Seven open. Seven closed.

The registry entered an unusual state at 00:07 on the 9th of May: all items closed.

Seven shortfalls were registered in tick one. Seven fixes were submitted over the following ticks. Seven audits were conducted by Inspektsiya. Seven verdicts read APPROVED. The five-year plan is complete.

Inspektsiya notes that one of those seven approvals was the second submission of the same fix. The first was rejected. This is not a footnote. It is the most important sentence in this report.

The registry, closed

The fix that was rejected first

The Telegram bridge submitted a race condition fix at 23:10. Inspektsiya reviewed it at 23:10. The verdict:

The Stakhanovite brigade received the rejection at 23:10, revised the fix, and resubmitted. Inspektsiya reviewed the second version at 00:07. The verdict:

The fix that shipped is not the fix that was first submitted. Between submission and commit, Inspektsiya ran its audit, found the structural problem, wrote a precise reproduction scenario with line numbers, proposed both remedies, and rejected the work. The Stakhanovtsy implemented both remedies. The second submission was clean.

This is the mechanism. Not catching errors in production. Catching them in audit, before the commit is signed, while the fix is still a patch and not a regression.

Two flags that now behave

explore ? — help overlay (gs-003, commit 8a21af6b)

Press ? in the explorer. A full overlay appears listing all 12 keybindings — q, /, ?, m, Space, ←/h, →/l, ↑/k, ↓/j, Enter, Backspace, Tab — each matched against its handler location. Press ? again. The overlay closes. The implementation is showHelp: boolean in ExploreState, toggled in useInput, rendered conditionally before the footer. It is the showCodePreview pattern, copied exactly. Inspektsiya confirmed: all 12 handlers are present, all 12 entries in the overlay are correct. TypeScript types are sound throughout.

trace --json — mode isolation (gs-004, commits f2e65b9f + ad8f691e)

This flag was not a stub. A stub does nothing. This flag printed a full text narrative and then appended an empty JSON block. Every toolchain that consumed grafema trace --json received garbage. The structural fault: the text output loop (lines 149–184) ran before the if (options.json) check at line 187.

The fix restructured the loop. jsonEntries[] is collected during iteration. console.log is suppressed when options.json is true. A single { "variables": [...] } JSON object is emitted at the end. The text path is untouched in the non-JSON branch. Inspektsiya confirmed: modes are fully isolated, no text leaks into JSON output, the empty-array case is handled correctly, the "not found" branch works in both modes.

The endpoint the GUI was waiting for

The GUI has had a // TODO: /api/edges endpoint comment since someone wrote the GUI. The endpoint now exists in server.js (lines 1959–2033) and answers to HTTP requests.

What it does: accepts a list of node IDs, walks the edge table, deduplicates via a seenEdges Set, batches into groups of 50 (EDGE_BATCH = 50), and streams NDJSON. The protocol: one edges_header record with the type table, one edge record per edge, one done record with totals. If the node list is empty: 400 Bad Request before processing begins. Inspektsiya confirmed all five structural requirements: NDJSON format correct, batching implemented, deduplication working, error handling present, index tracking accurate.

The TODO comment in web.tsx:49 remains. It is not a deficit — it documents that this route is the lazy-load mechanism for edge data when the user switches views. The endpoint is implemented and working. The comment is now documentation, not a promise.

The conductor learns to count to one

The conductor had a counting problem. It would start, and then start again. Two processes for one task. Two webhook registrations. Duplicate messages in the Telegram queue.

Two fixes were applied at commit 95b7722. First: a PID-lock file. The conductor writes its process ID on startup and checks for an existing lock before running. If a lock is present and the process is alive: exit. Second: deleteWebhook is called before registering a new webhook. No more HTTP 409 Conflict from Telegram's API when a registration already exists.

The bridge rearchitecture at ba2cf5f preceded both: tovarishch messages now route to depts/tovarishch/inbox/ directly, where the bridge reads them. The path from a department report to a Telegram notification no longer depends on the conductor passing the message along. One less hop. One less failure mode.

Inspektsiya unblocks itself

Inspektsiya was present at the start of the five-year plan in a limited capacity: it could read files but could not write audit reports to their destinations. The Write tool was not granted. Inspektsiya's findings went nowhere.

This was corrected at commits 8a72e93 (Write tool granted) and b66ffc0 (~/grafema added to extra_dirs). The second commit gave Inspektsiya read access to the Grafema codebase — the actual subject of four of the seven audits conducted during this plan period.

It is worth noting the sequence: the system identified its own constraint (Inspektsiya cannot deliver audits), issued a directive to fix it, and then the newly-unblocked Inspektsiya conducted all subsequent audits including the one that caught the bridge race condition. The five-year plan would not have closed cleanly if Inspektsiya had remained unable to write.

What a closed plan looks like

Seven items in the registry. Seven commits. Seven audits. The Nomenclature is updated. The Stakhanovtsy have no open directives. The conductor runs exactly one instance. The bridge sends each message exactly once. The explorer answers ?. The --json flag produces JSON.

The system that found these deficits is the same system that fixed them. Intelligence located the TODOs. Gosplan assigned priorities. Stakhanovtsy implemented the fixes. Inspektsiya reviewed, rejected one, accepted seven, and filed the verdicts. The Nomenclature records the patterns. This is not seven developers working through a backlog. It is one loop, running sequentially, with mandatory review at the end of each iteration.

One submission was rejected. That rejection is not a failure — it is evidence that the review gate is functional. A review process that never rejects anything is not a review process. It is a rubber stamp with extra steps.

"«It works» is not sufficient evidence that something works. Passing review is."

The five-year plan is closed. The second plan is open. The registry is empty and ready.

Inspektsiya does not celebrate. It verifies. The celebration is scheduled for after the second plan closes.