Issue 143: correct the diagnosis — the step exists and did not fire

The first account said the declaration carries no resource that would disable the
found firewall and that nothing implemented the sentence the flip prints. Wrong:
the mechanism is a step in the host's own apply, retireFirewall, and it is careful
— it reads back that the mesh's table is loaded before retiring anything, records
the forward policies first, and verifies ufw reports inactive afterwards.

What is established: ufw was active and enabled two minutes after a flip that
reported the node converged with nothing failed; and the machine's record now
reads disabled_by_mesh: true, written by a reconcile fifty minutes later that
found ufw already inactive because an operator had disabled it by hand.

So the step did not take effect and the record says it did. The candidates are
named rather than chosen — the step is skipped silently when the apply has any
failure, the mesh's table is loaded by a service in the same apply so ordering is
open, and the host's detail lines do not reach the journal, which is why this has
candidates instead of a cause.

04-ISSUES/143-converging-does-not-retire-the-firewall-it-found/00-report.md

@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+---
+status: located
+opened: 2026-09-29
+located-in:
+  - mesh-host internal/apply/opening.go (retireFirewall)
+  - mesh-host internal/apply/apply.go (the condition it is called under)
+fixed-by:
+amended-design:
+---
+
+# 143 — Converging a machine does not retire the firewall it found, and says it does
+
+## What was observed
+
+The control-node was converged on 2026-09-29, the first machine with a found firewall to be flipped —
+the two converged before it had none.
+
+The preview said, and the flip repeated:
+
+```
+the found firewall (ufw) is disabled, never flushed: its configuration stays on disk
+...
+sent: the host loads the mesh's filter and disables the firewall it found
+```
+
+The mesh then reported the node `converged`, 372 resources applied, nothing failed. Afterwards, on the
+machine:
+
+```
+systemctl is-enabled ufw   -> enabled
+systemctl is-active  ufw   -> active
+```
+
+*Corrected 2026-09-29, an hour later, from reading the host rather than the declaration.* **The first
+account of this was wrong.** It said the declaration carries no resource that would disable the found
+firewall, and that the sentence was printed by the command with nothing implementing it. The
+declaration indeed carries no such resource — but the mechanism was never meant to be one. It is a
+step in the host's own apply, `retireFirewall`, and it exists, is careful, and is strict: it refuses to
+retire anything until it has read back from the machine that the mesh's own table is loaded, it records
+the forward policies first so a half-done retirement can be retried, and it verifies ufw reports
+inactive afterwards.
+
+What is established is narrower and stranger than "nothing implements it":
+
+- ufw was **active and enabled two minutes after the flip**, and the flip had reported the node
+  converged with 372 resources applied and nothing failed.
+- The machine's own record now reads `disabled_by_mesh: true` — but it was written by a reconcile
+  *after* an operator disabled ufw by hand, roughly fifty minutes later. A reconcile found ufw already
+  inactive, asked it to be inactive, read that back, and recorded that the mesh had done it.
+- So the step did not take effect at the flip, and the machine's record now says it did.
+
+The candidates are named rather than chosen, because the evidence does not separate them: the step is
+called only when the apply had no failures, and a skipped step is silent; the mesh's table is loaded by
+a service in the same apply, so whether it was loaded *at the moment the step asked* is an ordering
+question; and the host's own detail lines do not reach the journal, so what it decided is not
+recoverable after the fact.
+
+## Why it matters beyond this instance
+
+**It is a stated behaviour that does not happen, reported as success** — the fault this repository
+exists to catch, and
+[ADR 0100](../../02-DECISIONS/0100-a-node-in-use-is-adopted-before-it-is-converged.md) states it as
+part of what the flip *is*: "loads the mesh's derived filter in place of its refusal-only table, and
+retires the found firewall by disabling it, never by flushing".
+
+**It could only be found on the first machine that had one.** The two machines converged before this
+had no firewall to retire, so the step had never run, and nothing reported that it had not. That is
+the same shape as [issue 136](../136-a-module-may-name-a-program-the-machine-does-not-have/00-report.md):
+a step that is silent when it does nothing.
+
+**The machine is left doubly filtered, which is not what either firewall describes.** Every base chain
+at a hook runs and a drop in any is final, so the machine now enforces the *intersection* of the mesh's
+derived filter and a rule set left by the system being replaced. Nothing is broken by that today —
+measured from outside, mail, the proxy and git-over-ssh answer and the databases and admin interfaces
+are refused — but the machine's behaviour is described by neither of the two things claiming to
+describe it, and the stale set includes a rule for a broker that no longer exists.
+
+**And returning the node to adopted would be wrong in the other direction.** ADR 0100 says that
+restores the found firewall by enabling it again; enabling something that was never disabled is
+harmless, but the mesh's belief about which firewall is in force has been wrong in both modes.
+
+## Open questions
+
+- Which side owns retiring it — a resource in the declaration, so it is applied and reported like
+  everything else, or the flip as an act? A resource seems right: the flip is otherwise entirely
+  expressed as one, and an act that only the command performs cannot be re-checked on a later
+  reconcile.
+- What should a reconcile do if the found firewall is enabled again by hand, or by a package update?
+  Convergence is a state, so presumably re-disable it and say so.
+- Should the preview say what it *will* do rather than what it does, until a step exists that does it?
+  The wording was read as evidence twice in one session.
+- Is there a check that a sentence the mesh prints corresponds to something that happened? This is the
+  second time in one session that a printed claim and the machine disagreed.
+- **Why did the step not take effect?** It is called only when the apply had no failures, and being
+  skipped is silent. The mesh's table is loaded by a service in the same apply, so whether it was
+  loaded when the step asked is an ordering question — and ADR 0100 makes loading it first a
+  precondition rather than an expectation.
+- **A step that records the mesh as having done what an operator did is worse than the omission.** The
+  record now says the mesh disabled ufw. Nothing distinguishes "we did this" from "we found it already
+  so". Should it?
+- Why do the host's own detail lines not reach the journal? Everything it decided during the flip is
+  unrecoverable, which is why this account has candidates instead of a cause.

04-ISSUES/144-the-predecessors-rules-outlive-the-firewall-it-was-found-as/00-report.md

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+---
+status: located
+opened: 2026-09-29
+located-in:
+  - mesh-host internal/apply/opening.go
+  - mesh-controller cmd/mesh-controller (the converge preview)
+fixed-by:
+amended-design:
+---
+
+# 144 — A predecessor's rules outlive the firewall the mesh found, and the mesh cannot see them
+
+## What was observed
+
+The mesh reports one thing about a machine's existing filtering: `firewall found: ufw`. On the
+control-node, ufw was never what filtered the traffic that mattered.
+
+Measured on 2026-09-29, before the machine was converged:
+
+- ufw filters connections *to the machine*. It does not filter connections to a container's published
+  port, which arrive on the forwarded path where the container runtime accepts them before ufw's
+  forward chains are reached. Around thirty ports were published that way.
+- Every one of the mesh's own forwarded openings, converged through ufw, had matched **zero packets** —
+  fifty rules in that chain, none ever matched, while the chain itself had passed 1.6 million
+  established packets. The restrictions read as applied and were inert.
+- What actually kept those ports off the internet was a chain the predecessor installed in the
+  container runtime's own pre-accept hook, allowing the deliberately public ports and the private
+  ranges and dropping the rest on the outward link. Confirmed from outside: the proxy answered, the
+  container manager did not.
+- That chain exists only in the running kernel. The persisted rule file is the distribution's empty
+  default, and nothing on disk recreates the chain.
+
+After the flip, the mesh's own filter is loaded and does cover the forwarded path, so the machine no
+longer depends on that chain. But **the chain is still there**, and it is now the only thing refusing
+two ports the mesh believes are open: the bus and the registry, which
+[ADR 0100](../../02-DECISIONS/0100-a-node-in-use-is-adopted-before-it-is-converged.md) requires be
+reachable from anywhere so a machine can enrol and pull before it has a private-network address. The
+mesh's rendered filter accepts both from anywhere. From outside, both are refused.
+
+## Why it matters beyond this instance
+
+**"The firewall found" is a kind, and filtering is not all in one place.** The host identifies one
+front-end and reports it. A machine can carry rules from several sources — the front-end's own, the
+container runtime's, an intrusion-prevention chain, and whatever a predecessor installed directly —
+and the mesh's account of what filters the machine names exactly one of them.
+
+**So adoption's central promise was half-true in both directions.** What the mesh converged through
+the found firewall on the forwarded path did nothing at all, and what did the work was invisible to it.
+A machine was reported as filtered by a mechanism that was not filtering.
+
+**And convergence cannot retire what it cannot see.** Even once
+[issue 143](../143-converging-does-not-retire-the-firewall-it-found/00-report.md) is fixed and the found
+firewall is disabled, this chain remains, silently narrowing the machine below what the mesh's own
+filter says. A rule the mesh did not write, cannot list, and will not remove — which today breaks the
+enrolment path the design guarantees.
+
+**The safe direction is not the same as the correct one.** Being more closed than intended broke nothing
+visible, which is exactly why it went unnoticed for as long as the mesh has been on this machine.
+
+## Open questions
+
+- Should the host report every place the machine filters from, rather than one kind — the front-end,
+  the runtime's hooks, and any chain it does not recognise, named so a person can look?
+- What should the mesh do about rules it did not write and does not understand? Reporting them seems
+  right; removing them cannot be, and leaving them silent is what produced this.
+- Does an opening converged through a found firewall need a check that it can actually take effect?
+  Fifty rules matching nothing would have been visible from the counters at any point.
+- Is the bus and the registry being reachable from anywhere still what the mesh wants on a machine that
+  faces the internet? The design says yes, for enrolment. It deserves asking on its own rather than
+  being answered by a leftover.