The diagnosis carried a table headed "claims that could not be substantiated", denying a
module.json, a digest pin, and an all-zeros runtime digest. All three exist. The table is
withdrawn in full and replaced with what is actually true, plus the two claims that remain
genuinely unverified rather than disproven.
The cause: one repository was searched and absence in it was written up as absence. The
catalogue of the mesh being built is a separate repository, not checked out where the search
ran, and all four claims were about that repository. Compounding it, the predecessor's
object-store module and the one being cut over to were treated as one thing — they are
different files in different repositories, one pinning a tag with no sidecar, the other a
digest with two container resources.
Also corrected in the report: located-in named the wrong repository; the "pins a tag" passage
described the predecessor; the open question about pinning by digest is struck, because this
module already does and it made no difference — a deleted digest resolves to nothing either
way. The section on why nothing broke is now scoped explicitly to the predecessor's
machinery.
The lesson kept in the record: "zero occurrences anywhere in the tree" is only as strong as
the tree searched, and a diagnosis must say which tree. A confident rebuttal of a correct
report is worse than no diagnosis — it sends the next person to the wrong place with a
written record behind them.
The symptom arrived diagnosed as "the registry disabled anonymous pulls for the
whole vendor namespace". It did not hold: sibling repositories in that namespace
pull normally, the "$disabled" token field appears on every repository including
working ones and describes signing rather than access, and "actions": [] with a
401 is byte-identical to what an invented repository name returns. Both registries'
own APIs establish deletion instead.
Recorded because the correction is the expensive part to rediscover, and because
the instance was harmless while the standing condition is not: no node that does
not already hold the images can ever provision the module again, and nothing
detects that until one tries.
Research 015 scopes the replacement. It is not a redesign — the foundation design
already commits to S3 the protocol rather than the product, and the object store
is an ordinary module, so this instantiates an existing principle. The live OIDC
wiring is the requirement that gates the choice, and it is checked first.
jochen