Two refusals the first live connections met. A user in the MESH account was told
"JetStream not enabled for account" the first time it bound a consumer: with
accounts defined, JetStream is enabled per account, not only globally — the
account's setting, which the mesh owns, not the server's block, which it does not.
And the control plane's client used a random inbox prefix where it is granted
exactly _INBOX.<its user>.>, so the server's first answer could not reach it. The
prefix now follows from the user in the URL, for every principal that dials so.
The bus presents the mesh's own certificate, which names nothing a public verifier
accepts; the client verified by name and failed against a bus that was answering
("certificate is not valid for any names", 2026-09-28). It now pins the leaf's
fingerprint from MESH_BROKER_CERTIFICATE, as every host does. And a connection
error named the whole URL, password included — the address alone now.
The other implementation behind the seam, so the store-window guarantee now has
both: one loop, one message at a time, the same window deciding. What differs is
where a held message lives, and that is the whole point of the move — the AMQP
side keeps an unacknowledged delivery in this process, bounded by the prefetch
and lost if the controller stops; this keeps eight bytes saying when the window
opened, and the message stays the server's.
Checked against a running server, seven claims that reasoning cannot answer: a
report is heard and leaves the work queue; one the store cannot take is naked
with a delay, stays in the stream, and is recorded when the store returns; one
about a superseded declaration is settled without being acted on; one the store
never takes is let go once the bound passes; a heartbeat is heard and nothing is
persisted; and the enrolment answer reaches the address the request carried in
its payload — the test design 25 §2 asks for, so the reason for that field
cannot quietly become folklore.
Three things the wiring forced into the open:
**The controller could not have consumed a module event.** Its permissions
granted no event subject to subscribe and no ack subject on the events stream,
so every announcement would have been redelivered for ever, refused by the list
it already had. Both narrow: each followed subject named, not `mesh.mod.*.>`.
**The controller's consumers are not derived.** It files no manifest, so its
authority cannot come from a declaration that does not exist; they sit beside the
mesh's own streams and are asserted the same way. No max-deliver on CONTROL —
the window's bound is the controller's, and a server that dead-lettered first
would discard the push the stream exists to protect.
**Channels, not callbacks.** The library would run a handler on its own
goroutine, and the window's bookkeeping is unlocked because the AMQP loop never
had two.
Task 3.9's other half and 1.4's missing client. The derivation is pure and
unit-tested; only "does the server accept this" needs one running, behind
MESH_TEST_NATS so the ordinary suite stays offline.
A seat's work queue is created at registration, not assignment, so work
queues until a holder appears — a stream created at assignment would make
"the holder is not here yet" mean "your messages are gone". Named after the
seat, because the holder can change and the queued work must not care.
A holder's worker uses a queue group even though the seat guarantees one
holder: the seat is authority, the queue group is delivery, and tying them
together means the day somebody allows two holders every message is
processed twice with nothing reporting it.
One consumer per module carrying every filter, because its ack permission is
derived from its name.
And a real bug the live server caught: a durable name may not contain a dot,
but an ack subject is $JS.ACK.<stream>.<consumer>, so the single string that
read correctly inside the permission was rejected as a consumer name. Split
in two, beside the permission that has to match. Unfixed, the symptom would
have been every message redelivered forever with a permission list that
looks right — which is the failure design 25 §4 warns about.
jschoubben