# 145 — partly resolved: the report says what it is not a claim about

*2026-09-30.*

## What was done

The sentence that was true for eleven hours now states its own scope, immediately below itself:

```
4 machine(s), all doing what they were told, all heard from, running what the mesh would send
them, and every module current with its source

  That is the mesh and the machines agreeing. Nothing here dials a provision:
  no grant the mesh composed has been tested, so a module unable to reach what it
  requires would not appear above (04-ISSUES/145)
```

That is the whole of what this change does, and it is deliberately small. It does not check anything.
It closes the distance between *the machines are as the mesh described them* and *it works* by naming
it, and that distance is where the eleven hours went: the report was read as the second and only ever
meant the first.

Two other reports in this group now carry real information they did not
([issue 125](../125-a-hold-is-not-a-line-in-the-apply-report/00-report.md): a hold is a line in the
apply report and breaks the all-well sentence;
[issue 087](../087-the-controller-cannot-tell-a-host-is-too-old/00-report.md): the mesh knows which
host runs a machine). Neither would have caught this fault, and both were the same shape of blindness.

`printStatus` is now separated from the asking, so these words can be read by a test with no store, bus
or machine — they have been acted on and been misleading twice, which makes them worth holding still.

## What is NOT done, and why this record stays open

**Nothing dials a provision.** [ADR 0146](../../02-DECISIONS/0146-connectivity-is-checked-by-name-per-hosting-form.md)
decides how it should be done — a module on every machine serving an endpoint of its own and dialling
every other machine's, one name per hosting form, over TLS with the certificate verified. **Nothing is
built**, the module that existed was deleted, and the work was deferred deliberately by the operator.
It is not this record's to start.

So the measured fault of this issue — that the mesh can only report on itself — is unchanged. What
changed is that the report no longer implies otherwise.

## The open questions, where they stand

- *Should a grant be checked, and from where?* Answered by ADR 0146 and not built: from the position
  the callers are in, by a module on every machine, per hosting form.
- *What would it cost to be wrong in the other direction?* Unanswered and important. A check that
  reports a provision broken while it works trains a reader to ignore the report, which is the failure
  this whole issue is about arriving by the other door.
- *What should `status` say about a machine whose modules cannot reach each other?* Answered in part:
  until something checks, it says that it has not checked. What it says when a check exists is ADR
  0146's to settle.
- *Is there a cheaper signal than a probe?* Still open. The affected module logged the failure 6,154
  times; the mesh reads no module's logs and arguably should not, but something a module could *say*
  about its own provisions would have surfaced this in minutes.
- *Does the same blindness apply to a provider that lost a consumer's grant?* Still open, and still
  nothing checks it.

## One thing worth carrying forward

**The certificate half of ADR 0146 is now possible where it was not.** Its check requires an internal
name fetched over TLS with the certificate verified, and until 2026-09-30 no machine trusted the mesh's
authority at all ([issue 129](../129-nothing-makes-a-machine-trust-the-meshs-authority/02-resolution.md)).
Three of four do now. Whoever builds 0146 no longer has to solve that first.