prj-state-hub-retirement/workplans/SHR-WP-0002-predecessor-and-deployment-reality.md

---
id: SHR-WP-0002
type: workplan
title: "Generation 3 serves from the host being decommissioned"
domain: infotech
repo: prj-state-hub-retirement
status: proposed
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

**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The first draft of `SHR-WP-0002` (2026-08-20, superseded before any task ran)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

| Generation | Position | Observed |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 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, none recorded anywhere:

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

No single repository can see it. `core-hub` knows its own migration plan;
`llm-connect` knows its consumers; `ops-warden` knows its access lanes. Only this
project holds the cross-repository authority, the disposition inventory, and the
gates — and `G-DISP` ("full disposition inventory"), `G-CORE-ABSORB` and
`G-HUB-RUNTIME` are all currently gated on assumptions that the observations
above contradict.

Per `SCOPE.md`, this workplan **decides and inventories; it does not implement**.
Every implementation task it identifies is routed to the owning repository by
identifier.

## Tasks

```task
id: SHR-WP-0002-T01
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "7bf75488-59c9-47ab-a2ff-6ae459dd1444"
```

**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.

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.** 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.

Produce `inventory/inter-hub-disposition.yaml` in the shape of the existing
capability rollup: for each capability gen 2 was to provide — domain hubs, shared
manifests, widgets, registries, events, unified operator surface — record whether
it is **served today** (and by what), **planned** (and by whom, under which
workplan), or **dropped** (and by whose decision).

The expected output is uncomfortable and worth having: a list of things the
estate intended to have, does not have, and has not decided to do without.

```task
id: SHR-WP-0002-T03
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "3254b7d3-e319-44a6-ae63-23b0d080247a"
```

**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
a host that is itself scheduled to disappear? Sequence it explicitly **against
the CoulombCore decommission date**, which is the real constraint and is not
currently represented in the gate model.

Precedent worth reusing: `issue-core` was migrated off CoulombCore on 2026-08-19
via `ISSUE-WP-0007` and a `rapp-issue-core` package. That is the pattern, and it
is one week old.

**Routed to `core-hub` 2026-08-20; waiting on their answer.** The vehicle is
`CORE-WP-0010` (runtime absorption into hub-core, `proposed`, all tasks `todo`),
which depends on `HUB-WP-0004` — itself `proposed`, and still carrying an open
decision about whether `hub-core` stays an importable library or becomes a
library plus a permanent thin host.

**So the chain that would move production off CoulombCore bottoms out in an
unanswered architecture question.** That is a sequencing problem rather than an
implementation one, which is why it sits here and not in a child repo — but the
answer is core-hub's.

Two shapes were put to them:

- **(a) Interim move** — package Core Hub as-is onto railiance01, absorb into
  hub-core later on a calm schedule. Costs a migration that would otherwise not
  happen; buys independence from the decommission date.
- **(b) Absorb directly** — skip the interim host and let `CORE-WP-0010` /
  `HUB-WP-0004` be the migration. Cheaper in total work; couples production
  continuity to finishing an architecture decision under a hard external
  deadline.

The project does not choose between them, but records the reasoning either way.
The one position taken: **leaving it implicit is not acceptable**, because the
decommission date is a real constraint currently represented in no plan —
including this project's own gate model, which `T06` addresses.

Also asked: whether the decommission date changes `HUB-WP-0004`'s open
library-vs-thin-host decision. **Pinned 2026-08-20 by the operator: CoulombCore retires by 2026-08-31.**
Eleven days. See `DECISIONS.md`. On that constraint the project recommends the
interim move — an architecture decision plus a production migration inside
eleven days is not a plan. The choice remains core-hub's.

```task
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.**
The lineage confusion is visible in the documents: `core-hub/SCOPE.md` guards a
predecessor that is not running; `llm-connect/SCOPE.md` names a consumer
relationship that cannot exist; `ops-hub` describes itself as an extension *for
Core Hub*, a repository this project intends to retire into `hub-core`.

Produce a table of every participating repository's stated position versus
observed reality, and route each correction to its owner. Do **not** edit their
files from here — the project's authority is the ledger, not the prose.

```task
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
leaves access and credential lanes behind, and they do not expire on their own.

Known instance: ops-warden's routing catalog carries `inter-hub-bootstrap-ssh` —
`status: active`, `risk: high`, last reviewed 2026-06-24 — a bootstrap SSH
envelope for a system that runs nowhere, whose runbook points at "the ops-hub
production activation lane tracked by `CUST-WP-0049`". ops-warden cannot retire
it alone: the lane may still serve ops-hub activation independently of inter-hub's
runtime, and only this project can see both sides.

Ask each participating repository for lanes, tunnels, credentials and scheduled
jobs whose subject is a retired or lapsed generation. Route retirements to owners;
record the sweep here so the next generation change has a checklist rather than a
memory.

```task
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
for retiring State Hub deliberately. It has none that would have caught a
predecessor lapsing, or a successor running only on a host scheduled for
shutdown.

Propose `G-GEN` for `architecture/retirement-gates_v0.1.md`: no generation is
considered superseded until its capabilities carry explicit dispositions, its
consumers are reconciled, its downstream lanes are swept, and its successor is
deployed somewhere that will still exist. Take it through the project's normal
decision route rather than adding it unilaterally.

```task
id: SHR-WP-0002-T07
status: todo
priority: high
state_hub_task_id: "07636ddf-a26b-4760-8353-2532af9fd938"
```

**The registry dependency, found 2026-08-20 and not previously tracked.**
`gitea.coulomb.social` is a live container registry on CoulombCore, and two
railiance01 workloads pull images from it:
`reuse/Deployment/reuse-surface` and `state-hub/Job/state-hub-alembic-init`
(checked across Deployments, StatefulSets, DaemonSets, Jobs and CronJobs — that
is the complete set).

Nothing breaks on decommission day, because running pods already hold their
images. It breaks at the next restart, reschedule or scale-up, as
`ImagePullBackOff`.

**The two are not equally urgent** (corrected 2026-08-20 after checking each
reference's liveness):

- **`reuse-surface` — live and stale.** A running Deployment on the old
  registry, pinned to a 2026-07-07 commit and **22 commits behind** main. Its CI
  switched to forgejo three hours after that commit and has published there ever
  since; the deployment was never repointed. **This is the one that must move
  before 2026-08-31.**
- **`state-hub` — mostly a false alarm.** The Deployment is already on
  `forgejo.coulomb.social/coulomb/state-hub:main-d8808bf`. The gitea reference is
  a *completed* one-shot Job that will not re-run by itself; the residual risk is
  a chart template recreating it. Worth cleaning, not urgent.

There was **no repository rename**. This is a registry migration (gitea →
forgejo, early July) in which producers moved and one consumer did not.

`forgejo.coulomb.social` is already on railiance01, so the work is retag, push,
update manifest. Routed to `railiance-platform`; ownership of the `reuse-surface`
manifest sits with that repo.

**Why this is a project task and not a platform ticket:** it was missed because
the decommission inventory was assembled from tunnels and workplans. A host is
not free of dependents because nothing tunnels to it. Feed that into `T06`'s
`G-GEN` gate — a generation or host transition must enumerate what *pulls,
resolves and authenticates* against the thing being switched off, not only what
connects to it.

## Related

- `SHR-WP-0001` — foundation and architecture baseline (finished)
- `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