jschoubben
b4904fec7e
The lab was designed around a module under test, with a scenario being a complete mesh — forge, coordinator, cascade, verify. That is unusable for building the new mesh, because all four are tier 2 and do not exist yet. And research 009 had the sequence backwards. It placed the lab at phase B as verification of tiers already built, but tier 0 is the component that takes over a machine's packages, services and network. It cannot be developed against a machine anyone needs. The lab has to exist before the thing it will test. ADR 0029 splits scenarios into two classes. The bootstrap scenario is virtual machines, the host binary and a pinned bundle, with the verdict coming from what the host reports about the state it reconciled. The full scenario is the designed one. The first is a strict subset of the second — same virtualisation, same networking, same lifecycle, stopping before a control plane exists — so the second is reached by addition rather than rework. The consequence worth having: raising a node from nothing stops being the least-exercised path in the system and becomes the inner development loop. It also settles the runner's two jobs. Scenario lifecycle is needed immediately, because something must materialise and reset a mesh before anything can be written against it. Assertion execution waits for the full scenario. Corrects a stale claim in the design while amending it: it argued scenarios were affordable with system containers and would not be with virtual machines. ADR 0016 superseded that reasoning and the text had not followed. Issue 007: the lab's first requirement is installed and unusable. The virtualisation package is present and explicitly installed; both units are disabled, the operator is in no group, and the client reports the server unreachable. Not issue 001 again — that is an install failing while reporting success. This is an install succeeding when success was not the point. A package is files; a capability is a running service and an identity permitted to reach it, and the module model has no vocabulary for the second.
04-ISSUES
The front door for "something is wrong" at the level of the mesh's design or governance. Diagnosis happens here, where the whole mesh is in view; the fix lands in the owning code repository.
What belongs here
| Belongs here | Belongs in the knowledge base |
|---|---|
| The design permits a failure to be silent | How to fix one occurrence of it |
| A documented rule is enforced by nothing | A command that works around it |
| A stated invariant is false in practice | A node-specific quirk |
| The owner is unknown and finding it needs the whole mesh in view | Symptom → fix, once the answer is known |
The knowledge base already holds the operational record and is indexed on symptoms. This folder is not a second copy of it. An issue here is a question HQ must answer; an entry there is an incident someone must clear. An issue whose answer is a general lesson belongs in both.
Structure
NNN-short-name/
00-report.md the symptom as observed, with the evidence; status in frontmatter
01-diagnosis.md the investigation trail, dated, including what was ruled out
Frontmatter, on 00-report.md
---
status: open | diagnosing | located | resolved | wontfix
opened: YYYY-MM-DD
located-in: [] # owning repo(s) or module(s), filled by diagnosis
fixed-by: # pull request or commit reference, filled at resolution
amended-design: # design doc path, when the root cause was a design gap
---
Rules
- Anyone may open an issue. No localisation is required to report one.
- The full flow is playbook
00-META/process/03-issues.md. - Closed issues are never deleted — they are the mesh's symptom-to-component memory.
wontfixis legitimate and requires a sentence saying why.