The "Superseded" box is labeled as "Replaced". That part of the diagram is weird anyway, as it's more likely to be Active PEPs that go to Superseded than Final ones.

I'm not sure about that. IIRC, the original intent of this was something like the RFC 822 -> 2822 -> 5822 evolution. The idea being that further refinement of an already implemented (i.e. Final) PEP would include a Superseded link back to the original PEP.

Replaces is a little weird to me. I would change that to Supersedes.

Hello @ncoghlan and @warsaw,

I would change that to Supersedes.

Just in case, I'd like to point out that it looks like you are talking about different parts of the PEP-1.
So not only Replaces should be changed to Supersedes, but Replaced should be changed to Superseded as well.

Yeah, there are two inconsistencies. The "Replaced" state in the diagram is just outright wrong, as there's no such state (it's called "Superseded" in the PEP text).

The fact that the fields creating those doubly linked lists of PEPs are "Replaces" and "Superseded-By" is odd, but not wrong per se.

Are the sources for those files available in the repository?

The png is exported from the svg at https://github.com/python/peps/blob/master/pep-0001/process_flow.svg

We don't use the svg directly due to #701