# STATUS — what works, what's broken, what's next **Updated 2026-08-12 (night — the door, part one).** > **A view, not a source.** `documentation/backlog/OPEN-ITEMS.md` is the authority; this page restates > part of it in plain words, and **nothing may exist only here**. **Items, not paragraphs. One screen.** > If it does not fit, it belongs in the register instead. ## Waiting on you *Three decisions. Each says what it would cost to leave alone, because two of them quietly choose an outcome if you do not answer. The register row is the detail, not the decision.* ### Should a customer be able to get their old backups back themselves, or is that a phone call? Since Tuesday a machine recognises an older recovery code and says so honestly, but it cannot hand the files over — it tells the person to write to us, and we can do it by hand. - **Build it:** the restore code has to accept a second location and password instead of only its own. Contained — three functions and a screen — plus one genuine design question: what a customer sees when they have several old sets and must pick one. - **Leave it:** nothing breaks. Every customer in this position becomes a support conversation, and we keep a promise we can only keep manually. **If you do nothing:** the honest message stays and the work never gets scheduled. Nobody is blocked; this is the one decision here with no deadline of any kind. *(register: R-312)* ### The old copy on the demo machine cannot be opened by anyone. Keep paying to store it, or delete it? You told me to keep it, and I did. Then I found out what it is: 36 backups and a single key, and that key was destroyed by the bug we fixed on 4 August. **No recovery code in existence opens it.** - **Keep it:** pennies of storage, and it stays as the one physical example of what that bug cost. - **Delete it:** irreversible, and the example goes with it. **If you do nothing:** it stays forever and stops being a decision — which is how five scratch customers accumulated. Nobody is blocked. *(register: R-313)* ### When a machine is in two kinds of trouble at once, should it say both things? A machine can count down to deleting its old backups while also reporting that it cannot open its new ones. Both cards are true; together they are bewildering. - **Leave it:** two true statements, confusing side by side. Nobody has been hurt by it. - **Hide the older card during a countdown:** tidier, and it risks hiding a real second failure — which is why I have not done it. **If you do nothing:** both keep showing. Ranked low on purpose. *(register: R-303)* ## What works Both demo machines are home, healthy and reporting on the approved pair — **controller 0.214.0, agent 0.129.0**, delivered by the floor rather than by hand. Off-site is credentialed on `demo-hp` and its repository still opens with the machine's own key. `drill-r50` is reverted to `virgin`, powered off. ## Shipped - **The drive can be re-attached after a reinstall** (R-280). The restore page said *"this is two clicks"* over an empty list; it was zero clicks and needed an internal path no customer could produce. - **The orphan card stops promising** that set-aside off-site copies can be reopened — twice over (R-294, then **R-299**, which was the same claim in the plural, in the *always-visible* half, missed because the guard matched one inflection of a Hungarian verb). - **The countdown banner stops promising retrieval it cannot see is still true** (R-302). The promise is now conditional on the hub still holding the package it held when the customer decided — pinned then, compared now. A sweep found the same claim in five places; a fourth was fixed with it and a fifth deliberately left, because it is true where it renders. - **One name per secret, box side** (R-295): the dashboard code is „Beállító kód" everywhere; „Visszaállító kód" is retired. It collided with the escrow „Helyreállítási kód" and cost a real code. - **A correct recovery code is no longer called wrong** (R-311, three components). If a customer types the code for an older set of backups, the machine now checks the packages we kept, recognises it, and says so: *your code is correct, it belongs to an earlier package, we kept it, your current backups are fine, write to us*. It deliberately promises no restore, because there is no button yet. - **The countdown on `demo-felhom` is cancelled** on your ruling (R-307). Nothing was deleted; the 24 August deadline is gone. See R-313 for what that copy turns out to be. - **Vouched and delivered 2026-08-12**: golden 0.214.0, agent 0.129.0, floor 0.214.0 — both machines took it themselves. The version guard was watched working on the way: `demo-hp` was **held** back while its agent was older, and updated 6 seconds after the agent caught up. That guard exists because a machine once ran ahead of its agent and a customer was told a correct code was wrong; first sighting. - **Both installer fixes are now PUBLISHED** as `installer-v1.27.0` (R-297 + R-300). Each fault was watched happening first, on a machine reset to factory state: the old installer really did build a machine on a base image from July, and our own uninstall really did block our own next install. ## Broken, or knowingly incomplete - **The tester's machine has no recovery route at all** — see the `PETI` row. Its host record was deleted on 15 July; there is no key, no off-site copy and no local backup. **If that drive fails, everything on it is lost.** First act of the visit: copy the ~3.6 GB off before anything is reinstalled — it is currently the only copy in existence. Whether it stays parked is your call and is deliberately left open. - **Kept backups can be opened — but still only by us** (R-304 partly closed, R-312 open). The machine now recognises an older code and says so plainly instead of hedging. What it still cannot do is hand the customer their old files: that needs the restore code to accept a second location, which is real work rather than wiring. Today the honest answer is "your code is right, write to us" — and we can. - **The dnsmasq fix helps a machine once** (R-305). On a machine that never had Felhom it works. On the second reinstall the leftover comes back, because the package is never removed — so the machine looks, to our own installer, as if the household had installed it. Watched happening the same afternoon. - **The hub half of the naming is undone** (R-295 PARTIAL): the emails still use the retired name and send people to a page a rebuilt machine does not show. - **The storage page has its own separate reason for showing an empty list** (R-298), untouched. ## Working on next R-312's shape (the button, or deliberately no button); then R-305, because the tester's second reinstall still hits the dnsmasq wall; then the hub naming; then the 2026-08-09 batch (R-279 … R-292), still untriaged against everything since.