From 0b0c8fe781220fbaad64436741aeb7351fc7b3f3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nucleic <andrew@blakeslee.me>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2026 01:02:50 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Merge nucleic/olive-jade-civet-rznt into dev

---
 spikes/WslcApiDump/Program.cs | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 38 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/spikes/WslcApiDump/Program.cs b/spikes/WslcApiDump/Program.cs
index 4b4ccef..540777b 100644
--- a/spikes/WslcApiDump/Program.cs
+++ b/spikes/WslcApiDump/Program.cs
@@ -392,11 +392,44 @@ internal static class Program
         Console.WriteLine();
         Console.WriteLine("  second Session with the SAME name — attach, or reserved?");
         var second = CreateSession(settingsType, sessionType, name, dataDir, "second");
-        Console.WriteLine(second is not null
-            ? "  → CONSTRUCTED. The compat SDK may attach by name; check `wslc container ps` for "
-              + "the first session's containers, and record it against D13 (§13.1)."
-            : "  → REFUSED (see the HRESULT above). D13's premise holds: the compat surface cannot "
-              + "re-adopt a session, so reattach needs IWSLCSessionManager::OpenSessionByName.");
+        if (second is null)
+        {
+            Console.WriteLine("  → REFUSED (see the HRESULT above). D13's premise holds: the compat "
+                + "surface cannot re-adopt a session, so reattach needs "
+                + "IWSLCSessionManager::OpenSessionByName.");
+        }
+        else
+        {
+            // Starting it is one more signal: re-adopting a RUNNING session should be a no-op,
+            // whereas a genuinely separate session would be booting a second VM here.
+            if (start is not null)
+            {
+                try { start.Invoke(second, null); Console.WriteLine("  second Start() ok"); }
+                catch (TargetInvocationException e)
+                {
+                    Console.WriteLine($"  second Start() threw {Describe(e.InnerException)}");
+                }
+            }
+            Console.WriteLine("  → CONSTRUCTED — the constructor did NOT refuse.");
+            Console.WriteLine();
+            // Be honest about what this does and does not show. A constructed object is not proof
+            // of attachment: construction may simply be lazy, and WSLC_E_SESSION_RESERVED clearly
+            // fires under SOME condition or it would not exist in wslc.idl. The compat surface has
+            // no enumeration, so identity cannot be settled from inside this process.
+            Console.WriteLine("  This does NOT by itself prove it re-adopted the first session —");
+            Console.WriteLine("  construction may be lazy, and WSLC_E_SESSION_RESERVED exists in");
+            Console.WriteLine("  wslc.idl, so it fires under some condition. The compat surface has");
+            Console.WriteLine("  no enumeration, so identity cannot be settled from in here.");
+            Console.WriteLine();
+            Console.WriteLine("  DECISIVE CHECK — run this now:   wslc session ls");
+            Console.WriteLine($"    ONE session named '{name}'  → it attached; the SESSION half of");
+            Console.WriteLine("                                   §2.3 reattach may not need the");
+            Console.WriteLine("                                   internal COM interface after all.");
+            Console.WriteLine($"    TWO sessions named '{name}' → it did not; two VMs are running and");
+            Console.WriteLine("                                   the name is not an identity.");
+            Console.WriteLine("  Either way the CONTAINER half of D13 is unaffected: there is still");
+            Console.WriteLine("  no way to enumerate containers on the compat surface.");
+        }
 
         Console.WriteLine();
         Console.WriteLine("  session left running — `wslc session ls`; whether it outlives this "