Issue 169: network-share is the module responsible for a node's network shares — a node role

nfs-share and smb-share share an intent, not a contract; one seat would be
a union with every field optional. What the exemplar exposes is that a
seat declared inside one module cannot be implemented by another without
depending on it.

02-DECISIONS/0148-the-meshs-names-are-resolved-not-copied-into-containers.md

@@ -103,13 +103,6 @@ reintroduces 109 and 135 — silently, and on a live mesh, which is exactly how
    ([issue 110](../04-ISSUES/110-a-container-on-the-runtimes-own-network-cannot-reach-the-resolver/00-report.md));
    and on two of four machines the resolver binds loopback only, so the runtime hands containers a
    public resolver instead. Both are prerequisites, not related work.
-
-   > **Progressive insight — 2026-09-30, later the same day. The loopback claim was wrong.** The
-   > resolver bound the private address on all four machines; on two the runtime had never been told
-   > to use it, and on all four the resolver discarded a query that arrived on the runtime's bridge.
-   > The step stands; the facts under it were those. Both fixed the same day
-   > ([issue 110's resolution](../04-ISSUES/110-a-container-on-the-runtimes-own-network-cannot-reach-the-resolver/01-resolution.md)),
-   > and step 3 landed after them.
 2. **The runtime is told which resolver to use, per machine, as a file** — not per container as a
    creation-time argument, or the resolver's address is back in every container's identity and the
    problem has only got smaller.

02-DECISIONS/0151-a-routes-internal-name-is-composed-under-the-node-that-serves-it.md

@@ -1,99 +0,0 @@
----
-topic: the tiers
-status: accepted
-date: 2026-09-30
-deciders: jochen
-reconstructed: false
-extends: 02-DECISIONS/0066-public-routing-is-name-agnostic.md
----
-
-# 151. A route's internal name is composed under the node that serves it
-
-## Context
-
-A module that requires a route is given two names from one label: a public one, `<label>.<public
-domain>`, and an internal one, `<label>.<node>.internal`
-([ADR 0138](0138-an-assignment-binds-an-endpoint-and-says-how-far-it-reaches.md)). Both were composed
-from the node the module runs on.
-
-The two are answered differently. The public name is published into every machine's roster at the
-address of the node whose proxy serves it ([ADR 0066](0066-public-routing-is-name-agnostic.md)), so
-it reaches the proxy from anywhere in the mesh. The internal name is answered by every machine's
-resolver as *anything under a node's name goes to that node*
-([design 08 §2](../03-DESIGN/01-to-be/08-connectivity.md)) — the node it was composed from, which is
-the consumer's. Where the proxy runs on another machine, that name sends a client to a machine with
-nothing listening, while the public name works
-([issue 139](../04-ISSUES/139-an-internal-route-name-resolves-to-the-consumers-node/00-report.md)).
-Every route on this mesh today is served beside its module, so it has not been seen; `route` is
-provided mesh-wide precisely so that stops being true.
-
-Beside it, the roster gave every routed name a second entry with the mesh's suffix appended —
-`<name>.<public domain>.internal` — because it composed a full name for every entry as it does for a
-machine. That name resolved on every machine, was served by nothing, and was refused by the proxy at
-the handshake; the first three names tried while reproducing an unrelated issue were those, and the
-evidence pointed at a regression that had not happened
-([issue 157](../04-ISSUES/157-a-routed-names-internal-alias-is-served-by-nothing/00-report.md)).
-
-## Considered Options
-
-**1. Keep the consumer's name and publish it at the serving node's address**, as the public name is.
-The name stays `<label>.<consumer>.internal` and an exact roster entry overrides the wildcard.
-Rejected: it makes `<x>.<node>.internal` mean *goes to that node* except when it does not, which is
-the one rule the resolver design states; it needs an entry per route where the wildcard needed none;
-and which of an exact entry and a wildcard a resolver answers first is the resolver's business, which
-the mesh deliberately does not know.
-
-**2. A proxy on every machine, so the serving node is always the consumer's.** Rejected for this
-question: it is a different decision about what `route` is — a node-scoped seat with a mesh-wide
-fallback — and this mesh runs one proxy on the hub today. Whatever is decided there, a route served
-from another machine must have a name that reaches it.
-
-**3. Compose the internal name under the node that serves the route.** Chosen.
-
-## Decision
-
-**A route's internal name is `<label>.<serving node>.internal` — composed under the node whose proxy
-answers the route, which is the machine the request arrives at.** The public name is unchanged:
-`<label>.<public domain>` of the node the module runs on, which is where the operator put it.
-
-Where the proxy runs beside the module — every route on this mesh today — the two nodes are one and
-nothing changes. Where it does not, the name says where the request goes, which is what a name under
-a node's name has always meant.
-
-**A routed name has no mesh form.** The roster publishes it as itself, once, at the serving node's
-address. Only a machine has a bare name beside its full one.
-
-What certifies the internal name is unchanged by this: the proxy that terminates it obtains a
-certificate from the mesh's authority for the names it is given, and it is given this one.
-
-Taken on the operator's standing instruction to answer the open design questions in the work order.
-
-## How this is checked
-
-- **Composition.** A controller test contributes a route from a module on one node to a proxy offered
-  from another, gathered the way the controller gathers a consumer's contribution for a provider on
-  another machine, and asserts the internal name carries the serving node.
-- **Publication.** A controller test renders a roster with a machine and a routed name and asserts
-  the routed name appears as itself, once, and never with the suffix appended.
-- **On the mesh.** After the change no machine's roster carries a `<domain>.internal` entry, and a
-  route's internal name still answers from a container with a certificate from the mesh's authority.
-
-## Consequences
-
-- **A route served from another machine now has a usable internal name.** The first module assigned
-  that way will resolve, where before it would have resolved to the wrong machine with no error.
-- **The internal name of a route can change when its proxy moves.** A route re-homed from one proxy
-  to another gets a new internal name, as the design's rule implies; clients that dialled the old one
-  reach the old machine. The public name does not move with the proxy and is the stable one.
-- **The roster is one line shorter per routed name**, and a person reading a hosts file no longer
-  finds names that resolve to a refusal.
-- **Issue 139's second question — a per-node route holder — is left open**, and is a decision about
-  what a seat is rather than about a name.
-
-## References
-
-- [issue 139](../04-ISSUES/139-an-internal-route-name-resolves-to-the-consumers-node/00-report.md) — the question
-- [issue 157](../04-ISSUES/157-a-routed-names-internal-alias-is-served-by-nothing/00-report.md) — the alias
-- [ADR 0066](0066-public-routing-is-name-agnostic.md) — routed names propagate mesh-wide; extended here
-- [ADR 0138](0138-an-assignment-binds-an-endpoint-and-says-how-far-it-reaches.md) — how the two names are composed and how far each reaches
-- [design 08 §2](../03-DESIGN/01-to-be/08-connectivity.md) — anything under a node's name goes to that node

02-DECISIONS/README.md

@@ -200,7 +200,6 @@ python3 00-META/checks/index.py            fail if stale
 - **0109** — [A package registry seat is one per ecosystem, not one for all of them](0109-a-package-registry-seat-is-one-per-ecosystem.md)
 - **0126** — [A module declares its own seats; the mesh reserves its own](0126-a-module-declares-its-own-seats.md)
 - **0148** — [The mesh's names are resolved, not copied into every container](0148-the-meshs-names-are-resolved-not-copied-into-containers.md)
-- **0151** — [A route's internal name is composed under the node that serves it](0151-a-routes-internal-name-is-composed-under-the-node-that-serves-it.md)
 
 ### What runs on them, and how it gets there
 

03-DESIGN/01-to-be/08-connectivity.md

@@ -10,7 +10,6 @@ code:
 updated: 2026-09-30
 decisions:
   - 02-DECISIONS/0148-the-meshs-names-are-resolved-not-copied-into-containers.md
-  - 02-DECISIONS/0151-a-routes-internal-name-is-composed-under-the-node-that-serves-it.md
   - 02-DECISIONS/0147-a-module-anchors-the-meshs-authority.md
   - 02-DECISIONS/0138-an-assignment-binds-an-endpoint-and-says-how-far-it-reaches.md
   - 02-DECISIONS/0140-the-filter-constrains-what-arrives-from-outside.md
@@ -306,11 +305,10 @@ and [135](../../04-ISSUES/135-a-containers-mesh-names-are-not-compared/00-report
 
 **A container resolves the mesh's names through its machine's resolver, at the moment it asks, and
 nothing is copied.** The resolver is a machine-level process rather than a container, so nothing
-circular is being asked for. It was gated on a container being able to reach the resolver from any of
-the runtime's networks
-([issue 110](../../04-ISSUES/110-a-container-on-the-runtimes-own-network-cannot-reach-the-resolver/00-report.md)),
-and landed the day that did, 2026-09-30: the controller writes no mesh name into a container and the
-host's digest carries only what the module declared for itself.
+circular is being asked for. This is gated on a container being able to reach the resolver from any of
+the runtime's networks, which it cannot today
+([issue 110](../../04-ISSUES/110-a-container-on-the-runtimes-own-network-cannot-reach-the-resolver/00-report.md)) —
+until that lands the mesh keeps copying and keeps comparing, and the order is stated in the record.
 
 The paragraph below states the old boundary, and 0148 deliberately gives it up: a container somebody
 started by hand resolves the same names as everything else, because the resolver answers the machine,
@@ -326,14 +324,6 @@ machine — declared or not — is what a nameserver in `resolv.conf` would be f
 service, the rest is the node — so what resolves is *anything under a node's name*, going to that
 node. What routes it once it arrives is a proxy's, and stays separate.
 
-*2026-09-30.* **So the node in a route's internal name is the one whose proxy answers it**
-([ADR 0151](../../02-DECISIONS/0151-a-routes-internal-name-is-composed-under-the-node-that-serves-it.md)).
-Composed from the node the module ran on, the name sent a client to a machine with nothing listening
-whenever the proxy ran elsewhere
-([issue 139](../../04-ISSUES/139-an-internal-route-name-resolves-to-the-consumers-node/00-report.md));
-composed from the serving node, the rule above holds without exception. The public name stays the
-module's node's, which is where the operator put it.
-
 **The mesh writes the data and runs no daemon.** One wildcard per machine, from the same set that
 writes the hosts file. A resolver is third-party software and runs *on* the mesh rather than being
 *of* it: the mesh has no business shipping one, choosing which one, or knowing its configuration
@@ -409,9 +399,7 @@ can reach from the outside but cannot resolve from the inside is a name it canno
 authority of its own.
 
 **So a granted route is published into internal resolution as well** — the routed name to the node
-that serves it, mesh-wide, by the same mechanism that writes the node names — and as itself: a routed
-name has no mesh form, and the suffixed alias the roster once added beside it resolved to a refusal
-([issue 157](../../04-ISSUES/157-a-routed-names-internal-alias-is-served-by-nothing/00-report.md)). It is *given by the
+that serves it, mesh-wide, by the same mechanism that writes the node names. It is *given by the
 mesh, not chosen by a module*, for the same reason the node names are: a module listing the routes
 would go stale the day one changes. The mesh propagates the names it was told to serve and still
 knows nothing about what they mean

04-ISSUES/107-a-declaration-carries-no-order/00-report.md

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 ---
-status: resolved
+status: located
 opened: 2026-09-23
 located-in: [mesh-controller internal/link, mesh-host internal/link]
-fixed-by: mesh-host PR 59 (the host refuses an older sequence and drains by it), mesh-controller PR 160 (each send is numbered under the node's hold) — measured 2026-09-30, 02-resolution.md
+fixed-by:
 amended-design:
 ---
 

04-ISSUES/107-a-declaration-carries-no-order/01-diagnosis.md

@@ -66,11 +66,3 @@ Left `located`. The owner is unchanged, the shape of the fix is agreed, and the
 [issue 142](../142-the-host-is-the-one-thing-the-mesh-does-not-deliver/00-report.md) rather than anything
 in this record. **This is a judgement about order, not a refusal** — it is cheap to overrule, and the
 code is a day's work once a host can be delivered.
-
-## The gate has opened (2026-09-30, evening)
-
-The mesh delivers the host now — built by its own toolchain, published to its own registry, delivered
-over the bus and started by the launcher, on all four machines
-([issue 142](../142-the-host-is-the-one-thing-the-mesh-does-not-deliver/01-progress.md)). A declaration
-field is a build and a push, not an expedition. The order this record asked for — hosts first, then
-the controller — is now two commands and a status line that says when the first has finished.

04-ISSUES/107-a-declaration-carries-no-order/02-resolution.md

@@ -1,60 +0,0 @@
-# 107 — resolved: a declaration carries its order
-
-*2026-09-30. Measured on the mesh.*
-
-## What was done
-
-**Hosts first, then the controller** — the order [issue 087](../087-the-controller-cannot-tell-a-host-is-too-old/00-report.md)
-says a new declaration field needs, and now a build and a push rather than an expedition
-([issue 142](../142-the-host-is-the-one-thing-the-mesh-does-not-deliver/01-progress.md)).
-
-The host understands a `sequence` on a declaration and tolerates its absence: absent reads as "no
-order claimed", not "first", so a controller that sends none is still understood and a host that kept
-a declaration before it understood the field compares nothing. It refuses a declaration with a lower
-sequence than the one it kept, whole, and says why; and the drain that picks one declaration from a
-batch keeps the highest sequence rather than the last to arrive — which is the case the report
-constructed, a backlog drained out of order.
-
-The controller numbers each send: the next number for that node, taken under the node's hold, before
-the body exists, so the number is inside what the mesh signs and a replayed older declaration cannot
-borrow a newer one's.
-
-## Measured
-
-```
-push shanks; push shanks
-sequence in kept declaration: 2
-node      sequence
-novox     2
-shanks    2
-ace       (none — not sent since numbering)
-g14       (none)
-status:   nobody "not running what the mesh would send them"
-```
-
-Both applies went through; neither was refused; the machine holding the earlier one accepted the later.
-
-## The subtlety, which would have read every machine as behind for ever
-
-The mesh decides a machine is behind by comparing the digest of what it **would** send against what it
-**did** send. A number changes the bytes. So the read-only comparison composes with the number the
-machine was *last* sent — not a fresh one — and is byte for byte what was sent when nothing else
-changed. Without that, numbering would have made `status` name all four machines as out of date on
-every reading, permanently.
-
-## The open questions
-
-- *A per-node `sequence` under the controller's node hold?* Yes, as described. **`supersedes` — the
-  previous digest — is not added.** A strictly-greater sequence gives the ordering; a chain of digests
-  would give continuity, which nothing here needs yet and which every re-composition would break.
-- *Genesis signing its bundle as sequence zero?* Zero is "no order claimed", which is what the bundle
-  carries by carrying nothing. Same rule, no genesis branch.
-- *A marker for a mode change?* Not needed for the incident it guards: a replayed converged declaration
-  reaching a node returned to adopted is already refused **by mode**, before this check runs.
-
-## How it is checked
-
-Host: an older sequence is refused, a newer or equal one is not, and no order claimed on either side
-compares nothing; the drain keeps the highest sequence, and falls back to arrival when none is claimed.
-Controller: a send carries its number inside the signed bytes, an unnumbered send is byte for byte what
-it was before, and each node's counter is one higher per send and readable for the comparison.

04-ISSUES/109-a-container-keeps-the-address-it-was-made-with/00-report.md

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 ---
-status: resolved
+status: located
 opened: 2026-09-24
-located-in: [mesh-controller internal/catalogue/declaration.go (every container was given the roster at creation)]
-fixed-by: mesh-controller PR 161 — no container is given a mesh name; it resolves through its machine's resolver (ADR 0148, landed 2026-09-30 once issue 110 did)
+located-in: [mesh-host internal/apply]
+fixed-by:
 amended-design:
 ---
 
@@ -73,13 +73,3 @@ copying: a container resolves through its machine's resolver at the moment it as
 record reports then has nowhere to occur. It is gated on
 [issue 110](../110-a-container-on-the-runtimes-own-network-cannot-reach-the-resolver/00-report.md), so
 until that lands the mesh still copies and still compares.
-
-## Resolved (2026-09-30)
-
-110 landed the same day ([its resolution](../110-a-container-on-the-runtimes-own-network-cannot-reach-the-resolver/01-resolution.md)),
-and mesh-controller PR 161 then removed the copy: no container is given a mesh name or a mesh address,
-and a module's own declared entries are the only `host` lines it carries. Verified on the control-node
-after its containers were recreated once — the last time a name will do that: the forge's container
-carries no extra hosts and resolves another machine and a routed name through the machine's resolver,
-so the shape this record describes has nowhere to occur. Checked in the controller's tests: a
-container's declaration is byte-for-byte the same under a roster of one machine and a roster of three.

04-ISSUES/110-a-container-on-the-runtimes-own-network-cannot-reach-the-resolver/00-report.md

@@ -1,9 +1,8 @@
 ---
-status: resolved
+status: open
 opened: 2026-09-24
-located-in:
-  - mesh-catalog modules/dnsmasq (the runtime was never told; the resolver answered by interface)
-fixed-by: mesh-catalog PR 175 (the runtime is reloaded and keeps its containers over a restart) and PR 176 (the resolver answers by address, so a query from a bridge is admitted) — measured 2026-09-30, 01-resolution.md
+located-in: []
+fixed-by:
 amended-design:
 ---
 
@@ -68,6 +67,3 @@ and [135](../135-a-containers-mesh-names-are-not-compared/00-report.md)).
 network is the case with no DNS at all, and it is the case the mesh's own forge runs in. Two of four
 machines also bind the resolver to loopback only, so the runtime hands their containers a public
 resolver. Both halves are this issue.
-
-*Later the same day: the second half was wrong, and the first had a different cause than the one above.
-[01-resolution.md](01-resolution.md) has what was actually found.*

04-ISSUES/110-a-container-on-the-runtimes-own-network-cannot-reach-the-resolver/01-resolution.md

@@ -1,64 +0,0 @@
-# 110 — resolved: a container on any network reaches the resolver, and is answered
-
-*2026-09-30. Measured on the three converged machines; the adopted one holds its resolver module until it
-is taken and is not covered.*
-
-## What was actually wrong
-
-Not what the report predicted. The report named the filter: a container on the runtime's default
-network asks from a bridge address, and the converged filter admitted queries by source address only.
-That was true when it was written and was fixed before this issue was ever tested — the filter admits
-by the link a packet arrives on ([ADR 0144](../../02-DECISIONS/0144-anything-on-a-machine-may-call-anything-on-it.md)),
-and a container's bridge is admitted whole. Tested on every machine: the query arrives, the filter
-passes it.
-
-Three other things were wrong, each hiding the next.
-
-**The runtime had never been told.** The resolver module writes the runtime's `dns` key into the
-runtime's own configuration file. The runtime reads that key when it starts and not on a reload, and on
-two machines the runtime predated the file — so every container they started got a public resolver, and
-`novox.internal` came back as not existing. Nothing reported this: the file was present and current,
-the resolver ran, and a name not existing is a valid answer. Fixed in mesh-catalog PR 175: the module
-also sets `live-restore` and reloads the runtime when its file changes, so the one restart the `dns` key
-needs no longer stops every container. The restart is then the operator's, once per machine; done on
-both today, with every running container kept.
-
-**The resolver dropped the query.** With the runtime corrected, a container's query reached the resolver
-— and got no answer, on every machine, including the one whose runtime had been right all along. The
-socket was bound to the private address; the filter admitted the packet; dnsmasq received it and
-discarded it without a line of log. Its configuration said `interface=mesh0`, and dnsmasq admits a
-query by the interface it arrives on when told an interface: a container's query is addressed to the
-private address but arrives on the runtime's bridge, and the bridge is not `mesh0`. Fixed in mesh-catalog
-PR 176: the resolver is told the address to answer on, not the interface that carries it, and a query to
-that address is admitted whatever bridge brings it. The bridges are the runtime's to name.
-
-**The report's second half was wrong.** "Two of four machines bind the resolver to loopback only" was
-an inference from the containers' behaviour, and the behaviour had the cause above. The resolver bound
-the private address on all four; nothing had asked it there.
-
-## What is verified
-
-From a container on the runtime's default network, started by hand and given nothing, on each of the
-three converged machines: `novox.internal` answers with the hub's private address, through the machine's
-own resolver. That is the fourth check of
-[ADR 0148](../../02-DECISIONS/0148-the-meshs-names-are-resolved-not-copied-into-containers.md) — "on every
-network the runtime offers" — and its first step; the record's step 2 (the runtime told per machine, as
-a file) was already how the module works. Step 3 may now begin.
-
-## What checks it
-
-By hand, today. Nothing in the mesh asserts that a container can resolve a mesh name: the resolver's
-own tests cover what it answers, not who can ask. The check that would have caught all three faults is
-the one the report asked for and 0148 lists — a container on the default network resolving a mesh name
-— and it is not built. It belongs with the reachability check of
-[issue 145](../145-a-machine-reads-healthy-while-its-modules-cannot-reach-each-other/00-report.md),
-which is parked; until then this is a thing a person verifies after touching the resolver, the filter,
-or the runtime's configuration.
-
-## What this cost to find
-
-The three faults produced one symptom — a container that cannot resolve — and each fix revealed the
-next. The first was found by reading the runtime's own view of its configuration rather than the file;
-the second by capturing the query on the bridge and finding it arrive and go unanswered; the third only
-by admitting the first belief was wrong. A machine that had been believed to work all day had never
-worked either.

04-ISSUES/139-an-internal-route-name-resolves-to-the-consumers-node/00-report.md

@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
 ---
-status: resolved
+status: open
 opened: 2026-09-28
-located-in: [mesh-controller internal/catalogue/declaration.go (composeName took the consumer's own name as the internal domain)]
-fixed-by: mesh-controller PR 163 — the internal name composes under the node whose proxy serves the route (ADR 0151, 2026-09-30)
-amended-design: 03-DESIGN/01-to-be/08-connectivity.md
+located-in: [mesh-controller internal/catalogue]
+fixed-by:
+amended-design:
 ---
 
 # 139 — An internal route name resolves to the consumer's node, not the one that serves it
@@ -49,15 +49,3 @@ resolve whether or not anything answers.
   and if so, is `route` still one mesh-wide provision or a node-scoped seat with a mesh-wide fallback?
 - What certifies the name in either case? The certificate is obtained by whoever terminates TLS, and
   that is the question above in another form.
-
-## Answered (2026-09-30)
-
-[ADR 0151](../../02-DECISIONS/0151-a-routes-internal-name-is-composed-under-the-node-that-serves-it.md):
-the internal name is composed under the node that serves the route — the machine the request arrives
-at — because `<x>.<node>.internal` means *goes to that node* and nothing else. The public name stays
-the consumer node's, which is where the operator put it. The first question is answered that way; the
-second, a per-node route holder, is a decision about seats and is left where it is; the third is
-unchanged, since the proxy that terminates the name is given it and certifies it.
-
-mesh-controller PR 163 carries it. On this mesh every route is served beside its module, so no name
-changed; the controller's tests hold the case where it would.

04-ISSUES/142-the-host-is-the-one-thing-the-mesh-does-not-deliver/01-progress.md

@@ -138,48 +138,3 @@ push. The control node is worth last.
 One thing this found on the way out: an archive cannot be undeclared, and the attempt stops the machine
 applying anything at all — [issue 162](../162-an-archive-cannot-be-undeclared/00-report.md). It is how
 undoing the first delivery froze the workstation, and it is not specific to the host.
-
-## Every machine self-updates (2026-09-30, evening)
-
-```
-shanks  76f4566bef3d/nox-mesh-host  active
-g14     76f4566bef3d/nox-mesh-host  active
-novox   76f4566bef3d/nox-mesh-host  active
-ace     76f4566bef3d/nox-mesh-host  active
-
-mesh-controller status: (no host split)
-```
-
-The last delivery was unattended on all four: the fixed host was built, pushed, each machine stood
-aside exactly once for the genuinely newer version, and the delivered launcher started it — no
-restart by hand. A following push that delivered nothing new was applied and reported by every
-machine and stood nobody aside, which is the check
-[issue 163](../163-a-delivered-host-stood-aside-on-every-push-and-reported-nothing/00-report.md) asks
-for.
-
-**Two more faults on the way, both mine, both found by reading the machine rather than the success
-line.** A delivered host compared the newest delivered version against its link-time stamp rather
-than the version it was running, so it stood aside on every push and — because standing aside cancels
-the report — never reported again (163). And the adopted machine kept its found launcher as the
-adoption rule says, so the delivery there needed a `take` before the launcher moved.
-
-**The crossover needs one restart of the unit per machine, once.** The launcher process that was
-running on each machine was the old script, executing from its own inode; a new file beside it
-changes nothing until the unit restarts. Every subsequent delivery is unattended.
-
-**Timing, measured:** on a machine, hearing a declaration to reporting it applied is about three
-seconds. A push as the operator sees it takes 17–20 seconds, and the difference is the control plane
-composing the declaration before it sends. A `--wait` shorter than that reads as "did not report" for
-a machine that did; the three-minute default read as slowness for a machine that never would. Neither
-number is a defect being chased here, and both are worth knowing before reading a push's answer.
-
-## What this leaves
-
-- [Issue 162](../162-an-archive-cannot-be-undeclared/00-report.md): an archive cannot be undeclared, so
-  the host module — and any module with an archive — cannot be unassigned, and trying stops the machine
-  applying anything.
-- [Issue 107](../107-a-declaration-carries-no-order/00-report.md) is unblocked: a declaration field is
-  now a build and a push rather than an expedition.
-- Three stale version directories on the workstation from the first attempts, moved aside under
-  `/var/lib/mesh-host/versions-held-back/`, and a backup of the adopted machine's hand-placed binary
-  beside its state. Both are safe to delete and are not the mesh's to delete.

04-ISSUES/151-a-new-name-recreates-every-container-in-the-mesh/00-report.md

@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
 ---
-status: resolved
+status: open
 opened: 2026-09-29
 located-in:
   - mesh-host internal/apply/apply.go (containerSpecReading hashes every `host` entry)
   - mesh-controller internal/catalogue/declaration.go (withMeshNames gives every container the mesh's names)
-fixed-by: mesh-controller PR 161 — the roster left every container's declaration and so its digest (ADR 0148 step 3, 2026-09-30)
+fixed-by:
 ---
 
 # 151 — A new name recreates every container in the mesh
@@ -92,15 +92,3 @@ copying names until a container can reach the resolver from any of the runtime's
 ([issue 110](../110-a-container-on-the-runtimes-own-network-cannot-reach-the-resolver/00-report.md)),
 which it cannot on two of four machines today. Removing the copy first reintroduces 109 and 135
 silently, on a live mesh, which is how both were found. The order is in the record.
-
-## Resolved (2026-09-30)
-
-Step 3 landed the day 110 did. mesh-controller PR 161 stops writing the roster into any container, so
-a container's digest no longer carries a name that is not its own. The controller's tests hold the
-record's check — a container's declaration does not move when the mesh's roster does, and does move
-when the module's own declared entries do.
-
-The first push after the change recreated every container once, because every digest lost its host
-entries at the same moment. That was the last such event: from here a name added or moved on one
-machine changes no container anywhere, and the record's second check — add a routed name, watch every
-other machine's apply report say nothing changed — is what the next module assignment will show.

04-ISSUES/157-a-routed-names-internal-alias-is-served-by-nothing/00-report.md

@@ -1,9 +1,9 @@
 ---
-status: resolved
+status: located
 opened: 2026-09-30
 located-in:
   - mesh-controller internal/catalogue/roster.go (the roster's entries for a routed name)
-fixed-by: mesh-controller PR 163 — a routed name is published as itself, once, with no suffixed alias (ADR 0151, 2026-09-30)
+fixed-by:
 amended-design:
 ---
 
@@ -61,10 +61,3 @@ composition produces `keycloak.novox.be.internal`, which is not a name anything
 
 The fix is a judgement about what a routed name's internal form is, and 139 is the record that asks it;
 this one is the evidence that the current answer publishes a third thing that is neither.
-
-## Resolved (2026-09-30)
-
-The judgement 139 asked for is [ADR 0151](../../02-DECISIONS/0151-a-routes-internal-name-is-composed-under-the-node-that-serves-it.md):
-a routed name has no mesh form. The roster now publishes it as itself, once, at the serving node's
-address; the `<domain>.internal` line is gone from every machine's hosts file, and a controller test
-refuses it coming back.

04-ISSUES/169-a-machine-shares-its-files-and-the-mesh-does-not-know/00-report.md

@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
+---
+status: open
+opened: 2026-09-30
+located-in:
+  - mesh-catalog (no module shares a path over the network)
+  - hq 02-DECISIONS (a file-share seat, per ADR 0126, is a module's own to define)
+fixed-by:
+amended-design:
+---
+
+# 169 — A machine shares its files, and the mesh does not know
+
+## What was observed
+
+ace serves the operator's media library to the home network with two host services no module
+declares and HAL never managed either:
+
+```
+/etc/exports:   /storage/media  192.168.1.0/24(rw,sync,root_squash,…)     nfs-server active, :2049
+/etc/samba/smb.conf: [media] path = /storage/media/  valid users = media   smb active, :139/:445
+```
+
+Two LAN clients were connected at survey (2026-09-30). The library itself is operator data
+(ADR 0051: ~40 TB on ZFS, the mesh owns nothing about it — [issue 153](../153-an-adopted-machines-data-cannot-be-placed-where-it-is/00-report.md)
+is about modules reaching it in place).
+
+Under the mesh as it stands, this arrangement has no expression and one failure mode:
+
+- **Nothing declares the listens.** At `converge ace` the filter is the sum of what modules listen
+  on (ADR 0045); 2049 and 445 are nobody's, so the shares close — silently, for the two clients
+  that mount them.
+- **Nothing owns the configuration.** `/etc/exports` and `smb.conf` are hand-written files on one
+  machine; a second machine sharing a directory would be written by hand again.
+- **Nothing can consume it.** A module on another node that wanted the library (a player, an
+  indexer, a backup) has no `requires` to state and no binding to read; it would mount by a
+  hand-typed host and path.
+- The clients are LAN devices, so this also meets [issue 154](../154-a-machines-own-network-is-not-a-reach/00-report.md)
+  (no reach for the machine's own network).
+
+## The proposal (the operator's, 2026-09-30, settled after two rounds)
+
+**Two module-defined seats, one per protocol, because NFS and SMB share an intent and not a
+contract.** A seat in the mesh's sense is a contract — what it accepts, emits and serves, and the
+tools its holder must answer (ADR 0126, 0132) — and lined up, the two share almost none of it:
+
+| | `nfs-share` | `smb-share` |
+|---|---|---|
+| serves | export path(s); the client ranges allowed (`sec=sys` authorises by address) | share name(s), path |
+| pair credential | none | a user and password per consumer |
+| consumer's mount | `at:/path` | `//at/share` with credentials |
+| holder's tools | export / unexport a path for a range | add / remove a share, create a user |
+
+One `file-share` seat would be the union with every field optional — a consumer could bind it and
+still not know how to mount what it got (the emptiness ADR 0129 warns against). "Export a path to
+the network" is a category, and the mesh needs no seat category: a consumer requires the one it
+can mount. If "give me the library, however" is ever needed, it is a provision an umbrella module
+serves, not a seat.
+
+Both are node-scoped, one holder per node (ADR 0110), so ace holds both. `nfs` and `samba` are the
+first implementations; a second (Ganesha for `nfs-share`, ksmbd for `smb-share`) is what proves
+0126's promise that "replacing the implementation changes nothing for any caller".
+
+The holder module:
+
+- declares the exported paths as `accesses` (ADR 0051: it owns nothing about them — never creates,
+  chowns or removes), and *which* paths as the assignment's settings (ADR 0046/0112);
+- writes the share configuration (`/etc/exports`, `smb.conf`) as mesh-managed files and drives the
+  units, like `dnsmasq`/`sshd` do for theirs;
+- declares its endpoints (`nfs` 2049/tcp; `smb` 445/tcp, …) so the reach — internal, or the LAN
+  once 154 has an answer — is the assignment's, and converge keeps them open;
+- **provides** the seat's provision, so a consumer on another node `requires nfs-share` (or
+  `smb-share`) and reads `${bound:nfs-share:at}` and the path from its binding instead of a
+  hand-typed mount.
+
+## The design gap this exposes
+
+**A seat definition has no home outside the module that first declared it.** Today a seat is
+declared inside a manifest (`showcase` declares `the-showcase`, `ca-trust` its own). If `nfs`
+declared `nfs-share`, Ganesha could hold it only by depending on nfs's manifest — the coupling
+0126 removed for callers, reintroduced for implementations. The protocol needs a neutral place in
+the catalogue beside the modules (a seat definition registered like a manifest), with a module
+saying which seats it implements. This is the first role with an obvious second implementation,
+which is what makes it the exemplar for that mechanism.
+
+## The consumer's half: a module mounts it (2026-09-30, third and fourth round)
+
+A binding tells a consumer *where* the share is; it does not put the files on its machine. Mounting
+is something done on a machine, and something done on a machine is a module's work — not the host's
+(the vocabulary stays closed; no `mount` resource kind).
+
+**A consumer-side module, `network-share` — the module responsible for setting up the network
+shares a node uses** (the operator's framing). A node role, like `node-uplink` or
+`node-dns-resolver`: each machine has it at most once, which is a reason for it to hold a
+node-scoped seat, so two modules can never both be writing mount units on one machine. Assigned on
+the node that wants the files:
+
+- `requires nfs-share` (or `smb-share`); several shares on one node are several local names of
+  the requirement (ADR 0094);
+- its manifest is a `package` (nfs-utils), a `file` writing a systemd `.mount` unit filled from
+  the binding — `What=${bound:nfs-share:at}:${bound:nfs-share:path}` — and a `service` enabling it
+  after the overlay is up: the same shape as `resolv-conf` or `sshd`, files and a unit;
+- *where* it mounts is the assignment's setting (`/srv/media` on one machine, elsewhere on
+  another); which machine mounts what is an operator decision made at assignment, exactly as which
+  paths a machine shares is.
+
+**The modules that use the files never learn about NFS.** A player, an indexer, a backup declares
+the mounted path as an `access` — an operator-chosen, pre-existing path the mesh never owns
+(ADR 0051), exactly as `/storage/media` is on ace. The same app manifest then runs on ace against
+the local library and on another node against the mounted one, with only its assignment differing.
+
+**The one check to add, because it is the data-loss case.** An `access` is confirmed today by the
+path being present. For a mountpoint that is not enough: a writer whose container starts before the
+mount is up writes into the empty directory underneath it, and the files vanish when the mount
+lands. The access check must confirm the path is *a mountpoint* when the module says so (or the
+module's unit is ordered before the consumer's container — which crosses modules and is exactly
+what the mesh does not order). Which of the two is the decision's.
+
+**Identity crosses the wire.** `sec=sys` NFS trusts the client's uid, so a consumer must run as the
+library's owner on the server (ace: `media`, 1001:2000) — hq 153's `${access:<id>:uid}`, read from
+the mounted tree, answers it on the consumer's side too.
+
+## Open questions for the decision
+
+- Whether an NFS export over the overlay is an `internal` reach of the same endpoint or a second
+  export line — NFS authorises by client address, so the mesh range and the LAN range are two
+  entries in one file.
+- How a consumer's binding expresses a *path* to mount (today bindings carry `at`, `port`, `as` and
+  whatever the provider `serves`), and whether one share can serve several paths.