comment #345
EVIDENCE

THE THOUGHT EXPERIMENT (operator, 2026-09-24). Two nodes, one `dean` instance on each, both uncontrolled. Both instances are DORMANT: `active` requires BOTH conditions - most-recently-interacted AND a driver attached - so with no driver anywhere neither qualifies. Auto-suspend is opt-in and default OFF, so they stay warm dormant indefinitely rather than decaying to suspended. Then: where does a bare `dean` message go?

THREE RULES, ALL THREE WRITTEN DOWN SOMEWHERE

1. CONTEXT.md instance-state section: "the active instance is the bare-id routing target, its live siblings are dormant". With nothing active this reads as NO target. It is also the same category error as the releases#341 deferred-message gate: rest state described as a routing input.
2. CONTEXT.md addressing section: "local-node instance if present -> else most-recently-active -> explicit override always available."
3. SHIPPED, spt-net `resolve_among` / `resolve_across_visible` (REQ-INST-10, REQ-INST-12): node-qualified -> local instance wins outright -> a SOLE live instance -> otherwise Ambiguity::AcrossNodes, i.e. REFUSE and force `id@node`. The doc comment on `resolve_across` states it plainly: "a local instance wins, a sole node resolves, and only distinct nodes refuse". No most-recently-active rung exists in the send path; `presence::most_recently_active*` has no caller there.

CONSEQUENCE IN THE EXPERIMENT: a sender on one of the two nodes reaches its LOCAL dean. A sender on a third node is REFUSED, with copy-pasteable `dean@node` targets. Not MRA.

SHARPER: `Status::routable()` excludes only Offline, so a SUSPENDED sibling still joins the union and still counts toward the ambiguity. One warm instance plus one cold one refuses a bare send, even though only one of them could take the message warm. Whether cold instances should count toward ambiguity is a real sub-question: excluding them would make the refusal depend on a decayed timer, which is worse, so I would keep them counted and say so in the docs.

WHY THE CODE IS RIGHT AND THE DOC IS WRONG: guessing between two warm seats is how a message is delivered to the seat nobody is reading, silently. The refusal is honest and actionable. MRA is wired where it belongs - notif first-fire and the consent escalation (`presence::most_recently_active_in_subnet`, notif.rs) - because a NOTIF targets THE USER, and a person does have a most-recent seat. An agent-to-agent message targets an ENDPOINT, where recency is not evidence about which instance should receive it. One CONTEXT.md sentence is serving both consumers, which is exactly why it reads as self-contradictory.

ASK RESTATED: docs-only. Split the addressing rule by consumer (messaging refuses and forces qualification; notif/consent resolves by presence MRA), and stop the instance-state section describing rest state as the routing target. If an MRA rung IS wanted for messaging, that is a behaviour change with its own ruling, because it makes delivery depend on a gossiped recency stamp that can be stale.