All right, don't have all the information, so making some assumptions here...
The goal of Cumulative Flow is consistency. Consistent cycle time from when a task is started to when it is finished is the goal. You measure cycle time horizontally from left to right.
At the start of your grid you had a cycle time of a couple of days (a task started on 5/28 was closed by 5/31. But by 6/2 your cycle time has grown to at least eight days before the cycle goes off the grid, and by a back of the napkin progression I'd say it's a good two weeks (draw a straight line from the left edge of proposed on 6/1 and see that it does not intersect closed). So from when a bug is proposed to when it is closed is growing. Troubling is the largest growth is in resolved.
When resolved cycle time is growing, in a traditional development, that usually tells me that the development fixes don't work the first time. QA finds a bug, reports it, dev fixes it, fix doesn't work, goes back to dev, tested again.
This is a classic trap in traditional development. The longer you go from when a bug was introduced, not found but when the developer introduces it, the harder it is to get it fixed. The developer has already moved on.
So short answer of what I see. Developers will still be fixing a huge mass of bugs when they are supposed to be "done" and probably already working on the next release. Continue this cycle for three or four development cycles (typically years in large companies) and you will end up missing an entire release because you have to spend the time to fix all the technical debt.