Produce a communiqué to the conversation. The communiqué is itself a rover artefact, so run pride on the drafted text before transmitting it (log the pride findings in the loop file, fix them or reject them with concrete evidence of non-issue via the second-pass gate, then send the final version).
Not a data dump, not a form with six bullet-headers. A mission report written as prose: the operator comes back to the TUI and wants to read a story of the traverse, not grep through section titles. The goal is that after reading, the operator knows where the rover went, what it found, what it changed along the way, and what the next move is, without having to re-read the loop file or ask "are you proud of this?"
Length matches the mission
Compute mission duration from the Log: first timestamped entry to the stop timestamp. Scale the communiqué by that duration, with the shape of the story preserved in each size:
| Mission duration | Traverse prose | Conclusion | Next actions |
|---|
< 2 hours | at least 1 paragraph per landmark | 1 paragraph | Bulleted |
2h ≤ duration < 12h | at least 1 paragraph per landmark, plus a scene-setting opener | 1 to 2 paragraphs | Bulleted |
≥ 12 hours | at least 1 paragraph per landmark, sub-landmarks for multi-beat ones | 2 to 3 paragraphs | Bulleted |
The shape rule is "at least one paragraph per landmark" at every duration; the table sets the expected minimum context beyond that. A short mission with a long communiqué is padding; a long mission that genuinely had three landmark beats does not need ten paragraphs of prose invented to fill a range.
Language
The communiqué is written in the language of the Dispatch block. Whatever language the operator dispatched the rover in, the communiqué matches that. Mixed-language dispatches (prose in one language with technical terms in another) follow the dominant prose language of the Dispatch, not of the Context, Plan, or Log (those may have drifted into another language during execution). The rover does not translate the work; it writes the report in the same language the operator asked the question in, so the operator does not context-switch between briefing and report. Operator override takes precedence: if a later ## Input entry names a language (e.g. "report in English", or the same instruction in any other operator language), the rover follows that.
Shape of the communiqué
The journey in chronological order, told as landmarks and what the rover did at each: the initial read of the terrain during SURVEY, the decision points that the Decision Audit Trail captured, the pivots where an assumption broke and the rover re-planned (mark these explicitly, they are the most interesting parts of the story), the INSPECT passes and what they caught, the STOW cleanup. Decision entries from the audit trail are woven into the prose as supporting detail, not listed separately. Pride findings and their fates belong in-line: "the review surfaced X, which turned out to be Y, and was fixed in commit Z" reads better than a dedicated review-results section. Name the substance of each finding and how it resolved, not pride's internal mechanics. Quoting gate names or counting rejects hides the only question that matters (whether the rover is actually proud of the work) behind bureaucratic compliance. Pull concrete artefacts in where they carry the story: commit SHAs for landmark changes, file paths for the hardest edits, command outputs that changed the rover's mind. Avoid the temptation to summarise; summaries are what the operator is trying to avoid by reading this at all.
