A whole-mesh push refused outright the moment any single node failed to resolve:
every node was composed first, and one entry in `refusals` returned "nothing was
sent" before the send loop ran. So on the ADR 0056 lab, one module on the anchor
requiring a provision nobody had assigned a provider for — `nothing provides
"acme-ca", wanted by route-proxy` — stopped every OTHER machine from being sent
anything. Nothing converged anywhere, and the machines that went unconverged were
the ones with nothing wrong with them. The failure and the punishment were on
different machines.
This is the rule a92c11b established one level down, where an un-hostable module
stopped taking down the healthy modules beside it, applied one level up: the blast
radius of a fault is the thing that has it. A node whose declaration composes is
sent; a node whose does not is named, with its reason, and the push still ends
non-zero — skipping is not succeeding, and a command that exits cleanly having
missed a machine is a command that lies. The message now says how many machines
WERE sent, because "nothing was sent" was the claim that had become untrue.
sendTo keeps its all-or-nothing rule, and its comment now says that push
deliberately does not share it: a rotation reaching the consumer and refusing on
the provider leaves one end holding a credential the other has never heard of,
which is a real coupling between two named machines. A whole-mesh push has no such
coupling and never did.
Composing is split out of pushCommand so the rule can be tested without a broker
and a database.
novox/hq ADR 0056
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LrgweAeERJYBg88c5cKDzF
