SAFETY-73: a battery that refuses, per inverter, with two or more

SAFETY-52's hold applied per unit at N>1 (owner, 2026-09-27, option R).
A unit that gives < 100 W for 12 cycles in one direction while asked
> 200 W, or trips its stale-reading gate on a ~0 W reading, gets a
P_SAFETY `refused` unit limit closing that direction, so the allocator
hands its share to the others within their own limits. Probe: a +-200 W
pin every 15 min, one unit at a time, only while the site asks 200 W that
way. All units refusing: the site law holds 0 W. Exits reseed the site
target from the wire. INFO plus one WARNING (REFUSES_ABOVE_CUT_OUT) above
the configured cut-out; SAFETY-42/43 no longer report a refusing unit.
N=1 unchanged.

test_refusal_units.py: cases a/b/c on flat and jitter registers against
the old behaviour, probes, recovery, exits; mutations U1-U13 all red.
TEST-19 no-fault campaign: 0 engagements in 5280 runs.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/SAFETY-73-refusal-per-inverter.md

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+# SAFETY-73 - a battery that refuses, with two or more inverters
+
+**Decided 2026-09-27 by the owner, on the phase A plan (option R). All four
+new questions answered yes. SAFETY-52's four decisions carry over.**
+
+## The defect
+
+SAFETY-52 held a refusing battery at 0 W at one inverter only. At N>1
+(`main.py` passed `refused=None`) nothing closed a unit that gives ~0 W while
+its state of charge reads above its configured cut-out, so the allocator kept
+handing it its weighted half. Measured on the real `Controller`, two units,
+house 3000 W, A cut out:
+
+| register | law | B gives | grid | A's gate trips / h |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| flat -4 W | old | 533 W | +2471 W | 46 (each stops the whole site) |
+| flat -4 W | new | 2000 W (its rating) | +1004 W | 1 |
+| jitter | old | 1910 W | +1094 W | 0 |
+| jitter | new | 2000 W | +1004 W | 0 |
+
+House 1200 W, which B alone carries: old +671 W (flat) and +284 W (jitter)
+standing import, new -16 W. Both cut out: old keeps asking two empty batteries
+(+1910 W each on the jitter shape), new holds the site at 0 W.
+
+## What was decided
+
+1. **A refusing unit is closed in that direction** by its own P_SAFETY unit
+   claim, source `refused`. It engages when the unit gives under
+   `REFUSED_BELOW_W` (100 W) for `SETTLE_CYCLES` (12) cycles in one direction
+   while asked more than `PROBE_W` (200 W), or when its stale-reading gate
+   trips on a held reading under 100 W. The allocator then hands its share to
+   the others within their own limits (owner decision 1). It is a hard unit
+   limit that always intersects, so OPT-11's P_MODE layer fits inside it.
+2. **It binds every strategy's ask on that unit** (decision 2): peak guard,
+   arbitrage and maintenance are placed around it like the loop.
+3. **A refusal above the configured cut-out** logs INFO plus one WARNING ending
+   in `REFUSES_ABOVE_CUT_OUT` (decision 3). SAFETY-42/43 no longer report such a
+   unit: its share is 0 W, and `account()` treats it as parked.
+4. **All units refusing the same way** pass that sign to `compute()`, so the
+   site holds 0 W with SAFETY-52's law (decision 4). Probes go one unit at a
+   time.
+5. **Probe:** every 15 min for 34 s the claim becomes a pin at +-200 W and the
+   others carry the rest. The pin stands only while the resolved site target
+   asks at least 200 W its way; otherwise it would make a sibling take the
+   opposite direction, so it falls back to the closed limit for that cycle.
+6. **Exits:** a reading of 100 W or more in the held direction (probe or not);
+   100 W or more taken the other way for 12 cycles (charge at the floor; one
+   cycle of the loop overshooting through zero is not enough); stop or start.
+   On every exit the site target and integrator restart from the watts on the
+   wire, or the reopened unit is handed a parked remainder at once.
+
+**Why 200 W and not `saturation_w`.** A unit's share is often small: a 400 W
+night load split two ways asks 200 W of each. With 500 W the empty battery
+kept a phantom share that SAFETY-43's relative arm then reported as not
+delivering, the ERROR decision 3 replaces. Shares of 200 W or less that give
+under 100 W are "too small to call" in `account()`: the sibling covers the
+meter and nothing is asked of the empty battery that matters.
+
+**Why one direction throughout.** On TEST-19's flapping family a command that
+swaps sign each cycle reads ~0 through the plant's lag: 42 engagements in 21
+no-fault runs without the rule, 0 with it.
+
+**N=1 is unchanged.** Every SAFETY-73 path is gated on `len(inverters) > 1`.
+`test_refusal_units.py` part 6 runs SAFETY-52's whole suite with every
+SAFETY-73 method made to raise.
+
+## Evidence
+
+- `test_refusal_units.py`: cases a, b and c on both register shapes against
+  the old behaviour, probes and their spacing, one-at-a-time probing, the
+  recovery reseed, each exit, the small-ask and small-site-target cases, the
+  WARNING, the status row and shadow mode. Mutations U1-U13 in its docstring.
+- **No false engagements.** TEST-19's no-fault campaign (admin/goodwe
+  `sim/delivery_window.py` families, 2640 runs at N=2 and 2640 at N=1, every
+  unit executing its share) graded with the engage clause: 0 engagements, the
+  longest qualifying streak 5 cycles against 12. The grader is
+  `goodwe-session/scratch_s73/s73_nofault.py`.
+- **Recovery.** Case a, A recovering into a house that fell below the parked
+  target: worst grid +0 W with the reseed. Phase A measured -1059 W without the
+  reseed and the site hold.
+
+## Not covered
+
+- A unit that gives a steady part of its ask (100 W or more) is a limit, as at
+  N=1. SAFETY-42/43 still report it.
+- `pack_permissions` stays SoC-based, so the peak guard may size a shave with a
+  refusing battery counted. The shortfall shows as `unmet_w`.
+- A wedged unit (HW-01) reading ~0 W is now shown as a refusal, not reported as
+  not delivering. Its share still moves, which is the gain SAFETY-42 measured.