hq/00-META/checks/README.md

Checks

python3 00-META/checks/records.py      structure: links, citations, supersession, topics
python3 00-META/checks/index.py        every record's topic is in the reading order, and no list of records is stored
python3 00-META/checks/index.py --print  the records, by topic, in reading order (generated, never written)
python3 00-META/checks/words.py        the glossary's retired words are not used, and no word is defined twice
python3 00-META/checks/words.py --list tools   the words the catalogue's copy must list

Non-zero exit on any problem, so it can be a gate rather than a report.

Why this exists. Until now nothing in this repository was verified by anything but reading, which is how a superseded decision stayed live in the constitution for days and in 01-to-be/README.md alongside it. Both were found by a person looking. how-we-build §5 says an unenforced rule is indistinguishable from a wrong one, and costs more, because people believe it — this repository was carrying several.

Every check here failed on something real before it passed. A check that has never failed is indistinguishable from one that cannot.

Check	Asserts	Found
links	every relative link resolves	— (run ad hoc during authoring; now permanent)
rests-on	decisions: and extends: name records that exist and are accepted	the class behind both incidents
live-citation	a governing document citing a superseded record names its replacement in the same paragraph	01-to-be/README.md citing ADR 0022 as live guidance
supersession	if A says it was superseded by B, B says it supersedes A	ADR 0012 never declared that it superseded 0011
numbering	the number in the filename is the number in the heading	—
topics	every record names a topic of the reading order in 02-DECISIONS/README.md	—
(index.py)	the reading order is written, every record's topic is one of it, and the README stores no list of records (ADR 0248)	a stored list made every two open decisions conflict (issue 297); it failed on the README of main before the list was removed
status-vs-code	a to-be document naming specific code is not still designed	ten documents, several with a What was built section, describing lab-proven code

What is deliberately not checked

• 02-DECISIONS/ and 01-RESEARCH/ may cite superseded records freely. A decision record discusses history; research records what was observed. Flagging those would produce noise on correct documents, and a check that cries wolf gets suppressed — which costs more than not having it.
• 03-DESIGN/00-as-is/ may rest on a superseded record. It describes what runs, and what runs was built under whatever was decided at the time (ADR 0006: as-is describing a superseded decision is exactly what as-is is for).
• Whether a citation's prose is still true. Only whether the record it points at is live. A document can cite an accepted record and describe it wrongly, and nothing here notices.

So "governing" means 00-META/ and 03-DESIGN/01-to-be/ — the documents that tell somebody what to do.

Adding a check

State what incident it would have caught, and make it fail before you make it pass. A check whose failure has never been observed is a guess about its own correctness.

cycle.py

The development cycle, checked (ADR 0080): a to-be design names a decision, an in-progress/implemented design names its owning code, a located/fixed issue names its owner, a fixed/resolved issue says what fixed it, a graduated research overview says what it became, and no two issue records share a number (issue 155 — the number is how a record is cited, and main lags every open pull request, so two people reading it allocate the same one). And a core issue — one opened from 2026-10-07 whose located-in names a core repository — resolves only with replay: (an id in mesh-lab's replays register) or replay-none: saying why none is possible (ADR 0237); it failed on a resolved core issue carrying neither before it passed. And an accepted record that puts work off — "until renamed", "left for later", "deferred", "a later change" — names the issue that tracks it, in that paragraph or in a dated progressive insight that says what it tracks (issue 354: ADR 0244 deferred the code renames with no issue, and two days later the operator believed them done). Held to it: a record dated from 2026-10-09, and an older one corrected under the rule. Measured from ADR 0244's date it found deferrals without an issue in ADR 0241, 0244 and 0270; held from 2026-10-09 it failed on 0270, and on 0244 once its insight brought it under the rule, before each named its issue. python3 00-META/checks/cycle.py

words.py

One word per thing, checked (ADR 0244). It reads the glossary's Not: lines (the retired words, each with its scope) and Identifier until renamed lines, and fails on a retired word or a bare identifier in running prose — what is left once code, quotations, struck-through text, link targets, comments and frontmatter are taken out — in 00-META/, 03-DESIGN/, AGENTS.md, README.md, and research and issues dated from 2026-10-07. Decision records are never checked. It also fails when a glossary head word heads two entries or is also retired. words-allowed.md names a document that could not be reworded at once, with a date, or a graduated research effort kept as written. With MESH_CATALOG_DIR set it compares the catalogue's copy of the tools' retired words (retired-words) with the glossary.

It failed on something real before it passed: 581 uses of retired words in 63 documents on its first run, besides the glossary itself and research 034 — "the host" for the node-engine in 30 designs, "control plane" in 10, the glossary's own entry for the tool runner — and two glossary contradictions (the "console", the deprecated broker's seat), fixed in the change that added it. A retired word's plural (s or es on its last word) is matched as the word: until 2026-10-07 it was not, so "alerts", "rollouts" and "the hosts" (the node-engines) passed while their singulars failed; the plural failed on 15 uses in 10 documents before it passed. A verb that reads like a plural ("a node hosts") is a finding too, and is reworded. Homonyms (plan, gate, tier, ask, store, record, check) are not checked by it: a word list cannot tell one sense from another, so they are reviewed.