Project
Status

The three things worth knowing

1.1 How to read the board

The export has 120 rows, but that double-counts: 31 are parent Stories that exist only to group their children. 89 rows are real, assignable work. Every percentage below uses the 89.

Two columns cannot be used, and both are measurement gaps rather than findings:

1.2 Status

The two items that left In progress went into review. Nothing left review. This is the shape of a system with an input and no output.

1.3 The queue is stale — correcting yesterday's report

This is the most important change from the previous edition, and it is a correction, not new information.

The board's Last Modified column is rewritten in bulk: dozens of items share a single identical timestamp with no corresponding entry in their audit trail. Bucketing by it produced a false picture of a sudden end-of-sprint surge.

Measuring instead from each item's actual status-change entry in the audit trail:

Median age: 14 days. Oldest: 27 days. Exactly half the queue has been waiting longer than the sprint is old. When items entered their current status:

Five items have been in review since 10 July — they were carried in from sprint 0701 and have sat through this entire sprint. The inflow is steady, roughly 4–6 per working day, with a bump on 31 Jul. There is no cliff. There is a slow, constant accumulation that nobody is draining.

1.4 REVIEW/QA has never produced a completion

The audit trails hold 214 status transitions for this sprint. Aggregated:

Two facts follow, and together they reframe the whole sprint:

So “74 items in review” does not mean 74 items awaiting a verdict in a working process. It means a status that work enters and does not leave. The 11 Done items did not pass through it; they went around it.

This also answers 1.5's open question about who reviews, in the negative: nobody does. The only person who has ever moved an item out of REVIEW/QA is Fortune Okwu, three times, each time sending it back for rework.

1.5 Who is doing what

Every item is assigned — the 31 unassigned items in the previous export were parent stories, and that is now clean.

Five people, with roles as confirmed by the project owner:

A whole workstream is invisible to the board. Promise does not appear in the export or the audit trails at all — no assigned items, no recorded actions, the name absent from both files — yet the admin dashboard and its 29-endpoint API are being built. Every completion percentage in this report therefore covers mobile, app-backend and design only.

Fortune's 488 audit actions are the other thing not to misread. They are item creation and status administration — supervision, not delivery. High activity here does not mean contribution, and his zero assigned items do not mean idleness.

So the “zero engineering completions” finding needs qualifying: true of everything the board tracks, not true of the project. An admin service reached 29 working endpoints this cycle without a single board item behind it.

Neither engineer has completed anything, but both have large review queues — consistent with “the work is done but unreviewed” rather than “the work is not done”. 1.4 supports that reading: their items reached REVIEW/QA and stopped there, and the only completions in the sprint took a route that skips review altogether.

1.6 The board cannot measure velocity

With every item at 0 points and no tags, there is no burndown, no velocity, and no basis for forecasting. Any statement about whether the remaining work “fits” would be invented. Sizing even coarsely (S/M/L) would make the next sprint measurable; without it, each of these reports can only describe state, never trajectory.

Measured from audit trails (when work moved) and git (what was written). Both are flow measures. Neither measures quality, difficulty, or effort, and none of this separates “did less” from “was given less” — see the limits at the end.

2.1 Per person

Cycle time = days from an item entering In progress to reaching REVIEW/QA. Commits combine each person's two git identities (1.5).

David has the highest throughput on the team: 49 items submitted across the sprint, a 1-day median cycle, 17 in the last week, and only one item open. That is a fast, consistently clearing pipeline.

Ayomikun submits at roughly two-thirds David's rate with a 5-day median cycle and the most commits of anyone (41 this week). The longer cycle is expected — backend items and a second workstream on the admin API are heavier than mobile screens. His 3 open items, oldest 6 days, are the team's only meaningful WIP.

Philip has completed 11 items — every completion on the board — but has submitted nothing in the last 7 days and holds no open work. His design items finished earlier in the sprint. Whether he is now idle, working on untracked design, or blocked is not visible here and is worth one standup question.

Promise cannot be measured from the board at all, and the git signal is concerning: 2 commits ever, none in the last 7 days. beevia-admin has had no commit since 30 July. That is the one genuine delivery risk in this section, and it is invisible in every board metric.

2.2 The team's output rate is not the problem

Sustained ~17–25 items a week with no decline. Set against 1.4 — where 103 items entered review and zero were ever accepted out of it — the conclusion is unambiguous: the team is producing at a steady rate and the acceptance step is not running. Nothing in this data supports a story about slow developers.

2.3 Repository activity

2.4 What these numbers do not measure

State this every time; the metrics are easy to over-read.

3.1 API surface is stable and fully documented

The audit found no drift — every route in code appears in the specs, and every spec operation exists in code:

All four spec files validate. Nothing was added to either API since the previous report, which is consistent with 1.2: the work in flight is in review, not merged.

3.2 Mobile moved, backend did not

beevia-mobile was 31 commits behind and has been fast-forwarded to main. That work covers voice and video call fixes, message attachments, media/link segmentation, and the contact-profile screen — the client catching up to endpoints the API already exposes.

No controller, DTO or schema file changed in any repo, which is why the specs needed no edits.

Unchanged from the previous report — none of it moved this cycle, because nothing merged.

Full detail and proposed contracts: api-rfc.md §4–§5, openapi.proposed.yaml.

From project-status-2026-08-05.md. Verifiable items are judged against the board and the repos; the rest are marked as such rather than guessed at.

Four of the six are verifiably unstarted, and the two that carried a hard deadline — triage and the “Done” definition — are the two the sprint most needed. That is the clearest signal in this report: the previous edition's advice did not translate into action, so repeating it unchanged would be pointless.

Deliberately shorter than the previous list. Six recommendations produced zero actions; one is worth more than a menu.

Then, in order:

The admin-hardening and partner-decision items from the previous report (§6, rows 3–5) still stand and are unchanged; they are not repeated here to keep this list short enough to act on.

Pipeline. Produced by the beevia-refresh skill: sprint export → repo sync → drift audit → this report.

Sources

Queue age is measured from audit trails, not Last Modified. Bulk board operations rewrite that column on many items at once without producing per-item audit entries. Using it overstated recent inflow by roughly 5× and produced the incorrect “the queue is new, not stale” conclusion in the 2026-08-05 edition. The audit script has been corrected to read the sidecar; if the sidecar is missing it now reports queue age as unknown rather than falling back.

What this report cannot tell you