a box until the information can safely be declassified, but for example no longer than 10 years or so
Ten years may not be enough. For example, an intelligence asset may still be in place after ten years. Consider a new officer in the military. Just the military career might last forty years. Such a long term relationship is no longer possible under your proposed system.
Also realize that equipment may still be in use for more than ten years. So a recorded security briefing might reveal a critical weakness if openly released.
Clearly TPT would make it impossible for corruption to occur within the totally transparent system,
I don't know that that's true. It makes it more difficult certainly. But note how people disagree on interpretations of events that are transparent. For example, the DNC's email system was rendered transparent. This clearly indicated that the DNC was lying about being neutral in the primary. Yet the only person to be negatively impacted by this revelation is Debbie Wasserman Schultz. Schultz was chosen by Barack Obama. Has he lost even a shred of influence as a result?
Another example is the Clinton Foundation. There is one narrative that says that Hillary Clinton traded decisions as Secretary of State for donations to the foundation. We have relatively good information about such donations and about her decisions as Secretary. We even have a particular narrative linking a specific donation to a change in a specific decision. What we don't have is proof that she made the change in response to the donation. And we might not have that even if every moment of her life was recorded since 2008. Consider the following conversation:
Donor: I just gave your foundation a million dollar donation.
Clinton: Why thank you, that was very generous! We'll put the money to good use.
Donor and Clinton exchange small talk.
Donor: By the way, you've been opposed to [whatever]. I think you're wrong. Here's some reasons why.
Clinton: I'll give careful consideration to what you've said.
Clinton eliminates her opposition to whatever it was and supports it instead.
Did the donor just give Clinton a million dollar bribe? Most of her political enemies will say yes, she was giving careful consideration to the linking of the donation to support for the donor's position. Most of her supporters will say no, that she just changed her mind based on new information, possibly including the arguments presented here but unrelated to the donation. And this is with total transparency.
The same problem exists with campaign contributions. We know for a fact that large donors get meetings with politicians where they get to ask for things. What we don't know is if they receive things because they are donors or because the politician would have supported that position regardless.
Transparency means that you can't engage in the obviously illegal. You can't ask someone to make a donation or campaign contribution in exchange for something. But if you receive one, transparency does not keep you from rewarding the donor. It just keeps you from saying that you are doing so.
Another way that this can happen. A politician looks around for someone with a need. Fulfills that need. Retires from politics and asks that someone for a job. Gets it. Now other politicians can see that they too might benefit by filling needs for that potential employer. But since no one ever actually made or accepted an offer, there's no bribe.
Transparency doesn't block corrupt acts. It only blocks discussing them.