One name per thing, per the HQ glossary: the module/container/image/binary/repo
becomes mesh-controller, the seat the-controller, and the store+broker pair the
foundation (embedded base bundles, default template and example lock renamed with
their go:embed directives). No behaviour change — a pure vocabulary rename.
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01D6qtiYU3P9jk3pnAXyAFyx
A node says it is there every minute and describes what it applied rarely,
and both went through Heard, which wrote every one down as a report. So a
bare alive replaced the node's last real apply with an empty one -- clearing
the declaration digest `current` is measured against, the carried ports a
push assigns around, and the clean-or-failed outcome. A node that had just
caught up read as behind within the minute, and never converged.
Whether it converged in time was a race the node's own apply set: the link's
one loop applies a declaration to completion before it can send the pending
heartbeat, so a fast apply (catalogue-small) leaves the digest standing the
~60s until the next beat -- long enough for the lab to see `current` -- while
a heavy wave whose apply outran the first beat (mongodb + unifi + marrytts)
had the alive fire milliseconds after the report and never showed `current`
at all, timing out settle even at 1200s.
Heard now returns after moving last_seen for a report that carries no account
of what the machine did -- nothing applied, nothing refused, nothing failed,
which is exactly a bare alive. A real report always carries one. This is what
the commit that began hearing alives said it did and did not: "a bare word
that a node is there moves last_seen and touches nothing else."
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01LrgweAeERJYBg88c5cKDzF
A node reports back after applying a declaration: it worked, some of it
failed, or the whole thing was refused. A refusal or a failure moved
last_seen and the reason went to a log line — so "which machine is not
doing what it was told" had no answer the next morning, which is the
question a mesh exists to answer.
Refused and failed are kept as different things, because they are
different situations with different remedies: refused means the machine
is exactly as it was and what is wrong is in what was sent; failed means
it is in a state nobody declared and what is wrong is on the machine. One
word for both would make the record say less than the node did.
One row per node, replaced. The question is the machine's current state —
"this failed an hour ago and then succeeded" is not a machine anybody
needs to look at, and a table of every report would bury the ones that
matter under the ones that do not.
`status` now answers three questions in the order somebody asks them: is
anything broken, is anything not answering, is anything out of date. The
first has consequences now, the third is a plan for later, and a status
leading with the third would bury the first. A machine that has never
spoken is reported as quiet rather than as broken — new, switched off and
unreachable are not the same as tried and could not.
The mapping from a report to an outcome had no test at all, which the
injection caught: it is the code deciding which of those situations a
machine is in. It has four now, including that a partial report never
becomes the account of what the machine holds — the fault that destroyed
a substrate once.
jschoubben