03-DESIGN/01-to-be/16-module-coverage.md

@@ -119,15 +119,16 @@ the consumer's side did not refuse, it just gave two of the three no credential.
 written to date had one consumer per node, which is the natural shape of a small test and not the
 shape of a machine.
 
-**A consumer still cannot build a connection string**
-([`023`](../../04-ISSUES/023-a-consumer-cannot-build-a-connection-string/00-report.md), open). It
-is given its own password in whatever shape its configuration needs, and the host, port and user
-name are still out of reach: the user name is invented by the provisioner and recorded nowhere,
-and the bound values sit in a JSON document that an application reading `KEY=value` cannot use.
+**A consumer could not build a connection string**
+([`023`](../../04-ISSUES/023-a-consumer-cannot-build-a-connection-string/00-report.md), fixed). It
+had its password in the right shape and the host, port and user name were out of reach: the user
+name was invented by the provisioner and recorded nowhere, and the bound values sat in a JSON
+document that an application reading `KEY=value` cannot use.
 
-The asymmetry is worth stating, because it is backwards. **The secret is the hard case** — the
-mesh must not be able to read it — and the secret is the part that now arrives. The host and port
-are ordinary facts held in the clear, and they are the ones stuck.
+The asymmetry was backwards, which is what made it worth stating. **The secret is the hard case** —
+the mesh must not be able to read it — and the secret was the part that already arrived. The host
+and port are ordinary facts held in the clear, and they were the ones stuck. Both halves came from
+the same thing: the mesh knew something and did not say it.
 
 ## What the survey found that is not about coverage
 

04-ISSUES/023-a-consumer-cannot-build-a-connection-string/00-report.md

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 ---
-status: located
+status: fixed
 opened: 2026-09-01
 located-in: [mesh-control]
-fixed-by:
+fixed-by: mesh-control 122680b
 amended-design:
 ---
 
@@ -77,3 +77,35 @@ was fixed.
 
 Keycloak, Gitea, Mailu and MinIO all have manifests that parse and resolve, and none of them can
 start. This is what stands between the module set and a running one.
+
+## Fixed
+
+Both halves had the same cause: **the mesh knew something and did not say it.**
+
+**Who a consumer is, said once.** `ConsumerIdentity(node, module)` is one derivation, sent to the
+provider in its grant and to the consumer in its binding — so the two agree by construction rather
+than by two conventions that happened to match on the day they were written. The provisioners now
+use the name they are given and **refuse to invent one** if the mesh says nothing: falling back to
+a name of their own would create a login the consumer could never guess, and everything would
+report success. They also refuse a name that does not carry the mesh's prefix, because that prefix
+is how withdrawal finds what it made.
+
+**Bound values reach the file that needs them.** `${bound:provision:key}` is the symmetric twin of
+the sealed placeholder and simpler: these values are not secret, so the control plane fills them
+in before sending, and the host gains no field and learns no format. `at`, `as` and `from` are
+true of any provision; every other key comes from what the provider said it *serves*, so the
+control plane still learns nothing about what a `postgres-database` is.
+
+Keycloak and Gitea now produce complete connection strings — asserted from the manifests on disk,
+checking that every part is filled, that no placeholder survives as a value, and that the password
+is still a hole only the host can close.
+
+### Also found, and separate
+
+The lab run that was meant to prove this failed in a way that looked like the fix being wrong: a
+rotation test could not authenticate against a real database. The cause was that the suite
+rebuilt the control plane's image and not the provisioner's, so a run with an image built that
+minute used a provisioner built the day before. Fixed in `mesh-lab`; it is
+[`005`](../005-pipeline-test-harness-unbuildable/00-report.md)'s family — a rebuild covering
+most of what a run uses is worse than one covering none, because the run that follows it is
+believed.