The mesh runs on the seat's bus alone (novox/hq ADR 0131, design 28 task 5.5). The old
transport's consume loop, build request, tool ask, management API and account scoping are
deleted, and the bus switch with them; the controller connects to the broker seat and to
nothing else. The store-window tests keep their assertions on a bus-less fake, and the tests
that only made sense for the old transport's in-memory holding go with it.
The seams were there and nothing chose a side: serve, push, ask and build all
opened the old bus's connection and declared over its channel, whatever
MESH_BUS_NATS said. So the switch moved every host and left the control plane
unable to follow — "this control plane has no MESH_BROKER_AMQP" with the new bus
named and standing (2026-09-28). That was task 4.3 of design 28, still open.
One place now decides: connectLink reads the switch, refuses both buses named at
once, raises the new bus's streams and this controller's consumers when it is
handed the inventory, and opens the link over whichever bus it is on. Every
caller that sent a declaration or asked a tool through the old channel goes
through the server's bus instead, which the new transport has and the channel is
not. OverNats is that outbound: a declaration is a JetStream publish into the
node's own subject, an event is announced on the subject its name derives to, a
tool is request and reply on the module's tool subject.
A module serves tools under an account scoped to exactly that, and nothing else in
the mesh held an account that could ask one. The control plane does: ask publishes
on the RPC exchange with a private reply queue bound under its own name, checks the
correlation, prints the answer, and exits non-zero for a tool that answered with an
error or a module that never answered (novox/hq 04-ISSUES/049, ADR 0095).
jschoubben