The first account said the declaration carries no resource that would disable the
found firewall and that nothing implemented the sentence the flip prints. Wrong:
the mechanism is a step in the host's own apply, retireFirewall, and it is careful
— it reads back that the mesh's table is loaded before retiring anything, records
the forward policies first, and verifies ufw reports inactive afterwards.
What is established: ufw was active and enabled two minutes after a flip that
reported the node converged with nothing failed; and the machine's record now
reads disabled_by_mesh: true, written by a reconcile fifty minutes later that
found ufw already inactive because an operator had disabled it by hand.
So the step did not take effect and the record says it did. The candidates are
named rather than chosen — the step is skipped silently when the apply has any
failure, the mesh's table is loaded by a service in the same apply so ordering is
open, and the host's detail lines do not reach the journal, which is why this has
candidates instead of a cause.
jschoubben