diff --git a/DECISIONS.md b/DECISIONS.md index 486af8d..85c194f 100644 --- a/DECISIONS.md +++ b/DECISIONS.md @@ -19,3 +19,30 @@ The four-action regression is a pin problem, not a policy-authoring problem. Ima TEN-WP-0006 split the actions so a PDP can read ceilings without changing them, and their tests call the read as actor=flex-auth. Leaving both actions on the single tenant-engine subject would keep the seam unused and leave the intended reader failing unknown_subject. This is a real difference: flex-auth set is denied action_not_granted. An ops write subject is out of scope; writes stay on the existing tenant-engine identity. --- + + +## Generation 2 was retired correctly; the correction matters more than the finding + +**2026-08-20.** `SHR-WP-0002`'s first draft asserted that `inter-hub` had +"retired itself by attrition", inferring it from three true observations: no +`~/inter-hub` repo, a dead CoulombCore endpoint, and a railiance01 Deployment +scaled `0/0`. + +The inference was wrong. `core-hub/workplans/archived/260708-CORE-WP-0007-haskell-retirement.md` +records that `CORE-WP-0005` closed the production cutover gates on 2026-07-03 — +`hub.coulomb.social` serving Core Hub, Inter-Hub compatibility, staging import +and dual-run smokes all closed — and that Haskell/IHP retirement followed on +2026-07-08 after a stabilization window and explicit operator approval to retire +the Inter-Hub rollback deployment. The `0/0` Deployment **is** that rollback +standby, at its designed end state. + +Recorded because the failure mode generalises: **live documents described a +retirement that had already happened, and the completed evidence was in an +archived workplan.** `core-hub/SCOPE.md` still lists cutover planning as in +scope. A reader checking current files would reach the wrong conclusion, as this +project did. Retirement evidence needs to be discoverable from the live record, +not only from the archive — a requirement that applies directly to the State Hub +retirement this project is planning. + +The real finding survived the correction and sharpened: **the gen-3 runtime +serves from the host being decommissioned.** diff --git a/WORK-RECORDS.md b/WORK-RECORDS.md index 96885d3..b5e60ce 100644 --- a/WORK-RECORDS.md +++ b/WORK-RECORDS.md @@ -9,9 +9,16 @@ | Kind | ID | Status | Lane | Source | | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | | workplan | SHR-WP-0001 | finished | — | workplans/SHR-WP-0001-foundation.md | +| workplan | SHR-WP-0002 | proposed | — | workplans/SHR-WP-0002-predecessor-and-deployment-reality.md | | task | SHR-WP-0001-T01 | done | — | workplans/SHR-WP-0001-foundation.md | | task | SHR-WP-0001-T02 | done | — | workplans/SHR-WP-0001-foundation.md | | task | SHR-WP-0001-T03 | done | — | workplans/SHR-WP-0001-foundation.md | | task | SHR-WP-0001-T04 | done | — | workplans/SHR-WP-0001-foundation.md | | task | SHR-WP-0001-T05 | done | — | workplans/SHR-WP-0001-foundation.md | | task | SHR-WP-0001-T06 | done | — | workplans/SHR-WP-0001-foundation.md | +| task | SHR-WP-0002-T01 | todo | — | workplans/SHR-WP-0002-predecessor-and-deployment-reality.md | +| task | SHR-WP-0002-T02 | todo | — | workplans/SHR-WP-0002-predecessor-and-deployment-reality.md | +| task | SHR-WP-0002-T03 | todo | — | workplans/SHR-WP-0002-predecessor-and-deployment-reality.md | +| task | SHR-WP-0002-T04 | todo | — | workplans/SHR-WP-0002-predecessor-and-deployment-reality.md | +| task | SHR-WP-0002-T05 | todo | — | workplans/SHR-WP-0002-predecessor-and-deployment-reality.md | +| task | SHR-WP-0002-T06 | todo | — | workplans/SHR-WP-0002-predecessor-and-deployment-reality.md | diff --git a/workplans/SHR-WP-0002-predecessor-and-deployment-reality.md b/workplans/SHR-WP-0002-predecessor-and-deployment-reality.md index 29dc68d..2079d7a 100644 --- a/workplans/SHR-WP-0002-predecessor-and-deployment-reality.md +++ b/workplans/SHR-WP-0002-predecessor-and-deployment-reality.md @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ --- id: SHR-WP-0002 type: workplan -title: "Predecessor generations and deployment reality — stop retirement by attrition" +title: "Generation 3 serves from the host being decommissioned" domain: infotech repo: prj-state-hub-retirement status: proposed @@ -9,49 +9,65 @@ owner: unassigned topic_slug: state-hub-retirement created: "2026-08-20" updated: "2026-08-20" +state_hub_workstream_id: "c94c3ba1-6c31-4989-a2eb-650726add747" --- # SHR-WP-0002 — Predecessor generations and deployment reality ## The problem in one sentence -This project is retiring **generation 1** with gates, inventories and evidence, -while **generation 2 has already retired itself by attrition** and **generation 3 -runs only on a host being decommissioned** — and neither fact appears anywhere in -the project's records. +**Core Hub's production runtime — the generation-3 replacement, cut over +deliberately and correctly in July — serves from `hub.coulomb.social`, which +resolves to CoulombCore: the host being decommissioned.** No plan in any +repository accounts for that. + +## Correction to this workplan's first draft + +The first draft of `SHR-WP-0002` (2026-08-20, superseded before any task ran) +claimed generation 2 had "retired itself by attrition". **That was wrong**, and +the evidence contradicting it is in `core-hub`'s own archive: + +- `CORE-WP-0005` finished **2026-07-03**: `hub.coulomb.social` ingress serves + Core Hub; Inter-Hub compatibility, staging import, dual-run smokes, and + production cutover gates all closed. +- `CORE-WP-0007` finished **2026-07-08**: Haskell/IHP infrastructure retired, + the production Inter-Hub repo renamed/archived, `ihp-railiance-probe` + archived — after *"a short post-cutover stabilization window"* and explicit + operator approval to retire the Inter-Hub rollback deployment. + +The `inter-hub` Deployment scaled `0/0` on railiance01 is that **rollback +deployment**, held at zero exactly as the workplan describes. It is not a +lapse; it is the designed end state of a careful retirement. + +The lesson is the opposite of the one first drafted: **generation 2 was retired +well.** What nobody checked was whether the successor's runtime was standing on +durable ground. ## What was observed, 2026-08-20 -The hub lineage is stated in `core-hub/INTENT.md`: gen 1 `state-hub`, gen 2 -`inter-hub`, gen 3 `core-hub` — *"The idea was right, but the Haskell/IHP/Nix -path was too heavy for the available infrastructure."* - -| Generation | Stated position | Observed reality | +| Generation | Position | Observed | | --- | --- | --- | -| 1 — `state-hub` | Being retired by this project, under gates | Running, and what the estate actually uses hourly | -| 2 — `inter-hub` | Superseded by core-hub | **Running nowhere.** No `~/inter-hub` repo; CoulombCore endpoint does not answer; railiance01 `inter-hub` Deployment is scaled `0/0`. **No cutover evidence found** | -| 3 — `core-hub` | The replacement | Deployed **only** as `core-hub-staging` on **CoulombCore**, the host being decommissioned. No core-hub namespace or Deployment on railiance01 | +| 1 — `state-hub` | Being retired by this project, under gates | Running; what the estate uses hourly | +| 2 — `inter-hub` | Retired `CORE-WP-0005`/`0007`, Jul 2026 | Correctly gone. Rollback deployment at `0/0` as designed | +| 3 — `core-hub` | The replacement, in production since 2026-07-03 | `hub.coulomb.social` → `92.205.130.254` = **CoulombCore**. No core-hub namespace or Deployment on railiance01 | | — `hub-core` | The surviving repository (GOAL §1) | A reusable Python package, not a running service | -Three consequences follow, and none are recorded: +Three consequences, none recorded anywhere: -1. **`core-hub/SCOPE.md` still places "retiring production Inter-Hub before - migration and smoke evidence exists" out of scope**, and lists `/api/v2` - compatibility and "data migration and production cutover planning from - Inter-Hub" as in scope. Those are the words of a repo expecting to migrate off - a *running* predecessor. It is not running. Either the migration completed and - the document is stale, or **the predecessor lapsed without one** — and those - demand different responses. -2. **`inventory/capabilities.yaml` does not mention `inter-hub` at all.** The - project has assigned dispositions for State Hub capabilities but never asked - what gen 2 was to provide, so nothing records whether those capabilities are - served, moved, or simply gone. On the stated lineage the unserved set is - plausibly: **domain hubs, shared manifests, widgets, registry facts, and the - unified operator surface** — state-hub covers coordination, not those. -3. **Consumers disagree with each other.** `reuse-surface/SCOPE.md` records - "inter-hub registration disabled on hub"; `llm-connect/SCOPE.md` still lists - `inter-hub` as a *current known consumer* using an LLM bridge for interaction - federation. One is stale and no one owns the reconciliation. +1. **The gen-1 retirement is being planned onto a runtime that has no home.** + `G-HUB-RUNTIME` and `G-CORE-ABSORB` presume somewhere to absorb traffic into. + That somewhere is currently a host with a decommission date, and the gate + model does not represent that date at all. +2. **`core-hub/SCOPE.md` is stale in a way that hides this.** It still places + "retiring production Inter-Hub before migration and smoke evidence exists" + out of scope and lists `/api/v2` compatibility and "cutover planning from + Inter-Hub" as in scope — work its own archive shows finished in July. A + reader cannot tell from the live documents that the cutover already happened. +3. **`inventory/capabilities.yaml` does not mention `inter-hub`.** The migration + was real, so this is a smaller gap than first thought — but `G-DISP` still + has no record of where gen-2 capabilities went, and the estate cannot + currently answer "does anything still provide the unified operator surface?" + without reading an archived workplan. ## Why this belongs to the project and not to a child repo @@ -72,25 +88,28 @@ identifier. id: SHR-WP-0002-T01 status: todo priority: high +state_hub_task_id: "7bf75488-59c9-47ab-a2ff-6ae459dd1444" ``` -**Establish what happened to inter-hub, on evidence.** Ask `core-hub` directly: -was there a migration and cutover, or did the runtime lapse? Look for cutover -evidence, the last known good deployment, and whether `/api/v2` compatibility was -ever exercised by a real consumer. +**Done 2026-08-20 — there was a proper cutover.** `CORE-WP-0005` closed the +production cutover gates on 2026-07-03; `CORE-WP-0007` retired the Haskell/IHP +infrastructure by 2026-07-08 with operator approval and a stabilization window. +The `0/0` rollback deployment is the designed end state. -Record the answer in `DECISIONS.md`. If it lapsed, say so plainly — a project -that documents an orderly gen-1 retirement while a gen-2 retirement happened by -attrition should own that contrast rather than let it sit unstated. It is the -single most useful lesson available to the gen-1 retirement now being planned. +Remaining sub-task: record this in `DECISIONS.md` **with the correction**, so +the project's own record shows that the first reading was wrong and why. A +retirement project that misreads a completed retirement as an attrition should +keep the evidence trail for the next reader. ```task id: SHR-WP-0002-T02 status: todo priority: high +state_hub_task_id: "d2dbe425-345f-46cf-af70-0ca4b69a336e" ``` -**Extend the disposition inventory backwards to generation 2.** `G-DISP` demands +**Extend the disposition inventory backwards to generation 2.** Smaller than +first thought — the migration was real — but still unrecorded here. `G-DISP` demands that every capability reach an explicit destination or retirement decision. Applied only to State Hub, it lets gen-2 capabilities vanish unrecorded. @@ -107,12 +126,14 @@ estate intended to have, does not have, and has not decided to do without. id: SHR-WP-0002-T03 status: todo priority: high +state_hub_task_id: "3254b7d3-e319-44a6-ae63-23b0d080247a" ``` -**Reconcile the gates with deployment reality.** `G-HUB-RUNTIME` and -`G-CORE-ABSORB` presume a runtime to absorb traffic into. Today the only -core-hub runtime is `core-hub-staging` on CoulombCore, which is being -decommissioned, and `hub-core` is a package rather than a service. +**This is now the workplan's centre of gravity: get the gen-3 runtime off +CoulombCore.** `G-HUB-RUNTIME` and `G-CORE-ABSORB` presume a runtime to absorb +traffic into. That runtime is `hub.coulomb.social` on CoulombCore — production +since 2026-07-03 — plus a `core-hub-staging` tunnel to the same host. There is +no core-hub presence on railiance01, and `hub-core` is a package, not a service. Decide and record: does core-hub's runtime move to railiance01 first, or does consolidation into `hub-core` (GOAL §1) happen directly, skipping a migration to @@ -128,6 +149,7 @@ is one week old. id: SHR-WP-0002-T04 status: todo priority: medium +state_hub_task_id: "b2196340-fa22-4531-81a2-a34bc217d66c" ``` **Reconcile stated scope against reality across participating repositories.** @@ -144,6 +166,7 @@ files from here — the project's authority is the ledger, not the prose. id: SHR-WP-0002-T05 status: todo priority: medium +state_hub_task_id: "2b97a7c5-f877-4020-ba83-8eb00c3690e6" ``` **Sweep the downstream lanes that outlived their subject.** A retired generation @@ -165,6 +188,7 @@ memory. id: SHR-WP-0002-T06 status: todo priority: medium +state_hub_task_id: "9b390f80-1cbb-4485-a958-14b0e24a0b26" ``` **Add a generation-transition gate, so this cannot recur.** The project has gates @@ -184,5 +208,9 @@ decision route rather than adding it unilaterally. - `architecture/retirement-gates_v0.1.md` — `G-DISP`, `G-CORE-ABSORB`, `G-HUB-RUNTIME` - `inventory/capabilities.yaml` — the gen-1 rollup this extends - `core-hub/INTENT.md` — the stated lineage +- `core-hub` `CORE-WP-0005` / archived `CORE-WP-0007` — the July cutover and + Haskell retirement, the evidence that corrected this workplan's first draft +- `core-hub` `CORE-WP-0010` — runtime absorption into `hub-core`, all tasks + `todo`; the likely vehicle for T03 - `issue-core` `ISSUE-WP-0007` — the CoulombCore migration precedent - ops-warden `inter-hub-bootstrap-ssh` — a lane outliving its subject