04-ISSUES/001-failed-package-install-reports-success/00-report.md

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 ---
-status: open
+status: resolved
 opened: 2026-08-22
-located-in: []
+located-in: [mesh-host]
-fixed-by:
+fixed-by: mesh-host — a package is read back from the package database after installing
 amended-design:
 ---
 
@@ -47,3 +47,18 @@ This is an instance where it was never applied.
 - Is this specific to package installation, or does the surrounding stage swallow every
   non-zero exit?
 - The fix has been open for two days. What is the review path for a change of this class?
+
+## How it is answered
+
+*2026-08-31.* **The host reads the package database back after installing**, and refuses when it
+does not have the package:
+
+> `<name> was installed without error and the package database does not have it`
+
+That is the general rule this issue is one instance of, and the host applies it to everything it
+does: a command exiting zero says a transaction was *accepted*, not that the machine changed. The
+same read-back is why a container that starts and immediately dies fails an apply, and why a
+service asked to run is checked rather than assumed.
+
+HAL keeps the fault until its provisioning is switched off. Fixing it there would mean
+implementing the read-back twice, in the system being replaced.

04-ISSUES/002-stale-package-index-fails-silently/00-report.md

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 ---
-status: open
+status: resolved
 opened: 2026-08-22
-located-in: []
+located-in: [mesh-host]
-fixed-by:
+fixed-by: mesh-host — a stale package index is named rather than reported as a failed install
 amended-design:
 ---
 
@@ -38,3 +38,29 @@ the job is green.
   versions — or is an index sync part of the install step?
 - A partial sync is unsafe on the platform in use; a full upgrade is the only sanctioned fix.
   Does that make index freshness a scheduled node concern rather than a pipeline one?
+
+## How it is answered
+
+*2026-08-31. It was present in the replacement too, which is why this is a fix rather than a note
+saying the new mesh does not have it.*
+
+**The failure is named.** A machine asking for a version the mirrors have replaced now says so, and
+says what fixes it — a full upgrade of the machine.
+
+**It is deliberately not fixed by synchronising.** `pacman -Sy <pkg>` installs a package built
+against libraries the machine does not have: a partial upgrade, unsupported on this distribution,
+which surfaces much later as something apparently unrelated. That is a decision about the whole
+machine, and a host that made it silently while applying one resource would be taking a large
+decision in a small place.
+
+So the host distinguishes the two cases and leaves the decision where it belongs. **A declaration
+that is wrong and a machine that is out of date fail identically otherwise, and they are fixed in
+completely different places.**
+
+**And the package manager's own words were being thrown away** — the output was read into `_`, so
+the 404s that name the cause never reached anybody. Whatever it said is now part of the failure,
+which is the rule everywhere else here and was not being followed in the one place where the reason
+exists only in the output.
+
+*Checked by a stale-index failure being named as one, an ordinary missing package not being, a
+single mirror timing out not being, and a successful install still saying nothing.*

04-ISSUES/012-a-scenario-machine-is-too-small-for-four-images/00-report.md

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 ---
-status: open
+status: resolved
 opened: 2026-08-30
 located-in: [mesh-lab]
-fixed-by:
+fixed-by: mesh-lab — scenario machines stay at 1 GiB, and the scenario now stocks seven images
 amended-design:
 ---
 
@@ -68,3 +68,21 @@ another machine.
 A scenario raised with four images comes up and passes the assertions that three do — which is
 what was never actually established. Until then the artifact-store test is not in the shared
 scenario, with a note saying where it went and why.
+
+## Resolved
+
+*2026-08-31.* The condition this report set was *a scenario raised with four images comes up and
+passes the assertions that three do*. The scenario now stocks **seven** and has raised cleanly
+many times over, with the machines at 1 GiB where the wrong diagnosis had put them at 2.
+
+So both halves are settled. **The memory increase was the cause** — reverted, and never
+reintroduced. **A fourth image was never the problem**, which this report said had not been
+demonstrated either way, and now has been: three more were added on top of it, and the artifact
+store the issue said was blocked is proven in the shared scenario rather than kept out of it.
+
+**The diagnostic that came out of it is what remains valuable.** The readiness check prints what it
+saw before giving up, which is what turned *the database is slow* into *the container is not
+running*. It has since caught a different fault of the same shape — an action succeeding into a
+state its own verify rejects
+([04-ISSUES/017](../017-an-action-succeeded-into-a-state-its-verify-rejects/00-report.md)) — which
+is the argument for keeping a good diagnostic after the incident that prompted it is gone.