jschoubben
ddfd62edf6
A grant is four facts and a credential — the provision, the machine, the port, and who the consumer is when it connects — and it is the whole mechanism by which anything in the mesh reaches anything else. The mesh asserted it and never found out whether it was true. Issue 145 is what that cost: eleven hours of 'every module current with its source' while a module could not reach its database. The consumer verifies it, from its own network position. Not the control plane, which reaches the address by a path no consumer uses. Not the machine, whose own packets carried a source address the filter admitted while every container's was refused — so a host-side check would have passed throughout the outage it exists to catch. That is inference from the rule that was loaded, stated as such. A connection and nothing more; speaking each provision's protocol would be a second implementation of every provision. One failure is not news, only consecutive ones, and the count is reported rather than the last attempt. A consumer that is not running reads unchecked, which is a different sentence from broken. What it costs to be wrong is the constraint on all of it: a check that calls a working provision broken trains a reader to ignore the report.
03-DESIGN
The authoritative specification. Implementation is built against what is written here.
Two layers
| Folder | What it is |
|---|---|
00-as-is/ |
The mesh that exists today. Shipped behaviour, described as it is — including behaviour nobody would choose again. |
01-to-be/ |
The mesh being built toward. Every statement traceable to a record in 02-DECISIONS/. |
They are never mixed. A statement about the future does not belong in an as-is document, and an as-is document is never edited to describe an intention.
When a to-be design ships, it does not move. Its as-is counterpart is written or updated,
the to-be document's status becomes implemented, and both stand — one describing what runs,
the other recording what was intended. Deleting the intention loses the reasoning, which is
the expensive half.
Frontmatter
Every design document (not the READMEs) carries:
---
layer: as-is | to-be
status: designed | in-progress | implemented | abandoned
code: [] # owning code repo(s), from 00-META/repos.md
updated: YYYY-MM-DD # date of the last status change, not of text edits
decisions: [] # 02-DECISIONS/ records this document rests on
---
For an as-is document, status: implemented is the normal state — it describes something that
runs — and code: names where that implementation lives.
Status changes when implementation state changes, never because design text was edited. An
implemented claim must be defensible from the owning repository's main branch, not from
intent. If it cannot be checked, it is in-progress.
Cross-cutting views are generated from this frontmatter by the hq-status skill and never
written to disk.
What belongs here
Functional analysis, architectural description, and specification — prose and diagrams
only, no code. A manifest field may be named; a manifest may not be pasted. A document
enters the to-be layer only after the decision behind it is recorded in 02-DECISIONS/
and the research that produced it is closed.
Subfolders are encouraged where a layer grows enough to need them.