Archived
jschoubben
87c6a56b81
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.