Merge pull request 'ADR 0152: the operator's surface is a module, the console (group 3)' (#222) from feat/the-console into main

Reviewed-on: #222

00-META/glossary.md

@@ -75,6 +75,18 @@ another — and a mesh you cannot name precisely is a mesh two people describe d
   is a role you occupy, and the two meet where a seat delivers a provision: occupying the seat is
   what makes a module *the* provider of it.
 
+## The surfaces
+
+- **console** — the module (`mesh-console`) that puts the mesh's tools in front of whoever is on a
+  machine: an MCP endpoint on the machine's loopback for an agent, the same endpoint for a person. It
+  is assigned like any module, holds a credential the mesh minted, and calls tools under a grant its
+  manifest declares (`invokes`). Loopback is the authority boundary: whoever is on the machine owns the
+  mesh there ([ADR 0152](../02-DECISIONS/0152-the-operators-surface-is-a-module-the-console.md)).
+  Not "the tool bridge", "the brain" or "the MCP server" — those name the predecessor's program or a
+  protocol, and the console is a module.
+- **invokes** — the manifest word for the tools a module calls, `<module>.<tool>` each or `*` for
+  every one. A grant on the publish side and nothing else; a module that declares none calls nothing.
+
 ## How this page is kept
 
 A new name for an existing thing lands here first, in the same change that introduces it in code. A

02-DECISIONS/0095-the-control-plane-is-the-way-to-ask-a-module.md

@@ -47,6 +47,14 @@ Anything with the control plane in reach can ask any module anything it serves.
 harder: nothing outside the control plane can, and the control plane's connection is one more
 thing on the path of every question — a cost accepted for the audit it buys.
 
+> **The mechanism changed — 2026-09-30, by ADR 0152.** What stands: `ask` on the control plane, and
+> that every call passes an account whose permission list says what it may ask. What moved: "nothing
+> outside the control plane can" stopped being true when a person's account gained a publish grant per
+> tool (design 25 §7, 2026-09-28), and [ADR 0152](0152-the-operators-surface-is-a-module-the-console.md)
+> takes the first option above for a module as well — a manifest declares `invokes`, and the bus grants
+> exactly that publish side. The audit the second option bought is the bus's permission list, which
+> derives both.
+
 ## How it is checked
 
 A tools-only bed asks a served tool through the control plane and asserts an answer arrived —

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

@@ -103,6 +103,13 @@ reintroduces 109 and 135 — silently, and on a live mesh, which is exactly how
    ([issue 110](../04-ISSUES/110-a-container-on-the-runtimes-own-network-cannot-reach-the-resolver/00-report.md));
    and on two of four machines the resolver binds loopback only, so the runtime hands containers a
    public resolver instead. Both are prerequisites, not related work.
+
+   > **Progressive insight — 2026-09-30, later the same day. The loopback claim was wrong.** The
+   > resolver bound the private address on all four machines; on two the runtime had never been told
+   > to use it, and on all four the resolver discarded a query that arrived on the runtime's bridge.
+   > The step stands; the facts under it were those. Both fixed the same day
+   > ([issue 110's resolution](../04-ISSUES/110-a-container-on-the-runtimes-own-network-cannot-reach-the-resolver/01-resolution.md)),
+   > and step 3 landed after them.
 2. **The runtime is told which resolver to use, per machine, as a file** — not per container as a
    creation-time argument, or the resolver's address is back in every container's identity and the
    problem has only got smaller.
@@ -143,6 +150,16 @@ closed by this record, only answered by it.
   resolvable inside the mesh — holds unchanged and by the same means the machine already uses.
 - **Issue 110 stops being a container-DNS inconvenience and becomes a prerequisite** for the mesh not
   restarting itself whenever it learns a name.
+- **A container that names a resolver of its own has opted out of the machine's**, and the copy this
+  record removes was the only reason such a container could reach anything by a mesh name.
+
+  > **Progressive insight — 2026-09-30, the afternoon this landed. Found the hard way.** The mail
+  > system's admin, behind Mailu's own resolver, lost its database the moment the copy went
+  > ([issue 171](../04-ISSUES/171-a-modules-own-resolver-knows-no-mesh-name/00-report.md)). A `dns` on
+  > a container is a decision about whether mesh names exist inside it, not a preference; the module
+  > was corrected, and whether the controller should refuse the contradiction is that issue's open
+  > question.
+
 - **A container started by hand gets the mesh's names too**, where before only declared containers did.
   Design 08 drew that boundary deliberately, on the grounds that reaching into every container is what
   a nameserver would be for. This record accepts that consequence rather than working around it: a

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

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

02-DECISIONS/0152-the-operators-surface-is-a-module-the-console.md

@@ -0,0 +1,160 @@
+---
+topic: what runs on it
+status: accepted
+date: 2026-09-30
+deciders: jochen
+reconstructed: false
+extends: 02-DECISIONS/0095-the-control-plane-is-the-way-to-ask-a-module.md
+---
+
+# 152. The operator's surface is a module the mesh assigns: the console
+
+## Context
+
+**Since the bus moved, nobody can ask the mesh anything without opening a shell on a machine.** Every
+tool call an operator's assistant makes fails, on every machine including the one the operator sits
+at, with *AMQP not connected*
+([issue 147](../04-ISSUES/147-the-operators-tools-still-dial-the-bus-that-was-removed/00-report.md)).
+The program answering is the predecessor's tool server, started on the workstation by hand, with the
+predecessor's broker address written into the assistant's own configuration. It has no manifest, no
+assignment, no account on the bus, and the mesh has never known it exists. Nothing regressed: the
+mesh removed a transport that a program outside the mesh still dials.
+
+**The mesh has a tool model, and it works.** A module serves each tool on its own subject and its
+account may serve nothing else ([ADR 0047](0047-a-module-runs-its-code-as-its-own-process-with-its-own-account.md));
+a person is issued an account whose only permission is to publish the tool subjects named at issue
+([25 — The bus on NATS](../03-DESIGN/01-to-be/25-the-bus-on-nats.md) §7); a client on the
+runtime repository's main branch speaks that account as a command line and as an MCP server. Measured
+on the live mesh on 2026-09-28: a call to the forge's `gitea_list_repos` answered with real
+repositories; the tool list came back empty, because it asks the catalogue for a tool nothing serves
+([ADR 0132](0132-a-seat-carries-the-tools-its-holder-must-serve.md)).
+
+**Two records have already said where the surface belongs.** ADR 0132's consequences: *the MCP
+surface belongs inside the mesh — a module the mesh assigns to the machine where the agent sits, with
+a credential the mesh minted and authority derived from what it may call, not a program started by
+hand with a credential printed to a terminal.* Design [33](../03-DESIGN/01-to-be/33-the-tools-the-mesh-answers.md)
+§6 says the same. Neither is a decision about the surface: 0132 decided where a seat's tools live,
+and named the surface in passing.
+
+**And one record says the opposite, in the letter.** [ADR 0095](0095-the-control-plane-is-the-way-to-ask-a-module.md)
+made the control plane *the* way to ask a module, deferred "calling is a grant" until something asked
+for it, and recorded that *nothing outside the control plane can*. A person's account (design 25 §7,
+built 2026-09-28) is exactly that grant, minted for a person. So 0095's exclusivity has already been
+widened once without a record saying so; a module that calls tools widens it a second time, and this
+record is where that is said.
+
+**What a module's account may do today, counted from the composition** (`internal/broker`): publish
+its own events, publish the accept subjects of seats it uses, subscribe its own tools and what it
+consumes. No module principal may publish another module's tool subject. Of 72 modules in the
+catalogue, 45 serve tools and 0 may call one.
+
+The question the work order asks before any code: **does the mesh grow its own operator surface, or is
+the surface an ordinary module that happens to serve tools?**
+
+## Considered Options
+
+**1. The control plane serves the agent protocol itself** — a listener on the controller, or a verb
+its binary runs. Rejected. It puts a surface for tools the control plane does not implement on the one
+component that must stay answerable while it is itself being replaced, which is the reason 0132
+rejected the control plane as the answer to discovery. A person on a workstation would reach it over
+the network, and the networked surface [ADR 0035](0035-one-implementation-several-surfaces.md)
+reserves for that authenticates through an OAuth2 provider that is not configured — so the controller's
+`api` verb correctly serves nothing today, and this option would either wait for it or bypass it.
+
+**2. A program a person installs and starts by hand with a printed credential** — what exists on the
+runtime repository's main. Rejected as the end state. It is outside the mesh in every way issue 147
+names: no assignment, no declaration, no seat, no check that it reaches anything, revoked only by a
+person remembering to. It is the predecessor's arrangement one bus later, and it fails the same way
+the next time an address moves. It stays as the recovery path, the way the command line does
+(ADR 0035): a credential from `operator issue` and the `mesh` client work with no console assigned.
+
+**3. An ordinary module, assigned to the machine the person sits at, holding a credential the mesh
+minted, serving the mesh's tools on that machine's loopback.** Chosen.
+
+## Decision
+
+**The console is a module.** `mesh-console` is built by the mesh, registered like any module,
+assigned to a machine, and given a bus credential sealed to that machine. It serves the mesh's tools to
+whoever is on that machine: to an agent over MCP, and to a person through the same endpoint. Assigning
+it to a machine is what makes the mesh reachable from there; unassigning it revokes that, at the next
+composition, with nothing on the machine to remember to remove.
+
+**A grant to call is a manifest word: `invokes`.** A module declares the tools it calls, each as
+`<module>.<tool>`, or the single entry `*` for every tool on the mesh. The bus grants exactly that
+publish side and nothing beside it — no event, no subscription, no seat. This is ADR 0095's deferred
+first option, taken now that a consumer asks for it; a person's account already has this shape, and
+the same composition derives both. The control plane's `ask` stands, and 0095's audit point with it:
+every call still passes one account whose permission list says what it may ask.
+
+**Authority is the machine's login.** The console listens on the machine's loopback only, declared
+`from: machine`, so whoever can open a socket on the machine is whoever owns the machine, and *the
+account that installed the host owns the mesh on that node*
+([ADR 0034](0034-the-local-account-owns-the-mesh.md)). Anything on a machine may call anything on it,
+and that is the whole of local ([ADR 0144](0144-anything-on-a-machine-may-call-anything-on-it.md)).
+The mesh knows no person: what the audit sees is which console asked, under the account
+`<node>.mesh-console`. How a person's identity reaches a session is the question design 15 leaves
+open, and this record does not close it.
+
+**What the console lists is asked of the modules.** Design 33 §5: a module's own tools are answered by
+the module, from the code that defines them. The tool runtime therefore answers one reserved verb for
+every module it serves — `tools`, the module's tool names, descriptions and argument schemas — and the
+console assembles its list by asking the catalogue which modules the mesh holds and each module what
+it answers. A module that is not running is absent from the list and says so; a tool an agent already
+knows the name of can be called whether or not it was listed. A module may not name a tool of its own
+`tools`; the runtime refuses the collision at load rather than letting one shadow the other. A
+role's tools, and the mesh's own verbs, join the list when the `mesh-controller` seat serves them
+(design 33 §1, third family) — the console reads whatever the mesh can say about itself, and grows as
+that does.
+
+**The console holds one credential and one grant: `*`.** It is the operator's surface on a machine the
+operator owns; narrowing what it may call is a setting on its assignment, which
+[ADR 0046](0046-a-module-configuration-is-its-assignments-not-its-manifest.md) already provides for
+and nothing here builds.
+
+## Consequences
+
+- **The way a person drives the mesh is inside the mesh.** It is declared, delivered, replaced and
+  revoked by the same machinery as everything else, and `status` says whether the machine carrying it
+  has applied. Issue 147's shape — a surface kept alive by an address in a file — cannot recur, because
+  there is no file: the console's credential names the bus the mesh is on, and moves when it does.
+- **A module may now call tools, which ADR 0095 had reserved to the control plane.** The grant is
+  explicit, per tool or `*`, and derived by the same composition that grants everything else. A module
+  that declares no `invokes` gains nothing. What got harder: a manifest reviewer has one more field to
+  read for authority, and `*` in it deserves the reader's attention every time.
+- **A new manifest word ships one release before any manifest uses it**, and must reach both parsers:
+  the build machine's and the running controller's. The console's manifest cannot be registered until
+  the controller and the builder that packages it have been rebuilt with the word.
+- **Discovery costs a fan-out per list.** One request per module the mesh holds, answered at once by
+  the bus for every module nothing serves, so the cost is bounded by the modules that are up. The list
+  is cached briefly in the console; a module assigned a moment ago appears at the next refresh.
+- **Every tool runtime must be rebuilt once** to answer `tools`. Until a module is, it is callable and
+  not listed, and the console says which modules did not answer.
+- **The mesh's own verbs are not in the console yet.** `status`, `push`, `assign` are the
+  `mesh-controller` seat's tools under 0132, and the three prerequisites 0132 names are still not in
+  place. A person asking what a node runs still opens a shell for that question, and that gap is design
+  33's to close, not this record's — recorded here so nobody reads the console as the whole of 147.
+- **The person's credential is not retired.** `operator issue` and the `mesh` client remain the path
+  when no console is assigned, and the path an operator uses to bring a mesh up far enough to assign
+  one.
+
+## How this is checked
+
+| Rule | Checked by |
+|---|---|
+| A module's `invokes` becomes exactly that publish grant, and nothing else | the bus user composition test: a module invoking `shop.price` may publish that subject and no other tool's; `*` may publish every tool subject; neither may publish an event or subscribe anything it did not consume |
+| A malformed `invokes` entry is refused at registration | a parser test: an entry naming no tool is a problem named in the manifest's words |
+| The runtime answers `tools` for every module it serves | the runtime's test: a module registering two tools answers three names, and a module naming one of its own `tools` is refused at load |
+| The console's list is what the modules answer | the client's test against a real bus: two modules up, a third the catalogue holds and nothing serves, and the list carries the two and names the third as not answering |
+| A call from the console reaches a module over the bus | the same test, and the live mesh: the console assigned to a workstation answers `tools/list` on its loopback and a call to the forge returns repositories |
+| The console listens on loopback and nowhere else | its manifest declares `from: machine`, and the filter composed for the machine opens nothing for it |
+
+## References
+
+- [issue 147](../04-ISSUES/147-the-operators-tools-still-dial-the-bus-that-was-removed/00-report.md) — the surface outside the mesh
+- [ADR 0095](0095-the-control-plane-is-the-way-to-ask-a-module.md) — extended: a grant to call, for a module as for a person
+- [ADR 0132](0132-a-seat-carries-the-tools-its-holder-must-serve.md) — where a seat's tools live, and the sentence that named the surface
+- [ADR 0035](0035-one-implementation-several-surfaces.md) — three surfaces over one implementation
+- [ADR 0034](0034-the-local-account-owns-the-mesh.md), [ADR 0144](0144-anything-on-a-machine-may-call-anything-on-it.md) — why loopback is the authority boundary
+- [33 — The tools the mesh answers](../03-DESIGN/01-to-be/33-the-tools-the-mesh-answers.md) §5, §6 — discovery, and what serves it to an agent
+- [34 — The console](../03-DESIGN/01-to-be/34-the-console.md) — the design this record authorises
+- mesh-tools `src/client.ts`, `src/mcp.ts`, `src/mesh.ts` — the client this makes a module of

02-DECISIONS/README.md

@@ -200,6 +200,7 @@ python3 00-META/checks/index.py            fail if stale
 - **0109** — [A package registry seat is one per ecosystem, not one for all of them](0109-a-package-registry-seat-is-one-per-ecosystem.md)
 - **0126** — [A module declares its own seats; the mesh reserves its own](0126-a-module-declares-its-own-seats.md)
 - **0148** — [The mesh's names are resolved, not copied into every container](0148-the-meshs-names-are-resolved-not-copied-into-containers.md)
+- **0151** — [A route's internal name is composed under the node that serves it](0151-a-routes-internal-name-is-composed-under-the-node-that-serves-it.md)
 
 ### What runs on them, and how it gets there
 
@@ -255,6 +256,7 @@ python3 00-META/checks/index.py            fail if stale
 - **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)
 - **0150** — [A module's own code runs as supervised processes under the module's one account](0150-a-modules-own-code-runs-as-supervised-processes-under-one-account.md)
+- **0152** — [The operator's surface is a module the mesh assigns: the console](0152-the-operators-surface-is-a-module-the-console.md)
 
 ### How it is built
 

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

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

03-DESIGN/01-to-be/12-a-module-repository.md

@@ -7,9 +7,10 @@ code:
   - mesh-controller internal/catalogue/build.go
   - mesh-controller internal/inventory/secrets.go
   - mesh-controller cmd/mesh-builder
-updated: 2026-09-12
+updated: 2026-09-30
 decisions:
   - 02-DECISIONS/0069-a-module-is-a-repository-and-a-path.md
+  - 02-DECISIONS/0037-where-a-module-lives.md
   - 02-DECISIONS/0009-modules-and-the-graph.md
   - 02-DECISIONS/0010-delivery.md
   - 02-DECISIONS/0005-the-node-host.md
@@ -60,6 +61,32 @@ module from a repository and a path, and the root-only reading left every existi
 unbuildable — pointed at the catalogue the builder finds no manifest, pointed at a module's source
 it finds no manifest either.*
 
+## A manifest is checked where it is written
+
+*Added 2026-09-30, from [issue 148](../../04-ISSUES/148-a-manifest-outside-this-catalogue-has-no-check/00-report.md).*
+
+The check the mesh applies at registration — the manifest parses strictly, every name in it is a
+usable one, its routes and events and seats are well formed, and no two manifests given together
+declare one seat — is a verb on the controller's binary, `module check <manifest>…`, and it needs no
+mesh. It reads the files it is given, runs the same functions registration runs, prints every problem
+in the manifest's own words, and exits non-zero if there was one. Somebody describing their own
+application in their own repository — the case [ADR 0037](../../02-DECISIONS/0037-where-a-module-lives.md)
+calls the one that matters most — runs it before pushing, and finds out there rather than when a
+running mesh refuses the registration, or later, when a machine applies something that resolved and
+should not have.
+
+**What it cannot know, it says.** A seat another module declares elsewhere is unknown to a check that
+was not handed that module's manifest, and the output says so rather than refusing: pass the other
+manifest too. The mesh's own seats it knows from the binary, which is the one place that set may be
+read without a store ([ADR 0122](../../02-DECISIONS/0122-a-seat-is-data-a-rename-is-a-database-update.md)
+keeps the store authoritative, so a claim on a mesh seat is judged fully only at registration, and the
+check says that too).
+
+*How it is checked:* the controller's test runs the check over the catalogue checkout beside it and
+over a manifest with a known fault, and asserts the first passes and the second names the fault; the
+test that used to be the only check, `TestEveryCatalogueManifestParses`, now stands beside a command
+anybody can run.
+
 ## The manifest in the repository is not the manifest the mesh holds
 
 A resource names an artifact:

03-DESIGN/01-to-be/25-the-bus-on-nats.md

@@ -361,6 +361,13 @@ bridged. It is three things:
 
 Nothing is built of this before §10's bed passes; the MCP surface is a thin adapter over (2).
 
+*Built, and then made a module — 2026-09-30.* (1) and (2) exist: `operator issue` and the `mesh`
+client. What (2) describes as a program on the workstation is now the recovery path; the surface an
+operator uses is a module the mesh assigns to the machine, holding a credential the mesh minted —
+[ADR 0152](../../02-DECISIONS/0152-the-operators-surface-is-a-module-the-console.md),
+[34 — The console](34-the-console.md). The tool list it asks for is no longer
+`catalog_tools`, which nothing served: each runtime answers `tools` for its own module.
+
 ## 8. What a module sees, and what the wire does
 
 **The contract a module is written against does not change.** `publish` on an envelope becomes a

03-DESIGN/01-to-be/33-the-tools-the-mesh-answers.md

@@ -102,6 +102,12 @@ being something a person carries and becomes something the mesh runs, on a node,
 An agent's authority can then be role-shaped: *the forge's tools*, rather than a list of
 module-specific names that changes the day the forge is replaced.
 
+*Decided and designed on 2026-09-30:* the module is the console —
+[ADR 0152](../../02-DECISIONS/0152-the-operators-surface-is-a-module-the-console.md),
+[34 — The console](34-the-console.md). It builds the second half of §5 now (a module's tools are
+asked of the module, through a `tools` verb every runtime answers) and lists a role's tools when the
+records carry them.
+
 ## 7. Versioning
 
 A seat's tools are an interface and change like one. Additive within a version. A change that would

03-DESIGN/01-to-be/34-the-console.md

@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+---
+layer: to-be
+status: in-progress
+code: [mesh-catalog, mesh-tools, mesh-controller]
+updated: 2026-09-30
+decisions:
+  - 02-DECISIONS/0152-the-operators-surface-is-a-module-the-console.md
+  - 02-DECISIONS/0132-a-seat-carries-the-tools-its-holder-must-serve.md
+  - 02-DECISIONS/0095-the-control-plane-is-the-way-to-ask-a-module.md
+  - 02-DECISIONS/0035-one-implementation-several-surfaces.md
+  - 02-DECISIONS/0034-the-local-account-owns-the-mesh.md
+---
+
+# 34 — The console
+
+**The mesh's tools, on the machine a person sits at, served by a module the mesh assigned there.**
+An agent reaches them over MCP on the machine's loopback; a person reaches the same endpoint. Nothing is
+installed by hand, nothing is configured with an address, and the mesh knows the surface exists because
+it put it there ([ADR 0152](../../02-DECISIONS/0152-the-operators-surface-is-a-module-the-console.md)).
+
+## 1. What it is
+
+A module, `mesh-console`, in the catalogue. Its image is the tool runtime's own — the client that
+already speaks the bus as a command line and as an MCP server — started in a mode that reads the
+module's credential and listens on loopback. It has no state, no provision, no seat. What it needs is
+the bus, which it gets the way every module does: a credential the mesh minted for `<node>.mesh-console`,
+sealed to the machine, delivered as the module's own secret.
+
+Its manifest says three things nothing else in the catalogue says together:
+
+- `invokes: ["*"]` — it calls every tool on the mesh, and the bus grants exactly that publish side;
+- `listens` on a port `from: machine` — the filter opens nothing for it, because loopback is not outside;
+- no `emits`, no `consumes`, no `tools` — it answers nothing on the bus and nobody can address it there.
+
+## 2. What it serves, and to whom
+
+**One endpoint, `POST /mcp` on the machine's loopback**, speaking MCP over HTTP: `initialize`,
+`tools/list`, `tools/call`. An agent on the machine is pointed at it once — the address is the machine's
+own and never changes — and sees every tool the mesh can say it has. A person at a terminal uses the
+same endpoint through the `mesh` client, or through anything that can make an HTTP request; the client
+needs no credential, because the console holds it.
+
+**The endpoint is the machine's login.** It binds `127.0.0.1` and nothing else. Whoever can connect is
+on the machine, and whoever is on the machine is the account that owns the mesh there
+([ADR 0034](../../02-DECISIONS/0034-the-local-account-owns-the-mesh.md),
+[ADR 0144](../../02-DECISIONS/0144-anything-on-a-machine-may-call-anything-on-it.md)). There is no
+token, no login page and no second identity, on purpose: a credential a person had to carry to reach
+their own machine's console would be the arrangement this replaces, moved one hop.
+
+## 3. How it knows what the mesh can do
+
+Design [33](33-the-tools-the-mesh-answers.md) §5 splits discovery in two: a role's tools are read from
+the mesh's records, a module's own are asked of the module. The console builds the second half now and
+reads the first when it exists.
+
+**Every tool runtime answers `tools`.** The runtime that serves a module's tools also serves one verb of
+its own under that module's name, `mesh.mod.<module>.tool.tools`, answering the module's tool names,
+descriptions and argument schemas — the definitions from the code that answers them, and from nowhere
+else. A module may not name a tool of its own `tools`; the runtime refuses the collision at load.
+
+**The console asks the catalogue which modules the mesh holds, then asks each.** `catalog_modules`
+answers the roster; one `tools` request per module, in parallel, answers the list. The bus refuses at
+once a request nothing serves, so a module that is not running costs nothing and is named in the answer
+as not answering, rather than silently absent — *silence and success must never look alike*. The list is
+kept for a short while and refreshed, so an agent asking on every turn does not fan out on every turn.
+
+**A tool that was not listed can still be called.** Listing is discovery; calling is the grant. An agent
+that knows a tool's name asks for it by `<module>.<tool>` and the module answers or the bus says why not.
+
+**What is missing from the list, and until when.** A role's tools and the mesh's own verbs — `status`,
+`push`, `assign` — are the `mesh-controller` seat's under ADR 0132 and are not served yet; their three
+prerequisites are listed in that record. When the seat serves them, the console lists them beside the
+modules' own, and the person stops opening a shell for the mesh's own questions. Until then the console
+says so in its handshake.
+
+## 4. Where it runs
+
+On whichever machines an operator sits at, by assignment. It is not on the control node by default and
+does not need to be: it reaches the bus like any module, from anywhere in the mesh. A machine that is
+not a node cannot have it, which is the right refusal — the mesh reaches what it declares, and a
+workstation that wants the console joins first.
+
+The person's credential and the `mesh` client (design [25](25-the-bus-on-nats.md) §7) remain the path
+for a machine that is not a node, and the path to a mesh not yet far enough along to assign anything.
+
+## 5. Removing it
+
+Unassigning the console from a machine revokes its bus account at the next composition and stops the
+container; nothing is left on the machine that could still connect. An agent pointed at the loopback
+address gets a refused connection, which is the truthful answer.
+
+## How it is checked
+
+| Check | Defends |
+|---|---|
+| a module invoking one tool may publish that subject and no other tool's; `*` may publish every one; neither may publish an event or subscribe what it did not consume | ADR 0152, the grant |
+| a module registering two tools answers three names to `tools`, with schemas; a module naming its own `tools` is refused at load | ADR 0152, discovery |
+| against a real bus: two modules up, a third held and not running — the console lists the two and names the third as not answering | ADR 0152, silence is not success |
+| a call through the console's endpoint reaches a module over the bus and the answer is the module's own, unshaped | ADR 0035, a surface decides nothing |
+| on the live mesh: the console assigned to a workstation answers `tools/list` on loopback and a call to the forge returns repositories | the exit of work-order step 3 |
+| the composed filter for a machine carrying the console opens no port for it | ADR 0144 |
+
+## What this does not settle
+
+- Narrowing a console's grant per assignment. ADR 0046 makes it a setting; nothing reads one yet.
+- The mesh's own verbs on the bus. Design 33's third family; this document only says where they appear
+  once they exist.
+- A person's identity behind the console. The mesh sees the console's account; design 15 keeps the
+  question open.
+
+## References
+
+- [ADR 0152](../../02-DECISIONS/0152-the-operators-surface-is-a-module-the-console.md) — the decision
+- [33 — The tools the mesh answers](33-the-tools-the-mesh-answers.md) — what the console lists
+- [25 — The bus on NATS](25-the-bus-on-nats.md) §7 — the person's client this makes a module of
+- [issue 147](../../04-ISSUES/147-the-operators-tools-still-dial-the-bus-that-was-removed/00-report.md) — the symptom

04-ISSUES/006-hq-is-not-indexed-into-the-knowledge-base/00-report.md

@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
 ---
 status: located
 opened: 2026-08-23
-located-in: [hal, hq]
+located-in: [hq README.md, and the agent ADR 0025 names — not built]
 fixed-by:
 amended-design: 02-DECISIONS/0025-the-design-record-is-read-not-copied.md
 ---
@@ -169,3 +169,16 @@ them into. The record stays open, and its answer is no longer "index this reposi
 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.
 
+
+## Where this stands, 2026-09-30
+
+The README no longer claims a property nothing provides: it says the indexing never existed, that the
+store it named is unreachable since the cut-over, and that ADR 0025's answer — read, not copied, by an
+agent that consults this repository — is decided and not built. That was the honest fix the previous
+note asked for, and it is done.
+
+The record stays open on ADR 0025's build, and on nothing else. The mesh's own operator surface is now
+a module ([ADR 0152](../../02-DECISIONS/0152-the-operators-surface-is-a-module-the-console.md)); the
+reader ADR 0025 describes is the mesh session of design 15, which would answer through that surface
+like any tool. What closes this is still the check 0025 names: search for a phrase that appears only in
+a design document here, and get it back.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

04-ISSUES/147-the-operators-tools-still-dial-the-bus-that-was-removed/00-report.md

@@ -1,7 +1,9 @@
 ---
-status: located
+status: resolved
 opened: 2026-09-29
-located-in: [nothing in the mesh — the surface in use is the predecessor's, installed on the workstation]
+located-in: [mesh-catalog modules/mesh-console, mesh-tools src/mesh.ts, mesh-controller internal/broker]
+fixed-by: ADR 0152; mesh-controller PR 164 (invokes); mesh-tools PR 20 (mesh serve, the tools verb); mesh-catalog PR 181 (mesh-console)
+amended-design: 03-DESIGN/01-to-be/34-the-console.md
 ---
 
 # 147 — the operator's tools still dial the bus that was removed
@@ -73,3 +75,21 @@ outside the mesh.
 - 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.
+
+## Answered, 2026-09-30
+
+The work order's question — does the mesh grow its own operator surface, or is the surface an
+ordinary module — is answered by [ADR 0152](../../02-DECISIONS/0152-the-operators-surface-is-a-module-the-console.md):
+**the console is a module.** `mesh-console` is assigned to the machine a person sits at, holds a
+credential the mesh minted, calls tools under a grant its manifest declares (`invokes`), and serves the
+mesh's tools on that machine's loopback to an agent over MCP and to a person through the same endpoint.
+Designed in [34 — The console](../../03-DESIGN/01-to-be/34-the-console.md).
+
+What that leaves, said plainly so nobody reads this record as closed on the whole of its first
+paragraph: the console reaches every tool a *module* serves. The mesh's own questions — what a node
+runs, what is assigned — are the `mesh-controller` seat's tools under ADR 0132 and are not on the bus
+yet; for those a shell is still the way, and design 33 is where that closes.
+
+The predecessor's program on the workstation is not replaced by the mesh; it is left where it is and
+the assistant is pointed at the console beside it. The `hal` entry in the assistant's configuration
+still names things that are not the mesh's.

04-ISSUES/148-a-manifest-outside-this-catalogue-has-no-check/00-report.md

@@ -1,7 +1,9 @@
 ---
-status: open
+status: resolved
 opened: 2026-09-29
-located-in: [mesh-controller cmd/mesh-controller]
+located-in: [mesh-controller cmd/mesh-controller, mesh-controller internal/catalogue]
+fixed-by: mesh-controller PR 164 (module check)
+amended-design: 03-DESIGN/01-to-be/12-a-module-repository.md
 ---
 
 # 148 — a manifest outside this catalogue has no check
@@ -35,3 +37,14 @@ Nothing prevents this; it was noticed and left. ADR 0037 named it on 2026-09-01
   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.
+
+## Built, 2026-09-30
+
+`mesh-controller module check <manifest>…` runs what registration runs — the strict parse, the
+per-manifest problems, and the cross-manifest rules over every manifest given — with no store and no
+mesh, prints every problem in the manifest's words, and exits non-zero on any. What it cannot judge
+without a store it says: a claim on one of the mesh's own seats is judged fully only at registration
+([ADR 0122](../../02-DECISIONS/0122-a-seat-is-data-a-rename-is-a-database-update.md)), and a seat
+declared by a module whose manifest was not passed reads as unknown. Written into
+[12 — A module repository](../../03-DESIGN/01-to-be/12-a-module-repository.md) as the section *a
+manifest is checked where it is written*. The console's own manifest was the first checked with it.

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

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

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

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

04-ISSUES/171-a-modules-own-resolver-knows-no-mesh-name/00-report.md

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+---
+status: resolved
+opened: 2026-09-30
+located-in:
+  - mesh-catalog modules/mailu (eight containers name Mailu's own resolver, and one of them binds a mesh name)
+  - mesh-catalog modules/dnsmasq (dropped the DNSSEC bit its upstreams set)
+fixed-by: mesh-catalog PR 178 (mailu-admin uses the machine's resolver) and PR 179 (the machine's resolver passes the DNSSEC bit down) — 2026-09-30, the same afternoon
+amended-design:
+---
+
+# 171 — A module that names its own resolver knows no mesh name
+
+## What was observed
+
+The afternoon [ADR 0148](../../02-DECISIONS/0148-the-meshs-names-are-resolved-not-copied-into-containers.md)
+landed — no container is given the mesh's names any more; it asks the machine's resolver — the mail
+system's admin container began logging, 523 times in three minutes:
+
+```
+psycopg2.OperationalError: could not translate host name "novox.internal" to address: Name does not resolve
+```
+
+Mail was accepted on every port and the web front answered; the admin and the spam filter beside it
+were unhealthy, and anything that needed the database — a mailbox change through the API, the spam
+filter's domain list — failed. Found by the operator asking whether mail was back, forty minutes in.
+
+Mailu ships its own resolver, an unbound in a container, and every other Mailu container is told to
+use it — the module carries `dns: [192.168.203.254]` on eight containers. That resolver recurses from the
+root and knows nothing under `.internal`. Until that afternoon the admin container had the database's
+name anyway, because the mesh wrote every name into every container at creation; the copy was the only
+reason a container behind its own resolver could reach anything by a mesh name, and nobody knew it was
+load-bearing.
+
+**Removing the override was not enough.** Given the machine's resolver instead, the admin refused to
+start: `Your DNS resolver at 127.0.0.11 isn't doing DNSSEC validation`. Mailu checks, at start, that
+its resolver returns the Authenticated Data bit for a signed name. The mesh's resolver forwards to two
+upstreams that validate and set the bit, and dropped it on the way down — dnsmasq does unless told
+otherwise. Mailu's own unbound has no hook to forward a zone elsewhere, so it could not be taught the
+mesh's names either.
+
+## Why it matters beyond this instance
+
+**A container with a resolver of its own has opted out of the machine's, and nothing says so.** 0148
+made the machine's resolver load-bearing for every container; a `dns` on a container is a quiet
+exception to that, and the exception used to be papered over by the copy the record removed. The
+manifest field reads like a preference and is a decision about whether mesh names exist inside the
+container.
+
+**A resolver that forwards to validating upstreams and hides the fact is less useful than it could
+be**, and the first program to check found out.
+
+**The mesh reported nothing.** Every container ran; the failing one accepted connections; the report
+was about bytes. It is [issue 145](../145-a-machine-reads-healthy-while-its-modules-cannot-reach-each-other/00-report.md)
+again, and the check that would have caught it is the same unbuilt one.
+
+## What was done
+
+- The one Mailu container that binds a mesh name — the admin, through the database it is granted —
+  no longer names Mailu's resolver and uses the machine's, like every container without a `dns` of
+  its own (mesh-catalog PR 178). The other seven keep unbound: the spam filter needs a validating
+  resolver for its blocklist lookups, and none of them asks for a mesh name.
+- The machine's resolver passes the DNSSEC bit down from its upstreams, `proxy-dnssec` (PR 179). It
+  does not validate itself; the trust is the upstream's and the path to it, as a forwarding resolver's
+  always was, and the configuration says so.
+
+## What checks it
+
+The admin container's own start-up check, which is what failed, and the mesh's status once it reads
+healthy. A container-level check that a mesh name resolves from inside every declared container is
+the one 110 and 145 both ask for and is not built.
+
+## Open questions
+
+- Should a container's `dns` be refused, or made to say what it gives up? A module that names its
+  own resolver and binds a mesh name is a contradiction the controller can see at composition — the
+  grant hands it a name its resolver will not answer.
+- Should the machine's resolver validate rather than proxy? It would cost a trust anchor on every
+  machine and make the resolver slower to start; proxying was enough for the one program that asked.

04-ISSUES/172-the-ssh-client-block-matches-one-spelling-of-a-machine/00-report.md

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+---
+status: located
+opened: 2026-09-30
+located-in:
+  - the predecessor's terminal module (still generating the operator's ssh client blocks on every workstation)
+  - mesh-controller internal/catalogue (the ssh-client roster, tested and not yet a catalogue module)
+fixed-by:
+amended-design:
+---
+
+# 172 — The ssh client block for a machine matches one spelling of its name, and the other gets the wrong user
+
+## What was observed
+
+On a workstation, 2026-09-30, reported by the operator. `ssh home-server` logs in; `ssh
+home-server.internal` is refused with `Permission denied (publickey)`. The operator expected the
+opposite, if either: the full mesh name is the one the resolver serves.
+
+The name is not the fault. Both spellings resolve to the machine's private address — the mesh's roster
+region in the hosts file carries `<node>.internal <node>` on one line, and the resolver answers
+anything under the node's name. What differs is the login: the generated client configuration has a
+`Host home-server` block naming the account to log in as, and `home-server.internal` matches no block,
+so ssh falls back to the operator's local username, which has no account on that machine. Spelled
+`account@home-server.internal` it works.
+
+The file is the predecessor's. `~/.ssh/config.d/mesh` says in its own header that it is generated by
+the predecessor's terminal module, which only ever wrote the bare name. The mesh's own ssh-client
+roster — every other machine's Host block, written as a marked region of the operator's `~/.ssh/config`
+with the account the mesh knows for that machine (to-be 29) — already matches both spellings, and a
+controller test holds `Host marge marge.internal`. It is composed and tested in the controller and is
+not a module in the catalogue, so no machine receives it; every workstation still runs the
+predecessor's generator.
+
+## Why it matters beyond this instance
+
+**A name the mesh serves and a name a person can use are not the same set**, and the difference is
+silent. The resolver, the hosts file and the certificate authority all treat `<node>.internal` as the
+machine's name; the one file that decides who you log in as does not know it. A person who learns the
+mesh's name from `status` or from a certificate and types it is refused with an error that says
+nothing about a missing Host block.
+
+**It is the migration story for the operator's own tooling, arriving as a symptom.** The mesh has the
+right file and does not ship it. Until the ssh-client roster is a module and is assigned to the
+workstations, the predecessor's generator keeps writing a file the mesh has already superseded, and
+every such file is one the mesh cannot correct.
+
+## Open questions
+
+- Should the ssh-client roster become a catalogue module now, assigned to every workstation, and take
+  the predecessor's `config.d/mesh` out of the operator's `Include`? Its content is settled; what is
+  not is the takeover of a file in a person's home that another generator still writes.
+- Should the block match a third spelling — the machine's public name, where it has one — or is that
+  a different key and a different account?
+- What checks it? A controller test holds the two spellings; nothing checks that the file a workstation
+  actually has is the mesh's rather than the predecessor's.

README.md

@@ -87,12 +87,15 @@ rather than location** — that these documents would be indexed into the knowle
 symptom search returns them beside everything else. One source, many surfaces. Where the source
 is authored is then a separate question.
 
-**That indexing does not exist.** It was checked on 2026-08-23 and returns nothing; it appears
-never to have existed. Until it does, the objection stands unanswered and this repository is
-the fourth knowledge system it was argued not to be. Recorded as
-[`04-ISSUES/006`](04-ISSUES/006-hq-is-not-indexed-into-the-knowledge-base/00-report.md), and
-left standing here rather than quietly reworded, because a claim that held up a decision and
-was never checked is precisely the failure this repository exists to name.
+**That indexing never existed, and the store it would have indexed into is gone.** It was checked
+on 2026-08-23 and returned nothing; the knowledge base it named was the predecessor's, and since the
+mesh moved to its own bus on 2026-09-28 nothing can reach it at all. The claim is recorded as
+[`04-ISSUES/006`](04-ISSUES/006-hq-is-not-indexed-into-the-knowledge-base/00-report.md) and answered
+by [ADR 0025](02-DECISIONS/0025-the-design-record-is-read-not-copied.md): these documents are
+**read, not copied** — an agent reads this repository and a search consults it — and that agent is
+not built. So today this repository is reachable by whoever knows to open it and surfaces to nobody
+else. Said here rather than quietly reworded, because a claim that held up a decision and was never
+checked is precisely the failure this repository exists to name.
 
 Answered separately, a repository of its own is the better home: