1 changed files with 66 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+---
+status: open
+opened: 2026-09-27
+located-in: []
+fixed-by:
+amended-design:
+---
+
+# 131 — Nothing tells the mesh a source moved, and it reports itself current anyway
+
+## What was observed
+
+Six changes were merged to the trunk of six repositories in one sitting. The build machine built
+nothing. Its last build, minutes before the first merge, was still the one it reported; no build was
+requested, refused or failed, because none was ever asked for.
+
+Asked afterwards what was wrong, the mesh said:
+
+> 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
+
+Every one of the six had moved. The last clause was false for all of them, and it is the clause a
+person reads to decide whether there is anything to do.
+
+## Why it matters beyond this instance
+
+**The mesh learns a source moved by being told, and there is no longer anything to tell it.** The
+command exists — a person names the module and the commit — and so does the question the overview
+answers. What is missing is whatever used to connect the two. One repository still carries a forge
+webhook aimed at a port; the rest carry none, and the port belongs to a different service than the
+one the arrangement implies. So the state is not "the trigger is broken" but "there is no trigger,
+and nothing says so".
+
+**A wrong answer is worse here than no answer.** "Every module current with its source" is
+indistinguishable, to a reader, from a mesh that has genuinely caught up. The overview is built to be
+the thing you check instead of checking by hand, so a confident false negative removes the habit that
+would otherwise have caught it. Nothing in the mesh is at fault for being out of date — it is at
+fault for saying it is not.
+
+**It is also why "current with its source" cannot be a stored fact.** The mesh compares what it built
+against what it was last told the source was, and calls that agreement. Two facts agreeing tells you
+nothing when both come from the same place.
+
+## The intended shape, which is decided and not built
+
+The forge emits what happened to it — a pull request merged — and the build machine reacts by
+building what that commit affects. That keeps the forge ignorant of the build system and the build
+machine ignorant of the forge's internals, which is the same argument
+[ADR 0126](../../02-DECISIONS/0126-a-module-declares-its-own-seats.md) makes for addressing an event
+to its emitter: the merge is a fact about the forge, and what should be rebuilt because of it is not
+the forge's business to know.
+
+The forge's module already declares the event. The build machine declares that it consumes nothing.
+
+## Open questions
+
+- Is "the source moved" still a thing a person can assert by hand once the event path exists, or does
+  the hand-operated form become the thing that made this failure possible?
+- Which commit does the build machine act on — the merge, or each commit it brought — and what does
+  it do when several arrive for one module at once?
+- How does the overview stop being able to lie? Comparing what was built against what was recorded
+  will always agree. Whether the trunk has moved is a question only the forge can answer, so either
+  the overview asks it, or it stops claiming to know.
+- Does this want to be the same mechanism as the build request on the bus
+  ([ADR 0129](../../02-DECISIONS/0129-a-seat-carries-the-protocol-of-its-role.md)), or does it sit in
+  front of it?