Work breakdown 1.2. Two sessions run on the control-plane node — the
node's own and the mesh's (novox/hq ADR 0026) — so a machine stopped
being a usable answer to "whose licence is this".
14-model-access.md called per-module-per-machine "a step toward it and
not it", and that is true of a worker: many run on one machine from one
module, so the pair cannot name them apart. It is not true of a session.
The two sessions are two modules — the same mechanism started in
different context roots, and a context root is what a module delivers —
so (node, module) tells them apart and nothing needed adding.
Checked rather than argued: different licences on one machine, each with
its own key, and a session on no licence is not handed the other's.
The third test exists because a fault injection stayed silent. The first
two put the sessions on different licences, so the licence alone
disambiguates and the module argument is never load-bearing — removing
it from the query changed nothing and everything still passed. Two
sessions on the SAME licence is the case that needs the pair to be the
identity: releasing one must leave the other, and a machine-shaped
answer takes both.
Its own store, its own test database, the same shape every other context has.
Five properties: a key with nobody to seal it to is refused rather than kept
readably; a key is sealed once per holder and the blobs differ because they are
sealed to different machines; a holder recorded afterwards has none and the
existing ones keep theirs; releasing a consumer takes its key; and a licence
nobody recorded is refused by name.
The last was the only one whose message mattered and whose message was not
checked — the database's own foreign-key error is true and mentions a
constraint, which sends somebody to read a schema instead of typing the name
they meant.
Partial sealing now says how far it got. The person holding the key is the only
one who can finish, and running it again knowing what it will do is different
from running it hoping.
novox/hq ADR 0024, gaps 1 and 2. The user's stated requirement, and the first
thing here that no machine can answer: a hosted model is on nobody's node and
is reached over the public internet, so the rule that refuses two ends sharing
no private network must not apply to it.
A licence is a named thing and the name is the operator's — *the personal
account*, *the organisation's* — because the whole point is saying which one a
given consumer uses, and an anonymous credential hanging off a provider cannot
be said. Many to many, so deliberately not a claim: two machines sharing an
account is ordinary rather than a collision.
Gap 2 is the missing verb, *accept*: take a value somebody supplied, seal it to
each holder, discard the plaintext. With the consequence stated rather than
hidden — a holder recorded after the key was supplied has no key and the mesh
cannot make one, so it is refused by name with the remedy, not silently handed
an empty file.
Refusal is felt, as the record warns: a mesh holding three ways to reach a
model refuses every consumer that has not chosen. So the refusal names the
candidates and the exact command. Being right is not the same as being usable.
Gaps 3 and 4 — a consumer that is not a machine, and switching as a reaction
rather than a declaration — remain gaps. Half-building them would put a
conditional in the declaration language, which is what ADR 0024 says plainly to
avoid.
Its own context, with its own store and its own credential: a licence is a
different aggregate from anything inventory owns, and it refers to nodes by
name because that is what crossing a context boundary may carry.
jschoubben