Publish-safe: remove two disclosures, and record Nox as the answer to 006 #3
@@ -176,8 +176,8 @@ init — without the recursion.
|
||||
|
||||
Worth noting what is *not* in this table: the dozens of `systemctl` call sites that
|
||||
configure the **host OS's own** units — NetworkManager, resolved, oomd, zram, docker.service,
|
||||
fail2ban, sshd, zfs, across `modules/asusd`, `g14-power`, `wireguard`, `sshd`, `zfs` and
|
||||
others. Those are not HAL supervising itself; they are HAL configuring an Arch box. They
|
||||
fail2ban, sshd, zfs, across the vendor-firmware and power modules, `wireguard`, `sshd`, `zfs`
|
||||
and others. Those are not HAL supervising itself; they are HAL configuring an Arch box. They
|
||||
are out of scope for every option above and do not go away under any of them.
|
||||
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -75,9 +75,9 @@ is the ceremony option 2 was rejected for.
|
||||
trigger ([ADR 0025](0025-hq-is-the-source-of-the-constitution.md)): the moment something
|
||||
outside the mesh must be governed by the same rules, product-level content moves down a level
|
||||
and this repository becomes what its name already claims.
|
||||
- A new repository was created rather than the old one transferred — the forge predates the
|
||||
transfer API. `jschoubben/hq` is left in place untouched; it is not the source of truth and
|
||||
nothing points at it.
|
||||
- A new repository was created rather than the old one transferred, because the forge predates
|
||||
the transfer API. The original was verified to contain nothing the new one lacks — every ref
|
||||
an ancestor, no tags, issues, pull requests, releases or wiki content — and then removed.
|
||||
- The mesh's own documents now live one conceptual level below the repository they are in. A
|
||||
reader arriving at `01-RESEARCH` should understand it as the mesh's research, not Novox's.
|
||||
Nothing in the folder names says so, and that is the cost of not restructuring.
|
||||
|
||||
@@ -55,3 +55,36 @@ checked it — including in the same commit that wrote the rule.
|
||||
and this content is governed rather than incidental.
|
||||
- Public repository, private mesh: the sync direction must not become a path for mesh-specific
|
||||
content to arrive **into** these documents.
|
||||
|
||||
## Proposed direction — Nox is the search
|
||||
|
||||
*Added 2026-08-23.* Rather than syncing these documents into the knowledge base, **Nox
|
||||
([ADR 0027](../../02-DECISIONS/0027-the-product-is-novox-mesh.md)) works from within this
|
||||
repository and holds its knowledge directly.** Retrieval becomes an agent reading the source,
|
||||
not a copy living in a second store.
|
||||
|
||||
This is a better answer than the one the README originally promised, on three counts:
|
||||
|
||||
- **No sync, so no drift.** The failure mode of a derived copy — the enforced copy winning
|
||||
while the reasoned one quietly stops being true — cannot occur when there is no copy.
|
||||
- **It dissolves the original objection properly.** The argument against a separate repository
|
||||
was that it adds a fourth knowledge *system*. An agent with read access adds no store at all.
|
||||
- **It is always current**, including for uncommitted work in progress.
|
||||
|
||||
**But it changes the promise, and that is worth stating rather than glossing.** ADR 0019's
|
||||
answer was that these documents would be returned *beside everything else* in a symptom search.
|
||||
An agent that must be **asked** is reachable; it is not surfacing. The two differ in exactly
|
||||
the case the operational memory is designed for: someone debugging an error who has no reason
|
||||
to think HQ knows anything about it.
|
||||
|
||||
So the open question narrows to one thing:
|
||||
|
||||
> When a symptom is searched and the answer happens to live in a design document or a decision
|
||||
> record here, does the searcher find it without already suspecting it exists?
|
||||
|
||||
If Nox is the only path, the answer is no, and the reasoning in ADR 0019 needs amending rather
|
||||
than satisfying. If Nox also contributes what it knows to a symptom search — or the search
|
||||
consults Nox — the answer is yes and the original promise holds.
|
||||
|
||||
That is a design question for Nox, not a defect in this repository, and it should be settled
|
||||
before ADR 0019 is treated as answered.
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user