs
the same node data as wireguard and does not query for it, because hand-
duplicated state went wrong and someone derived it centrally instead. Eight of
ten adapters are on the far side of that migration.
So the absorption is not a move, it is a split: deciding stays in tier 2,
applying goes to tier 0. The claim survives with its scope corrected — the host
carries ONE concern, apply declared state on this machine, of which the six are
instances.
Stated open rather than glossed: the two unsplit modules are the two hardest,
six concerns is still six vocabularies even at zero dependencies, and what the
host must carry versus find is issue 007 and unresolved.
Question B also recorded as answered by the operator — a node is a managed
machine, and a disconnected node is still a node in a different situation. The
question posed a class distinction; there is none, and what varies is state.
