<divclass="wrap"><header><divclass="eyebrow"><span>CUST-ADR-011</span><spanclass="stat">proposed · draft-2</span><span>the-custodian</span><span>reviewed 2026-08-17</span><span>generated from canonical source — do not edit</span></div><h1>Federated Namespaces</h1><pclass="sub">Source: <code>the-custodian · canon/architecture/adr-011-federated-namespaces-and-reconciliation-limits.md · f9435cd605cc5b3cb0f2e957ce6287d9f3129aac</code></p><pclass="sub">Review due: 2027-02-17</p></header><divclass="layout"><navclass="rail"aria-label="Sections"><ol><li><ahref="#status"><spanclass="n">·</span>Status</a></li><li><ahref="#context"><spanclass="n">·</span>Context</a></li><li><ahref="#decision"><spanclass="n">·</span>Decision</a></li><li><ahref="#reconciliation-tiers-and-where-automation-stops"><spanclass="n">·</span>Reconciliation tiers, and where automation stops</a></li><li><ahref="#consequences"><spanclass="n">·</span>Consequences</a></li><li><ahref="#open-question"><spanclass="n">·</span>Open question</a></li><li><ahref="#references"><spanclass="n">·</span>References</a></li></ol></nav><main><sectionid="status"><h2>Status</h2>
<p>Proposed, draft-2. Amends <code>ADR-007</code> decisions 1 and 2; extends <code>ADR-010</code> decision 4; adopts the plane/ladder/posture form and the accuracy-not-altitude conformance rule from <code>ADR-008</code> (Multi-Tenancy Framework).</p>
</section>
<sectionid="context"><h2>Context</h2>
<p>The ecosystem must be <strong>federation-capable</strong> — able to work without a live link to central services — and <strong>chain-of-command efficient</strong>. <code>federated-organization-standard_v1.0</code> already resolves the organizational half:</p>
<divclass="rule-quote"><p>global coherence is achieved through policy, escalation, and shared protocols rather than through monolithic control (<code>:51</code>) bounded autonomy plus disciplined coordination (<code>:86</code>)</p></div>
<p>Authority is a <strong>policy</strong> layer; availability is a <strong>mechanism</strong>. Distributed version control makes the same separation: an integration branch is privileged by agreement, never by a technical property.</p>
<p><strong>One accepted decision violates this.</strong><code>ADR-007</code> decision 1 requires running numbers that are <em>globally</em> unique and allocated forward only. Global sequential allocation requires a coordinator — precisely the central dependency federation must survive. Two disconnected forks each allocating <code>RCLUSTER-WP-0015</code> is a certainty, not an edge case.</p>
<p>This is not hypothetical. Instance-per-client tenancy (<code>CUST-WP-0058</code>) already makes every client deployment a fork of the stack; the business model committed to forking before the identifier scheme could express it.</p>
<h3>Why this draft changed form</h3>
<p>Draft-1 stated federation as a set of binary rules — notably "records fork, effects do not". That is a single verdict where a graduated declaration belongs, and it is the same conflation <code>ADR-008</code> §03 diagnoses for multi-tenancy: <em>"'Is this multi-tenant?' is treated as one question. It is four, and they are independent."</em></p>
<p>"Is this federation-capable?" is likewise not one question. A namespace can be strong on identity and incapable of disconnected operation; it can operate disconnected and have no way to reconcile afterwards. Draft-1 could not say so.</p>
<p>This draft reuses <code>ADR-008</code>'s vocabulary rather than inventing a parallel one. Two competing maturity vocabularies in one canon would be its own collision.</p>
</section>
<sectionid="decision"><h2>Decision</h2>
<p><strong>1. Records live in a namespace.</strong> A namespace is a federated branch of the ecosystem — a fleet instance, a client deployment, an autonomous domain that may operate disconnected. It is the unit of sovereignty in FOS terms and the unit of divergence here.</p>
<p><strong>2. Federation is four orthogonal planes.</strong></p>
<divclass="scroll"><table><thead><tr><th>Plane</th><th>Question</th><th>Vocabulary owner</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Namespace <strong>N</strong></td><td>How are records named and disambiguated across branches?</td><td>this ADR</td></tr><tr><td>Autonomy <strong>U</strong></td><td>Can work proceed with no link to central services?</td><td>repo-manager</td></tr><tr><td>Reconciliation <strong>R</strong></td><td>What happens when branches meet again?</td><td>repo-manager</td></tr><tr><td>Substrate <strong>S</strong></td><td>Does this namespace hold independently diverging operational state?</td><td>railiance-platform</td></tr></tbody></table></div>
<p><strong>3. Each plane carries a ladder.</strong> Higher is stronger, not better. The right level is the one a namespace can evidence and its risk warrants.</p>
<pre>N0 no namespace concept; identifiers assume one global space
N1 namespace implied by deployment, never recorded
N2 namespace declared; identifiers namespace-scoped; qualification available
N3 N2 + lineage recorded, and derived identifiers keyed on (namespace, identifier)
U0 routine work requires the central service
U1 degraded read-only; writes blocked while disconnected
U2 work proceeds locally: file-derived state written to files, hub-native buffered
U3 U2 + exercised — a dated disconnection drill with evidence
R0 no defined path; divergence is unrecoverable
R1 manual, per-record comparison and hand resolution
R2 append-only events plus derived state: union and re-derive, deterministic
R3 R2 + lineage-aware; distinguishes divergence from collision automatically
S0 shares operational substrate with another namespace — cannot fork safely
S1 shared substrate, namespace-keyed
S2 dedicated substrate, no independent state divergence yet
S3 independent operational substrate with diverged state — the fork is real</pre>
<p><strong>4. A namespace declares a posture vector</strong>, in the repository rather than the hub, consistent with <code>ADR-010</code> decision 4 (file-derived state) and <code>ADR-008</code> decision 5.1.</p>
<pre>federation:
current: { N: 1, U: 1, R: 1, S: 1 }
target: { N: 3, U: 2, R: 2, S: 1 }
reviewed: "2026-08-18"
gap:
U: "Registration requires the registrar under ADR-007 decision 2 interim.
Lifts when derived identifiers land (RMGR-WP-0005-T03)."</pre>
<p><strong>The ecosystem's own posture today is <code>N1 U1 R1 S1</code></strong> — one implied namespace, disconnected registration blocked, reconciliation manual, substrate shared. Declaring that is conformant. Claiming better is not.</p>
<p><strong>5. Conformance is accuracy, not altitude.</strong> Adopted verbatim in force from <code>ADR-008</code> §06: a namespace is conformant when its declared posture is accurate, its target recorded, and it claims no level it cannot evidence. It is non-conformant when it overclaims, at any altitude.</p>
<p>Declaring <code>S0</code> is conformant. Concealing <code>S0</code> is not. A repository may join at any posture; it may not join silently. This matters more here than it does for tenancy: the cost of discovering a true posture during reconciliation is the whole difference between T2 and T3.</p>
<p><strong>6. Identifiers are unique within a namespace, qualified across.</strong><code>ADR-007</code> decision 1 is amended: uniqueness and forward-only allocation are <strong>namespace-scoped</strong>. Global identity is the pair <code>(namespace, identifier)</code>.</p>
<pre>RCLUSTER-WP-0015 this namespace — the common case, unchanged
RCLUSTER-WP-0015@railiance01 a foreign namespace, explicitly qualified</pre>
<p>Unqualified always means "in my own namespace", exactly as <code>main</code> does against <code>origin/main</code>. A suffix preserves existing sorting, grep, and tooling; a prefix would break them.</p>
<p><strong>7. Derived identifiers key on the pair.</strong><code>ADR-007</code> decision 2 (C2) derives UUIDv5 from the identifier. Under federation the input must be <code>(namespace, identifier)</code>. Deriving from the identifier alone would make two forks holding unrelated work under the same number compute the <em>same</em> UUID — a collision manufactured by the fix. C2 is not yet built, so this is free now and expensive later.</p>
<p><strong>8. The planes couple at their upper levels. State the coupling; do not use it to argue the planes are one.</strong></p>
<ul><li><code>R3</code> requires <code>N3</code> — distinguishing divergence from collision requires lineage.</li><li>A namespace may not sustain <code>U2</code> or above while below <code>R2</code>. Operating disconnected without deterministic reconciliation accumulates divergence that cannot later be merged. Autonomy without reconciliation is not federation; it is an unplanned fork.</li><li><code>T3</code> is entailed by <code>S3</code> in any participant (decision 10).</li></ul>
<p><strong>9. Anti-overclaim.</strong> This is the most misusable fact in the framework, and it is the direct analogue of <code>ADR-008</code>'s <code>P0 → P1 → P2</code> warning.</p>
<divclass="rule-quote"><p>Adopting namespace-qualified identifiers is movement on the <strong>N plane only</strong>. It buys disambiguation, citability, and coordinator-free allocation. It does <strong>not</strong> raise autonomy, reconciliation, or substrate independence by one step. A system at <code>N3 U0 R0 S0</code> cannot operate disconnected and cannot reconcile.</p></div>
<p>No namespace may be described as "federation-capable", "independently operable", or "able to run disconnected" on N-plane evidence alone. Such a claim requires declared <code>U</code> and <code>R</code> levels with evidence behind them.</p>
<p><strong>Commercially</strong>, client-facing claims about instance independence must cite the <code>S</code> and <code>U</code> levels, never the identifier scheme. Instance-per-client tenancy is sold on substrate independence; the qualifier does not supply it.</p>
<p><strong>10. The reconciliation tier is derived from participants' postures, not judged after the fact.</strong></p>
<pre>any participant at S3 -> T3 (regardless of other planes)
all participants S<=S2 and R>=R2 -> T2 feasible
any participant below R2 -> T1 at best; manual thereafter</pre>
<p>This is the practical payoff of declaring postures: the cost of rejoining is <strong>computable before a fork is created</strong>, rather than discovered when reconciliation is attempted.</p>
<p><strong>11. Coexistence is the normal case; merging is the exception.</strong> The qualifier is primarily a coexistence mechanism, not merge preparation. Most forks — client instances above all — are never intended to return. Permanent parallel operation is a first-class outcome, not a failure to reconcile.</p>
<p><strong>12. Evidence.</strong> A claimed level requires evidence, per <code>ADR-008</code> §13.</p>
<divclass="scroll"><table><thead><tr><th>Level</th><th>Evidence</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><code>N2</code></td><td>namespace declared in the repo; qualified references resolve</td></tr><tr><td><code>N3</code></td><td>lineage fields present; a derived identifier reproduced by an independent implementation</td></tr><tr><td><code>U2</code></td><td>work completed with central unreachable, committed, later accepted without rework</td></tr><tr><td><code>U3</code></td><td>dated disconnection drill record</td></tr><tr><td><code>R2</code></td><td>replaying the union of events reproduces identical derived state</td></tr><tr><td><code>R3</code></td><td>a collision and a divergence, correctly distinguished, in test</td></tr><tr><td><code>S2</code> / <code>S3</code></td><td>substrate inventory naming the stateful systems and whether their state has diverged</td></tr></tbody></table></div>
<p><strong>13. Guard.</strong> Declared postures regress silently. Posture is checked by the same consistency machinery that checks repository standards (<code>RMGR-WP-0004-T02</code>, <code>rmgr conform</code>), so a namespace that drops below its declared level is a reported defect rather than a discovery. A regression found by guarding is a defect; a regression declared in advance is a decision.</p>
</section>
<sectionid="reconciliation-tiers-and-where-automation-stops"><h2>Reconciliation tiers, and where automation stops</h2>
<divclass="scroll"><table><thead><tr><th>Tier</th><th>Situation</th><th>Mechanism</th><th>Automatable</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>T0 Fork</strong></td><td>namespace created, lineage recorded</td><td>metadata</td><td>yes</td></tr><tr><td><strong>T1 Sync</strong></td><td>pull canon, plans, or knowledge from another namespace</td><td>append events, re-derive</td><td>largely</td></tr><tr><td><strong>T2 Reintegration</strong></td><td>records diverged, no participant above <code>S2</code></td><td>union events, re-derive, human-resolve genuine contradictions</td><td>partly</td></tr><tr><td><strong>T3 Amalgamation</strong></td><td>any participant at <code>S3</code></td><td>governed programme — see below</td><td><strong>no</strong></td></tr></tbody></table></div>
<p><strong>T3 is not a merge.</strong> It resembles the merger or acquisition of distinct companies far more than a version-control merge, and must be planned as such:</p>
<ul><li>due diligence — inventory both sides, item by item;</li><li>survivor decisions per subsystem — keep, move, replace, retire;</li><li>migration with evidence, and decommissioning of what does not survive;</li><li>governance integration — reconciling two bodies of canon is a human act, never automated;</li><li>identity, credential, and data custody consolidation.</li></ul>
<p><strong>T3 may legitimately end without integration.</strong> Permanent coexistence, or divestment, are valid outcomes. Real mergers most often fail at systems integration; an architecture that assumes eventual convergence is lying about its own limits.</p>
<h3>Known cost</h3>
<p><code>prj-state-hub-retirement</code> is a T3 reconciliation inside a <em>single</em> organization — two hub implementations, distinct infrastructure. It required a dedicated project repository, a 425-item disposition inventory (<code>SHR-INV-0001</code>), staged migration with strangler adapters, and explicit retirement gates. That is the realistic cost of T3 under the most favourable conditions possible: one owner, one canon, one credential authority.</p>
<p>Nothing here reduces that cost. Declared postures make it <strong>visible before</strong> a fork is created rather than discovered when reconciliation is attempted.</p>
</section>
<sectionid="consequences"><h2>Consequences</h2>
<p><strong>Positive.</strong> Disconnected operation stops requiring a coordinator for identity. <code>ADR-007</code> decision 1's contradiction is resolved rather than tolerated. A namespace mid-journey can describe itself honestly instead of being non-conformant. Reconciliation cost becomes computable in advance. Client instances become expressible.</p>
<p><strong>Negative.</strong> Every namespace gains a posture to declare and keep accurate, and tooling must learn qualified references. Decision 8's coupling rule constrains disconnected operation to namespaces that can reconcile — deliberately.</p>
<p><strong>Deferred.</strong> Merge machinery for T2 is <strong>not</strong> specified here and should not be built until a real fork needs it. T3 needs no machinery by definition; it needs a project repository and human judgement.</p>
<p><strong>What is the namespace boundary in practice?</strong> Candidates: a fleet instance (<code>railiance01</code>), a client deployment, or an FOS autonomous domain. FOS's recursion — "from projects to companies to foundation-like umbrella structures" — suggests namespaces <strong>nest</strong>, which would make qualification relative rather than absolute, closer to DNS than to a flat handle. The notation survives either answer, so implementation is not blocked, but the data model is unfinished until it is settled.</p>
</section>
<sectionid="references"><h2>References</h2>
<ul><li><code>canon/standards/federated-organization-standard_v1.0.md</code> — bounded autonomy, escalation, sovereignty by default, rebuildability</li><li>ADR-001 — workplans originate as repo files</li><li>ADR-007 — identifier uniqueness and derived identifiers (amended here)</li><li>ADR-008 — Multi-Tenancy Framework; source of the plane/ladder/posture form and the accuracy-not-altitude conformance rule</li><li>ADR-010 — hub authority, local cache, and the two kinds of hub data</li><li><code>CUST-WP-0058</code> — instance-per-client tenancy</li><li><code>SHR-INV-0001</code> — 425-item disposition inventory, T3 cost evidence</li><li><code>RMGR-WP-0004-T02</code> — <code>rmgr conform</code>, the guard machinery</li></ul>
