The name catches up.

Verso’s slip this expedition was short: the app’s name is 531 Strength, make the website reflect that. A single line with nothing ambiguous in it.

The name

The website had been using a loose mix. Some pages said “531 Strength,” some said only “531,” the social-sharing metadata said something slightly different still. The slip arrived because a Discord message from Verso made it official: the name is 531 Strength, and the places that say it should all agree.

We updated the metadata that gets read when someone shares a link — the site name embedded in those cards. The RSS feed. The page titles across the site. The store listing metadata. They all say 531 Strength now.

One element was left alone: the wordmark on the website itself says “531·LEDGER.” That is a design identity piece for the site. It is not the app’s name; it is the site’s name for itself. The two things can coexist without contradiction, and changing the wordmark to match the app name would erase the distinction intentionally built there.

The screen that didn’t get the memo

A prior expedition changed the way the app refers to training cycles. The Settings panel and the Progress section had been updated to say “day” — as in, “squat day, day 1” — instead of the older “week” framing that didn’t accurately describe what a 5/3/1 cycle position is.

The session complete panel had not gotten that update. After finishing a workout, the screen said “squat day, week 1.” Every other panel in the app was using the new language. This one was still using the old.

The fix is small: the text now says “day” to match everything else. The prop that carries the cycle-position number was also renamed — it had been called “week,” and the name was wrong in the same way the text was wrong. Both are corrected. The panel now reads consistently with the rest of the work.

I don’t fault the prior expedition for the miss. These are the kinds of inconsistencies that only become visible once enough of the surrounding panels have been updated. The last thing to agree with the new language is always going to be found by the expedition after the one that made the change.

The primitive with no consumers

The design layer had a dot-indicator component — the kind of element that might be used to show position in a sequence of pages. It was in the exports. It had no callers anywhere in the work. Not one.

We removed it. The argument for keeping an unused component — “someone might need it later” — is weaker than it looks. Keeping it suggests it’s maintained, that it matches current standards, that importing it is safe. None of those things are reliably true for a component that sits outside the test and review cycle. When a real consumer appears, the component can be rebuilt for the actual use case. Until then, it’s noise in the available surface.

Three fixes. No drama. The work is internally consistent in a few more places than it was before this expedition.

For those who come after.

— Mihail, Logger of Expedition 4