01-RESEARCH/003-service-supervision/00-overview.md

@@ -1,8 +1,11 @@
 ---
-status: active
+status: graduated
 initiated: 2026-08-22
 touches: [03-DESIGN/00-as-is/05-runtime-and-installation.md]
-became: []
+became:
+  - 02-DECISIONS/0057-the-host-is-a-root-service-installed-as-a-package.md
+  - 02-DECISIONS/0061-the-host-asks-an-init-for-start-and-restart.md
+  - 03-DESIGN/01-to-be/05-the-node-host.md
 ---
 
 # 003 — Who supervises a service
@@ -47,7 +50,31 @@ This effort answers the cost half. It does not choose.
 
 Detail and costs in [`analysis.md`](analysis.md).
 
-## Decision needed
+## What it became
 
-Which supervision model the mesh adopts, recorded in a decision record before Phase 0 builds
+*Closed 2026-08-28.* The decision this effort asked for was taken — and taken without citing it,
-anything. The options and their costs are in `analysis.md` under "Options".
+which is why the effort sat `active` for five days after being answered. Recorded here because
+finding that is the point of a sweep.
+
+**The third option is what the mesh adopted.** `Docker is the supervisor for everything` is
+[ADR 0057](../../02-DECISIONS/0057-the-host-is-a-root-service-installed-as-a-package.md): the
+host is a plain process on the machine and everything above tier 0 is a container. The substrate
+bootstrap declares no service at all — it is package, container, action, container — so the
+44-of-44 restart policies this effort counted are the supervision, exactly as it argued.
+
+**Fate-sharing was the hard part, and it is solved the way this effort predicted.** It said any
+mesh-native supervisor inherits the problem *unless it sits outside the mesh's own process
+tree*. [ADR 0061](../../02-DECISIONS/0061-the-host-asks-an-init-for-start-and-restart.md) puts
+the launcher there: it supervises the host as a child and shares no code with it, so a host that
+cannot start is still recovered.
+
+**It is not all-or-nothing, as this effort insisted.** A human agent acts through a shell and a
+desktop, and those are on the host. So is the host itself — the one thing an init starts.
+
+## What is not closed
+
+**The automatic node rescue the documentation describes does not exist.** No unit declares
+`OnFailure=`, and nothing calls the rescue script on a timer. That is a documented behaviour
+which never happens, and it outlives this effort — filed as
+[`04-ISSUES/008`](../../04-ISSUES/008-the-documented-node-rescue-does-not-exist/00-report.md)
+rather than closed with it.

04-ISSUES/008-the-documented-node-rescue-does-not-exist/00-report.md

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+---
+status: open
+opened: 2026-08-28
+located-in: [hal]
+fixed-by:
+amended-design:
+---
+
+# 008 — The documented automatic node rescue does not exist
+
+## Symptom
+
+The mesh's documentation describes an automatic node rescue: a node that fails is recovered
+without anybody intervening. **Nothing implements it.**
+
+Found incidentally while investigating supervision
+([research 003](../../01-RESEARCH/003-service-supervision/00-overview.md)), which counted what
+actually supervises what:
+
+- **no unit declares `OnFailure=`**, so nothing runs when a unit gives up;
+- **nothing calls the rescue script on a timer**, so it runs only when a person runs it.
+
+The script exists. The thing that would invoke it does not.
+
+## Why this is worse than having no rescue
+
+A rescue nobody wrote is a gap somebody can see. A rescue that is *documented* and absent is a
+gap nobody looks for, because the documentation says it is covered — and it is read exactly when
+a node has failed and somebody is deciding whether to intervene.
+
+This is `how-we-build` §5 in its most expensive form: *an unenforced rule is indistinguishable
+from a wrong one, and costs more, because people believe it.* Here the belief is that a failed
+node recovers itself.
+
+## Scope
+
+**The as-is only.** The design being built has a different answer:
+[ADR 0061](../../02-DECISIONS/0061-the-host-asks-an-init-for-start-and-restart.md) puts recovery
+in a launcher that supervises the host, and that recovery is tested — 32 assertions, each
+confirmed to fail when the behaviour is removed.
+
+So this issue is about the mesh that runs **now**, and it has two possible resolutions rather
+than one:
+
+1. **Implement it** — an `OnFailure=` and a timer — if node rescue is wanted before the new host
+   reaches the fleet.
+2. **Delete the documentation** — and say plainly that a failed node needs a person, which is
+   what is true today.
+
+**Either is honest. Leaving it as it is, is not.** The choice turns on how far away the new host
+is, which is a scheduling question rather than a technical one.
+
+## What it would take to be sure
+
+Read back rather than assumed
+([ADR 0035](../../02-DECISIONS/0035-a-picture-is-read-from-what-runs.md)): list every unit on a
+node and grep for `OnFailure=`; list every timer and check what each one calls. The finding above
+came from reading the repository, and confirming it against a running node is the difference
+between *no unit declares this* and *no unit in the source declares this*.