Issue 114 is answered: the controller is a process, by ADR 0142

It asked a question rather than reporting a defect, and the question was taken five days later — the mesh's own components are binaries on the machine, and third-party software stays a container because an image is the right way to carry somebody else's build. The delivery of them is issue 142.
Two records were numbered 127; the second becomes 149, and is resolved
2026-09-29 22:38:11 +02:00 · 2026-09-29 22:33:40 +02:00 · 2026-09-29 22:31:55 +02:00 · 2026-09-29 22:31:46 +02:00 · 2026-09-29 22:26:13 +02:00 · 2026-09-29 22:25:25 +02:00
29 changed files with 1406 additions and 27 deletions
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 topic: building it
-status: proposed
+status: accepted
 date: 2026-09-01
 deciders: jochen
 reconstructed: false
@@ -101,3 +101,19 @@ the digest down after building.
 **Whether kind 4 deserves a module at all.** Thirty-five descriptions that say *install this and
 write these files* may be better as one module with settings than as thirty-five modules. Left
 open deliberately; it is a question about the shape of the catalogue, not about whether to have one.
+
+## Accepted, 2026-09-29, against what was built
+
+*Marked in a grooming pass: the mesh was built to this record and the record still said `proposed`.*
+
+The proposal is the arrangement that exists. `mesh-catalog` holds descriptions of software we did
+not write and the programs that provision it, and holds neither the mesh's own components nor an
+application's own module. The mesh's list of modules is a table in the control plane, filled by
+`module add`, and every module records the source it came from with the commit it was read at.
+
+**One half is not built: `module check` as a command on the control plane's binary.** A manifest is
+still validated by a test that reaches into the control plane's internals — which works for this
+catalogue and gives nothing at all to somebody describing their own application in their own
+repository, which this record says is the case that matters most. That is
+[issue 148](../04-ISSUES/148-a-manifest-outside-this-catalogue-has-no-check/00-report.md).
+
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 topic: what runs on it
-status: proposed
+status: accepted
 date: 2026-09-25
 deciders: jochen
 reconstructed: false
@@ -275,3 +275,11 @@ On acceptance, each of these is superseded or amended by this record, not edited
  everything a module needs is a requirement
 - [Issue 095](../04-ISSUES/095-a-module-assigned-after-genesis-has-no-broker-account/00-report.md),
  [issue 103](../04-ISSUES/103-a-container-is-not-recreated-when-a-file-it-reads-changes/00-report.md): what fails today
+
+## Accepted, 2026-09-29, against what was built
+
+*Marked in a grooming pass.* The vault is a module providing `secret` at mesh scope, and six
+modules in the catalogue require it — so a shared secret is a requirement answered by the vault,
+which is what this record asks for. Private keys are still made where they are used and never
+travel, which is the other half and was never in question.
+
@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 ---
 topic: what runs on it
-status: proposed
+status: accepted
 date: 2026-09-26
 deciders: jochen
 extends: 0112-a-module-definition-names-no-node-mesh-or-path.md
@@ -47,3 +47,10 @@ other boundary already is: the module name.
  node runs one of each (ADR 0115)" — instead of failing on whichever name collides first.
 - Multi-tenant asks are answered in the catalogue (a second module definition), not in the
  control plane.
+
+## Accepted, 2026-09-29, against what was built
+
+*Marked in a grooming pass.* The rule is enforced where it cannot be forgotten: `assignment`'s
+primary key is `(node, module)`, so a second assignment of one module to one machine is not a thing
+the mesh can hold. The record read `proposed` while the schema had already settled it.
+
@@ -12,7 +12,7 @@ extends: 0102-the-mesh-writes-into-a-shared-file-never-over-it.md
 ## Context

 When a resource stops being declared — its module unassigned, the node sent a
-deliberately-empty declaration ([issue 127](../04-ISSUES/127-a-declaration-that-shrinks-to-empty-is-skipped-not-sent/00-report.md)),
+deliberately-empty declaration ([issue 149](../04-ISSUES/149-a-declaration-that-shrinks-to-empty-is-skipped-not-sent/00-report.md)),
 or a new catalogue version renaming its id — the host undoes it. The host's own code states
 the rule it means to follow: **it removes what it made and leaves what it merely configured.**
 For almost every resource it does exactly that:
@@ -99,6 +99,31 @@ composed, so it is not certified.
 binding. The per-node source override becomes its reach, widened from the filter alone to the names
 and the certificate as well.

+## Progressive insight — 2026-09-29, from building it
+
+**Reach does not mean the same thing to the filter for an endpoint the proxy serves.** The decision
+above says `internal` means "the filter opens the machine port to the private network" and `public`
+means "the filter opens it to anywhere". For a routed endpoint the second half is wrong, and
+[ADR 0045](0045-a-machine-firewall-is-the-sum-of-what-it-listens-on.md) already said so before this
+record was written: *a public service is exposed through the proxy, not by opening its own port* — it
+listens `from: mesh`, only the proxy reaches it, and it is exposed by name.
+
+Found by trying to express one real module, not by review. Its routed name must be public, because
+browsers post to it; its machine-side port must not be, because that port serves the dashboard in
+cleartext. Under one value driving both, saying "public" would have reopened a port an operator had
+just closed. Measured the same evening: that module's routed name answered from the internet over TLS
+while its machine-side port was refused from the same place. The port is not the path.
+
+So the reach of a **routed** endpoint asks for names, and its port keeps what the manifest said. The
+reach of an **unrouted** endpoint — git over ssh, a mail port, the bus — governs the port, because
+there is no name and the port is the only way in. That is the same split this record already draws in
+*an endpoint that is not routed is reached but never named*; what it got wrong was carrying the filter
+across it.
+
+This corrects a fact, not the decision: one statement per endpoint, three things derived from it and
+none of them deciding on its own, all stand. The table in the decision should be read with the filter
+column applying to an unrouted endpoint.
+
 ## Consequences

 - **A manifest gains endpoint names, and a route contribution names an endpoint instead of a port.**
@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+---
+topic: what runs on it
+status: superseded
+date: 2026-09-29
+deciders: jochen
+reconstructed: false
+extends: 02-DECISIONS/0010-delivery.md
+superseded-by: 02-DECISIONS/0144-anything-on-a-machine-may-call-anything-on-it.md
+---
+
+# 143. A consumer verifies the grant it is given
+
+## Context
+
+A **grant** is what the mesh writes on a consumer's machine so it can reach a provider. The real one
+the forge receives for its database, as it arrives:
+
+```
+provision  postgres-database
+at         <the provider's machine, by name>
+port       the machine port the provider is published on
+as         the role the provider created for this consumer
+```
+
+with the credential sealed in a separate file. Four facts and a password, and they are the whole
+mechanism by which anything in the mesh reaches anything else.
+
+**The mesh asserts that claim and never finds out whether it is true.**
+[Issue 145](../04-ISSUES/145-a-machine-reads-healthy-while-its-modules-cannot-reach-each-other/00-report.md):
+converging a machine dropped the path from a container to a port on its own machine, and for eleven
+hours the mesh answered *all doing what they were told, all heard from, every module current with its
+source* while a web application logged, six thousand times:
+
+```
+connection to server at "<the machine>" (10.10.0.1), port 6852 failed: timeout expired
+```
+
+Every check the mesh makes passed, because every check it makes is about the relationship between the
+mesh and a machine: the declaration was applied, the digest matched, every container named was running.
+None of them asks whether a consumer can reach what it requires — though the mesh composed the grant
+and therefore knows the consumer, the machine, the address, the port and the credential.
+
+**And where the check runs decides whether it catches anything.** The rule in force admitted the
+machines' own addresses on the private network. A dial from the *machine* to its own address carries
+exactly such a source address, so a check run by the host on its own behalf would have matched that rule
+and passed — while every container on the machine was refused. This is inference from the rule that was
+loaded, not a measurement: the fault was found and fixed before anyone thought to dial from the host.
+It is enough to decide the question, because a check whose position differs from the consumer's is
+testing something nobody asked about.
+
+## Considered Options
+
+1. **The control plane dials each provision.** Rejected, and it is the tempting one because the control
+   plane holds every fact. It sits on the provider's machine for most provisions here and reaches the
+   address by a path no consumer uses; in the measured outage it would have passed throughout.
+2. **The host dials on the consumer's behalf, from the machine.** Rejected for the reason above: the
+   machine's network position is not the consumer's, and the one outage this exists to catch is exactly
+   a difference between them.
+3. **Ask the module.** Rejected: a module is arbitrary software that the mesh does not write. Some could
+   report on their provisions and most cannot, and a check that covers the modules that opted in tells
+   nobody anything about the rest.
+4. **Read the module's logs.** Rejected: the failure was in a log the whole time, and reading a module's
+   logs makes the mesh depend on the wording of software it does not control.
+5. **The consumer verifies it, from its own network position.** Adopted.
+
+## Decision
+
+**A consumer verifies each grant it is given, from its own network position.** After a reconcile has
+applied a grant, the machine opens a connection to the address and port that grant names, from inside
+the consumer's own network namespace — the same position the consumer's software dials from, which is
+the only position that answers the question the grant asks.
+
+**It is a connection, not a conversation.** Whether the port accepts a connection is what a grant
+claims; whether the credential is right, the role exists or the schema is current is the provider's to
+answer and the consumer's to discover. A check that spoke each provision's protocol would be a second
+implementation of every provision, and would fail for reasons that are not the mesh's.
+
+**One failure is not news.** A provider restarting is ordinary, and so is a consumer between containers.
+A grant is reported unreachable only after it has failed on **consecutive** reconciles, and the count is
+what the machine reports rather than the last attempt — so a reader can tell "it was briefly away" from
+"it has never worked".
+
+**A grant that cannot be checked is said to be unchecked, never assumed good.** A consumer that is not
+running has no network position to dial from; that is not a broken grant and must not read as one. It is
+also not a verified grant, and the two are different sentences.
+
+**What it costs to be wrong is the constraint on all of it.** A check that reports a working provision
+broken trains a reader to ignore the report, which is worse than having none — the fault this
+repository keeps finding, one level up. So the threshold is consecutive failures, the check is the
+cheapest thing that answers the question, and an unknown is reported as unknown.
+
+**The mesh says it where it says everything else.** A machine's report carries its unreachable grants,
+and `status` names them beside what is out of date — so "every module current with its source" stops
+being the whole of what the mesh will tell you about a machine whose modules cannot reach each other.
+
+## Consequences
+
+- **The mesh can be wrong out loud.** It has been able to assert a grant and not check it; now a grant
+  that does not work is a thing the mesh says, and the eleven hours of issue 145 become minutes.
+- **The host gains the ability to act from a container's network position**, which it has not needed
+  before. That is a real capability and the only one this needs.
+- **A machine reports something that is not about the declaration.** Everything it reports today is
+  what it applied and what it holds; this is the first thing it says about whether what it applied
+  works.
+- **A provision with no port is not checked**, because there is nothing to dial. Several are files and
+  secrets, and saying "checked" about those would be the appearance of verification that this record
+  exists to remove.
+- **What got harder:** a reconcile does more than apply. Every grant adds a connection attempt on a
+  cadence, which is cheap individually and worth naming: a machine with many consumers dials once per
+  grant per reconcile.
+
+## How it is checked
+
+- **The outage is caught.** A bed drops the path from a consumer's network position to a provider's
+  port while leaving the machine's own path to it open — the exact shape of issue 145 — and the grant
+  reads unreachable. This fails against the previous behaviour, where nothing reported anything, and
+  against a check run from the machine, which passes while the consumer cannot reach it.
+- **A restarting provider is not an outage.** One failed reconcile reports nothing; the count rises and
+  falls, and the grant reads reachable again without anybody acting.
+- **A consumer that is not running reads unchecked, not broken**, asserted separately from the
+  unreachable case because they are different sentences.
+- **A provision with no port is not claimed to be checked.**
+- **The report carries the count, not the last attempt**, so "briefly away" and "never worked" are
+  distinguishable by a reader who sees only the report.
+- **`status` names an unreachable grant**, asserted on the output, since a check nothing surfaces is
+  the same as no check.
+
+## References
+
+- [ADR 0010](0010-delivery.md) — the declaration is owned resources; a grant is one of them
+- [ADR 0009](0009-modules-and-the-graph.md) — what a provision and a consumer are
+- [issue 145](../04-ISSUES/145-a-machine-reads-healthy-while-its-modules-cannot-reach-each-other/00-report.md)
+  — the eleven hours
+- [issue 136](../04-ISSUES/136-a-module-may-name-a-program-the-machine-does-not-have/00-report.md) — the
+  same distance between a declaration and a machine, one level down
@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
+---
+topic: what runs on it
+status: accepted
+date: 2026-09-29
+deciders: jochen
+reconstructed: false
+extends: 02-DECISIONS/0045-a-machine-firewall-is-the-sum-of-what-it-listens-on.md
+supersedes: 02-DECISIONS/0143-a-consumer-verifies-the-grant-it-is-given.md
+---
+
+# 144. Anything on a machine may call anything on it, and that is the whole of "local"
+
+## Context
+
+Everything in the mesh should be able to call:
+
+- what runs on the same machine;
+- another machine's service over the private network, if that service is exposed there;
+- another machine's service over the public network, if it is exposed there.
+
+Three cases. The filter had two of them.
+
+**The first was broken and the break was invisible.** A service exposed to the private network rendered
+as the machines' own addresses on it. A caller on the machine carries such an address; a caller inside
+one of that machine's containers carries a bridge address and matched nothing. Measured:
+
+```
+the machine:   local 10.10.0.1 dev lo   src 10.10.0.1
+a container:   10.10.0.1 via 172.17.0.1 dev eth0  src 172.17.0.8
+```
+
+Same destination, same machine, two source addresses. The rule named the first and silently refused the
+second, so a module reaching its database on its own machine's name timed out for eleven hours
+([issue 145](../04-ISSUES/145-a-machine-reads-healthy-while-its-modules-cannot-reach-each-other/00-report.md)).
+
+**The second case works, and by accident.** A caller on another machine reaches the private network over
+the tunnel, and arrives carrying that machine's own address — so the rule matches. It would not have
+matched the caller's own address either; the tunnel rewrites it. That two of three cases worked is why
+this looked correct.
+
+**[ADR 0143](0143-a-consumer-verifies-the-grant-it-is-given.md) answered the wrong question.** Written
+hours earlier, it proposed that a consumer verify each grant it is given by opening a connection from
+its own network position — and it went to some length about *which* position, because whether a caller
+sat in a container changed the answer. That difference was the bug. A verification mechanism would have
+reported this outage sooner and would not have prevented it, and the machinery it needed existed only
+because the rule was wrong. The remedy for a configuration error is the correct configuration.
+
+**And a module is not a container.** A module is software that delivers one or more services, and it may
+do that as a container, an installed package with a unit, a binary, or files something else reads. Of 72
+modules in the catalogue, 61 happen to use a container and 11 do not — among them the resolver, the ssh
+daemon and the intrusion-prevention module. A rule that reasons about containers describes most of the
+mesh and not the mesh.
+
+## Considered Options
+
+1. **A line per service admitting the machine's own callers.** Rejected: it is what was written first,
+   and it only ever covers the services somebody remembered to think about. It also states, service by
+   service, a thing that is true of the machine.
+2. **Verify each grant from the consumer's position** ([ADR 0143](0143-a-consumer-verifies-the-grant-it-is-given.md)).
+   Rejected as a remedy: it observes the fault rather than removing it, and the question it agonised over
+   — which network position — exists only while the fault does.
+3. **Enumerate the addresses a machine's callers may have.** Rejected for the reason no address is named
+   anywhere in this filter any more ([ADR 0140](0140-the-filter-constrains-what-arrives-from-outside.md)):
+   a range describes one machine and goes stale in silence.
+4. **Local is not filtered, stated once.** Adopted.
+
+## Decision
+
+**Anything on a machine may call anything on that machine, and the filter says so once.** Not per
+service, not per port, and not by naming who the callers are: traffic that did not arrive from outside
+the machine and did not arrive over the private network is the machine's own, and is admitted. It is
+asked by the link the traffic arrived on, because that is a fact about the machine rather than a list
+that describes one.
+
+**Local is not a boundary this mesh draws.** Whether a caller is a container, a unit, or the operator's
+shell changes nothing, because the thing being decided is "is this the same machine" and the answer does
+not depend on the form the caller takes.
+
+**The other two cases are unchanged and are now legible beside it.** A service exposed to the private
+network admits the machines on it; a service exposed publicly admits anything. Three cases, three lines,
+and a reader can see all three at once.
+
+**[ADR 0143](0143-a-consumer-verifies-the-grant-it-is-given.md) is superseded and nothing replaces it.**
+Whether the mesh should check that a grant works is a real question — it reported this machine healthy
+for eleven hours — but it is a question about what the mesh can say, not about what it should do, and it
+must stand on its own rather than as the remedy for a rule that was wrong. It is not built.
+
+## Consequences
+
+- **The three things everything should be able to call are three lines**, and the first is one line
+  rather than one per service, so a service added tomorrow is reachable locally without anybody
+  remembering to say so.
+- **A form of module stops mattering to the filter.** The 11 modules that are not containers were never
+  affected by this bug and were never the reason it was hard to see; they are the reason the rule should
+  never have mentioned containers.
+- **The mesh still cannot say when a grant stops working.** That is the live gap, recorded in issue 145
+  and no longer pretending to have an answer.
+- **What got harder:** nothing. This removes a line per service and replaces it with one.
+
+## How it is checked
+
+- **A caller on the machine reaches a service on it, in the input chain**, asserted on that chain's own
+  body — because the forward chain carries the same line in the same words, and an assertion on the
+  whole rendered file passed with the input chain's copy deleted. That is what
+  [ADR 0137](0137-a-machine-says-which-networks-it-routes.md)'s tests already say to do.
+- **It is one rule, not one per service.** Asserted by rendering two services of different reach and
+  refusing a per-port local line.
+- **The three reaches render as three lines**, asserted together, so the whole of what the filter says
+  about who may call what is one test.
+- **The measured case:** from a container on the machine, a service exposed to the private network on
+  that machine answers. This is the outage, and it fails against the rule this replaces.
+
+## References
+
+- [ADR 0045](0045-a-machine-firewall-is-the-sum-of-what-it-listens-on.md) — the filter is the sum
+  of what its modules listen on
+- [ADR 0140](0140-the-filter-constrains-what-arrives-from-outside.md) — why no address is named
+- [ADR 0138](0138-an-assignment-binds-an-endpoint-and-says-how-far-it-reaches.md) — internal and public,
+  the other two cases
+- [ADR 0143](0143-a-consumer-verifies-the-grant-it-is-given.md) — superseded here
+- [issue 145](../04-ISSUES/145-a-machine-reads-healthy-while-its-modules-cannot-reach-each-other/00-report.md)
@@ -0,0 +1,120 @@
+---
+topic: what runs on it
+status: superseded
+date: 2026-09-29
+deciders: jochen
+reconstructed: false
+extends: 02-DECISIONS/0144-anything-on-a-machine-may-call-anything-on-it.md
+superseded-by: 02-DECISIONS/0146-connectivity-is-checked-by-name-per-hosting-form.md
+---
+
+# 145. A module checks what the mesh claims is reachable, and it checks itself
+
+## Context
+
+The mesh asserts three things are callable ([ADR 0144](0144-anything-on-a-machine-may-call-anything-on-it.md)):
+what runs on the same machine, another machine's service exposed to the private network, and another
+machine's service exposed publicly. It has never checked any of them.
+
+[Issue 145](../04-ISSUES/145-a-machine-reads-healthy-while-its-modules-cannot-reach-each-other/00-report.md):
+the first of the three was broken for eleven hours and the mesh answered *all heard from, every module
+current with its source* throughout. Every check it makes is about the relationship between the mesh and
+a machine — applied, current, containers running — and none about whether anything can reach anything.
+
+**A first answer was drafted and withdrawn.** [ADR 0143](0143-a-consumer-verifies-the-grant-it-is-given.md)
+put the check inside the host, verifying each grant from the consumer's network position. It was
+superseded because the difference it worked so hard to reproduce — whether a caller sat in a container —
+was the bug itself. What survives from it is the part that was right: a check run from the wrong place
+proves nothing, and the mesh's own reports are not evidence about the network.
+
+**The mesh already has the shape for this and it is a module.** A module can declare a container that
+runs on a cadence ([ADR 0053](0053-a-step-that-runs-on-a-schedule.md), and three modules already use
+`*/5 * * * *`), can be given the mesh's roster as a rendered fact — every machine's name, address and
+this node's own identity, the same mechanism the resolver and the operator's ssh configuration use — and
+can emit what it found on the bus. Nothing new is needed to build this except the module.
+
+**What it must not check is the trap.** The obvious probe target is ssh: present on every machine, never
+closed by design. Dialling it would have passed throughout the outage, because ssh is admitted
+unconditionally and the thing that broke was a service exposed to the private network. A checker whose
+probe is unconditionally open measures the one path that cannot fail, which is the failure this whole
+sequence keeps producing — a check that reads as verification and verifies nothing.
+
+## Considered Options
+
+1. **The host verifies each grant** ([ADR 0143](0143-a-consumer-verifies-the-grant-it-is-given.md)).
+   Superseded. It needed the host to act from another network position, which is machinery that exists
+   only while local calls are filtered wrongly.
+2. **The control plane dials every node.** Rejected: it sits on one machine and reaches the others by a
+   path no ordinary caller uses. It would have passed throughout the outage.
+3. **Probe an existing service.** Rejected for the target problem above: the services guaranteed on every
+   machine are the ones that are never closed, so they cannot fail the way the mesh fails.
+4. **A module on every machine that serves its own probe and dials the others'.** Adopted.
+
+## Decision
+
+**A module runs on every machine, serves an endpoint of its own, and dials every other machine's.** The
+probe is the module's own endpoint, declared reachable over the private network — so the thing being
+dialled is admitted by exactly the rule that governs every other internally-exposed service, and fails
+when that rule is wrong. A second endpoint, declared public, does the same for the public path where a
+machine has one.
+
+**It checks the three cases the mesh claims, by name:**
+
+- its **own machine**, by dialling its own machine's address — the case that broke, and the only one that
+  distinguishes a caller on the machine from a caller in one of its containers;
+- **each other machine over the private network**;
+- **each machine's public path**, where one is recorded.
+
+**It resolves before it dials, and says which failed.** A name that does not resolve and a port that does
+not answer are different faults with different owners, and a checker that reports one sentence for both
+sends a reader to the wrong place.
+
+**It runs where the callers run.** The module's own code in its own container, on the cadence the mesh
+already has, from the same position as every other module on that machine. It is not the host and not the
+control plane, and that is the whole point.
+
+**It says what it found and nothing else.** It emits results; it repairs nothing, opens nothing and holds
+no credential beyond its own. A checker that fixes things is a second control plane.
+
+**One failure is not a fault.** A machine rebooting is ordinary. A path is reported broken after it has
+failed on consecutive runs, and the count travels with the result so a reader can tell "briefly away"
+from "never worked" — the one thing [ADR 0143](0143-a-consumer-verifies-the-grant-it-is-given.md) got
+right and worth keeping.
+
+## Consequences
+
+- **The mesh gains the ability to be wrong out loud about the network.** Eleven hours becomes two runs.
+- **It is a module, so it is assigned, built, pushed and reported on like everything else** — no new host
+  capability, no new vocabulary, nothing in the control plane that has to know about checking.
+- **Its own endpoint is the instrument.** That is what makes it able to fail; it also means the checker
+  must be assigned to a machine before that machine can be checked, and a machine without it is
+  unchecked rather than healthy.
+- **It cannot check what it cannot be told.** The roster gives it machines; it does not give it every
+  module's endpoints, so this checks the paths the mesh claims and not every grant in the mesh. That is
+  the honest scope of a first one, and the difference is worth saying rather than growing quietly.
+- **What got harder:** one more module on every machine, and a module whose whole purpose is to fail
+  visibly when something else is wrong. Its own failures will be read as the mesh's, which is the cost of
+  an instrument.
+
+## How it is checked
+
+- **It catches the measured outage.** A bed closes the path from a container to a service exposed to the
+  private network on its own machine — issue 145's shape — and the checker reports its own machine
+  unreachable while every other path still reads reachable. This fails against a probe on a port that is
+  never closed, which is the wrong target this record exists to name.
+- **A machine rebooting is not a fault**: one failed run reports nothing, the count rises and falls.
+- **A name that does not resolve is reported as that**, not as a port that did not answer.
+- **It reports and does not act**: asserted by giving it a broken path and checking nothing on the machine
+  changed.
+- **A machine without the module reads unchecked**, never healthy — asserted on what the mesh says about
+  a machine it is not assigned to.
+
+## References
+
+- [ADR 0144](0144-anything-on-a-machine-may-call-anything-on-it.md) — the three things that must be callable
+- [ADR 0143](0143-a-consumer-verifies-the-grant-it-is-given.md) — superseded; what survives is that the
+  position matters
+- [ADR 0053](0053-a-step-that-runs-on-a-schedule.md) — the cadence
+- [ADR 0138](0138-an-assignment-binds-an-endpoint-and-says-how-far-it-reaches.md) — internal and public,
+  which the probe endpoints declare
+- [issue 145](../04-ISSUES/145-a-machine-reads-healthy-while-its-modules-cannot-reach-each-other/00-report.md)
@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
+---
+topic: what runs on it
+status: accepted
+date: 2026-09-29
+deciders: jochen
+reconstructed: false
+extends: 02-DECISIONS/0145-a-module-checks-what-the-mesh-claims-is-reachable.md
+supersedes: 02-DECISIONS/0145-a-module-checks-what-the-mesh-claims-is-reachable.md
+---
+
+# 146. Connectivity is checked by name, per hosting form, with a valid certificate
+
+## Context
+
+[ADR 0145](0145-a-module-checks-what-the-mesh-claims-is-reachable.md) decided that a module checks what
+the mesh claims is reachable, from where the callers are, because the mesh reported four machines healthy
+for eleven hours while a module could not reach its database
+([issue 145](../04-ISSUES/145-a-machine-reads-healthy-while-its-modules-cannot-reach-each-other/00-report.md)).
+That decision stands. What it got wrong is everything about *what* is dialled.
+
+It dialled a raw port on each machine's address. Three things are wrong with that:
+
+- **A raw port is not how anything in this mesh is reached.** A real caller resolves a name, the proxy
+  answers it, and the proxy reaches the service. A check that dials a port tests the last hop of a path
+  with four hops in it, and the three it skips — resolution, the proxy, the certificate — are where most
+  of the mesh's connectivity actually lives.
+- **It tested one hosting form.** A module is software that delivers services, and it may deliver them
+  from a container, from a unit the mesh writes for its own code, or from a unit a package ships. Those
+  are three different paths to the same machine, and the outage that produced this was two of them
+  disagreeing. A probe served one way measures one way.
+- **It said nothing about certificates.** An internal name that resolves, routes and answers over TLS
+  that nothing can verify is not a working path; it is a working path for whoever holds the proxy's
+  trust and nobody else.
+
+## Decision
+
+**Each hosting form gets its own endpoint, its own route and therefore its own name.** On every machine:
+
+| name | what serves it |
+|---|---|
+| `connect-docker.<node>.internal` | a container |
+| `connect-process.<node>.internal` | the mesh's own code, in a unit the mesh writes |
+| `connect-unit.<node>.internal` | a unit a package ships |
+
+and the same set under each machine's public domain where it has one — `connect-docker.<domain>` and its
+siblings. The names are the instrument: a failure reads as *`connect-docker.g14.internal` did not answer*,
+which says which machine and which hosting form without anybody interpreting anything.
+
+**Every machine checks every machine, by name, over TLS, verifying the certificate.** Not a port, not an
+address: resolve the name, connect, complete the handshake, check the certificate against the authority
+that should have issued it — the mesh's own for an internal name, a public one for a public name. That is
+the whole path a real caller takes, and each step failing is reported as itself.
+
+**No name is written anywhere.** The machines come from the roster the mesh already renders as a fact, and
+the labels are the module's. A machine that joins appears in every other machine's roster on the next
+push, and they begin checking it without an edit.
+
+**And the module arrives on a machine because the machine exists, not because somebody assigned it.** A
+machine that joins and does not have it is worse than unchecked: every other machine is already dialling
+its names, so it reads as broken everywhere until someone notices. This is the part the mesh cannot
+currently express — see below — and it is the part that makes the rest safe.
+
+**What survives from 0145**, unchanged: it reports and repairs nothing; one failure is not a fault and a
+path is broken after consecutive runs with the count travelling with the result; findings are said on the
+bus, because a finding in a file on the machine is what this exists to end; and the bus is the one path
+that cannot report its own failure, so an emit that does not land is written locally and nowhere else.
+
+## What this needs that the mesh does not have
+
+Named here rather than assumed, because each is a decision of its own and this record is not the place to
+make them:
+
+1. **A module that every machine has.** `ScopeNode` means *at most one holder per node* — an exclusivity
+   rule, not an obligation — and nothing assigns a module at enrolment. Today the resolver, the packet
+   filter, ssh and intrusion prevention are each assigned per machine by hand, which is the same gap
+   wearing different clothes.
+2. **A container running a module's own bundle.** A `process` runs the mesh's own compiled code with no
+   image; a `container` needs an image of the module's own, which means a Dockerfile — the thing the
+   `bundle` artifact exists to abolish. Nothing in the catalogue runs a bundle in a container, so
+   `connect-docker` has no shape yet.
+3. **A unit a package ships, for `connect-unit`.** The `service` resource puts an existing unit into a
+   state and deliberately installs none, so this form needs a package that serves a port — and naming a
+   program the machine may not have is
+   [issue 136](../04-ISSUES/136-a-module-may-name-a-program-the-machine-does-not-have/00-report.md).
+4. **A machine's public domain in the roster fact.** The fact carries each machine's name, mesh name,
+   address and operator account. The public names cannot be composed without the domain.
+5. **Something that installs the mesh's own root on a machine.** This is
+   [issue 129](../04-ISSUES/129-nothing-makes-a-machine-trust-the-meshs-authority/00-report.md), open
+   since before any of this. Until it is closed, every internal name will fail certificate verification
+   from every machine — correctly, because nothing can verify it. That is the checker working, and it is
+   worth saying in advance so the first run is not read as the checker being broken.
+
+## Consequences
+
+- **A failure names the machine and the hosting form.** That is the whole gain over a port: eleven hours
+  became two runs under 0145, and under this it also becomes one line that says where to look.
+- **The checker surfaces issue 129 immediately**, and will report every internal name unverifiable until
+  it is fixed. A reader must be told that before the first run rather than after.
+- **Five things must be built before this is what it says it is**, and until they are, what exists is a
+  port dial from one position — useful, and not this.
+- **What got harder:** a module with three hosting forms of the same trivial service is a strange thing to
+  read. It is justified only because those three forms are how the mesh actually runs software, and a
+  checker that tested one of them would keep the class of outage it exists to catch.
+
+## How it is checked
+
+- **A name per hosting form answers from every machine**, asserted by name and not by port.
+- **A certificate that does not verify is reported as that**, distinctly from a name that does not resolve
+  and a port that does not answer — three faults, three owners.
+- **A machine that joins is checked by every other machine without an edit**, asserted by adding one to a
+  bed and looking at what the others dial on their next run.
+- **A machine that joins has the module**, which is gap 1 above and is the assertion that cannot be
+  written yet.
+- **The measured outage is still caught**: the path from a container to a service on its own machine is
+  closed and `connect-docker.<that node>.internal` fails from that machine while the others still pass.
+
+## References
+
+- [ADR 0145](0145-a-module-checks-what-the-mesh-claims-is-reachable.md) — superseded; its core stands
+- [ADR 0138](0138-an-assignment-binds-an-endpoint-and-says-how-far-it-reaches.md) — the two reaches these
+  names come from
+- [ADR 0066](0066-public-routing-is-name-agnostic.md) — a label plus a domain, which is why no name is written
+- [issue 129](../04-ISSUES/129-nothing-makes-a-machine-trust-the-meshs-authority/00-report.md) — what the
+  internal names will fail on until it is closed
+- [issue 145](../04-ISSUES/145-a-machine-reads-healthy-while-its-modules-cannot-reach-each-other/00-report.md)
@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
+---
+topic: what runs on it
+status: accepted
+date: 2026-09-29
+deciders: jochen
+reconstructed: false
+extends: 02-DECISIONS/0098-a-fact-a-provider-makes-at-first-start-is-fetched-from-it.md
+---
+
+# 147. A module anchors the mesh's authority on a machine, and takes it away again
+
+## Context
+
+The mesh runs its own certificate authority and every internal name is served with a certificate
+from it. No machine trusts it. On an enrolled, adopted workstation — on the private network,
+resolving through the mesh's resolver — every internal HTTPS name fails verification with
+*unable to get local issuer certificate*
+([issue 129](../04-ISSUES/129-nothing-makes-a-machine-trust-the-meshs-authority/00-report.md)).
+The certificates are genuine; nothing on the machine has ever been told what issued them.
+
+The authority's only consumer today is a proxy, which fetches the root into a directory of its own
+and hands it to one program ([ADR 0098](0098-a-fact-a-provider-makes-at-first-start-is-fetched-from-it.md)).
+That is enough for the proxy and for nothing else: a browser, `git` over HTTPS, `curl`, a package
+manager and every module that calls another module by an internal name read the machine's trust
+store, which holds the predecessor's authority and a developer tool's local root, and nothing of
+the mesh's.
+
+The predecessor wrote its root into every machine it set up. Removing it was deliberate — an
+honest failure beats a name that verifies for the wrong reason — and it leaves the mesh with no
+answer at all until this one lands. It is also what keeps the predecessor alive on the machines
+that still speak TLS to a mesh name.
+
+**What makes this a decision rather than a patch** is where the knowledge goes. Two mechanisms in
+the mesh already write things onto a machine because it is on the private network: `/etc/hosts`
+and the registry's plaintext trust ([ADR 0082](0082-the-registry-is-reached-by-name-and-trusted-by-the-overlay.md)).
+Following that precedent, the controller would inject an anchor into every such machine's
+declaration, and issue 129 proposed exactly that. It would work. It would also put *where this
+operating system keeps trust anchors* and *which command refreshes its bundles* into the control
+plane, for a fact the control plane does not have (the root does not exist until the authority has
+run) and a machine that may have no reason to verify a mesh name at all.
+
+## Considered Options
+
+1. **The controller injects the anchor into every machine on the private network**, the
+   `/etc/hosts` and insecure-registry shape. Rejected: being on the network is what makes the
+   registry reachable, and that is why network presence is the right trigger *there* — the trust
+   and the reachability are the same fact. Trusting an authority is not the same fact as being
+   able to reach it, and the anchor's path and the bundle refresh are a property of the machine's
+   operating system, which is the host's half of the mesh, not the controller's.
+2. **A new host primitive — a `trust-anchor` resource type.** Rejected for now, not on principle.
+   The host's vocabulary should grow when a shape cannot be said with what exists, and this one
+   can: a file and a service already express it, as the packet filter proves
+   ([ADR 0140](0140-the-filter-constrains-what-arrives-from-outside.md), whose module writes a
+   unit file and a service and nothing else). The primitive becomes right the moment a second
+   operating system is in play, because the anchor directory and the refresh command are exactly
+   the difference `internal/system` exists to hold. Until then it would be a vocabulary word with
+   one speaker.
+3. **A module that requires the authority, fetches its root, installs it as an anchor and
+   refreshes the machine's bundles — and removes both when it is no longer assigned.** Adopted.
+
+## Decision
+
+**A machine trusts the mesh's authority because a module put its root there, and stops trusting it
+when that module is taken away.**
+
+1. **The module requires `internal-acme-ca`** and reads the provider's bound address and the path
+   it serves its root at. It requires nothing else and provides nothing: it is a consumer of the
+   authority like any other.
+2. **It fetches the root over the mesh's own network, without prior trust**, because there is no
+   prior trust to have — this is the module that establishes it — and the network is what
+   authenticates the fetch ([ADR 0098](0098-a-fact-a-provider-makes-at-first-start-is-fetched-from-it.md),
+   the same reasoning that lets the proxy fetch it). What it accepts is checked: a body that is
+   not a certificate fails, and the failure is the module's, not a later handshake's.
+3. **It installs the root where this machine's TLS clients look, and refreshes the extracted
+   bundles** — the command that does the refresh is an ordinary part of the unit that places the
+   anchor, not a new thing the mesh can be asked to do.
+4. **Removal is symmetric and is the same unit's business.** Undeclared, the host stops the unit;
+   stopping it removes the anchor and refreshes the bundles again. A machine that leaves the mesh
+   stops trusting the mesh, without anybody remembering to go and look.
+5. **It is an ordinary assignment.** No machine is given it automatically. A machine that verifies
+   a mesh name is assigned it, and a machine that does not is not — which is the same statement
+   the mesh already makes about every other module, and is why this is not the controller's
+   business.
+
+**One operating system, said out loud.** The anchor directory and the refresh command in the
+module today are Arch's. On a machine that is not Arch the unit fails, visibly, rather than
+writing a file nothing reads. That is the accurate failure, and it is the signal that option 2
+above has become right.
+
+## How this is checked
+
+- **The verification that could not succeed before.** On a machine holding the module, a plain
+  client fetches an internal HTTPS name with no `-k` and no bundle argument and verifies. On a
+  machine without it, the same fetch fails with *unable to get local issuer certificate*. Both
+  halves, because only the pair distinguishes "the anchor works" from "something else already
+  trusted it".
+- **The removal half, in the same bed:** unassign the module, refetch, and the failure returns.
+  Checking only the arrival is how a trust store fills up with authorities nobody can account for.
+- **What is deliberately not checked here:** that the authority issues, that a name resolves, that
+  the proxy serves. Those have their own beds, and this module's bed passing for those reasons is
+  the failure mode this record is most exposed to — which is why the negative half is not optional.
+
+**What this bed is dialled at, and why it is the authority itself.** The authority serves its own
+API with a certificate it issued, so the handshake under test needs nothing else in the mesh to be
+right. A trust bed that reached for a routed name through the proxy would be passing or failing for
+the proxy's reasons and the resolver's.
+
+**Written, and not yet run** *(2026-09-29)*. The bed is `trust-anchor` in the lab, and it cannot
+execute: raising a foundation fails before any module is reached, in both bundles that exist
+([issue 146](../04-ISSUES/146-the-foundation-cannot-be-raised-on-the-bus-the-mesh-runs-on/00-report.md)).
+So what stands behind this record today is the rendering — the script the machine would run names
+the authority it was bound to, checked in the control plane's own test suite — and **not** a machine
+that verified anything. That is a weaker thing than the paragraph above describes, and it stays
+written this way until the bed runs.
+
+## Consequences
+
+The predecessor's authority can be retired from a machine once this module is assigned to it,
+which is the first time that has been true. `git` over HTTPS to the mesh's forge starts working,
+so the ssh-only clone URL stops being a rule. A module on any machine can call another module's
+internal name and verify it.
+
+What got harder: one more module to assign to a machine that needs it, and the machine's trust
+store now changes when an assignment changes — which is the point, and is also a thing an operator
+can be surprised by. The fetch without prior trust is the same exposure ADR 0098 accepted, now on
+every machine that holds the module rather than only where a proxy runs: anything that can stand
+in the middle of the mesh's own network at the moment of the fetch can be believed. The mesh
+already treats that network as the thing it authenticates.
+
+## References
+
+- [issue 129](../04-ISSUES/129-nothing-makes-a-machine-trust-the-meshs-authority/00-report.md) —
+  the symptom and the evidence.
+- [ADR 0098](0098-a-fact-a-provider-makes-at-first-start-is-fetched-from-it.md) — a fact made at
+  first start is fetched from its provider; this extends it from one program to the machine.
+- [ADR 0082](0082-the-registry-is-reached-by-name-and-trusted-by-the-overlay.md) — the precedent
+  this deliberately does not follow, and why it is right where it is.
+- [ADR 0005](0005-the-node-host.md) — the host is where one operating system's difference lives.
+- [`03-DESIGN/01-to-be/08-connectivity.md`](../03-DESIGN/01-to-be/08-connectivity.md).
@@ -207,9 +207,9 @@ python3 00-META/checks/index.py            fail if stale
 - **0099** — [A step that runs once names what it reads, and runs again when it changed](0099-a-step-that-runs-once-names-what-it-reads.md)
 - **0110** — [A seat is held by one assignment, from a closed set, and it may deliver a provision](0110-a-seat-is-a-module-assignment-from-a-closed-set.md)
 - **0112** — [A module definition names no node, no mesh and no path: everything it needs is a requirement the mesh resolves](0112-a-module-definition-names-no-node-mesh-or-path.md)
- **0113** — [The vault makes every shared secret, a provider makes resources and data, and the mesh carries both](0113-the-vault-makes-every-secret.md)  *(proposed)*
+- **0113** — [The vault makes every shared secret, a provider makes resources and data, and the mesh carries both](0113-the-vault-makes-every-secret.md)
 - **0114** — [A credential two parties hold rotates over two credentials; one a single party holds rotates in place, staged; and retiring a credential never removes what it reached](0114-a-shared-credential-rotates-over-two-credentials.md)  *(proposed)*
- **0115** — [One assignment of a module per node: the module's name is the assignment's identity](0115-one-assignment-of-a-module-per-node.md)  *(proposed)*
+- **0115** — [One assignment of a module per node: the module's name is the assignment's identity](0115-one-assignment-of-a-module-per-node.md)
 - **0117** — [A machine's uplink is a seat: the mesh configures the manager, never the link](0117-a-machines-uplink-is-a-seat.md)
 - **0118** — [Undeclaring removes what the mesh made, and gives a unit back the state it was found in](0118-undeclaring-gives-a-unit-back-the-state-it-was-found-in.md)
 - **0120** — [A roster fact carries its format as a template: the mesh owns the data, the module owns the format](0120-a-roster-fact-carries-its-format-as-a-template.md)
@@ -223,6 +223,11 @@ python3 00-META/checks/index.py            fail if stale
 - **0139** — [A network is forwarded because a module declared it](0139-a-network-is-forwarded-because-a-module-declared-it.md)  *(superseded)*
 - **0140** — [The filter constrains what arrives from outside, and says nothing about a machine's own guests](0140-the-filter-constrains-what-arrives-from-outside.md)
 - **0141** — [The host delivers its own successor, and versions live side by side](0141-the-host-delivers-its-own-successor.md)
+- **0143** — [A consumer verifies the grant it is given](0143-a-consumer-verifies-the-grant-it-is-given.md)  *(superseded)*
+- **0144** — [Anything on a machine may call anything on it, and that is the whole of "local"](0144-anything-on-a-machine-may-call-anything-on-it.md)
+- **0145** — [A module checks what the mesh claims is reachable, and it checks itself](0145-a-module-checks-what-the-mesh-claims-is-reachable.md)  *(superseded)*
+- **0146** — [Connectivity is checked by name, per hosting form, with a valid certificate](0146-connectivity-is-checked-by-name-per-hosting-form.md)
+- **0147** — [A module anchors the mesh's authority on a machine, and takes it away again](0147-a-module-anchors-the-meshs-authority.md)

 ### How it is built

@@ -232,7 +237,7 @@ python3 00-META/checks/index.py            fail if stale
 - **0014** — [No workspace — each module is a standalone package consuming published dependencies](0014-no-npm-workspace.md)
 - **0015** — [Applications live in their own repository; the monorepo is for the mesh](0015-applications-live-in-their-own-repository.md)
 - **0016** — [The lab](0016-the-lab.md)
- **0037** — [Where a module lives](0037-where-a-module-lives.md)  *(proposed)*
+- **0037** — [Where a module lives](0037-where-a-module-lives.md)
 - **0039** — [What the SDK holds, and what it refuses](0039-what-the-sdk-holds-and-refuses.md)
 - **0068** — [The lab takes requests, one at a time, and runs each from its own copy](0068-the-lab-takes-requests.md)  *(proposed)*
 - **0069** — [A module is a repository and a path within it](0069-a-module-is-a-repository-and-a-path.md)
@@ -7,8 +7,9 @@ code:
  - mesh-controller internal/identity/authority.go
  - mesh-host internal/identity/serving.go
  - mesh-host internal/apply (the service that reflects a rule set)
-updated: 2026-09-28
+updated: 2026-09-29
 decisions:
+  - 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
  - 02-DECISIONS/0104-a-provision-may-be-answered-by-an-adapter-to-the-predecessor.md
@@ -710,6 +711,22 @@ step, so when the authority moves the root is fetched again and the proxy is rec
 *How it is checked:* the route-forwarding bed installs the authority, the proxy and a consumer
 from the catalogue and asserts the routed name is served.

+**And a machine trusts that authority because a module put its root in its trust store**
+([ADR 0147](../../02-DECISIONS/0147-a-module-anchors-the-meshs-authority.md)). The proxy's fetch
+answers for the proxy and for nothing else: a browser, `git` over HTTPS, a package manager and
+every module calling another by an internal name read the machine's own trust store, and the mesh
+had never written anything there. A module requiring the authority does the whole of it — fetch
+the root over the mesh network, place it where this machine's TLS clients look, refresh the
+extracted bundles — and stopping it, which is what being unassigned does, takes the anchor away
+and refreshes them again. Not the controller's business, because being on the private network is
+what makes the authority *reachable* and is not the same fact as having a reason to *verify* a
+mesh name; and because where anchors live and which command refreshes them is one operating
+system's difference, which is the host's half of the mesh
+([ADR 0005](../../02-DECISIONS/0005-the-node-host.md)).
+*How it is checked:* on a machine holding the module a plain client verifies an internal HTTPS
+name with no bundle argument, and on one without it the same fetch fails to find an issuer — both
+halves, because only the pair tells the anchor apart from something that already trusted it.
+
 ### What was built

 *2026-08-31.*
@@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ code:
  - mesh-controller internal/builder
  - mesh-controller cmd/mesh-controller (build, build --behind, push, status)
  - mesh-controller internal/inventory/builds.go
-updated: 2026-09-21
+updated: 2026-09-29
 decisions:
  - 02-DECISIONS/0090-a-failure-that-repeats-is-said-to-be-stuck.md
  - 02-DECISIONS/0082-the-registry-is-reached-by-name-and-trusted-by-the-overlay.md
@@ -226,3 +226,34 @@ when the current failure began and how many reports in a row have said it — th
 id, whatever the words; three make the machine stuck, and `status` says so beside the failure. The host keeps trying — stuck is what the mesh
 knows, not what the machine is told. *How it is checked:* an inventory test counts three identical
 reports, a different one, and a clean apply; the status test asserts the word appears.
+
+## Everything may call what is exposed to it, and local is not a boundary
+
+*2026-09-29, from an outage that ran eleven hours —
+[issue 145](../../04-ISSUES/145-a-machine-reads-healthy-while-its-modules-cannot-reach-each-other/00-report.md),
+settled by [ADR 0144](../../02-DECISIONS/0144-anything-on-a-machine-may-call-anything-on-it.md).*
+
+A grant is four facts and a credential: the provision, the machine, the port, and who the consumer is
+when it connects. It is the whole mechanism by which anything in the mesh reaches anything else, and it
+rests on three things being callable — what runs on the same machine, another machine's service over the
+private network where it is exposed there, and another machine's service over the public network where it
+is exposed there.
+
+The filter had two of those. A service exposed to the private network admitted the machines' own addresses
+on it; a caller on the machine carries such an address, and a caller inside one of that machine's
+containers carries a bridge address and matched nothing. Measured, same destination and same machine:
+`src 10.10.0.1` from the machine, `src 172.17.0.8` from a container on it. So a module reaching its
+database on its own machine's name timed out for eleven hours while the mesh called the machine healthy.
+
+The second case worked by accident: a caller on another machine arrives over the tunnel carrying that
+machine's address, which the rule matched. Two of three working is why this read as correct.
+
+**So local is not a boundary this mesh draws, and the filter says so once.** Traffic that did not arrive
+from outside the machine and did not arrive over the private network is the machine's own, and is
+admitted — for every service there, not per service. Whether the caller is a container, a unit or a shell
+decides nothing, because the question is "is this the same machine".
+
+A verification mechanism was drafted for this and withdrawn. It would have reported the outage sooner and
+would not have prevented it, and the part of it that was hard — deciding which network position to check
+from — existed only because the rule was wrong. Whether the mesh should check that a grant works is still
+open, in issue 145; it is not the remedy for a configuration error.
@@ -155,3 +155,17 @@ design document here, and get it back. That check fails today by design.

 **What stands until then** is the signpost, and the honest description of it: reachable, not
 surfacing.
+
+## Where this stands, 2026-09-29
+
+*Added in a grooming pass.* The knowledge base this record is about is the **predecessor's**, and it
+is no longer reachable from anything: the surface that answered `recall_search` speaks the transport
+the mesh removed at the cut-over
+([issue 147](../147-the-operators-tools-still-dial-the-bus-that-was-removed/00-report.md)).
+
+So the sentence in `README.md` that this record catches — *these documents are still indexed into
+the knowledge base* — is now wrong twice over: nothing indexed them, and there is nothing to index
+them into. The record stays open, and its answer is no longer "index this repository somewhere"; it
+is whatever the mesh grows as its own knowledge surface, if it grows one. Until then the honest fix
+is the README, which should stop claiming a property nothing provides.
+
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 ---
-status: open
+status: resolved
 opened: 2026-09-22
-located-in: []
-fixed-by:
+located-in: [mesh-catalog modules/gitea, mesh-controller internal/catalogue/declaration.go]
+fixed-by: mesh-controller 7352c84, merged in #46 — a module is told its port in a container's environment too, as a file already was
 amended-design:
 ---

@@ -39,3 +39,9 @@ the assignment happens to differ.
 - Should composition refuse an environment value that names a port the module does not fix, the
  way it refuses other claims a module cannot make?
 - Which other modules write their own address, with a port, into their environment?
+
+## Closed
+
+*2026-09-29, in a grooming pass rather than by whoever fixed it.* The forge's address follows a moved port the same way every other reader does. Found by
+reading what the code repositories' commits cite: the fix names this issue and is on `main`. It was
+not re-verified on a machine, and this record says so rather than implying a run that did not happen.
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 ---
-status: open
+status: resolved
 opened: 2026-09-22
-located-in: []
-fixed-by:
+located-in: [mesh-controller internal/catalogue/declaration.go, mesh-catalog (every routed module)]
+fixed-by: mesh-controller bdf965d (a route names the endpoint it serves) with `portOfEndpoint` and `AtPublishedPort` — the contribution carries the endpoint's declared port and the machine-side redirection is applied to it like any other
 amended-design:
 ---

@@ -45,3 +45,9 @@ precisely because the predecessor holds the usual one.
  keeping the mapping out of rendered configuration?
 - What should refuse a declaration whose contributed route names a port nothing on that node
  listens on?
+
+## Closed
+
+*2026-09-29, in a grooming pass rather than by whoever fixed it.* A route names an endpoint rather than a port, and the redirection that turns a declared port into the published one is applied to contributions too. Found by
+reading what the code repositories' commits cite: the fix names this issue and is on `main`. It was
+not re-verified on a machine, and this record says so rather than implying a run that did not happen.
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 ---
-status: open
+status: resolved
 opened: 2026-09-24
 located-in: [mesh-controller module.json, mesh-host internal/apply]
-fixed-by:
+fixed-by: ADR 0142 — the mesh's own components are delivered as binaries on the machine, so the controller is a process; the delivery itself is issue 142
 amended-design:
 ---

@@ -84,3 +84,21 @@ restart and run-to-completion semantics — so this would not need host-side wor

 The two do not collapse into one. The controller is not a code-carrying sidecar, and `network: host`
 is what makes the asymmetry visible here and nowhere else.
+
+## Answered
+
+*2026-09-29, in a grooming pass.* This asked a question rather than reporting a defect, and the
+question was taken: [ADR 0142](../../02-DECISIONS/0142-the-mesh-delivers-its-own-components-as-binaries.md)
+decides that the mesh's own components — the host, the controller, the catalogue, the builder, the
+vault — are **binaries on the machine**, delivered by the mechanism
+[ADR 0141](../../02-DECISIONS/0141-the-host-delivers-its-own-successor.md) built, and that
+third-party software (the store, the registry, the broker) stays a container because an image is the
+right way to carry somebody else's build.
+
+So the operating experience this record was written from — every mutating command reached through
+`docker exec mesh-controller` — is answered, and answered against the container.
+
+**The delivery is a separate matter and is not this record's.** Step 1 of it is built and no
+component travels yet; that is
+[issue 142](../142-the-host-is-the-one-thing-the-mesh-does-not-deliver/00-report.md).
+
@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 ---
-status: located
+status: resolved
 opened: 2026-09-26
 located-in: [mesh-sdk src/provisioner, mesh-catalog modules/redis]
-fixed-by:
+fixed-by: mesh-catalog bbda88c, merged in #84 — every credential provider says whether it still holds a consumer
 amended-design:
 ---

@@ -60,3 +60,9 @@ checks it after the first pass.
  instance and leaves the gap for the others.
 - Where does the record of what was applied live, if not in memory? ADR 0114, still
  proposed, puts rotation state with the vault. The same place may answer this.
+
+## Closed
+
+*2026-09-29, in a grooming pass rather than by whoever fixed it.* A provisioner asks the backend what is there rather than trusting what it remembers doing. Found by
+reading what the code repositories' commits cite: the fix names this issue and is on `main`. It was
+not re-verified on a machine, and this record says so rather than implying a run that did not happen.
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
 ---
-status: located
+status: resolved
+fixed-by: mesh-host 1cb8953 and fdc768c — the mesh writes into a marked block of a text file instead of over it
 opened: 2026-09-26
 located-in: [mesh-controller internal/catalogue/facts.go, mesh-host internal/apply]
 ---
@@ -71,3 +72,9 @@ private network loses that name too.
 - The host's file resource supports `into: "json"` only; anything else is a whole write.
 - `node show <node>` on the adopted workstation: `holds file /etc/hosts
  mesh-wireguard.fact-node-names`, original kept.
+
+## Closed
+
+*2026-09-29, in a grooming pass rather than by whoever fixed it.* A shared hosts file keeps every line that is not the mesh's. Found by
+reading what the code repositories' commits cite: the fix names this issue and is on `main`. It was
+not re-verified on a machine, and this record says so rather than implying a run that did not happen.
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
-status: open
+status: located
 opened: 2026-09-26
-located-in: [mesh-controller, mesh-catalog step-ca]
+located-in: [mesh-catalog ca-trust]
 ---

 # 129 — nothing makes a machine trust the mesh's own certificate authority
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+# Diagnosis
+
+*2026-09-29.*
+
+## What was ruled out
+
+**That something already carries the root and it is only misplaced.** It does not. The authority
+serves its root at a path beside its ACME directory, and the one thing that fetches it — the route
+proxy — puts it in a directory of its own and hands it to one program. Nothing has ever written
+into a machine's trust store. Measured on three converged machines: the anchors present are the
+predecessor's authority and a developer tool's local root, and on the machines where the
+predecessor's was deliberately removed, every internal name fails verification.
+
+**That the private network could carry it, the way it carries the registry's trust.** That is what
+the report proposed, and it was rejected on consideration rather than on difficulty
+([ADR 0147](../../02-DECISIONS/0147-a-module-anchors-the-meshs-authority.md), option 1): being on
+the network is what makes the registry *reachable* and is therefore the right trigger there, while
+trusting an authority is a separate fact from being able to reach it. The anchor's directory and
+the command that refreshes the extracted bundles are also one operating system's difference, which
+is the host's half of the mesh and not the controller's.
+
+**That it needs a new host resource type.** It does not, today. A file and a service say the whole
+of it, which the packet filter already proves. The primitive becomes the right answer when a second
+operating system is in play, and not before.
+
+## Where it belongs
+
+A module in the catalogue: it requires `internal-acme-ca`, fetches the root over the mesh's own
+network, installs it as a trust anchor, refreshes the machine's bundles, and — because being
+unassigned stops its unit, and stopping the unit is what undoes it — takes both away again.
+
+The owner is therefore `mesh-catalog`, module `ca-trust`, and nothing in the control plane.
+
+## The module exists, and this stays open until a machine holds it
+
+*2026-09-29.* `ca-trust` is in the catalogue and merged
+([ADR 0147](../../02-DECISIONS/0147-a-module-anchors-the-meshs-authority.md)), and what it renders
+is checked in the control plane's own suite: the script fetches from the authority it was bound to,
+and the unit runs it both ways.
+
+**No machine has been assigned it, and nothing has verified a name because of it.** The bed written
+for that cannot run ([issue 146](../146-the-foundation-cannot-be-raised-on-the-bus-the-mesh-runs-on/00-report.md)),
+and the live mesh has not been given the module. So the symptom this record opened on — every
+internal name failing verification on every machine — is still true everywhere, and the record stays
+`located` until it is not. Closing it on a module that exists would be closing it on an intention.
@@ -1,5 +1,6 @@
 ---
-status: located
+status: resolved
+fixed-by: mesh-host 3112c88 — undeclaring gives a unit back the state it was found in, and removes only a process the mesh made
 opened: 2026-09-27
 located-in: [mesh-host internal/apply/apply.go (remove)]
 amended-design: 02-DECISIONS/0118-undeclaring-gives-a-unit-back-the-state-it-was-found-in.md
@@ -15,7 +16,7 @@ found that the host's `remove` path stops every `service` resource that is no lo
 delete". `store.Orphans` matches by id alone. So any of these stops the unit:

 - the module is unassigned — by mistake, or to switch it for another;
- the node is sent a deliberately-empty declaration ([issue 127](../127-a-declaration-that-shrinks-to-empty-is-skipped-not-sent/00-report.md));
+- the node is sent a deliberately-empty declaration ([issue 149](../149-a-declaration-that-shrinks-to-empty-is-skipped-not-sent/00-report.md));
 - a later catalogue version renames the resource's `id`.

 That is right for a service the mesh brought into being. It is wrong for a unit the mesh
@@ -64,3 +65,9 @@ something to settle in passing.

 The unassign preview is partly answered — the host's plan names each unit it will stop — and the
 controller's side is left open.
+
+## Closed
+
+*2026-09-29, in a grooming pass rather than by whoever fixed it.* Undeclaring no longer stops a unit the mesh only reloaded or only kept running. Found by
+reading what the code repositories' commits cite: the fix names this issue and is on `main`. It was
+not re-verified on a machine, and this record says so rather than implying a run that did not happen.
@@ -57,6 +57,20 @@ 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.

+## What it cost, measured later the same day
+
+*2026-09-29.* The predecessor's chain was removed, and something it had been carrying went with it. It
+admitted the private ranges wholesale, which is how a container on the machine reached a port declared
+for the private network — the mesh's own filter admits the machines' overlay addresses, and a container
+comes from a bridge. Every module that reached another by the machine's own name had been relying on the
+predecessor's rule without anybody knowing.
+
+That is [issue 145](../145-a-machine-reads-healthy-while-its-modules-cannot-reach-each-other/00-report.md),
+and it ran for eleven hours while the mesh reported the machine healthy. The filter is fixed. What this
+adds to the account here is that "the machine is more closed than the mesh believes" was not the
+harmless direction after all — it was harmless for everything reached from outside, and an outage for
+everything reached from within.
+
 ## Open questions

 - Should the host report every place the machine filters from, rather than one kind — the front-end,
@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+---
+status: located
+opened: 2026-09-29
+located-in:
+  - mesh-controller internal/catalogue/filtering.go (fixed for this instance)
+  - mesh-controller (what status reports, and what it does not ask)
+fixed-by:
+amended-design: 03-DESIGN/01-to-be/10-delivery.md
+---
+
+# 145 — A machine reads healthy while its modules cannot reach each other
+
+## What was observed
+
+Converging the control-node closed every path by which a module on that machine reached another module
+by the machine's own name. It ran for **eleven hours**. Throughout, the mesh answered:
+
+```
+4 machine(s), all doing what they were told, all heard from,
+running what the mesh would send them, and every module current with its source
+```
+
+What was actually happening, from one affected module's own log:
+
+```
+Doctrine\DBAL\Exception: Failed to connect to the database:
+SQLSTATE[08006] connection to server at "novox.internal" (10.10.0.1), port 6852 failed: timeout expired
+```
+
+6,154 of them, beginning at the minute of the flip. The web application accepted TCP connections and
+never answered an HTTP request; a client waited 35 seconds and gave up. Confirmed from a throwaway
+container on the machine: neither the store nor the forge was reachable on the machine's own address.
+
+The cause is [issue 144](../144-the-predecessors-rules-outlive-the-firewall-it-was-found-as/00-report.md)'s
+sibling and is fixed: a port declared reachable from the private network admitted the machines' own
+overlay addresses, and a container on the machine comes from a bridge address, matching none of them.
+What this issue is about is the eleven hours.
+
+**Nothing the mesh reports would have shown it.** Every check the mesh makes passed, because every
+check the mesh makes is about the relationship between the mesh and a machine:
+
+- the machine applied what it was sent, and said so;
+- its declaration digest matches what the mesh would send;
+- every module's source commit matches what the mesh holds;
+- every container the declaration names is running.
+
+None of those asks whether a module can reach what it requires. The mesh knows precisely who requires
+what — it composes the grants — and never checks that the grant works.
+
+**Nor would an operator's usual look.** The ports were probed from outside and behaved correctly; the
+routed services answered; a container's egress to the internet worked. Those are the paths a person
+checks after changing a firewall, and all three were fine. The broken path was module-to-module over
+the machine's own name, which nothing routine exercises.
+
+## Why it matters beyond this instance
+
+**A mesh that composes a dependency and never tests it can only report on itself.** Every provision the
+mesh grants is a claim that a consumer can reach a provider. The mesh asserts that claim, delivers
+credentials for it, and has no mechanism that ever finds out. "Every module current with its source"
+is a statement about bytes, not about whether anything works.
+
+**The failure was silent in the direction that hides longest.** A service that will not start is
+noticed. A service that starts, accepts connections and then cannot reach its database serves errors
+under a healthy-looking process, and the machine's own report says the container is running — which it
+is.
+
+**It is the same shape as [issue 136](../136-a-module-may-name-a-program-the-machine-does-not-have/00-report.md),
+one level up.** There, a module named a program the machine lacked and everything reported success.
+Here, the mesh granted a provision the filter refused and everything reported success. Both are the
+distance between a declaration and the machine, and in both cases the report was about the declaration.
+
+**And the eleven hours are the measurement, not the bug.** The filter fault was one line and is fixed.
+What is not fixed is that nothing in the mesh would have told anybody.
+
+## What was decided
+
+*2026-09-29, the same day, in two steps and the first was wrong.*
+
+The first answer was [ADR 0143](../../02-DECISIONS/0143-a-consumer-verifies-the-grant-it-is-given.md):
+the consumer verifies each grant from its own network position, because whether a caller sat in a
+container changed whether it could reach the provider. **That difference was the fault**, and the record
+is superseded. A verification mechanism would have reported this sooner and would not have prevented it,
+and the part of it that was difficult — deciding which network position to check from — existed only
+while the rule was wrong.
+
+The remedy is [ADR 0144](../../02-DECISIONS/0144-anything-on-a-machine-may-call-anything-on-it.md):
+anything on a machine may call anything on it, said once rather than per service, and asked by the link
+traffic arrives on rather than the address it carries. Everything should be able to call what runs on the
+same machine, another machine's service exposed to the private network, and another machine's service
+exposed publicly. The filter had the second and third and expressed the first as a list of addresses that
+no container could match.
+
+**And then the question this issue is actually about was answered on its own terms.**
+[ADR 0145](../../02-DECISIONS/0145-a-module-checks-what-the-mesh-claims-is-reachable.md): a module on
+every machine serves an endpoint of its own and dials every other machine's, from the position the
+callers are in. Its probe is its own endpoint declared reachable over the private network, so it is
+admitted by exactly the rule that governs every internally-exposed service and fails when that rule is
+wrong — where a probe on a service every machine has would have passed for all eleven hours, because the
+services every machine has are the ones never closed.
+
+Adopted on its merits rather than as the remedy for a configuration error, which is what 0143 was and
+why it went. The module is written and merged; it is not yet assigned, so every machine currently reads
+unchecked.
+
+## Open questions
+
+- Should a grant be checked? The mesh knows the consumer, the provider, the address and the port, so a
+  reachability check is expressible — but from where: the consumer's machine, as part of a reconcile,
+  or the provider's?
+- What would it cost to be wrong in the other direction? A check that reports a provision broken while
+  it works is worse than none, because it trains a reader to ignore the report. A provider restarting is
+  ordinary; a consumer between containers is ordinary.
+- What should `status` say about a machine whose modules cannot reach each other? It currently has one
+  vocabulary for "heard from and current", and that sentence was true the whole time.
+- Is there a cheaper signal than a probe? The affected module was logging the failure 6,154 times. The
+  mesh reads no module's logs and arguably should not — but something a module could *say* about its
+  own provisions would have surfaced this in minutes.
+- Does the same blindness apply to the other direction — a provider that lost a consumer's grant and
+  is refusing it? Nothing checks that either.
@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+---
+status: located
+opened: 2026-09-29
+located-in: [mesh-host examples + internal/link, mesh-controller internal/broker]
+---
+
+# 146 — the foundation cannot be raised on the bus the mesh runs on
+
+## What was observed
+
+Raising a first node in the lab, to check a module against a real mesh, fails before any module is
+reached. Two separate faults, in the two bundles that exist:
+
+**The older bundle raises a control plane that cannot start.** It brings up the previous broker,
+and the control plane it then starts says, once every few seconds, for ever:
+
+```
+mesh-controller: this control plane has no MESH_BUS_NATS, so it cannot reach the mesh's bus
+```
+
+That is the control plane being right. The mesh moved to one bus
+([ADR 0131](../../02-DECISIONS/0131-everything-on-the-mesh-speaks-to-the-broker-seat.md)) and the
+bundle did not. Every bed that raises a foundation raises this one, so every bed is in this state.
+
+**The newer bundle, written for the new bus, stops one step earlier.** Its certificate step asks a
+container to make the broker's certificate:
+
+```
+docker run --rm --entrypoint sh -v <the broker's tls volume>:/tls <the bus image> \
+  -c "test -f /tls/tls.crt || (openssl req -x509 ... )"
+...
+failed bus-certificate: running the action: docker exited 127
+```
+
+127 is *command not found*. The bus's image has a shell and no `openssl`; the previous broker's
+image had both, which is why the step worked when it was written against that one. Substituting the
+store's image — the only other image the bundle carries — does not help: it has no `openssl`
+either. So the step as written cannot succeed with anything the bundle names, and the fault is not
+one image's: **the bundle asks for a certificate to be made by a tool it never says must be there.**
+
+Measured 2026-09-29 on a fresh lab machine, both bundles, from bare.
+
+## Why this is here and not a note in the knowledge base
+
+The mesh's own foundation is the one thing it cannot raise. Nothing reports that: the bundles are
+files in a repository, nothing applies them but a person raising a node, and the last thing that
+did was the hand-driven cut-over
+([ADR 0131](../../02-DECISIONS/0131-everything-on-the-mesh-speaks-to-the-broker-seat.md), whose
+work was done on the machines rather than from a bundle). So the state where the mesh cannot make
+another one of itself is reachable, and was reached, without anything saying so.
+
+It is also load-bearing for everything else: a lab bed proves a claim by raising a mesh, so while
+this holds, **no bed can run**, and every "checked in the lab" written from now on is a promise
+against a suite nobody can execute.
+
+## What would have prevented it
+
+- **Something raising the foundation on a schedule, from the bundle, as it is written** — the
+  bundle is the mesh's own installer and nothing installs from it. A bed that raises a first node
+  is exactly that check, and it is the bed that cannot run.
+- **A step naming what it needs.** The certificate step names an image and assumes a program inside
+  it. An action that said which tool it requires would have failed at the declaration rather than
+  at 127 on a machine.
+
+## Evidence to carry into diagnosis
+
+- `mesh-host examples/foundation-first-node.lock` — the previous broker, no `MESH_BUS_NATS`.
+- `mesh-host examples/foundation-first-node-nats.lock` — the new bus; `bus-certificate` and its
+  `verify` both run `openssl` in the bus's image.
+- The bus image the bundle pins has `sh` and no `openssl`; the store's image likewise.
+- The lab rewrites a bundle's registry-prefixed third-party references to upstream ones for a
+  machine with an uplink (`test/integration/harness.ts`); the new bundle's bus reference needed
+  that rule added, which is done and is not this issue.
@@ -0,0 +1,184 @@
+# Diagnosis
+
+*2026-09-29, by raising a first node in the lab over and over and writing down each thing it hit.*
+
+Not one fault. **Four, stacked**, each hidden behind the one before it, and every one of them the
+same shape: a step that was right while the mesh ran on the previous broker and was never asked a
+question again after the bus changed. Nothing had raised a foundation since, so nothing said so.
+
+## 1 — the bundle's bus image is named for a registry that is gone *(fixed)*
+
+The newer bundle pins `<a lab registry>/nats@…`, which resolves nowhere outside the lab that
+raised that registry. The lab already rewrites the store's and the previous broker's references to
+upstream ones for a machine with an uplink; the bus had no such rule because no bed had ever tried
+to raise this bundle. Added (`mesh-lab test/integration/harness.ts`). The digest is the bundle's
+own — what the registry served was a copy, so the same digest resolves upstream, and this is a
+prefix being removed rather than a reference being replaced.
+
+## 2 — the bus's certificate was made by a tool the bus does not have *(fixed)*
+
+```
+failed bus-certificate … docker exited 127
+```
+
+The step ran `openssl` inside the broker's image. The previous broker's image carried it; the bus's
+does not — it is Alpine with a shell and no `openssl` — and neither does any other image the bundle
+names, so there was nothing to substitute. **The program that needs the certificate now makes it**:
+`mesh-controller broker certificate --into <dir>`, with `--check` as the step's verify. The
+controller is already on the machine at that point (the schema step ran it) and needs nothing from
+the image it writes into. Self-signed, as before and on purpose — a host pins this server's exact
+certificate ([ADR 0004](../../02-DECISIONS/0004-a-node-and-how-it-joins.md)) and at that moment
+there is no authority to ask. Idempotent, because a second certificate is one every host that
+pinned the first no longer believes. It runs `--user 0:0`: the volume is root's, and the control
+plane's image runs as nobody, which is right for the long-lived server and wrong for a one-shot
+writing into a fresh volume.
+
+## 3 — enrolment dialled TLS at a bus that speaks first *(fixed)*
+
+```
+mesh-host: cannot reach the broker at …:5671: tls: first record does not look like a TLS handshake
+```
+
+Enrolment opened a raw TLS connection to check the pinned certificate before saying anything. NATS
+speaks its own protocol and upgrades afterwards, so the handshake met a plaintext greeting. The pin
+was never the problem: the same pinned configuration is handed to the client that presents the
+token, and the verification runs inside *that* handshake — so what
+[ADR 0004](../../02-DECISIONS/0004-a-node-and-how-it-joins.md) requires still holds, and holds
+better, because the one-time secret is sent only after the certificate has been checked. The raw
+dial is gone from the enrolment path and kept only as what its tests always proved: that a wrong
+certificate is refused before a byte of application data is sent.
+
+**Then, immediately behind it:**
+
+```
+mesh-host: this token is for the "" bus, and the mesh's bus is nats
+```
+
+The enrolment left the transport empty and meant *whatever the mesh runs today*, which was true
+while two buses existed and became a refusal the moment one did. The host knows which bus the mesh
+runs; it says so now.
+
+## 4 — a first node cannot be let onto its own bus *(open, and this is the real one)*
+
+```
+mesh-host: cannot reach the bus at …:5671 as anchor: nats: Authorization Violation
+```
+
+The bus's user list is a file beside its configuration. The installer carries the first one — the
+controller's own account at a bootstrap password — and **the controller composes every user after
+that** (design 25 §6; the controller's own test asserts the carried list matches what it would
+derive). On the running mesh that composition reaches the bus because the bus is a *module*, with
+the list delivered to it the way anything is delivered to a module.
+
+At genesis there is no module. The foundation's bus is raised by the installer, the control plane is
+given no way to write beside its configuration — it mounts the certificate and nothing else — and so
+the account a joining node needs cannot come into existence. **The first node cannot join the mesh
+it just raised.**
+
+That is not a line to fix in a bundle. It is the open half of the mesh delivering its own components
+([ADR 0142](../../02-DECISIONS/0142-the-mesh-delivers-its-own-components-as-binaries.md)) and of the
+bus becoming a module: either the installer's bus is raised as the module the mesh will go on
+managing, or genesis carries a user list that includes the first node's enrolment and the controller
+takes over from there. Both are decisions, not patches, and both belong to the genesis step that was
+deliberately left until last.
+
+## 5 — the composed user list has to be placed by hand at genesis *(fixed)*
+
+The account a token is the password of is **not recorded at all**: the composer names an enrolment
+user for every machine with a live token, nothing minted a credential for it, and the composition
+left it out as a user with no password. The comment above the issuing code already claimed
+otherwise — *"the account is created before the token is handed over"* — which is how it went
+unnoticed. Issuing a token now records that account, with the token's own secret as its password,
+because that is the string the machine will present.
+
+Placing it is the other half. The list reaches the machine running the bus in that machine's
+declaration, which a machine that has not enrolled does not get, so at genesis it cannot arrive
+that way. **The control plane composes and says what it composed** — `broker accounts`, to standard
+output — and whoever is raising the machine writes it beside the bus's configuration and makes the
+server re-read it. Twice, because two accounts come into existence at different moments: the
+enrolment when the token is issued, and the machine's own when it enrols. A control plane that
+wrote the file itself would have to know where the bus keeps its configuration and how to make it
+reload, which is the module's knowledge and is what the module takes over on the first push.
+
+With that, **a first node enrols against the bus it just raised** — measured, from bare, in the
+lab.
+
+## 6 — and is enrolled twice, keeping a credential the mesh has replaced *(fixed)*
+
+```
+mesh-controller: enrolled anchor
+mesh-controller: enrolled anchor      (the same second)
+```
+
+One `enrol` on the machine, two enrolments in the control plane. Each mints the node a fresh bus
+password and returns it; the machine keeps the answer to the first, and the mesh keeps the hash of
+the second. The machine then reconnects for ever as a user whose password the mesh rotated out from
+under it — *authentication error - User "node.anchor"* on the bus, `Authorization Violation` in the
+host's log, and a node that never reports.
+
+What is ruled out: the host asking twice — it asks again only when the mesh says *try again*, and
+a refused attempt is not logged as an enrolment. Redelivery by the consumer — there is one
+consumer, its acknowledgement window is thirty seconds, and the handler is quick.
+
+What is left: the client re-publishing when an acknowledgement is slow, which is what its defaults
+do. That was addressed by giving the publish a message id derived from its own bytes, so the stream
+discards the copy — **and the duplicate survived it**, so either the id is not reaching the stream
+or the second copy is not a copy. This is where the trail stops.
+
+Worth saying plainly: **the mint is the fragile part, not the delivery.** An enrolment answered
+twice is survivable if the answer is the same both times, and it cannot be — the mesh keeps only
+the hash, so a second answer is necessarily a different credential.
+
+**Found, and it is not about enrolment at all** *(fixed)*. The bus's own counters settled it: one
+message published, one held in the stream, one delivery, nothing redelivered — and the controller
+enrolled the machine twice. So the handler ran twice on one delivery.
+
+A push consumer delivers onto an ordinary subject, and **everything subscribed to that subject gets
+a copy**. The controller holds a consumer called `controller` on CONTROL and another called
+`controller` on EVENTS, and the delivery subject was derived from the consumer's name alone — so
+both were `_DELIVER.controller`, the one process held both subscriptions, and every message from
+either stream was acted on twice.
+
+Enrolment is where it drew blood, because enrolling twice mints twice and the second credential
+replaces the first. But it applied to **every report and every event the controller follows**, and
+it is the kind of fault that leaves no trace: nothing is redelivered, no counter is wrong, the work
+simply happens twice. The comment in the receiving code about a merge that ran the whole catalogue
+five times over on 2026-09-28 is the same shape seen from the other end.
+
+The stream is in the delivery subject now, because the pair is what identifies a consumer — the
+server scopes a durable's name to its stream, and this subject was the one place that scoping was
+dropped. A subscriber's permission gains the same shape, keeping the bare name so an existing
+consumer keeps working until the controller's next assertion moves it.
+
+*How it is checked:* the consumers the mesh asks for are asserted to deliver onto distinct subjects,
+in the controller's own suite. Against a server it would be invisible, which is the point.
+
+## Where it belongs
+
+`mesh-host` (the bundle and the enrolment path) and `mesh-controller` (the certificate command, and
+the composition that cannot reach the bus at genesis). Three of the four are fixed on branches; the
+fourth is the genesis work.
+
+## What made it slow, and what was changed so it is not
+
+Six faults behind one another, each found by raising a machine and reading what it said. What cost
+the most was not the faults:
+
+- **Every bed's own instructions named the bundle that cannot work**, so the first three attempts
+  ended in a control plane crash-looping on a missing bus. They name the working one now.
+- **A host binary built without its system** refuses everything it is given with *this host was
+  built for ""*, which reads like a broken bundle. The lab's README says so.
+- **`make image` in the control plane had been broken for as long as its base was pinned**: the
+  Dockerfile's fallback is a Go older than the module asks for, and the pipeline never saw it
+  because the pipeline passes the declared base in. It reads the base from the manifest now.
+- **Leaving the machine standing is what answers the question.** Every finding above came from
+  shelling in afterwards — the host's log, the bus's log, the file the bus was actually handed —
+  and none from the test's own output, which says only that nothing converged. The bed takes
+  `MESH_LAB_KEEP`, and the README says to reach for it first.
+
+## What it cost, for the next person
+
+Every lab bed still names `foundation-first-node.lock` in its own instructions, and that bundle
+raises the previous broker with a control plane that refuses to start without `MESH_BUS_NATS`. Until
+the fourth fault is answered and the two bundles become one, a bed runs with `MESH_LAB_BUNDLE`
+pointing at the NATS bundle by hand, and stops at the enrolment.
@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+---
+status: located
+opened: 2026-09-29
+located-in: [nothing in the mesh — the surface in use is the predecessor's, installed on the workstation]
+---
+
+# 147 — the operator's tools still dial the bus that was removed
+
+## What was observed
+
+Every tool call an operator makes against the mesh fails, on every machine, with the same answer:
+
+```
+AMQP not connected — cannot reach hal/mesh@novox
+AMQP not connected — cannot reach hal/mesh@shanks
+```
+
+The mesh moved to one bus and the previous transport was deleted
+([ADR 0131](../../02-DECISIONS/0131-everything-on-the-mesh-speaks-to-the-broker-seat.md), cut over
+2026-09-28). The surface an operator drives the mesh through — the tool bridge their assistant
+speaks to — still opens an AMQP connection, so it cannot reach anything. Not one node answers,
+including the machine the operator is sitting at.
+
+**What that leaves.** The mesh itself is healthy: nodes are current, modules run, the bus carries
+the mesh's own traffic. What is gone is the way a person asks it anything. Every question — what a
+node runs, what is assigned, what a module's settings are — has to be asked by opening a shell on
+the machine and running the control plane's binary inside its container, which is precisely the
+path the tool surface exists to remove, and which nothing checks, records or permits.
+
+It also silently changes how work gets done: an assistant told to use the mesh's tools finds them
+dead, falls back to `ssh` and `docker exec`, and the operator discovers the fallback rather than
+the fault.
+
+## Why this is here and not a note in the knowledge base
+
+The rule is that everything happens over the mesh's bus. A surface that cannot reach that bus is
+that rule enforced by nothing — and the mesh reports itself healthy throughout, because what broke
+is not a module, a node or a provision but the thing standing outside asking them questions.
+
+The same cut-over removed the assistant's long-term memory (`recall`, `memorize`) for the same
+reason, which is why lessons from the last two days were written into this repository by hand.
+
+## What would have prevented it
+
+- **The tool surface as a consumer of the bus like any other**, so moving the bus moves it — rather
+  than a separate bridge with its own connection settings that nothing resolves.
+- **A check that a tool call reaches a node**, run where the mesh's other checks run. Every check
+  the mesh makes today is about the relationship between the mesh and a machine; none asks whether
+  a person can ask it anything ([issue 145](../145-a-machine-reads-healthy-while-its-modules-cannot-reach-each-other/00-report.md),
+  the same shape one level out).
+
+## Diagnosed at once, because the answer was in the configuration
+
+**The surface is not the mesh's.** The tool server the operator's assistant speaks to is the
+predecessor's brain, installed on the workstation and started as a local process, with the
+predecessor's broker URL — `amqp://…@<the control node>` — written into the assistant's own
+configuration. Nothing about it is a module: it has no manifest, no assignment, no seat, no account
+on the mesh's bus, and the mesh has never known it exists.
+
+So nothing regressed. The mesh removed a transport that this program still dials, and the program
+was never part of the mesh to be moved. **The mesh has a tool model** — `tools` in a manifest, the
+calls a seat accepts, the subjects a module answers on, and a control-plane command that asks one —
+and **nothing publishes an operator-facing surface onto it.** What an operator uses is the thing
+that came before, kept alive by a URL in a file.
+
+That is the issue, and it is larger than a broken connection: the way a person drives this mesh is
+outside the mesh.
+
+## Evidence to carry into diagnosis
+
+- The failure text names `hal/mesh@<node>`, so the bridge is resolving a node and then dialling the
+  old transport.
+- It fails identically for the local machine, which rules out reachability and points at the
+  transport alone.
+- The mesh's own traffic over the new bus is unaffected: nodes report, declarations apply.
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+---
+status: open
+opened: 2026-09-29
+located-in: [mesh-controller cmd/mesh-controller]
+---
+
+# 148 — a manifest outside this catalogue has no check
+
+## What was observed
+
+A module's manifest is validated by a **test** — `internal/catalogue`'s suite parses every manifest
+in the catalogue checkout beside it and fails on one it cannot resolve. That works, and it is how
+several real faults were caught before a machine saw them.
+
+It is available to exactly one repository: this one. Somebody describing their own application in
+their own repository — the case
+[ADR 0037](../../02-DECISIONS/0037-where-a-module-lives.md) calls *the case that matters most* —
+has no check at all. They write a manifest, register it with a running mesh, and find out whether
+it is valid when the mesh refuses it, or later, when a machine applies something that resolved and
+should not have.
+
+The same record asks for the answer: **a `module check` command on the control plane's binary**, so
+a manifest is checked by the tool rather than by a test that imports the tool's internals.
+
+## What would have prevented it
+
+Nothing prevents this; it was noticed and left. ADR 0037 named it on 2026-09-01 and the record sat
+`proposed` until 2026-09-29, so the missing half was never anybody's task.
+
+## Evidence to carry into diagnosis
+
+- `mesh-controller/internal/catalogue` — `ParseManifest` and `CatalogueProblems` are the check, and
+  both are internal.
+- The catalogue-wide test is `TestEveryCatalogueManifestDeclaresWhatItMounts` and its siblings; they
+  take a path from `MESH_CATALOG`, so the mechanism is already path-driven and not repository-bound.
+- `mesh-controller module add` refuses a bad manifest at registration, which is the same check far
+  too late: by then it is in a running mesh's records.
@@ -1,10 +1,15 @@
 ---
-status: located
+status: resolved
 opened: 2026-09-27
-located-in: [mesh-controller cmd/mesh-controller/push.go]
+located-in: [mesh-controller cmd/mesh-controller/push.go, mesh-controller cmd/mesh-controller/sendable.go]
+fixed-by: mesh-controller sendable.go and push.go — an empty declaration is sent carrying `owns_nothing`, and the host refuses an empty body that does not carry it
 ---

-# A declaration that shrinks to empty is skipped, so the node keeps what it should drop
+# 149 — a declaration that shrinks to empty is skipped, so the node keeps what it should drop
+
+*Opened as 127 and renumbered on 2026-09-29: two records were given that number on the same day.*
+*The other kept it, because three documents and three source files cite it by number and nothing
+cited this one but a decision and a sibling issue, both corrected with this move.*

 ## What was observed

@@ -37,3 +42,17 @@ mean "own nothing", which the host already applies correctly when it receives on

 On ace, one command drops it permanently (the corrected controller never re-composes it):
 `sudo ufw delete allow 5671`. At ace's converge it would clear on its own.
+
+## Closed
+
+*2026-09-29, in a grooming pass.* Both halves are on `main` and both name this issue.
+
+- The control plane **sends** it: a declaration that composes to no resources goes out with
+  `owns_nothing`, and `push` says *sent, not skipped*.
+- The host **refuses an empty body that does not carry it**, so a truncated or mis-composed
+  declaration can never be read as "own nothing" — which is the failure the fix had to avoid while
+  making the empty case expressible.
+
+Closed by reading the code rather than by watching a machine let go of a stray resource; the record
+says so rather than implying a run.
+
Author	SHA1	Message	Date
jschoubben	2b5119ecd2	Issue 114 is answered: the controller is a process, by ADR 0142 It asked a question rather than reporting a defect, and the question was taken five days later — the mesh's own components are binaries on the machine, and third-party software stays a container because an image is the right way to carry somebody else's build. The delivery of them is issue 142.	2026-09-29 22:38:11 +02:00
jschoubben	96bdffa9bc	Two records were numbered 127; the second becomes 149, and is resolved A number identifies a record, and two were given 127 on 2026-09-27. The one three documents and three source files cite by number keeps it; the other becomes 149, says so in its own heading, and its two inbound references are repointed. It is also resolved: an empty declaration is sent carrying owns_nothing rather than skipped, and the host refuses an empty body that does not carry it, so emptiness cannot be read as a truncated declaration.	2026-09-29 22:33:40 +02:00
jschoubben	4eb16f1028	Three proposed records were already built; two are still yours to call 0037 (where a module lives), 0113 (the vault makes every secret) and 0115 (one assignment of a module per node) described arrangements the mesh has — a catalogue of other people's software plus a table filled by module add, a vault answering a secret requirement six modules make, and a rule the assignment table's primary key already enforces. Each is accepted against what was built, and says so in its own words. 0037's other half is not built: a manifest outside this catalogue has no check, which is issue 148. 0068 (the lab takes requests) and 0114 (a shared credential rotates over two credentials) stay proposed. Neither is built, and both are decisions rather than records of something that happened.	2026-09-29 22:31:55 +02:00
jschoubben	d199de40db	Merge the 146/147 records, which 006's note links to	2026-09-29 22:31:46 +02:00
jschoubben	9a1dc4665c	Grooming: issue 006's knowledge base is the predecessor's, and is gone The record catches README claiming this repository is indexed into a knowledge base. Nothing indexed it, and since the cut-over there is nothing to index it into — the surface that answered is on the transport the mesh removed (issue 147). Noted where the record is, so the next reader does not go looking for a search that cannot exist.	2026-09-29 22:26:13 +02:00
jschoubben	14be8576f8	Grooming: five issues were fixed and never closed, and one is not 088, 089, 120, 128 and 130 each name a commit that is on main and cites them — the forge's address following a moved port, a route naming its endpoint, a provisioner asking the backend what is there, the hosts file written into a marked block, and undeclaring giving a unit back the state it was found in. Each says it was closed by reading commits rather than by a run, so nobody reads a green that was never measured. 129 stays located on purpose: ca-trust is merged and no machine holds it, so the symptom it opened on is still true everywhere.	2026-09-29 22:25:25 +02:00
jschoubben	3c0f7082e6	Issue 147: the tool surface is not the mesh's, it is the predecessor's Diagnosed from the configuration: the tool server is HAL's brain, a local process on the workstation with the predecessor's broker URL in the assistant's own config. No manifest, no assignment, no seat, no account. Nothing regressed — the mesh removed a transport this program still dials, and the program was never part of the mesh. The mesh has a tool model and nothing publishes an operator-facing surface onto it.	2026-09-29 21:50:50 +02:00
jschoubben	0dd00e88b6	Issue 147: the operator's tools still dial the bus that was removed Every tool call fails with 'AMQP not connected', on every node including the local one, because the tool surface still opens an AMQP connection and that transport was deleted at the cut-over. The mesh reports healthy throughout — what broke is the thing standing outside asking it questions, so nothing the mesh checks is about it.	2026-09-29 21:39:55 +02:00
jschoubben	eef54917ec	Issue 146: the double enrolment was two consumers sharing a delivery subject Not about enrolment. A push consumer delivers onto an ordinary subject and everything subscribed to it gets a copy; the controller's two consumers were both named after it, so both were given the same subject and the one process acted on every message twice. Enrolment is where it drew blood because a second enrolment mints a second credential.	2026-09-29 21:32:52 +02:00
jschoubben	e9b1010bc0	Issue 146: what made it slow, and what was changed so it is not	2026-09-29 17:45:25 +02:00
jschoubben	f6ed3545b7	Issue 146: a first node now enrols, and is enrolled twice Two more faults behind the three already fixed. The account a token is the password of was never recorded, and the comment above the issuing code said it was; issuing now records it. Placing the composed list at genesis is the other half — the control plane says what it composed and whoever raises the machine writes it beside the bus, because no declaration can reach a machine that has not enrolled. With that a first node enrols. It is then enrolled twice from one attempt, each minting a credential, and it keeps the answer to the first while the mesh keeps the second. The trail for that one stops at a duplicate that survived message-id deduplication.	2026-09-29 17:36:40 +02:00
jschoubben	0b08cdfce1	Merge pull request 'ADR 0147: a module anchors the mesh's authority, and issue 146: the foundation cannot be raised' (#184 ) from decision/0147-a-module-anchors-the-meshs-authority into main	2026-09-29 14:06:41 +00:00
jschoubben	bffd2af40c	Issue 146 diagnosed: four faults stacked, three fixed, the fourth is genesis Raising a first node hits them in order: the bundle's bus image named for a registry that is gone; the certificate made by openssl in an image that has none; enrolment dialling TLS at a bus that speaks first, then refusing its own token for the empty bus. Each was right until the bus changed and nothing has raised a foundation since. The fourth is not a patch: the installer carries the bus's first user list and the controller composes the rest through the bus being a module, and at genesis there is no module — so the first node cannot be let onto the bus it just raised.	2026-09-29 15:42:32 +02:00
jschoubben	4a51ea4b3a	Issue 146: the foundation cannot be raised on the bus the mesh runs on Found trying to run ADR 0147's bed. The older bundle raises the previous broker and a control plane that refuses to start without MESH_BUS_NATS; the newer one stops a step earlier, asking for a certificate from openssl in an image that has none. No bed can run while this holds, so 0147's check section now says what actually stands behind it — the rendering, not a machine.	2026-09-29 15:25:58 +02:00
jschoubben	6c14d313b8	ADR 0147: a module anchors the mesh's authority on a machine, and takes it away again Issue 129: every internal HTTPS name fails verification on every machine, because nothing has ever written the mesh's root into a trust store. The report proposed the controller inject it the way the private network writes the registry's trust; this record rejects that — reachability and trust are not the same fact, and where anchors live is the host's difference, not the controller's. A module requiring internal-acme-ca does the whole of it, and being unassigned undoes it.	2026-09-29 15:02:37 +02:00
mesh-admin	ced547dae9	Merge pull request 'ADR 0146: connectivity is checked by name, per hosting form' (#183 ) from decision/0146-connectivity-by-name into main	2026-09-29 12:01:57 +00:00
jschoubben	38482435af	ADR 0146: connectivity is checked by name, per hosting form, with a valid certificate 0145's core stands — a module checks what the mesh claims, from where the callers are — and everything it said about what to dial was wrong. A raw port is not how anything in this mesh is reached. A real caller resolves a name, the proxy answers, the proxy reaches the service; dialling a port tests the last hop of a four-hop path and skips the three where most connectivity lives. So each hosting form gets its own endpoint, route and name: connect-docker.<node>.internal for a container, connect-process for the mesh's own code in a unit it writes, connect-unit for a unit a package ships — and the same under each public domain. Every machine checks every machine, by name, over TLS, verifying the certificate against the authority that should have issued it. The names are the instrument: a failure reads as connect-docker.g14.internal did not answer. No name is written anywhere: the machines come from the roster fact, the labels are the module's, and a machine that joins is checked by the others on the next push. Five things this needs that the mesh does not have, named rather than assumed — a module every machine has (ScopeNode is exclusivity, not obligation), a container running a bundle, a unit a package ships, the public domain in the roster fact, and issue 129, until which every internal name will correctly fail verification.	2026-09-29 14:01:55 +02:00
mesh-admin	cf8a8d78c9	Merge pull request 'ADR 0145: a module checks what the mesh claims is reachable' (#182 ) from decision/0145-a-module-checks-what-the-mesh-claims into main	2026-09-29 11:44:58 +00:00
jschoubben	9de25994e9	ADR 0145: a module checks what the mesh claims is reachable, and it checks itself The mesh asserts three things are callable and has never checked any of them. A module on every machine serves an endpoint of its own and dials every other machine's, from the position the callers are in — not the host and not the control plane, both of which reach those addresses by paths no ordinary caller uses and would have passed throughout the outage. Its probe is its own endpoint, declared reachable over the private network, so it is admitted by exactly the rule that governs every internally-exposed service. The tempting target is a service every machine has, and those are the ones never closed — ssh above all — which would have passed for all eleven hours. Resolution and connection reported separately, because they have different owners. One failure is not a fault, and the count travels with the result. It reports and repairs nothing. Built on a scheduled container, a rendered roster fact and a bundle: no new vocabulary. Adopted on its own merits, which is what 0143 was not.	2026-09-29 13:44:56 +02:00
mesh-admin	64ea47b11d	Merge pull request 'ADR 0144: anything on a machine may call anything on it' (#181 ) from decision/0144-local-is-not-a-boundary into main	2026-09-29 11:32:03 +00:00
jschoubben	eba24a72af	ADR 0144: anything on a machine may call anything on it, superseding 0143 Everything should be able to call what runs on the same machine, another machine's service exposed to the private network, and another machine's service exposed publicly. Three cases; the filter had two. The first was expressed as the machines' own addresses on the private network. A caller on the machine carries such an address; a caller in one of its containers carries a bridge address and matched nothing — measured, same destination and same machine: src 10.10.0.1 against src 172.17.0.8. The second case worked by accident, because the tunnel rewrites a caller's address to the sending machine's. Two of three working is why it read as correct. 0143 answered the wrong question. It proposed verifying each grant from the consumer's own network position and went to length about which position, because whether a caller sat in a container changed the answer — and that difference was the bug. Observing a configuration error is not its remedy. Superseded, and nothing replaces it; whether the mesh should check a grant is still open in issue 145 and must stand on its own. And a module is not a container: 61 of 72 happen to use one, 11 do not, and a rule reasoning about containers describes most of the mesh rather than the mesh.	2026-09-29 13:32:01 +02:00
mesh-admin	78d4873f4f	Merge pull request 'ADR 0143: a consumer verifies the grant it is given' (#180 ) from decision/0143-a-consumer-verifies-its-grant into main	2026-09-29 11:07:20 +00:00
jschoubben	ddfd62edf6	ADR 0143: a consumer verifies the grant it is given A grant is four facts and a credential — the provision, the machine, the port, and who the consumer is when it connects — and it is the whole mechanism by which anything in the mesh reaches anything else. The mesh asserted it and never found out whether it was true. Issue 145 is what that cost: eleven hours of 'every module current with its source' while a module could not reach its database. The consumer verifies it, from its own network position. Not the control plane, which reaches the address by a path no consumer uses. Not the machine, whose own packets carried a source address the filter admitted while every container's was refused — so a host-side check would have passed throughout the outage it exists to catch. That is inference from the rule that was loaded, stated as such. A connection and nothing more; speaking each provision's protocol would be a second implementation of every provision. One failure is not news, only consecutive ones, and the count is reported rather than the last attempt. A consumer that is not running reads unchecked, which is a different sentence from broken. What it costs to be wrong is the constraint on all of it: a check that calls a working provision broken trains a reader to ignore the report.	2026-09-29 13:07:18 +02:00
mesh-admin	f65664640a	Merge pull request 'Issue 145: a machine reads healthy while its modules cannot reach each other' (#179 ) from issue/145-healthy-while-broken into main	2026-09-29 10:37:10 +00:00
jschoubben	492ac7be18	Issue 145: a machine reads healthy while its modules cannot reach each other Converging the control node closed every path by which a module reached another by the machine's own name, and it ran for eleven hours while the mesh answered 'all doing what they were told, all heard from, running what the mesh would send them, and every module current with its source'. 6,154 database failures in one module's log, beginning at the minute of the flip. The service accepted TCP and never answered HTTP. Every check the mesh makes passed, because every check the mesh makes is about the relationship between the mesh and a machine — applied, current, containers running. None asks whether a module can reach what it requires, though the mesh composes every grant and so knows exactly who requires what. The filter fault is fixed. The eleven hours are the measurement, not the bug. Also records on 144 that 'more closed than the mesh believes' was harmless only for what is reached from outside, and an outage for what is reached from within.	2026-09-29 12:37:08 +02:00
mesh-admin	5ac77e3cef	Merge pull request 'ADR 0138: reach asks for names on a routed endpoint' (#178 ) from decision/0138-insight-reach-and-the-proxy into main	2026-09-29 00:50:28 +00:00
jschoubben	a619022c35	ADR 0138: a progressive insight — reach asks for names on a routed endpoint The record says internal and public each mean something to the filter. For an endpoint the proxy serves, the second half is wrong, and ADR 0045 said so first: a public service is exposed through the proxy, listening from the mesh, not by opening its own port. Found by trying to express one real module, not by review — routed name public because browsers post to it, machine port private because it serves a dashboard in cleartext. Under one value for both, saying public would have reopened a port an operator had just closed. Measured the same evening: the routed name answered from the internet over TLS while the port was refused from the same place. Corrects a fact. One statement per endpoint with three things derived from it stands; the filter column applies to an unrouted endpoint.	2026-09-29 02:50:25 +02:00
mesh-admin	49c065c204	Merge pull request 'Issue 143: correct the diagnosis' (#177 ) from issue/143-corrected-diagnosis into main	2026-09-29 00:33:13 +00:00