Files
hq/04-ISSUES
jschoubben bf4d4e2e7b The three parked questions are answered: 0114 accepted, 0068 superseded, 117 settled
**0114 accepted.** The separation it draws — a consumer's resource and a
credential that reaches it are different things — is a data-loss rule,
and a record naming one should not sit unresolved while the code that
could hit it is written. Not built, and accepting it schedules nothing;
accepted-and-not-built is where 0141 and 0142 already are.

**0068 superseded by 0149, the live mesh is the test bed.** Never built,
and contradicted by practice that was written down nowhere but a handoff
note. The faults that cost the most are faults of a mesh that already
exists — bound consumers, containers made against an older roster, an
adopted machine — and a bed is by construction a mesh that does not.
Issue 156 settles it: that change was verified honestly, on the only path
where it cannot fail. The lab is not retired; raising a mesh from bare is
now its whole job.

**117 answered by 0150.** A module's own code runs as supervised
processes under the module's one account. 0047's argument was for a
runtime per module, not for a container — a unit satisfies it and runs as
an account. The invariant is the account, not the process count: its
worry was a second identity to scope and seal, and processes sharing one
account create none. Designs 18 and 20 now cite it and 0047 carries a
dated pointer, which closes the third disagreement — that neither design
knew the record existed.
2026-09-30 00:39:09 +02:00
..

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.
  • wontfix is legitimate and requires a sentence saying why.