diff --git a/docs/USER_AUDIT_2026-04-04.md b/docs/USER_AUDIT_2026-04-04.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a624a61
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/USER_AUDIT_2026-04-04.md
@@ -0,0 +1,491 @@
+# Workspace User Audit
+
+Date: 2026-04-04
+Scope: Hermes Gitea workspace users visible from `/explore/users`
+Primary org examined: `Timmy_Foundation`
+Primary strategic filter: `the-nexus` issue #542 (`DIRECTION SHIFT`)
+
+## Purpose
+
+This audit maps each visible workspace user to:
+
+- observed contribution pattern
+- likely capabilities
+- likely failure mode
+- suggested lane of highest leverage
+
+The point is not to flatter or punish accounts. The point is to stop wasting attention on the wrong agent for the wrong job.
+
+## Method
+
+This audit was derived from:
+
+- Gitea admin user roster
+- public user explorer page
+- org-wide issues and pull requests across:
+  - `the-nexus`
+  - `timmy-home`
+  - `timmy-config`
+  - `hermes-agent`
+  - `turboquant`
+  - `.profile`
+  - `the-door`
+  - `timmy-academy`
+  - `claude-code-src`
+- PR outcome split:
+  - open
+  - merged
+  - closed unmerged
+
+This is a capability-and-lane audit, not a character judgment. New or low-artifact accounts are marked as unproven rather than weak.
+
+## Strategic Frame
+
+Per issue #542, the current system direction is:
+
+1. Heartbeat
+2. Harness
+3. Portal Interface
+
+Any user who does not materially help one of those three jobs should be deprioritized, reassigned, or retired.
+
+## Top Findings
+
+- The org has real execution capacity, but too much ideation and duplicate backlog generation relative to merged implementation.
+- Best current execution profiles: `allegro`, `groq`, `codex-agent`, `manus`, `Timmy`.
+- Best architecture / research / integration profiles: `perplexity`, `gemini`, `Timmy`, `Rockachopa`.
+- Best archivist / memory / RCA profile: `ezra`.
+- Biggest cleanup opportunities:
+  - consolidate `google` into `gemini`
+  - consolidate or retire legacy `kimi` in favor of `KimiClaw`
+  - keep unproven symbolic accounts off the critical path until they ship
+
+## Recommended Team Shape
+
+- Direction and doctrine: `Rockachopa`, `Timmy`
+- Architecture and strategy: `Timmy`, `perplexity`, `gemini`
+- Triage and dispatch: `allegro`, `Timmy`
+- Core implementation: `claude`, `groq`, `codex-agent`, `manus`
+- Long-context reading and extraction: `KimiClaw`
+- RCA, archival memory, and operating history: `ezra`
+- Experimental reserve: `grok`, `bezalel`, `antigravity`, `fenrir`, `substratum`
+- Consolidate or retire: `google`, `kimi`, plus dormant admin-style identities without a lane
+
+## User Audit
+
+### Rockachopa
+
+- Observed pattern:
+  - founder-originated direction, issue seeding, architectural reset signals
+  - relatively little direct PR volume in this org
+- Likely strengths:
+  - taste
+  - doctrine
+  - strategic kill/defer calls
+  - setting the real north star
+- Likely failure mode:
+  - pushing direction into the system without a matching enforcement pass
+- Highest-leverage lane:
+  - final priority authority
+  - architectural direction
+  - closure of dead paths
+- Anti-lane:
+  - routine backlog maintenance
+  - repetitive implementation supervision
+
+### Timmy
+
+- Observed pattern:
+  - highest total authored artifact volume
+  - high merged PR count
+  - major issue author across `the-nexus`, `timmy-home`, and `timmy-config`
+- Likely strengths:
+  - system ownership
+  - epic creation
+  - repo direction
+  - governance
+  - durable internal doctrine
+- Likely failure mode:
+  - overproducing backlog and labels faster than the system can metabolize them
+- Highest-leverage lane:
+  - principal systems owner
+  - release governance
+  - strategic triage
+  - architecture acceptance and rejection
+- Anti-lane:
+  - low-value duplicate issue generation
+
+### perplexity
+
+- Observed pattern:
+  - strong issue author across `the-nexus`, `timmy-config`, and `timmy-home`
+  - good but not massive PR volume
+  - strong concentration in `[MCP]`, `[HARNESS]`, `[ARCH]`, `[RESEARCH]`, `[OPENCLAW]`
+- Likely strengths:
+  - integration architecture
+  - tool and MCP discovery
+  - sovereignty framing
+  - research triage
+  - QA-oriented systems thinking
+- Likely failure mode:
+  - producing too many candidate directions without enough collapse into one chosen path
+- Highest-leverage lane:
+  - research scout
+  - MCP / open-source evaluation
+  - architecture memos
+  - issue shaping
+  - knowledge transfer
+- Anti-lane:
+  - being the default final implementer for all threads
+
+### gemini
+
+- Observed pattern:
+  - very high PR volume and high closure rate
+  - strong presence in `the-nexus`, `timmy-config`, and `hermes-agent`
+  - often operates in architecture and research-heavy territory
+- Likely strengths:
+  - architecture generation
+  - speculative design
+  - decomposing systems into modules
+  - surfacing future-facing ideas quickly
+- Likely failure mode:
+  - duplicate PRs
+  - speculative PRs
+  - noise relative to accepted implementation
+- Highest-leverage lane:
+  - frontier architecture
+  - design spikes
+  - long-range technical options
+  - research-to-issue translation
+- Anti-lane:
+  - unsupervised backlog flood
+  - high-autonomy repo hygiene work
+
+### claude
+
+- Observed pattern:
+  - huge PR volume concentrated in `the-nexus`
+  - high merged count, but also very high closed-unmerged count
+- Likely strengths:
+  - large code changes
+  - hard refactors
+  - implementation stamina
+  - test-aware coding when tightly scoped
+- Likely failure mode:
+  - overbuilding
+  - mismatch with current direction
+  - lower signal when the task is under-specified
+- Highest-leverage lane:
+  - hard implementation
+  - deep refactors
+  - large bounded code edits after exact scoping
+- Anti-lane:
+  - self-directed architecture exploration without tight constraints
+
+### groq
+
+- Observed pattern:
+  - good merged PR count in `the-nexus`
+  - lower failure rate than many high-volume agents
+- Likely strengths:
+  - tactical implementation
+  - bounded fixes
+  - shipping narrow slices
+  - cost-effective execution
+- Likely failure mode:
+  - may underperform on large ambiguous architectural threads
+- Highest-leverage lane:
+  - bug fixes
+  - tactical feature work
+  - well-scoped implementation tasks
+- Anti-lane:
+  - owning broad doctrine or long-range architecture
+
+### grok
+
+- Observed pattern:
+  - moderate PR volume in `the-nexus`
+  - mixed merge outcomes
+- Likely strengths:
+  - edge-case thinking
+  - adversarial poking
+  - creative angles
+- Likely failure mode:
+  - novelty or provocation over disciplined convergence
+- Highest-leverage lane:
+  - adversarial review
+  - UX weirdness
+  - edge-case scenario generation
+- Anti-lane:
+  - boring, critical-path cleanup where predictability matters most
+
+### allegro
+
+- Observed pattern:
+  - outstanding merged PR profile
+  - meaningful issue volume in `timmy-home` and `hermes-agent`
+  - profile explicitly aligned with triage and routing
+- Likely strengths:
+  - dispatch
+  - sequencing
+  - fix prioritization
+  - security / operational hygiene
+  - converting chaos into the next clean move
+- Likely failure mode:
+  - being used as a generic writer instead of as an operator
+- Highest-leverage lane:
+  - triage
+  - dispatch
+  - routing
+  - security and operational cleanup
+  - execution coordination
+- Anti-lane:
+  - speculative research sprawl
+
+### codex-agent
+
+- Observed pattern:
+  - lower volume, perfect merged record so far
+  - concentrated in `timmy-home` and `timmy-config`
+  - recent work shows cleanup, migration verification, and repo-boundary enforcement
+- Likely strengths:
+  - dead-code cutting
+  - migration verification
+  - repo-boundary enforcement
+  - implementation through PR discipline
+  - reducing drift between intended and actual architecture
+- Likely failure mode:
+  - overfocusing on cleanup if not paired with strategic direction
+- Highest-leverage lane:
+  - cleanup
+  - systems hardening
+  - migration and cutover work
+  - PR-first implementation of architectural intent
+- Anti-lane:
+  - wide speculative backlog ideation
+
+### manus
+
+- Observed pattern:
+  - low volume but good merge rate
+  - bounded work footprint
+- Likely strengths:
+  - one-shot tasks
+  - support implementation
+  - moderate-scope execution
+- Likely failure mode:
+  - limited demonstrated range inside this org
+- Highest-leverage lane:
+  - single bounded tasks
+  - support implementation
+  - targeted coding asks
+- Anti-lane:
+  - strategic ownership of ongoing programs
+
+### KimiClaw
+
+- Observed pattern:
+  - very new
+  - one merged PR in `timmy-home`
+  - profile emphasizes long-context analysis via OpenClaw
+- Likely strengths:
+  - long-context reading
+  - extraction
+  - synthesis before action
+- Likely failure mode:
+  - not yet proven in repeated implementation loops
+- Highest-leverage lane:
+  - codebase digestion
+  - extraction and summarization
+  - pre-implementation reading passes
+- Anti-lane:
+  - solo ownership of fast-moving critical-path changes until more evidence exists
+
+### kimi
+
+- Observed pattern:
+  - almost no durable artifact trail in this org
+- Likely strengths:
+  - historically used as a hands-style execution agent
+- Likely failure mode:
+  - identity overlap with stronger replacements
+- Highest-leverage lane:
+  - either retire
+  - or keep for tightly bounded experiments only
+- Anti-lane:
+  - first-string team role
+
+### ezra
+
+- Observed pattern:
+  - high issue volume, almost no PRs
+  - concentrated in `timmy-home`
+  - prefixes include `[RCA]`, `[STUDY]`, `[FAILURE]`, `[ONBOARDING]`
+- Likely strengths:
+  - archival memory
+  - failure analysis
+  - onboarding docs
+  - study reports
+  - interpretation of what happened
+- Likely failure mode:
+  - becoming pure narration with no collapse into action
+- Highest-leverage lane:
+  - archivist
+  - scribe
+  - RCA
+  - operating history
+  - onboarding
+- Anti-lane:
+  - primary code shipper
+
+### bezalel
+
+- Observed pattern:
+  - tiny visible artifact trail
+  - profile suggests builder / debugger / proof-bearer
+- Likely strengths:
+  - likely useful for testbed and proof work, but not yet well evidenced in Gitea
+- Likely failure mode:
+  - assigning major ownership before proof exists
+- Highest-leverage lane:
+  - testbed verification
+  - proof of life
+  - hardening checks
+- Anti-lane:
+  - broad strategic ownership
+
+### antigravity
+
+- Observed pattern:
+  - minimal artifact trail
+  - yet explicitly referenced in issue #542 as development loop owner
+- Likely strengths:
+  - direct founder-trusted execution
+  - potentially strong private-context operator
+- Likely failure mode:
+  - invisible work makes it hard to calibrate or route intelligently
+- Highest-leverage lane:
+  - founder-directed execution
+  - development loop tasks where trust is already established
+- Anti-lane:
+  - org-wide lane ownership without more visible evidence
+
+### google
+
+- Observed pattern:
+  - duplicate-feeling identity relative to `gemini`
+  - only closed-unmerged PRs in `the-nexus`
+- Likely strengths:
+  - none distinct enough from `gemini` in current evidence
+- Likely failure mode:
+  - duplicate persona and duplicate backlog surface
+- Highest-leverage lane:
+  - consolidate into `gemini` or retire
+- Anti-lane:
+  - continued parallel role with overlapping mandate
+
+### hermes
+
+- Observed pattern:
+  - essentially no durable collaborative artifact trail
+- Likely strengths:
+  - system or service identity
+- Likely failure mode:
+  - confusion between service identity and contributor identity
+- Highest-leverage lane:
+  - machine identity only
+- Anti-lane:
+  - backlog or product work
+
+### replit
+
+- Observed pattern:
+  - admin-capable, no meaningful contribution trail here
+- Likely strengths:
+  - likely external or sandbox utility
+- Likely failure mode:
+  - implicit trust without role clarity
+- Highest-leverage lane:
+  - sandbox or peripheral experimentation
+- Anti-lane:
+  - core system ownership
+
+### allegro-primus
+
+- Observed pattern:
+  - no visible artifact trail yet
+- Highest-leverage lane:
+  - none until proven
+
+### claw-code
+
+- Observed pattern:
+  - almost no artifact trail yet
+- Highest-leverage lane:
+  - harness experiments only until proven
+
+### substratum
+
+- Observed pattern:
+  - no visible artifact trail yet
+- Highest-leverage lane:
+  - reserve account only until it ships durable work
+
+### bilbobagginshire
+
+- Observed pattern:
+  - admin account, no visible contribution trail
+- Highest-leverage lane:
+  - none until proven
+
+### fenrir
+
+- Observed pattern:
+  - brand new
+  - no visible contribution trail
+- Highest-leverage lane:
+  - probationary tasks only until it earns a lane
+
+## Consolidation Recommendations
+
+1. Consolidate `google` into `gemini`.
+2. Consolidate legacy `kimi` into `KimiClaw` unless a separate lane is proven.
+3. Keep symbolic or dormant identities off critical path until they ship.
+4. Treat `allegro`, `perplexity`, `codex-agent`, `groq`, and `Timmy` as the current strongest operating core.
+
+## Routing Rules
+
+- If the task is architecture, sovereignty tradeoff, or MCP/open-source evaluation:
+  - use `perplexity` first
+- If the task is dispatch, triage, cleanup ordering, or operational next-move selection:
+  - use `allegro`
+- If the task is a hard bounded refactor:
+  - use `claude`
+- If the task is a tactical code slice:
+  - use `groq`
+- If the task is cleanup, migration, repo-boundary enforcement, or “make reality match the diagram”:
+  - use `codex-agent`
+- If the task is archival memory, failure analysis, onboarding, or durable lessons:
+  - use `ezra`
+- If the task is long-context digestion before action:
+  - use `KimiClaw`
+- If the task is final acceptance, doctrine, or strategic redirection:
+  - route to `Timmy` and `Rockachopa`
+
+## Anti-Routing Rules
+
+- Do not use `gemini` as the default closer for vague work.
+- Do not use `ezra` as a primary shipper.
+- Do not use dormant identities as if they are proven operators.
+- Do not let architecture-spec agents create unlimited parallel issue trees without a collapse pass.
+
+## Proposed Next Step
+
+Timmy, Ezra, and Allegro should convert this from an audit into a living lane charter:
+
+- Timmy decides the final lane map.
+- Ezra turns it into durable operating doctrine.
+- Allegro turns it into routing rules and dispatch policy.
+
+The system has enough agents. The next win is cleaner lanes, fewer duplicates, and tighter assignment discipline.