A node-scope provider that answers a requirement on the same machine and
serves connection facts (a port) but mints no credential delivered
nothing to a co-located consumer. resolve.go only built the delivering
Needed when brokered[want] was set — true only for mesh-scope providers;
a node-scope keyless provider set local[want] instead and fell through,
so knownFor saw no binding and boundInto refused the consumer's
${bound:model-access:port} file.
Deliver the served facts as a need whenever the same-node answer serves a
non-empty set, with a loopback fallback for the address when the node is
off the private network — the reachability rule does not apply to two ends
on one machine. The brokered (credentialed, mesh-scope) path is untouched.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LrgweAeERJYBg88c5cKDzF
The pass that answers *what does this node offer* takes a failed resolution to
mean it learned nothing about that node. So refusing an unanswerable
requirement there made the machine disappear — and every other machine was then
told, wrongly, that the two of them shared no private network.
A wrong answer about a machine nobody asked about, caused by a fault on a
third. The lab found it: one module needing a licence that had not been added
yet made two unrelated machines look disconnected.
The second pass still refuses it, where the question is actually being asked.
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