Name the trait that declares the byte store a pin would live in (#496)

src/server/certificate.rs

@@ -41,14 +41,24 @@
 //!
 //! # The pin does not survive the process
 //!
-//! 0029 puts a pin in the byte store of #40 under a key built the way #41 builds
-//! one, keyed by the server and the device and never by the account, and says
-//! that with no store supplied the pin lives as long as the process and an
-//! operator pins once per run. That last sentence is the state of this tree: the
-//! register below holds its pins in memory, so what a client gets today is the
-//! no-store behaviour the record already decided rather than a shortcut taken
-//! here. Nothing about the account reaches any call in this module, which is how
-//! that half of the key is kept: there is no parameter to pass one in.
+//! 0029 puts a pin in the byte store [`crate::cache::ByteStore`] declares, under
+//! a key built the way #41 builds one, keyed by the server and the device and
+//! never by the account, and says that with no store supplied the pin lives as
+//! long as the process and an operator pins once per run. That last sentence is
+//! the state of this tree: the register below holds its pins in memory, so what a
+//! client gets today is the no-store behaviour the record already decided rather
+//! than a shortcut taken here. Nothing about the account reaches any call in this
+//! module, which is how that half of the key is kept: there is no parameter to
+//! pass one in.
+//!
+//! THIS FILE CALLED THAT STORE `#40` AT EVERY ONE OF ITS THREE SITES UNTIL THIS
+//! EDIT, HERE AND ON [`PinnedServer`] AND [`Pins::pin`]. #40 closed as
+//! completed on 2026-08-26 and the trait took its four operations four minutes
+//! before it closed, while this file landed on 2026-08-30. So all three landed
+//! refuted rather than going stale, which is the harder of the two states to
+//! defend: the paragraph on [`PinnedServer`] links a type out of the same crate
+//! two lines above the sentence that reached for the number instead. #496 is
+//! where it was found.
 //!
 //! # The digest is chosen here and 0029 does not name it
 //!
@@ -249,8 +259,10 @@ impl<'a> Refused<'a> {
 /// IT IS AN OWNED VALUE RATHER THAN THAT TYPE, and the difference is not a
 /// preference. [`crate::cache::key::ServerPart`] borrows for the length of one
 /// derivation, and a register outlives every call made against it. Where a pin
-/// is written to the store in #40, the value below is what a key is derived
-/// from, so the two arms are the same two on purpose.
+/// is written to the store [`crate::cache::ByteStore`] declares, the value below
+/// is what a key is derived from, so the two arms are the same two on purpose.
+/// THAT SENTENCE READ `the store in #40`, two lines under the link above it; the
+/// header says what the three sites of that number were in.
 ///
 /// Thread safety, from 0009: immutable once made.
 #[derive(Debug, Clone, PartialEq, Eq)]
@@ -332,10 +344,12 @@ impl Pins {
     ///
     /// IT TAKES A FINGERPRINT RATHER THAN A [`Refused`], AND THAT IS DELIBERATE.
     /// Requiring the refusal would read as the stronger interface and would
-    /// refuse the case 0029 depends on: a pin lives in the store in #40 and is
-    /// read back at the start of the next run, where no refusal has happened
-    /// yet. What keeps a client to the record is the record and the review
-    /// rather than this signature.
+    /// refuse the case 0029 depends on: a pin lives in the store
+    /// [`crate::cache::ByteStore`] declares and is read back at the start of the
+    /// next run, where no refusal has happened yet. What keeps a client to the
+    /// record is the record and the review rather than this signature. THAT
+    /// SENTENCE READ `the store in #40`; the header says what the three sites of
+    /// that number were in.
     pub fn pin(&self, server: PinnedServer, fingerprint: Fingerprint) -> Option<Fingerprint> {
         let mut held = self.held();
         if let Some(pin) = held.iter_mut().find(|pin| pin.server == server) {