Complete curtailment topology targets plan

[negarn]

Reviewable diff: +1/-1 across 1 file (excludes generated, test, and story files).

Summary

This PR records completion of the building, rack, and group curtailment targeting work after the final end-to-end coverage merged in PR #981. It archives the accepted implementation plan and closes the tracking issue when merged.

How it works

The plan frontmatter moves from implementing to completed, and the document moves from the active plans directory into docs/plans/archive/. The closing reference below lets GitHub close issue #909 when this lifecycle update merges.

Diagrams

flowchart LR
  A["Issue #909 implementation"] --> B["Final E2E coverage merged"]
  B --> C["Plan marked completed and archived"]
  C --> D["Issue #909 closes"]

Loading

Areas of the code involved

Area / package / file	What changed	Why it matters for review
docs/plans/archive/2026-08-11-curtailment-building-rack-and-group-targets-plan.md	Marks the plan completed and moves it into the plan archive.	Keeps the planning lifecycle and issue status aligned with the merged implementation.

Key technical decisions & trade-offs

• Archive the existing plan rather than adding a separate completion note, preserving its full design history under the repository's documented lifecycle convention.

Testing & validation

• git diff --check
• Verified the archived document has status: completed and the active-plan path no longer exists.
• Runtime tests were not run because this change only updates planning-document lifecycle metadata and location.

Closes #909

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Archives and marks as completed the accepted implementation plan for curtailment topology targets (building, rack, group), aligning the plan lifecycle with the already-merged end-to-end coverage and enabling the tracking issue to close on merge.

Changes:

• Updates the plan frontmatter status from implementing to completed.

---

💡 Add a code-review agent skill or configure MCP servers for context-aware, tailored reviews. Learn more in the docs.

[github-actions]

🔐 Codex Security Review

Note: This is an automated security-focused code review generated by Codex.
It should be used as a supplementary check alongside human review.
False positives are possible - use your judgment.

Scope summary

• Reviewed pull request diff only (611d995b62954b4b9fe3588b82772762a42c3f3d...29c9669c1a44f28a972647ad92bd5314e3bb09c9, exact PR three-dot diff)
• Model: gpt-5.6-sol

💡 Click "edited" above to see previous reviews for this PR.

---

Review Summary

Overall Risk: NONE

Findings

No security, correctness, or reliability findings.

Notes

The authoritative diff only archives a completed planning document and updates its frontmatter status. It changes no executable code, configuration, dependencies, generated artifacts, or protocol definitions.

---

_{Generated by Codex Security Review |
Triggered by: @negarn |
Review workflow run}

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 29c9669c1a

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Codex has been enabled to automatically review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

When you sign up for Codex through ChatGPT, Codex can also answer questions or update the PR, like "@codex address that feedback".