Two additions from the operator, and the second answers a question this effort
had open with two bad answers.
Nothing is taken over without keeping what was there. Adoption happens on
machines somebody is already using, and the configuration being taken over is
configuration somebody chose. This is a never rule rather than a courtesy, and
it earns that by the same incident the mesh's strongest rule carries: the worst
loss in this record came from a tool acting on a path it did not own. Adoption
is that act made deliberate, which makes the safeguard obligatory.
And adoption produces a briefing, not just a result. It meets things a script
cannot decide — a runtime configured one way against a mesh wanting another, a
package pinned for a reason, local settings the mesh has no opinion about.
Silently winning is wrong in both directions and refusing outright makes a
machine in use unadoptable. So conflicts are FLAGGED: what it found, what it
took over, what it could not resolve, written to be read by a person or an agent
as the first thing a session on that node has to work with.
That is the declaration parser's principle at a larger scale — name every
problem at once, to somebody who can act on it.
The question it turns on is recorded rather than assumed away: are flags
advisory or blocking? A briefing nobody opens is worse than a failure, because
the machine is in service and the record says it went well — 04-ISSUES/003
again. Working position: the node is usable and the mesh KNOWS it has unresolved
adoption questions, as a state something can ask about rather than a document in
a log directory. What that state prevents is undecided.
jschoubben
60736199a4