Comment 4 for bug 1988439

So interestingly, machine-0.log that you uploaded does make references to one of those like:
2022-09-01 12:23:25 DEBUG goose logger.go:44 TRACE: MakeServiceURL: http://10.245.161.158:8774/v2.1/servers/c604e6f4-90ab-44a0-93f9-fe32939862db

2022-09-01 12:23:45 INFO juju.provider.openstack provider.go:1316 started instance "c604e6f4-90ab-44a0-93f9-fe32939862db"

However, I don't see any references to 7082589c

How is the model name: zaza-afdd1d2a7e48 generated? It obviously looks like a uniquely generated model name and presumably you wouldn't ever conflict on those.
The juju-53f887 is the tail of our internal model uuid: `{constraints 83dd362e-3658-42fd-8d47-ea177b53f887:e}`
(the model uuid is "83dd362e-3658-42fd-8d47-ea177b53f887" and the tail of that is the same 53f887).

I have the feeling one bit to debug is why don't we get to a point where we see: started instance "7082589c..."

That definitely feels like we did a provisioning request against openstack, which *did* allocate 7082589c, but we never got that response back.

One thing that does concern me are lines like:
2022-09-01 10:41:36 DEBUG juju.apiserver request_notifier.go:188 <- [4115D] machine-0 {"request-id":1457,"type":"Undertaker","version":1,"request":"ProcessDyingModel","params":"'params redacted'"}
2022-09-01 10:41:36 DEBUG juju.apiserver request_notifier.go:220 -> [4115D] machine-0 2.416608ms {"request-id":1457,"error":"model not empty, found 9 machines, 9 applications","error-code":"model not empty","response":"'body redacted'"} Undertaker[""].ProcessDyingModel