2026-09-29 21:36:42 +00:00
1 changed files with 26 additions and 3 deletions
@@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ reload, which is the module's knowledge and is what the module takes over on the
 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 *(open)*
+## 6 — and is enrolled twice, keeping a credential the mesh has replaced *(fixed)*

 ```
 mesh-controller: enrolled anchor
@@ -127,8 +127,31 @@ 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. Whatever closes this either
-makes the enrolment arrive once, or stops the second arrival from rotating anything.
+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