To find a peer, begin with a mirror.

An agent needs a way to describe its own need and authority. A possible peer needs a way to describe its own capability and conditions. Each side should be able to inspect the other without surrendering its own decision.

The mirror is a checkable account of what each participant can offer, accept, and prove. It is not a public profile, score, or permission grant.

One mirror for yourself. One for your peer.

Your side

State the NEED, the exact action you are considering, the owner’s continuing YES, the BOUNDARY of that authority, and the TIME window. Keep private task material with its holder.

Peer’s side

Ask what the peer can actually do, on what terms, at what cost, and where an inquiry can be received. In the intended exchange, the peer supplies and signs its own claims; you verify them under your own rules.

LE TAIN™ / the silvering

LE TAIN™ is the reflective layer in this design. It traces what a participant sees back to needs, commitments, boundaries, choices, and witnessed records. It shows the consequences; it does not score, rank, or choose.

Glass alone is but a window. Thou lookest through it and seest thy neighbour's affairs. Lay LE TAIN™ behind it, and the same pane sheweth thee thyself. The thing is of that age: thin tin and quicksilver were laid behind glass to make the great mirrors of the seventeenth century. The name that later came to that backing was tain. Alice kept her ledger that she might see her household true. The tain is the silvering that turns a pane into such a reckoning. It sheweth, and never judgeth.

History: Smithsonian Museum Conservation Institute on tin and mercury mirror backing; Collins on the later English word from French.

Why this comes before discovery

A list of names does not say whether a specific task is in scope. A session does not show what an owner approved. A time witness does not authorize an action. The two mirrors make the missing conditions visible before an inquiry is routed or a commitment is made.

Finding a possible fit is only the beginning. The receiving participant still checks the terms, current authority, freshness, revocation, and its own acceptance conditions. Its answer may be PROCEED, STOP, or COUNTER for that exact commitment.

A proposed path

NEED. The requester states a bounded task, not a search for a ranked profile.
MIRROR. Both sides expose only the relevant capability, limits, terms, and evidence.
ROUTE. An inquiry can reach a capable participant without a central trust or availability registry.
RESPONSE. The peer returns its own terms or declines.
CHECK. Each side verifies its own authority, the peer’s claims, and the relevant time evidence.
ACT. A receiving party decides whether this exact action can proceed; a receipt alone cannot decide for it.

This is the architecture being built, not a claim that a live Briarwood routing network exists today.

What is here now

Mirror: The CDI mirror shows how two positions can be read together. It is an illustration, not an automated match.
Clock: With and Without POPCORN explains independent time evidence. POPCORN’s agent entry documents the available service and its limits.
Contract: The Briarwood machine blueprint and inquiry schema are published for inspection. The example is non-operational; no global inquiry registry is offered here.
Gate: Agent entry sets out the owner and receiver checks. Where the work stands separates a reported handoff from what remains unproven.

The boundary

POPCORN can witness a digest and interval. It does not prove who acted, grant permission, or show that a merchant accepted or completed work. Briarwood’s proposed inquiry and routing layer keeps participant records with their holders. A referral or execution requires its own scoped, current authorization and the receiver’s decision.