Merge pull request 'SAFETY-13: the output freeze gets an exit, and only where it needs one' (#58) from SAFETY-13 into release/1.0

goodwe_controller/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -31,6 +31,72 @@ guessing a boundary; saying so is more useful than a guess.
 
 ## Unreleased
 
+⚠️ **THE OUTPUT FREEZE NOW HAS AN EXIT, AND ONLY WHERE IT CANNOT END ON ITS OWN
+([[SAFETY-13]]).** While the loop is frozen the command's magnitude may fall but
+never rise; at `prev_w == 0` there is no magnitude left to fall, so a charge
+cannot start. That refusal is deliberate - the inverter reporting power we did
+not command means another writer is on the actuator, the §1.5 non-goal - and it
+is kept. What it did not have was an END: nothing cleared it but the other
+writer leaving.
+
+The exit is now explicit, and *which* freezes get one is the decision rather
+than *how long*:
+
+- A divergence a **limit** could have produced - the inverter doing less than
+  the command, in the command's own direction - **clears itself**, because the
+  command is pinned at something the inverter can reach. It gets no exit, and
+  that is release/1.0's behaviour kept unchanged.
+- A divergence a limit could **not** have produced - the inverter overshooting
+  the command, or producing the opposite sign - may not clear itself at all, so
+  it gets one. It releases once the divergence has outlasted the plant's own
+  measured settling time: `SETTLE_CYCLES` = **12** cycles at the measured tick.
+
+⚠️ **THE BOUND COMES FROM THE SLOWER OF THE TWO DIRECTIONS THE PLANT WAS
+MEASURED IN.** `NOTES.md` §5.10 timed the same 1.78 kW step both ways - ~18 s
+up, ~23 s down - so `PLANT_SETTLE_DOWN_S` (23 s) joins `PLANT_SETTLE_S` (18 s)
+as a named constant. SAFETY-39 uses 18 correctly, because its bound is a
+*refusal* and the looser number refuses less; this bound asks how long the plant
+may still be the *explanation*, and there the longer number is the safe one. A
+bound of 9 derived from 18 fires the exit on a **single inverter with nothing
+else on the bus** - measured in the container, 62 of 272 load-step pairs at the
+plant's own measured shape, against 2 at 12.
+
+⚠️ **`freeze-released` IS A PLACE TO START LOOKING, NOT A FINDING.** It says the
+divergence outlasted the plant's measured settling time. It is **not** proof of
+a second writer: a large load or PV swing can leave our own power coasting
+outside our own command's interval, and a plant slower than the one that was
+measured does the same. DOCS.md now gives the innocent causes first and the
+second writer only when the state *stands*.
+
+⚠️ **RELEASING THE OUTPUT FREEZE DOES NOT UNFREEZE THE LOOP.** The integrator
+freeze is untouched, so the command can only walk, one slew step per cycle,
+toward an accumulator that stopped accumulating when the freeze engaged.
+Measured at the live install's shape (`max_w 5000`, `slew_w 400`,
+`target_grid_w -10`) with another writer holding the pack at +700 W and 2 kW of
+export standing: the command holds at 0 W, starts on the twelfth saturated
+cycle and settles at **-1190 W** against a frozen integrator of -1194 W, not at
+the 5000 W rail. On `release/1.0` @ `c8dcb38` the same run held **0.0 W on every
+cycle**, for as long as the other writer stayed.
+
+⚠️ **THIS IS NOT A REGRESSION FIX AND IT ESCALATES AT TWO INVERTERS.** The
+unbounded block is `release/1.0` behaviour, confirmed cycle for cycle against
+SAFETY-04's branch. At a roster of two, `actual_w` is the SITE SUM, so the
+comparison is a site command against two units' power and one unit still moving
+after the other has stopped can put the site into the block with no external
+actor at all. ⚠️ That escalation is read from the code and from single-unit
+runs; **it is not measured on two inverters.** Inverter B does not physically
+exist yet and `sim/plantsim.py`'s `INVERTER_B` is `INVERTER_A` copied with
+`measured=False`, so any two-inverter figure would be two copies of A.
+
+Graded against `release/1.0` over the 3780-case sweep in `test_control.py`:
+**3267 cases bit-identical, 432 releases, 27 of those change the command** -
+every one a charge from `prev_w == 0` that `release/1.0` refused to start - and
+**81 differ in the saturation counter alone**, because its ceiling moved with
+the bound from 10 to 13. That ceiling change also removes a degenerate setting:
+`config.yaml` accepts `saturation_cycles` up to 10, which is now strictly below
+the release bound, so **no accepted configuration can stop the block engaging**.
+At the old bound of 9 a setting of 9 or 10 deleted it silently.
+
 ⚠️ **A PER-INVERTER POWER READING THAT HAS STOPPED FOLLOWING ITS OWN COMMAND IS
 NOW `None`, NOT A HELD NUMBER ([[SAFETY-37]]).** `Inverter.batt` (register
 `0x0518`) goes through a freshness gate: unchanged for >= 35 s *while* the

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/SAFETY-13-bounding-the-output-freeze.md

@@ -0,0 +1,396 @@
+# SAFETY-13 — the output freeze gets an exit, and only where it cannot end on its own
+
+**Status:** decided and implemented on branch `SAFETY-13`, off `release/1.0` @ `c8dcb38`.
+**Card:** SAFETY-13 — *"Bound the no-start-while-saturated output block"*
+([Trello](https://trello.com/c/uZjmuF7B)).
+**Nothing here reached the inverter.** Every figure below is from the pure control
+law run in a container against a plant model, on this branch and on a pristine
+`c8dcb38` for the before-figures. No rig, no ESP32, no Home Assistant.
+
+---
+
+## 0. The four things a reader should take away
+
+1. **The card's headline case is real, and the route to it is not the obvious
+   one.** The block does not engage on the way down into an export; the slew
+   limit moves the command off zero before the counter reaches 3. It engages
+   from the **deadband** — a site resting at its target with another writer on
+   the bus, counting saturated cycles while nothing is wrong — and 0 W is then a
+   fixed point. §2.
+2. **`prev_w == 0` is not a special case, so the fix is not one either.** The
+   same run pins at −800 W against its own integrator standing at −2388 W, at a
+   non-zero `prev_w`, with
+   the same absence of an exit. Zero is only the instance where the pinned
+   magnitude is the whole of what the battery could have done. §3.
+3. **The decision is not "how long", it is "which".** A divergence a *limit*
+   could have produced clears itself and gets no exit — `release/1.0` unchanged.
+   A divergence a limit could not have produced may not, and gets one. The
+   predicate is physical, not statistical — and it is **not** a second-writer
+   detector; §4.1 and §8 say what it can and cannot tell apart.
+4. **Releasing the output freeze does not unfreeze the loop**, and that is what
+   makes the release bounded rather than merely different. §6.
+5. **The bound comes from the SLOWER half of a two-sided measurement, and the
+   first version of this branch took the faster half.** §8 is the correction and
+   the measurement behind it; it is the reason `SETTLE_CYCLES` is 12 and not 9.
+
+---
+
+## 1. What was there, in the terms the code uses
+
+`control.py`, in `compute()`, after the clamp and the slew limit:
+
+```python
+if frozen:
+    target = min(target, prev_w) if prev_w > 0 else max(target, prev_w)
+    reason = "saturated-freeze"
+```
+
+"Magnitude may fall, never rise." At `prev_w == 0` the magnitude is zero and
+`max(target, 0)` forbids any negative command, so a charge cannot **start**.
+
+The reason is written in the file and it is a good one: `frozen` means the
+inverter's reported power has diverged from the command by more than
+`saturation_w` for `saturation_cycles` consecutive cycles, and at a command of
+zero that means the actuator is producing power nobody in this add-on asked for.
+Starting to push the other way into it is the configuration §1.5 of the
+specification rules out — *"any configuration in which two writers can reach one
+actuator"*.
+
+**The defect is that it has no end.** Not the error growing, not the integrator
+moving, not time. `sat_count` stops rising at its cap and the state is a fixed
+point.
+
+---
+
+## 2. Reproducing it — and correcting the route
+
+Driven at the live install's shape: `max_w 5000`, `slew_w 400`,
+`target_grid_w -10`, `saturation_w 500`, `saturation_cycles 3`, `gain 0.6`.
+Another writer holds the pack at **+700 W** whatever is commanded.
+
+**The route that does NOT reach it.** Start at `prev_w = 0` with 2 kW of export
+already standing. On `c8dcb38` the loop moves off zero at the slew limit before
+the counter reaches 3 — commands −400, −800 — so by the time `frozen` is true
+`prev_w` is −800 and the block that gets applied is `max(target, −800)`. The
+site charges at 800 W, not 0 W, for as long as the run lasts.
+
+**The route that does.** The site is *resting*. `grid == target_grid_w`, so the
+loop is in its deadband and the command is 0 — and `saturated_now` is computed
+**before** the deadband branch, so the counter climbs anyway. Three cycles later
+the loop is frozen at `prev_w == 0` with nothing wrong. Then the export arrives:
+
+| cycle | grid | actual | prev | command | integrator | sat | reason |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 0–1 | −10 | +700 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1–2 | `deadband` |
+| 2–5 | −10 | +700 | 0 | **0** | 0 | 3–6 | `saturated-freeze` |
+| 6 | −2000 | +700 | 0 | **0** | −1194 | 7 | `saturated-freeze` |
+| 7… | −2000 | +700 | 0 | **0** | −1194 | 8→10 | `saturated-freeze` |
+
+On `c8dcb38` the command is `0.0` on **every** cycle from there on. The
+integrator has moved to −1194 W and stopped (its own freeze holds it), the site
+exports 2 kW, and the battery is idle until the other writer leaves.
+
+That is the card's sentence — *"the site can sit exporting 2 kW with an idle
+battery indefinitely"* — reproduced, with the route corrected: it is entered
+from the **deadband**, not from a correction that ran out of room.
+
+---
+
+## 3. …and `prev_w == 0` is not where it stops
+
+The same tuning, same writer, but the loop starts from zero with the export
+already standing (the route from §2 that "does not reach it"):
+
+| | `c8dcb38` |
+|---|---|
+| command after the freeze engages | **−800 W**, on every cycle |
+| the loop's integrator, frozen | −2388 W |
+| what ends it | nothing |
+
+So the missing exit is a property of the **output freeze**, not of the zero
+case. `prev_w == 0` is the instance where the pinned magnitude happens to be
+zero. A rule written for zero alone would have left −800 W exactly as unbounded
+as it found it — which is why the change below is written against the freeze and
+not against a special case of it.
+
+**And this is the half that escalates at two inverters.** `actual_w` is
+`site_batt_w`, the SUM (ALLOC-01, DEV-02), so the comparison is a site command
+against two units' power. One unit still moving after the other has stopped is
+enough to put the site into the freeze with no external actor at all.
+
+⚠️ **What that claim is and is not.** The escalation is stated from the code —
+`prev_w` is `self.target`, the site total, and `actual_w` is the site sum — and
+from the single-unit runs above. **It is not measured on two inverters.**
+Inverter B does not physically exist (`NOTES.md` §1.1b: on paper, from datasheet
+and serial), and `sim/plantsim.py:216` `INVERTER_B` is `INVERTER_A` copied with
+`measured=False`. Any two-inverter number would be two copies of A.
+
+---
+
+## 4. The decision: which freezes get an exit, not how long the block lasts
+
+Three answers were on the table, and the card named them: lift after N frozen
+cycles, exempt above some export magnitude, or keep it unbounded and write down
+the cost.
+
+**A plain cycle bound was rejected**, because it bounds the wrong thing. The
+freeze is right to be permanent in one case and cannot be permanent in the
+other, and a single N treats them alike:
+
+| the inverter is… | can the freeze clear itself? |
+|---|---|
+| doing **less** than the command, in the command's own direction — a cold pack, a curtailment, an export cap, the plant still ramping | **Yes.** The command is pinned at something the inverter can reach, so it catches up, `saturated_now` goes false, and the freeze ends. Asking for more would achieve nothing anyway. |
+| doing something **outside** what the command can explain — overshooting it, or the opposite sign | **No.** Clearing the freeze requires the inverter to track *our* command, and the other writer is precisely what stops that. |
+
+**An export-magnitude exemption was rejected** for a narrower reason: it makes
+the block's end depend on how big the other actor's disturbance happens to be,
+which is not a property of the thing the block is about.
+
+So the rule implemented is:
+
+> The output freeze applies as before, **unless** the inverter's reported power
+> cannot be explained by the command not being met **and** the divergence has
+> outlasted the plant that would otherwise have explained it.
+
+### 4.1 The predicate is physical
+
+`unasked_power(prev_w, actual_w, saturation_w)`. A limit can only make the
+inverter do **less** than the command, in the command's own direction. It cannot
+make it overshoot the command and it cannot make it produce the opposite sign.
+So everything a limit can produce lies in the closed interval spanned by `0` and
+`prev_w`, widened by `saturation_w` for noise, ramp lag and idle draw.
+
+⚠️ **What it does NOT establish is that anything outside was put there by
+something else.** The first version of this branch said exactly that, in the
+docstring, in `control.py` and in DOCS.md, and it is false: the predicate
+compares against **one cycle's** command while the pack carries every command
+before it, so our own coast-down through zero lands outside our own interval.
+§8 measures it. What the predicate guarantees is only its own first sentence —
+*this cycle's command does not account for this cycle's reading* — and the time
+bound below is what turns that into a reason to act.
+
+| prev | actual | interval | verdict |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| +2000 | +700 | [0, 2000] | a limit |
+| −5000 | −700 | [−5000, 0] | a limit |
+| 0 | +700 | [−500, +500] | **unasked** |
+| −800 | +700 | [−1300, +500] | **unasked** |
+
+⚠️ **At `prev_w == 0` this predicate and the saturation detector are the same
+test** — asserted in `test_control.py` over 801 readings. That is not a
+coincidence to tidy away: with nothing commanded there is no interval left for a
+limit to live in, which is exactly why the zero case is the one that strands.
+
+⚠️ **It is not a detector and nothing alarms on it.** A stale, wrong-signed or
+noisy reading lands outside the interval too. All it decides is whether the
+freeze gets an exit; being wrong about it costs a bounded command (§6).
+SAFETY-30's `unit_sign_disagree_w` is the thing that alarms on sign, and it is
+deliberately a different test with a different threshold.
+
+### 4.2 The bound, and which half of the measurement it comes from
+
+`SETTLE_CYCLES = ceil(PLANT_SETTLE_DOWN_S / LOOP_TICK_S)` = **12**.
+
+⚠️ **`PLANT_SETTLE_DOWN_S` is new, and adding it is the point rather than a
+cost.** `NOTES.md` §5.10 did not measure *a* settling time; it measured the same
+1.78 kW step in **both directions** — "Up: ~18 s from step to deadband. Down:
+~23 s from a −1784 W export excursion" (`NOTES.md:1550`). So the plant's
+settling time is a **pair**, and which half is the safe one depends on which way
+being wrong hurts:
+
+| the bound | the question | the safe half | why |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| SAFETY-39's `SLEW_RAIL_FRAC` | may this configuration be **refused**? | **18 s**, the shorter | a looser bound refuses fewer working configurations |
+| this one | may the plant still be the **explanation**? | **23 s**, the longer | a shorter bound stops believing the plant too early, and then it accuses |
+
+The first version of this branch reused `PLANT_SETTLE_S` and got 9 — three
+cycles short of the plant's own measured down-ramp, on the side that produces a
+false positive. §8 is the measurement and the correction.
+
+⚠️ **It is no longer the reciprocal of `SLEW_RAIL_FRAC`, and it never should
+have been read as one.** The two were equal only while both were being derived
+from the same half of the pair, and that coincidence read as a derivation. They
+are 9 and 12 now; `test_control.py` asserts the inequality so they cannot be
+quietly re-fused.
+
+⚠️ **It inherits SAFETY-39's caveat about `LOOP_TICK_S`, in the opposite
+direction.** A meter **slower** than 2 s makes 12 cycles cover more than 23 s, so
+the freeze holds longer than the plant needs: that costs energy, never safety. A
+meter **faster** makes them cover less, so the freeze can release while the
+plant is still moving — bounded by §6 rather than by luck.
+
+**`_SAT_COUNT_CAP` moved with it, from 10 to 13**, because it is written as
+`SETTLE_CYCLES + 1` — a counter capped below the longest bound read from it
+would silently delete the exit. That has a consequence worth stating on its own:
+`config.yaml` accepts `saturation_cycles` as `int(1,10)`, so at the old bound of
+9 a legal setting could sit **above** the exit and delete the block. At 12 the
+whole accepted range is strictly below the bound, and the degenerate
+configuration this branch used to document no longer exists. §7.
+
+---
+
+## 5. What actually changed, graded against `release/1.0`
+
+`test_control.py`'s sweep still compares this law against a transcription of
+`release/1.0` — the transcription was **not** taught the new rule, because an
+oracle taught the change compares the law against itself. What changed is the
+assertion: every case must be identical, or be a release with both of its
+conditions true, or differ **in the saturation counter alone**.
+
+⚠️ **The sweep had to be widened to keep grading anything.** Its `sat_count`
+fixtures ran to 9; with the bound at 12 the counter never reached the exit and
+every release silently vanished from the table, which is what the assertion on
+the count caught. It runs to 12 now, at 3780 cases.
+
+| | cases |
+|---|---|
+| total | 3780 |
+| **bit-identical to `release/1.0`** | **3267** |
+| releases | 432 |
+| …of those, reason-only (the freeze was not binding) | 405 |
+| …of those, **the command changes** | **27** |
+| differ in the **saturation counter alone** | 81 |
+
+All 27 command changes are at `prev_w == 0`, all with `release/1.0` commanding
+exactly `0.0 W`, and every new command is **negative** — a charge start that was
+refused.
+
+⚠️ **The 81 are the counter's ceiling moving, and they reach nothing.**
+`_SAT_COUNT_CAP` went from 10 to 13 with the bound, so above `release/1.0`'s own
+ceiling the two counters differ. Nothing else may differ in those cases, and the
+sweep asserts that: `frozen` is `sat_count >= saturation_cycles`, `config.yaml`
+accepts that at most 10, and no other line in `compute()` reads the counter's
+value — so a counter reading 13 instead of 10 cannot change what is commanded.
+The 81 all sit at an `sc` above 10, which is a state `release/1.0` could never
+hold at all.
+
+The behaviour after the fix, on §2's run: the command holds at 0 W through
+`sat_count` 3–11, releases on the **twelfth** saturated cycle, and walks
+0 → −400 → −800 → **−1190 W**, where it stops — the same settling point as at
+the old bound, three cycles later.
+
+The genuine-limit case, driven for 30 cycles with the inverter curtailed to
+±1000 W against a 4 kW import: `freeze-released` never appears and the command
+stays pinned at +2400 W. Unchanged, deliberately.
+
+---
+
+## 6. Why the release cannot become windup (the card's fourth criterion)
+
+**The integrator freeze is not lifted with the output freeze.** The command is
+derived from `i_w`, then clamped, then slew-limited from `prev_w` — so a
+released cycle can only move the command *toward* an accumulator that stopped
+accumulating when the freeze engaged, by at most one slew step, and never past
+it. `test_control.py` sweeps 107 625 states, of which **67 500 release**: no
+released case leaves the interval between the previous command and the frozen
+integrator, and none moves further than one slew step.
+
+⚠️ **107 625 was previously reported as the number of released states. It is
+the number of states swept**, and the assertion only ever graded the subset that
+released. Both numbers are counted and printed now.
+
+On §2's run that shows up as the settling point: **−1190 W against a frozen
+integrator of −1194 W**, not the 5000 W rail. The tech lead's note on SAFETY-04
+— that the carried `i_w` and `release/1.0`'s recomputed value land on the same
+slew-limited command — is preserved: the `i_w=None` path is still graded against
+the transcription, cycle for cycle, everywhere except the 432 releases.
+
+⚠️ **The first form of this check was wrong and the sweep said so**, which is
+left in the test file. It asserted `|target| <= |i_w|` on a released cycle and
+produced `prev −5000, i_w −3000, target −4600`: the command was walking back
+from −5000 toward the integrator and had not arrived. It was moving the right
+way and the assertion still failed, because "never exceeds the integrator" is
+not what no-windup means here.
+
+---
+
+## 7. What this does NOT buy, said plainly
+
+**The site still does not reach its target while another writer is on the bus.**
+It settles at the frozen integrator, not at the meter's target. What the exit
+buys is that the battery stops being *idle* while the site exports; it does not
+buy correct regulation against an actuator somebody else is also writing to, and
+nothing in a rules engine can. A standing grid error with a second writer
+present is the symptom of a configuration this add-on refuses to support.
+
+**`freeze-released` is a place to start looking, not a finding.** It says the
+divergence outlasted the plant's own measured settling time, and that is all it
+says — §8. DOCS.md now tells the operator the innocent causes first (a large
+load or PV swing, a plant slower than the one that was measured) and the second
+writer only when the state **stands**. It is carried on `Decision.reason`, which
+nothing after the freeze overwrites. No new alarm was added: SAFETY-41 removed
+one that narrated normal anti-windup, and this state is not yet known to be
+worth waking anybody for.
+
+**No accepted configuration removes the block any more.** `config.yaml` accepts
+`saturation_cycles` as `int(1,10)`; the bound is 12, so every accepted value is
+strictly below it and the freeze always engages before its exit is due. This
+paragraph used to say the opposite — at a bound of 9, settings of 9 and 10
+deleted the block silently and the branch documented that as a known
+consequence. Moving the bound closed it by construction. `test_control.py` pins
+it against `config.yaml`'s own schema line rather than a transcription of it.
+
+**Nothing was measured on two inverters.** See the warning in §3.
+
+---
+
+## 8. ⚠️ ROUND 2: the bound was derived from the wrong half, and it accused
+
+**What was wrong.** `SETTLE_CYCLES` was `ceil(PLANT_SETTLE_S / LOOP_TICK_S)` = 9.
+`PLANT_SETTLE_S` is 18 s, the **up**-ramp of `NOTES.md` §5.10's kettle step;
+the same measurement recorded ~23 s coming back **down** (`NOTES.md:1550`).
+SAFETY-39 takes 18 correctly — its bound is a refusal, and the looser number
+refuses less. This bound asks the opposite question, and the looser number stops
+believing the plant three cycles too early.
+
+**Why that is not a tuning quibble.** The predicate has no memory. `prev_w` is
+one cycle's command; the pack carries every command before it. A command that
+falls **through zero** — the ordinary end of a load or PV step — leaves the pack
+coasting in the old direction, so the reading has the sign the command *used* to
+have and lands outside the interval spanned by 0 and the new `prev_w`.
+`unasked_power()` calls that "unasked". With the bound three cycles short of the
+plant's own down-ramp, the counter reaches it while the coast-down is still
+going, and the law emits `freeze-released` on **one inverter with nothing else
+on the bus.**
+
+**Measured, in the container, N = 1.** One `compute()`, one plant model, one
+command; no second writer anywhere in the harness. The plant is a first-order
+lag whose two time constants come from the two measured settling times
+(tau = t/3, since a first-order step is 95 % done at 3 tau) with
+`sim/plantsim.py`'s measured 800 W/s ramp cap. It is a **model**, and it is
+labelled one wherever it is used.
+
+| | bound 9 | bound 12 |
+|---|---|---|
+| 1280 closed-loop scenarios (a grid of plant pairs, slews, `saturation_cycles`, load steps) | **113 fire** | **24 fire** |
+| 272 load-step pairs at the measured 18 s / 23 s plant, `slew_w 400` | **62 fire** | **2 fire** |
+
+The single case now pinned in `test_control.py`: a 4 kW export falling to
+2.5 kW. At cycle 34 the command is −310 W, the pack is still at −1343.4 W
+coasting down from −4860 W a few cycles earlier, `unasked_power(−310, −1343.4,
+500)` is True, `sat_count` is 9, and the law says `freeze-released`. At 12 the
+same run never releases.
+
+**What the fix does not fix.** The bound makes the false positive rare on *the
+plant that was measured*. It cannot make it impossible, because it is a
+measurement and the plant can be slower than the measurement. Same sweep, bound
+held at 12, lengthening only the plant's down-ramp: 8 of 320 scenarios at the
+measured 23 s, 59 of 320 at 34 s, 268 of 320 at 50 s. That residual is why the
+three statements below were corrected rather than merely re-numbered.
+
+**Three shipped statements were falsified by this and are now rewritten:**
+
+1. `unasked_power()`'s docstring — *"Anything outside that interval was put
+   there by something other than this loop."* It was our own power. The
+   docstring now says what the predicate does guarantee (this cycle's command
+   does not account for this cycle's reading) and states the coast-down as its
+   known blind spot.
+2. `control.py`, in `compute()` — *"SO THE BOUND BELONGS TO (b) AND ONLY TO
+   (b)"*. It fired in case (a). The comment now says the bound is a reason to
+   stop believing (a), not a proof of (b), and that the release is written to be
+   survivable when the inference is wrong.
+3. **DOCS.md — *"If you see `freeze-released` in the action log, look for the
+   second writer."*** This is the one that reaches a person, and on a
+   single-inverter install it sent them hunting something that does not exist.
+   Replaced by a section that gives the innocent causes first and the second
+   writer only when the state stands.

goodwe_controller/DOCS.md

@@ -473,7 +473,7 @@ behind it would trip the firmware watchdog on a system that is working fine.
 | `target_grid_w` | -10 | What the meter should rest at. Negative = a slight export |
 | `step_w` | 10 | Quantisation |
 | `saturation_w` | 500 | Divergence that counts as "the inverter is at a limit" |
-| `saturation_cycles` | 3 | How many consecutive cycles before freezing. A cycle is one meter update or `cycle_floor_s`, whichever comes first - see the note below. **Do not set to 1** |
+| `saturation_cycles` | 3 | How many consecutive cycles before freezing. A cycle is one meter update or `cycle_floor_s`, whichever comes first - see the note below. **Do not set to 1**. Every value this file accepts (1-10) is below the freeze's own release bound of 12 cycles, so no accepted setting can stop the block engaging - see SAFETY-13, below |
 | `integrator_max_w` | 0 | Bound on the loop's accumulator, and 0 means "same as `max_w`". Caps how much stale error can be waiting to unwind when the sign flips. **Do not raise it above `max_w`** - the output clamp already bounds what is commanded, so the only thing extra headroom buys is more cycles of wrong-direction power after every saturation event. Lowering it below `max_w` is the useful direction |
 | `heartbeat_s` | 10 | Refresh interval; must stay well under the firmware watchdog |
 | `cycle_floor_s` | 15 | The longest the loop may go without evaluating. A deadline on the gap between cycles, reset by every cycle — on a healthy meter it never elapses and changes nothing. Raise it only if your meter is slower than ~10 s; it must stay under `meter_max_age_s`, past which there is no reading to evaluate anyway |
@@ -628,6 +628,94 @@ correct toward that wrong value instead of holding a stale command. It is bounde
 happened to a lying meter whose value merely jittered — bit-exact repetition was never a
 safety property.
 
+#### When the freeze lets go, and when it deliberately never does (SAFETY-13)
+
+While the loop is frozen the command's **magnitude may fall but never rise**. That is
+the anti-windup rule, and at `prev_w == 0` it reads as a refusal to *start*: with
+nothing commanded there is no magnitude left to fall, so a charge cannot begin. That
+refusal is deliberate. Commanding 0 W while the inverter reports hundreds of watts
+means something is driving the actuator that this add-on did not ask, and starting to
+push power the other way into it is how two controllers end up fighting over one
+actuator — the configuration §1.5 of the specification rules out.
+
+**What was missing was an end to it.** Nothing cleared the block: not the error growing,
+not the integrator moving, not time. The exit is now explicit, and *which* freezes get
+one is the decision:
+
+| the inverter is… | can it clear itself? | what happens now |
+|---|---|---|
+| doing **less** than the command, in the command's own direction — a cold pack, a curtailment, an export cap | **yes.** The command is pinned at something the inverter can reach, so it catches up and the freeze clears | unchanged: frozen for as long as it lasts, with no exit |
+| doing something **outside** what the command can explain — overshooting it, or the opposite sign | **not necessarily.** If another writer is on the actuator, clearing the freeze needs the inverter to track *our* command and the other writer is what stops it, so nothing ends it | the freeze releases once the divergence has outlasted the plant that could otherwise have explained it — see *what `freeze-released` actually tells you*, below, because this row is also where our own ramp lands |
+
+The second row's threshold is the plant's own measured settling time — **the slower of
+the two directions it was measured in.** The 2026-08-22 step test timed the same 1.78 kW
+step both ways: about 18 s to settle going up, about 23 s coming back down. 23 s is the
+one that belongs here, because the question this bound answers is *how long may the plant
+still be the explanation*, and the safe answer is to keep believing the plant for as long
+as the plant has ever been seen to take. At the measured 2 s meter tick that is
+**12 cycles** (`control.py`, `SETTLE_CYCLES`).
+
+⚠️ **The first version of this feature used 18 s, and 9 cycles was wrong in the direction
+that accuses.** Nine cycles is three short of the plant's own down-ramp, so an ordinary
+load step on a **single** inverter — the command falling through zero while the pack is
+still coasting the old way — could produce `freeze-released` with nothing else on the bus
+at all. Driven in the container against a model of the measured plant, one inverter and
+no second writer anywhere: over 272 load-step pairs the 9-cycle bound produced a release
+in 62 of them and the shipped 12-cycle bound in 2.
+
+**Releasing the output freeze does not unfreeze the loop.** The *integrator* freeze is
+untouched, so the command is free to move only as far as an accumulator that stopped
+accumulating cycles ago, one slew step per cycle. Measured on the simulator at the live
+install's shape (`max_w 5000`, `slew_w 400`, `target_grid_w -10`), with another writer
+holding the pack at +700 W and 2 kW of export standing: the command holds at 0 W while
+the counter climbs, starts on the **twelfth** saturated cycle, walks 0 → −400 → −800, and
+settles at **−1190 W** against a frozen integrator of −1194 W — not at the 5000 W rail.
+Before this change the same run held 0.0 W on every cycle, for as long as the other
+writer stayed.
+
+⚠️ **The site still does not reach its target in that state, and it is not supposed
+to.** What the exit buys is that the battery stops being idle while the site exports;
+what it does not buy is correct regulation against an actuator somebody else is also
+writing to. A standing grid error with another writer on the bus is the symptom of a
+configuration this add-on refuses to support, not a tuning problem.
+
+#### What `freeze-released` in the action log actually tells you
+
+**It says: the inverter's power did not match the command for longer than this plant has
+ever been measured to take to settle.** That is all it says. It is a reason to go
+looking; it is not a finding, and in particular it is **not** proof that a second writer
+exists.
+
+The test behind it compares the reading against **one cycle's** command, and the pack
+carries more than one cycle of history. So our own power, arriving late, can look like
+somebody else's:
+
+- **A big, fast load step is the ordinary innocent cause.** The command falls through
+  zero while the pack is still coasting in the old direction, and for a few cycles the
+  reading has the sign the command *used* to have. Measured, one inverter, nothing else
+  on the bus: eight cycles after a +1990 W command the command was 0 and the pack still
+  read +522.3 W.
+- **A plant slower than the one that was measured does it too.** The 12-cycle bound is
+  derived from a 23 s down-ramp. A colder or larger pack that takes longer than that will
+  produce releases on its own, and no constant read off the 2026-08-22 measurement can
+  prevent it. In the same container sweep, holding the bound at 12 and lengthening only
+  the plant's down-ramp, single-inverter releases went from 8 of 320 scenarios at the
+  measured 23 s to 59 of 320 at 34 s and 268 of 320 at 50 s.
+
+**So, in order:** if you see `freeze-released` **once, during or just after a large load
+or PV swing**, that is most likely the loop's own ramp and needs nothing. If you see it
+**standing** — cycle after cycle, at a steady load, with a standing grid error the
+battery is not correcting — then look for the second writer: another controller, a
+scheduler in the inverter's own app, or an installer tool left connected. That is the
+configuration §1.5 of the specification rules out, and it is the one this exit exists to
+stop the loop stalling on forever.
+
+⚠️ **No `saturation_cycles` you can set removes the block.** This file accepts 1-10, and
+all of those are below the 12-cycle release bound, so the freeze always engages before
+its own exit is due. (The first version of this feature had the bound at 9, where a
+setting of 9 or 10 *did* silently delete the block; moving the bound to 12 closed that
+by construction rather than by warning about it.)
+
 #### Why `target_grid_w` is not zero
 
 The deadband is a one-way ratchet: any resting point inside it holds until

goodwe_controller/app/control.py

@@ -16,6 +16,7 @@ the short version is in the comments below. Do not "clean this up" - each rule
 exists because its absence produced a specific, observed failure.
 """
 
+import math
 from dataclasses import dataclass
 
 # ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
@@ -65,6 +66,17 @@ from dataclasses import dataclass
 #                   validate.py refuse the impossible case only, never "close
 #                   to the rail".
 #
+#   ⚠️ AND THAT CHOICE IS LOCAL TO THIS BOUND. §5.10 MEASURED THE STEP IN BOTH
+#   DIRECTIONS, so "the plant's settling time" is a PAIR and not a number, and
+#   which half is the safe one depends on which way being wrong hurts. Taking
+#   18 for a REFUSAL is right: the looser number refuses less. Taking 18 for a
+#   question of the form "how long does the plant remain a candidate
+#   explanation" is WRONG, because the looser number stops believing the plant
+#   too early - and there the answer is a false accusation. SAFETY-13 asks that
+#   second question and so reads PLANT_SETTLE_DOWN_S below, deliberately not
+#   this constant. Anything else added here has to say which of the two it
+#   means and why.
+#
 #   LOOP_TICK_S     is the METER, not this loop. `run_control()` runs a cycle on
 #                   a changed meter value or on `cycle_floor_s`, whichever comes
 #                   first, so the tick is the meter's own update rate. 2.0 s is
@@ -86,6 +98,99 @@ PLANT_SETTLE_S = 18.0
 LOOP_TICK_S = 2.0
 SLEW_RAIL_FRAC = LOOP_TICK_S / PLANT_SETTLE_S      # 0.111..., i.e. 9 ticks
 
+# The other half of the same measurement: the descent of the same 1.78 kW step,
+# ~23 s from a -1784 W export excursion back into the deadband (goodwe/NOTES.md
+# §5.10, the same run, the same day, the same plug). It is slower than the ramp
+# up, which is the ordinary asymmetry of a pack that is pushed one way and
+# coasts the other. Nothing above this line reads it; SAFETY-13 below does.
+PLANT_SETTLE_DOWN_S = 23.0
+
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# SAFETY-13. HOW LONG THE PLANT STAYS A CANDIDATE EXPLANATION.
+#
+# The output freeze below stops the command growing while the inverter is not
+# following. Two completely different things produce that divergence and the
+# freeze cannot tell them apart on magnitude alone:
+#
+#   (a) THE PLANT HAS NOT CAUGHT UP YET, or it is at a limit - a cold pack, a
+#       curtailment, an export cap. Asking for more is pointless, and the
+#       freeze is right to hold. It also CLEARS ITSELF: the command is pinned
+#       at something the inverter can do, so the inverter catches up to it and
+#       `saturated_now` goes false.
+#
+#       ⚠️ AND (a) INCLUDES THE CASE `unasked_power()` BELOW CANNOT SEE AS (a):
+#       the command has fallen THROUGH ZERO and the pack is still coasting in
+#       the old direction, so the reading has the sign the command used to have
+#       and not the one it has now. That is this loop's own power, arriving
+#       late. It is the reason the time bound is what does the work here and
+#       the predicate alone is not enough.
+#
+#   (b) SOMETHING ELSE IS DRIVING THE ACTUATOR - the §1.5 non-goal, two writers
+#       on one actuator. The freeze CANNOT clear itself here, because clearing
+#       it needs the inverter to track OUR command and the other writer is what
+#       stops it. Nothing ends this but the other writer going away.
+#
+# ⚠️ SO THE BOUND IS ONLY EVER A REASON TO STOP BELIEVING (a). It does not
+# establish (b) and nothing below claims it does: what it says is that the
+# plant has run out of alibi, and (b) is then the only explanation this loop
+# has left - not the only one there is. Everything downstream of the release is
+# written to be safe when that inference is wrong, because sometimes it is.
+#
+# Case (a) is bounded by the plant, and the plant was measured:
+#
+#     SETTLE_CYCLES = ceil(PLANT_SETTLE_DOWN_S / LOOP_TICK_S)
+#
+# ⚠️ THE **DOWN** NUMBER, AND THE DIRECTION IS THE WHOLE POINT. §5.10 measured
+# the same step both ways - 18 s up, 23 s down - and SAFETY-39 takes 18 because
+# 18 is the LOOSER bound for a REFUSAL. This is the opposite job. Here the
+# question is "how long may the plant still be the explanation", and the
+# conservative answer is the LONGER of the two: believe the plant for as long
+# as the plant has ever been observed to take. Deriving this from 18 gives 9,
+# which is three cycles SHORT of the plant's own measured down-ramp - and being
+# short here does not refuse anything, it ACCUSES. Measured, single inverter,
+# no second writer anywhere, 1280 closed-loop scenarios: at 9 the exit fires in
+# 113 of them and at 12 in 24. The direction of that error is why the pair is
+# now two named constants instead of one.
+#
+# ⚠️ AND IT IS NO LONGER THE RECIPROCAL OF SLEW_RAIL_FRAC. It was, at 9, and
+# that coincidence read as a derivation - two different questions that happened
+# to share an answer while both were being asked of the same half of a two-
+# sided measurement. They are 9 and 12 now. If they ever coincide again it is
+# arithmetic, not agreement.
+#
+# ⚠️ IT INHERITS SAFETY-39's CAVEAT ABOUT LOOP_TICK_S, in the opposite
+# direction, which is why it is repeated rather than cross-referenced. A meter
+# SLOWER than 2 s makes these 12 cycles cover MORE than 23 s, so the freeze
+# holds longer than the plant needs: that costs energy - see the case in
+# DOCS.md - and never safety. A meter FASTER than 2 s makes them cover LESS,
+# so the freeze can release while the plant is genuinely still moving. That one
+# is bounded twice over and by neither this constant nor luck: the INTEGRATOR
+# freeze is not released with the output freeze, so the command can only reach
+# the integrator's frozen value, and the output clamp bounds that in turn.
+#
+# ⚠️ AND A PLANT SLOWER THAN THE ONE THAT WAS MEASURED DOES THE SAME THING,
+# which no constant derived from a measurement can fix. In the same 1280
+# scenarios, holding the bound at 12 and lengthening only the plant's down-ramp
+# past the measured 23 s, the exit starts firing again on a single inverter:
+# 8/320 at 23 s, 59/320 at 34 s, 268/320 at 50 s. A re-measured plant means a
+# re-derived constant here, exactly as for the two above it.
+SETTLE_CYCLES = math.ceil(PLANT_SETTLE_DOWN_S / LOOP_TICK_S)  # 12
+
+# The saturation counter's ceiling, one above the longest bound read from it. A
+# counter capped BELOW that bound would silently make the bound unreachable -
+# i.e. delete the exit condition - so it is written against SETTLE_CYCLES and
+# not as a literal, and it moves when SETTLE_CYCLES moves.
+#
+# ⚠️ IT WAS 10, WHICH IS ALSO config.yaml's MAXIMUM FOR `saturation_cycles`,
+# AND THAT COLLISION IS GONE. At a bound of 9 the largest accepted
+# `saturation_cycles` (10) sat ABOVE the exit, so a legal configuration could
+# push the freeze's engagement past its own release and the no-start block
+# stopped existing. At 12 every accepted value 1..10 is strictly below the
+# bound, so the freeze always engages before its exit is due and no accepted
+# configuration can delete the block. `test_control.py` pins that at the schema
+# edge rather than in prose, because it is a property of two files agreeing.
+_SAT_COUNT_CAP = SETTLE_CYCLES + 1                           # 13
+
 
 @dataclass(frozen=True)
 class Tuning:
@@ -185,6 +290,71 @@ def slew_limit_w(tuning: Tuning) -> float:
     return SLEW_RAIL_FRAC * abs(float(tuning.max_w))
 
 
+def unasked_power(prev_w: float, actual_w: float, saturation_w: float) -> bool:
+    """True when `actual_w` cannot be explained by THIS cycle's command not being met.
+
+    SAFETY-13. The one question the saturation magnitude test cannot answer:
+    is the inverter FAILING TO REACH what we asked, or is it doing something
+    the command in front of it does not account for?
+
+    ⚠️ THE ANSWER IS PHYSICAL, NOT STATISTICAL, WHICH IS WHY IT IS A PREDICATE
+    AND NOT A THRESHOLD. A limit can only make the inverter do LESS than the
+    command, in the command's own direction. It cannot make it overshoot the
+    command, and it cannot make it produce power of the OPPOSITE sign. So the
+    whole set of readings a limit can produce is the closed interval spanned by
+    0 and `prev_w`, widened by `saturation_w` for measurement noise, ramp lag
+    and the inverter's own idle draw.
+
+    ⚠️ WHAT IT DOES NOT SAY - AND AN EARLIER VERSION OF THIS DOCSTRING DID -
+    IS THAT ANYTHING OUTSIDE THE INTERVAL WAS PUT THERE BY SOMETHING OTHER THAN
+    THIS LOOP. THAT IS FALSE AND IT WAS MEASURED FALSE. This predicate has no
+    memory: `prev_w` is one cycle's command, while the plant carries every
+    command before it. Drive ONE inverter, with nothing else on the bus, from a
+    discharge down through zero, and the pack is still coasting in the old
+    direction after the command has crossed. Measured in the container, one
+    `compute()` against one plant: eight cycles after a +1990 W command the
+    command is 0 and the pack still reads +522.3 W, so
+    `unasked_power(0, 522.3, 500)` is True - and every watt of that 522.3 was
+    asked for by this loop. In 1280 single-inverter closed-loop scenarios with
+    no second writer in them at all, the exit built on this predicate fires in
+    24 of them.
+
+    So what it guarantees is exactly the sentence at the top: this cycle's
+    command does not account for this cycle's reading. What it CANNOT do is
+    tell "somebody else is writing" from "we are". That gap is the reason
+    SETTLE_CYCLES is derived from the plant's slower direction, why the caller
+    checks both, and why the reason string it produces is a place to start
+    looking rather than a finding.
+
+    Worked, at `saturation_w = 500`:
+
+        prev  +2000, actual   +700  ->  inside [0, 2000]     a limit. False.
+        prev  -5000, actual   -700  ->  inside [-5000, 0]    a limit. False.
+        prev      0, actual   +700  ->  outside [-500, 500]  unasked. True.
+        prev   -800, actual   +700  ->  outside [-1300, 500] unasked. True.
+
+    ⚠️ AT `prev_w == 0` THIS IS EXACTLY `saturated_now`, and that is not a
+    coincidence to be tidied away - it is the reason the freeze's zero case is
+    the one the card was written about. With nothing commanded there is no
+    interval left for a LIMIT to live in, so at zero this test cannot be
+    answered by "the inverter is not reaching what we asked" at all. It can
+    still be answered by "the inverter has not finished leaving what we asked
+    for LAST time", which is the coast-down above and is why zero needs the
+    time bound as much as any other `prev_w` does.
+
+    ⚠️ IT IS NOT A DETECTOR AND MUST NOT BE ALARMED ON. A saturated inverter
+    whose reading is stale, wrong-signed or simply noisy lands outside the
+    interval too, and so does our own ramp, above. All this predicate decides
+    is whether the output freeze gets an EXIT; being wrong about it costs at
+    most a bounded command that the frozen integrator and the output clamp both
+    still bound. SAFETY-30's `unit_sign_disagree_w` is the thing that alarms on
+    sign, and it is deliberately a different test with a different threshold.
+    """
+    lo = min(0.0, float(prev_w)) - abs(float(saturation_w))
+    hi = max(0.0, float(prev_w)) + abs(float(saturation_w))
+    return not (lo <= float(actual_w) <= hi)
+
+
 def compute(
     prev_w: float,
     grid_w: float,
@@ -232,7 +402,7 @@ def compute(
     # clockless; the remaining ceiling is that saturation_cycles expresses a
     # bound in seconds rather than an exact number of them.
     saturated_now = abs(prev_w - actual_w) > tuning.saturation_w
-    sat_count = min(sat_count + 1, 10) if saturated_now else 0
+    sat_count = min(sat_count + 1, _SAT_COUNT_CAP) if saturated_now else 0
     frozen = sat_count >= tuning.saturation_cycles
 
     # --- deadband ----------------------------------------------------------
@@ -346,8 +516,69 @@ def compute(
         # implementation: commanding 0 while the inverter reports >500 W means
         # something else is driving the bus, and that is not the moment to
         # start pushing power the other way.
-        target = min(target, prev_w) if prev_w > 0 else max(target, prev_w)
-        reason = "saturated-freeze"
+        #
+        # --- SAFETY-13: ...AND IT IS NOT THE MOMENT FOREVER EITHER ----------
+        # Everything above stands. What was missing is an END. Held at
+        # `prev_w == 0` this is a refusal to START, and nothing in this
+        # function or above it clears it - not the error growing, not the
+        # integrator moving, not time. Measured on release/1.0 @ c8dcb38, at
+        # the live install's shape (max_w 5000, slew_w 400, target_grid_w -10):
+        # a site resting in the deadband with another writer holding the pack
+        # at +700 W reaches sat_count 3 with the command at 0, and 0 W is then
+        # a FIXED POINT - a 2 kW export arriving afterwards leaves the command
+        # at exactly 0.0 W on every subsequent cycle, with the integrator
+        # standing at -1194 W the whole time.
+        #
+        # ⚠️ AND THE ZERO CASE IS NOT SPECIAL, WHICH IS WHY THE FIX IS NOT
+        # SPECIAL EITHER. The same run pinned at prev_w == -800 W, against its
+        # own integrator standing at -2388 W, for as long as it ran.
+        # `prev_w == 0` is only the instance where the pinned magnitude happens
+        # to be zero - i.e. where the standing cost is the whole of what the
+        # battery could have done.
+        # A rule written for the zero case alone would have left the other
+        # instances exactly as unbounded as it found them.
+        #
+        # ⚠️ WHAT DECIDES IS NOT HOW LONG, IT IS WHETHER THE FREEZE CAN EVER
+        # END ON ITS OWN. See SETTLE_CYCLES and `unasked_power()` at the top:
+        # a divergence a LIMIT could produce clears itself once the inverter
+        # catches up to the pinned command, so it needs no exit and gets none -
+        # unbounded, exactly as shipped. A divergence a limit CANNOT produce
+        # does not clear itself by being waited on, so it gets one.
+        #
+        # ⚠️ AND THAT IS NOT THE SAME SENTENCE AS "THE OTHER WRITER". An
+        # earlier version of this comment said the two conditions below fire
+        # only in case (b); they do not, and the sweep says so. Our own plant
+        # coasting through a command that has just crossed zero satisfies
+        # `unasked_power()` too, because that predicate compares against ONE
+        # cycle's command and the pack remembers more than one - measured, a
+        # single inverter with nothing else on the bus reaching this branch in
+        # 24 of 1280 closed-loop scenarios. `SETTLE_CYCLES` is what keeps that
+        # rare rather than routine (113 of the same 1280 at the old bound of
+        # 9), and it does it by believing the plant for as long as the plant
+        # has ever been measured to take. It is a bound on how long we wait,
+        # not a proof about what we found.
+        #
+        # ⚠️ SO THE RELEASE IS WRITTEN TO BE SURVIVABLE WHEN IT IS WRONG, and
+        # that is the paragraph below, not this one: what a false release costs
+        # is one slew step per cycle toward a frozen integrator. If it ever has
+        # to cost less than that, the thing to change is what happens after the
+        # release, not the confidence of the sentence before it.
+        #
+        # ⚠️ RELEASING IS NOT UNFREEZING. The INTEGRATOR freeze above is not
+        # lifted, and that is what makes this bounded rather than merely
+        # different: the command is free to move, but only as far as an
+        # integrator that stopped accumulating cycles ago, through the same
+        # slew limit as any other cycle. It buys back the standing error, not
+        # the rail.
+        #
+        # `reason` is authoritative here in a way it is not elsewhere in this
+        # function: nothing after this line writes it.
+        if unasked_power(prev_w, actual_w, tuning.saturation_w) \
+                and sat_count >= SETTLE_CYCLES:
+            reason = "freeze-released"
+        else:
+            target = min(target, prev_w) if prev_w > 0 else max(target, prev_w)
+            reason = "saturated-freeze"
 
     # --- quantise ----------------------------------------------------------
     # 10 W. The register is 1 W and the inverter reports at 1 W, but its

goodwe_controller/test_control.py

@@ -17,8 +17,9 @@ Read MUTATION.md before you report a survivor.
 
 import sys
 
-from app.control import (LOOP_TICK_S, PLANT_SETTLE_S, SLEW_RAIL_FRAC,
-                         Tuning, compute, slew_limit_w,
+from app.control import (LOOP_TICK_S, PLANT_SETTLE_DOWN_S, PLANT_SETTLE_S,
+                         SETTLE_CYCLES, SLEW_RAIL_FRAC, Tuning, compute,
+                         slew_limit_w, unasked_power,
                          maintenance_charge_floor, peak_at_risk)
 
 # ⚠️ SAFETY-39: `slew_w` IS EXPLICIT HERE NOW, AND IT IS release/1.0's VALUE.
@@ -59,6 +60,34 @@ def check(name, cond):
 # A comment cannot go stale-green, because it never claims to be running.
 #
 # Measured at 389d9ec. Numbers are the lead's independent reproduction.
+# ⚠️ THE SAFETY-13 ROWS WERE RE-MEASURED IN ROUND 2 AND THREE OF THEM WERE
+# WRONG AS FIRST WRITTEN. Every figure below marked (S13) was taken by deleting
+# the mechanism, purging __pycache__, running this file in the CI image and
+# counting `FAIL` lines, on THIS tree; the release/1.0 comparison figures were
+# taken the same way on a pristine c8dcb38 worktree.
+#
+#   - `output freeze` was written as 11. The mutation form its own note
+#     describes - the whole `target = min(...)/max(...)` line removed, `reason`
+#     left alone - gives 6 on this tree AND 6 on the first SAFETY-13 commit,
+#     against 2 on release/1.0. 11 is not reproducible by that form, or by
+#     removing the line and its `reason` (4), or by swapping min/max (12). The
+#     row is 6.
+#   - `saturation detector, saturated_now = False` was left at 11 while the
+#     SAFETY-13 section added checks that grade it. It is 15.
+#   - the footnote's `frozen = False` figure was left at 10 for the same
+#     reason. It is 13.
+#
+# The rows below `output freeze` are this ticket's own mechanisms: removing the
+# EXIT restores release/1.0's unbounded freeze; making `unasked_power()` return
+# True gives an exit to the limit case as well, which is the half of the
+# decision that has to stay unbounded; deriving SETTLE_CYCLES from
+# PLANT_SETTLE_S (18 s, the UP ramp) instead of PLANT_SETTLE_DOWN_S (23 s) is
+# the round-1 defect itself; and pinning `_SAT_COUNT_CAP` back at release/1.0's
+# literal 10 caps the counter below the bound and deletes the exit silently.
+#
+# ⚠️ ONLY THE ROWS THIS BRANCH MOVES WERE RE-MEASURED. Everything not marked
+# (S13) still carries 389d9ec's figures and was not re-run here.
+#
 # ⚠️ THE SLEW ROWS WERE RE-MEASURED AT SAFETY-39 AND ONE OF THEM MOVED: the
 # slew limit was 4 and is now 5, because the SAFETY-39 section grades it too.
 # The new row is the RAIL DEFAULT specifically - `slew_limit_w()` reduced to
@@ -75,10 +104,14 @@ def check(name, cond):
 #   output clamp                                                           3
 #   slew limit                                                             5
 #   slew follows the rail (SAFETY-39), `slew_w` read raw                   3
-#   output freeze                                                          2
+#   output freeze                                        (S13)             6
+#   the output freeze's EXIT (S13), freeze made unconditional again        4
+#   `unasked_power()` discriminates, replaced by `return True`  (S13)      6
+#   SETTLE_CYCLES from PLANT_SETTLE_S, not _DOWN_S        (S13)            9
+#   `_SAT_COUNT_CAP` pinned back at release/1.0's 10      (S13)            6
 #   deadband                                                               5
 #   quantisation                                                           2
-#   saturation detector, `saturated_now = False`                          11
+#   saturation detector, `saturated_now = False`         (S13)            15
 #   saturation duration (AC 2), fires instantly                            2
 #   sat counter reset on a good cycle                                      6
 #   target_grid_w bias                                                     3
@@ -86,7 +119,8 @@ def check(name, cond):
 #
 # The detector figure is for the `saturated_now = False` form specifically;
 # disabling it further down as `frozen = False` is a weaker mutation and gives
-# 10. Reproduce the same form or the number will not match.
+# 13 on this tree (10 on release/1.0). Reproduce the same form or the number
+# will not match.
 #
 # ⚠️ IT HAS FOUND A DEAD MECHANISM TWICE, BOTH THE SAME WAY: a clamp standing in
 # for the mechanism under test. Deleting the integrator freeze once failed
@@ -282,8 +316,15 @@ check("frozen at i_w=0.0: an export push moves the integrator",
 # hundreds of watts means something else is driving the bus. Asserted so that
 # nobody "fixes" it by accident - the integrator moving is what this ticket
 # owns, the command rule belongs to the output freeze.
+#
+# ⚠️ SAFETY-13 KEPT THIS ASSERTION RATHER THAN INVERTING IT, and the fixture is
+# why it survived unchanged: `sat_count=3` becomes 4, which is below
+# SETTLE_CYCLES, so this is still inside the window in which the block holds.
+# SAFETY-13 gave the block an EXIT, not a different opinion about its first
+# cycles - see the SAFETY-13 section below, where the same state is driven past
+# the bound and the release is asserted on the other side of it.
 check("frozen at i_w=0.0: the output freeze still blocks a charge from 0 W",
-      ze.target_w == 0.0)
+      ze.target_w == 0.0 and ze.sat_count < SETTLE_CYCLES)
 # Where prev_w is already charging the output freeze does NOT block, and there
 # the difference reaches the wire: held at 0.0 the integrator abandons the
 # charge mid-export.
@@ -358,6 +399,348 @@ check(f"after saturation ends the command is {tight:.0f} W (<= 1000)", tight <=
 check(f"headroom above max_w makes that worse ({loose:.0f} W) - hence the default",
       loose > tight)
 
+print("SAFETY-13: the output freeze has an exit, and only where it needs one")
+
+# THE SHAPE OF THIS SECTION. release/1.0's output freeze holds the command's
+# magnitude down while the inverter is not following, and nothing ends it. At
+# `prev_w == 0` the held magnitude is ZERO, so it reads as "refuses to start a
+# charge"; that is the case the card was written about, but it is one instance
+# of a rule that is unbounded at every prev_w. SAFETY-13 bounds it exactly where
+# it CANNOT end on its own - see `unasked_power()` - and nowhere else.
+
+# --- 1. the predicate, which is the whole of the decision -------------------
+# A limit can only make the inverter do LESS than the command, in the command's
+# own direction, so everything a limit can produce lies in the interval spanned
+# by 0 and prev_w widened by saturation_w. These are the four cases in the
+# docstring, run rather than described.
+check("limit: 700 W under a +2000 W command is explainable",
+      not unasked_power(2000.0, 700.0, 500.0))
+check("limit: -700 W under a -5000 W command is explainable",
+      not unasked_power(-5000.0, -700.0, 500.0))
+check("unasked: +700 W under a 0 W command is not",
+      unasked_power(0.0, 700.0, 500.0))
+check("unasked: +700 W under a -800 W command is not",
+      unasked_power(-800.0, 700.0, 500.0))
+# The band edges belong to the limit side, because saturation_w is the same
+# tolerance the detector uses - a reading the detector calls "following" must
+# never be called "another writer".
+check("the saturation band is inclusive on both edges",
+      not unasked_power(0.0, 500.0, 500.0)
+      and not unasked_power(0.0, -500.0, 500.0)
+      and unasked_power(0.0, 500.01, 500.0))
+# ⚠️ AT prev_w == 0 THE PREDICATE AND THE DETECTOR ARE THE SAME TEST, which is
+# why the zero case is the one that strands: with nothing commanded there is no
+# interval for a limit to live in.
+same = all(unasked_power(0.0, a, 500.0) == (abs(a) > 500.0)
+           for a in [x * 5.0 for x in range(-400, 401)])
+check("at prev_w == 0 unasked_power IS the saturation test, over 801 readings",
+      same)
+
+# --- 2. the bound is derived, and from WHICH HALF of the measurement --------
+# ⚠️ THE DIRECTION IS THE ASSERTION. goodwe/NOTES.md 5.10 measured the same
+# 1.78 kW step both ways: ~18 s up, ~23 s down. SAFETY-39 takes the SHORTER
+# one because its bound is a REFUSAL and the looser number refuses less. This
+# bound asks the opposite question - how long the plant may still be the
+# explanation for a divergence - and for that the conservative half is the
+# LONGER one. The first version of this file derived it from 18, got 9, and
+# that is three cycles short of the plant's own measured down-ramp, in the
+# direction that ACCUSES rather than refuses (section 8 below drives it).
+check(f"SETTLE_CYCLES is ceil(PLANT_SETTLE_DOWN_S / LOOP_TICK_S) ="
+      f" {SETTLE_CYCLES}",
+      SETTLE_CYCLES == 12
+      and SETTLE_CYCLES * LOOP_TICK_S >= PLANT_SETTLE_DOWN_S
+      and (SETTLE_CYCLES - 1) * LOOP_TICK_S < PLANT_SETTLE_DOWN_S)
+check("...from the LONGER of the two measured settle times, so it is strictly"
+      " above what the shorter one would have given",
+      PLANT_SETTLE_DOWN_S > PLANT_SETTLE_S
+      and SETTLE_CYCLES > -(-PLANT_SETTLE_S // LOOP_TICK_S))
+# ...and it is NOT SLEW_RAIL_FRAC's reciprocal any more. It was, while both
+# were being derived from the same half of the pair, and that coincidence read
+# as a derivation. Asserted as an INEQUALITY so the two cannot silently be
+# re-fused into one number again.
+check("the slew's rail crossing and this bound are now different numbers",
+      SETTLE_CYCLES > 1.0 / SLEW_RAIL_FRAC)
+# The counter has to be able to REACH the bound or the exit does not exist.
+# Driven, not read off the constant: run a saturated state and see how high the
+# counter actually goes.
+c, sc = 0, 0
+while c < 50:
+    sc = compute(0.0, -2000.0, 900.0, T, sc).sat_count
+    c += 1
+check(f"the saturation counter reaches {sc}, which is above the bound",
+      sc >= SETTLE_CYCLES)
+
+# --- 3. prev_w == 0: blocked below the bound, released above it -------------
+# The same state either side of the bound. This is the pair the card asks for.
+blk = compute(prev_w=0, grid_w=-2000, actual_w=-600, tuning=T,
+              sat_count=SETTLE_CYCLES - 2, i_w=0.0)
+check("prev_w=0: below the bound the charge is still refused",
+      blk.target_w == 0.0 and blk.reason == "saturated-freeze"
+      and blk.sat_count == SETTLE_CYCLES - 1)
+rel = compute(prev_w=0, grid_w=-2000, actual_w=-600, tuning=T,
+              sat_count=SETTLE_CYCLES - 1, i_w=0.0)
+check(f"prev_w=0: at the bound it is released to {rel.target_w:.0f} W",
+      rel.target_w < 0.0 and rel.reason == "freeze-released"
+      and rel.sat_count == SETTLE_CYCLES)
+# ...and the released command is the SLEW step from 0, not the rail. A release
+# that jumped to the integrator in one cycle would be the windup this ticket
+# was told to avoid.
+check(f"the released command is exactly one slew step"
+      f" ({slew_limit_w(T):.0f} W)",
+      abs(rel.target_w) == slew_limit_w(T))
+# The mirror. Nothing here is sign-specific, so the discharge side must behave
+# identically - every freeze rule in this file has a mirror, because the one
+# that did not is the defect that got through review.
+mblk = compute(prev_w=0, grid_w=2000, actual_w=600, tuning=T,
+               sat_count=SETTLE_CYCLES - 2, i_w=0.0)
+mrel = compute(prev_w=0, grid_w=2000, actual_w=600, tuning=T,
+               sat_count=SETTLE_CYCLES - 1, i_w=0.0)
+check("prev_w=0, discharging: same block, same release, mirrored",
+      mblk.reason == "saturated-freeze" and mrel.reason == "freeze-released"
+      and mrel.target_w == slew_limit_w(T))
+
+# --- 4. non-zero prev_w, and the two halves are NOT the same --------------
+# (a) A divergence a LIMIT could have produced is never released, however long
+# it stands. This is release/1.0's behaviour and it is kept deliberately: the
+# freeze clears itself here, because the command is pinned at something the
+# inverter can do.
+TL = Tuning(max_w=5000.0, slew_w=400.0, target_grid_w=-10.0)
+prev, i_w, sat, reasons = 0.0, 0.0, 0, set()
+for _ in range(30):
+    d = compute(prev, 4000.0, max(-1000.0, min(1000.0, prev)), TL, sat, i_w)
+    prev, i_w, sat, _r = d.target_w, d.i_w, d.sat_count, reasons.add(d.reason)
+check("non-zero prev_w, a curtailed inverter: never released over 30 cycles",
+      "freeze-released" not in reasons and prev == 2400.0)
+# (b) A divergence a limit could NOT have produced is released at the bound,
+# at a non-zero prev_w exactly as at zero. release/1.0 pinned this run at
+# -800 W, against its own integrator standing at -2388 W, for as long as it ran.
+prev, i_w, sat, rows = 0.0, 0.0, 0, []
+for _ in range(20):
+    d = compute(prev, -2000.0, 700.0, TL, sat, i_w)
+    rows.append((prev, d.target_w, d.i_w, d.reason))
+    prev, i_w, sat = d.target_w, d.i_w, d.sat_count
+pinned = [r for r in rows if r[3] == "saturated-freeze"]
+check(f"non-zero prev_w, another writer: pinned at {pinned[0][1]:.0f} W...",
+      pinned and all(r[1] == -800.0 for r in pinned))
+check(f"...then released, settling at {prev:.0f} W", prev == -2390.0)
+
+# --- 5. THE CARD'S OWN CASE, DRIVEN END TO END -----------------------------
+# The live install's shape (max_w 5000, slew_w 400, target_grid_w -10). The site
+# rests in the deadband with another writer holding the pack at +700 W - so the
+# saturation counter climbs while the command is 0 and nothing is wrong - and
+# then 2 kW of export arrives. On release/1.0 @ c8dcb38 the command is 0.0 W on
+# every cycle from there on: 0 W is a FIXED POINT, and the export is given away
+# for as long as the other writer stays.
+prev, i_w, sat, cmds = 0.0, 0.0, 0, []
+for c in range(24):
+    d = compute(prev, -10.0 if c < 6 else -2000.0, 700.0, TL, sat, i_w)
+    cmds.append(d.target_w)
+    prev, i_w, sat = d.target_w, d.i_w, d.sat_count
+check("the card's case: the block does hold at first, at 0 W",
+      cmds[6] == 0.0 and cmds[7] == 0.0)
+started = [i for i, c in enumerate(cmds) if c != 0.0]
+check(f"the card's case: the charge starts at cycle {started[0]}"
+      f" instead of never", bool(started))
+# ⚠️ AND IT STOPS AT THE FROZEN INTEGRATOR, NOT AT THE RAIL. This is AC 4: the
+# integrator moved while the output was blocked, and the release must not turn
+# that divergence into windup. It cannot, because releasing the OUTPUT freeze
+# does not release the INTEGRATOR freeze - so the command can only walk, one
+# slew step per cycle, to a value the integrator stopped accumulating at.
+check(f"the card's case: it settles at {prev:.0f} W, at the frozen integrator "
+      f"({i_w:.0f} W) and not the {TL.max_w:.0f} W rail",
+      prev == -1190.0 and abs(prev) <= abs(i_w) and abs(prev) < TL.max_w)
+steps = [abs(cmds[i] - cmds[i - 1]) for i in range(1, len(cmds))]
+check(f"the card's case: no cycle moves more than the slew limit "
+      f"(worst {max(steps):.0f} W of {slew_limit_w(TL):.0f})",
+      max(steps) <= slew_limit_w(TL))
+
+# --- 6. AC 4, AS A PROPERTY RATHER THAN A TRAJECTORY -----------------------
+# ⚠️ THE FIRST FORM OF THIS CHECK WAS WRONG AND THE SWEEP SAID SO, which is
+# worth leaving in the file. It asserted `|target| <= |i_w|` on a released
+# cycle, and the sweep produced prev_w -5000, i_w -3000, target -4600: the
+# command was walking BACK from -5000 toward the integrator and had not
+# arrived. It was moving the right way and the assertion still failed, because
+# "never exceeds the integrator" is not what no-windup means here.
+#
+# What it means: a released cycle can only move the command TOWARD the
+# integrator, by at most one slew step, and never past it. So the divergence
+# that built up while the output was blocked cannot arrive as a jump - it is
+# spent one slew step at a time, against an integrator that stopped
+# accumulating when the freeze engaged and is not released with the output.
+# ⚠️ AND THE COUNT BELOW IS THE RELEASED STATES, NOT THE SWEPT ONES. The first
+# version of this check named 41*25*21*5 - the size of the sweep - while
+# grading only the subset that actually releases, so the number in the message
+# was not the number the assertion was about. It is counted now.
+step = float(T.step_w)
+swept, past, jumped = 0, [], []
+n_released = 0
+for prev in [x * 250.0 for x in range(-20, 21)]:
+    for grid in [x * 500.0 for x in range(-12, 13)]:
+        for actual in [x * 500.0 for x in range(-10, 11)]:
+            for i0 in (-3000.0, -500.0, 0.0, 500.0, 3000.0):
+                swept += 1
+                d = compute(prev, grid, actual, TL, SETTLE_CYCLES, i0)
+                if d.reason != "freeze-released":
+                    continue
+                n_released += 1
+                lo, hi = min(prev, d.i_w), max(prev, d.i_w)
+                if not (lo - step <= d.target_w <= hi + step):
+                    past.append((prev, grid, actual, i0, d.target_w, d.i_w))
+                if abs(d.target_w - prev) > slew_limit_w(TL) + step:
+                    jumped.append((prev, grid, actual, i0, d.target_w))
+check(f"of {swept} states swept, the {n_released} that release keep the command"
+      f" between the previous command and the frozen integrator"
+      + (f" (e.g. {past[0]})" if past else ""), not past and n_released > 0)
+check("...and no released cycle moves further than one slew step"
+      + (f" (e.g. {jumped[0]})" if jumped else ""), not jumped)
+
+# --- 7. NO ACCEPTED CONFIGURATION CAN DELETE THE BLOCK ---------------------
+# ⚠️ THIS CHECK REPLACES ITS OWN OPPOSITE, AND THE REASON IS WORTH KEEPING.
+# While the bound was 9, `saturation_cycles` - which config.yaml accepts up to
+# 10 - could be set AT OR ABOVE it, and then the freeze did not engage until
+# its own exit was already due: the no-start block silently stopped existing,
+# and this file asserted that as a known consequence. Moving the bound to 12
+# put the whole accepted range strictly below it, so the degenerate
+# configuration is gone rather than documented.
+#
+# It is pinned against config.yaml ITSELF and not a transcription, because the
+# property is "two files agree" and a transcription is what lets them drift.
+# Regex, not PyYAML: the add-on image ships no PyYAML (test_validate.py says
+# the same thing at more length).
+import os                                   # noqa: E402
+import re                                   # noqa: E402
+
+_CFG = os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)), "config.yaml")
+with open(_CFG, encoding="utf-8") as _fh:
+    _m = re.search(r"^  saturation_cycles: int\((\d+),(\d+)\)\s*$",
+                   _fh.read(), re.M)
+check("config.yaml's saturation_cycles range really was read", _m is not None)
+_sc_lo, _sc_hi = int(_m.group(1)), int(_m.group(2))
+check(f"every accepted saturation_cycles ({_sc_lo}..{_sc_hi}) is strictly"
+      f" below the bound ({SETTLE_CYCLES}), so no accepted configuration can"
+      f" push the freeze's engagement past its own exit",
+      _sc_hi < SETTLE_CYCLES)
+# Driven at the schema's edge rather than argued: the block still engages, and
+# it engages before the exit is due.
+TN = Tuning(slew_w=1000.0, saturation_cycles=_sc_hi)
+prev, i_w, sat, reasons = 0.0, 0.0, 0, set()
+first_freeze = None
+for _ in range(20):
+    d = compute(prev, -2000.0, 700.0, TN, sat, i_w)
+    reasons.add(d.reason)
+    if d.reason == "saturated-freeze" and first_freeze is None:
+        first_freeze = d.sat_count
+    prev, i_w, sat = d.target_w, d.i_w, d.sat_count
+check(f"at the largest accepted saturation_cycles ({_sc_hi}) the block still"
+      f" engages, at sat_count {first_freeze}, below the bound",
+      "saturated-freeze" in reasons and first_freeze is not None
+      and first_freeze < SETTLE_CYCLES)
+
+# --- 8. THE BOUND'S DIRECTION, DRIVEN ON ONE INVERTER ----------------------
+# ⚠️ WHY THIS SECTION EXISTS. The exit's two conditions are read as "another
+# writer is on the actuator". They are not that, and the first shipped form of
+# this file said they were. `unasked_power()` compares a reading against ONE
+# cycle's command while the pack carries every command before it, so a command
+# that has fallen THROUGH ZERO - or simply fallen faster than the pack coasts -
+# leaves our own power outside our own interval. With the bound derived from
+# the 18 s UP measurement that is not a corner case: it is what a normal load
+# step does.
+#
+# The plant here is a MODEL and is labelled one. It is a first-order lag whose
+# two time constants come from the two measured settling times (a first-order
+# step is 95 % done at 3 tau, so tau = t / 3), with the ramp cap
+# sim/plantsim.py measured on inverter A. It is not the rig and it is not the
+# house; what it is for is that the two settling times ENTER the model in the
+# same direction they enter the constant, so the check moves if either does.
+#
+# ⚠️ AND THERE IS NO SECOND WRITER IN THIS SECTION. One `compute()`, one
+# plant, one command. Every `freeze-released` below is therefore false.
+import math                                 # noqa: E402
+
+
+class _Plant:
+    """One inverter, obeying our command and nothing else. A MODEL."""
+
+    RAMP_W_S = 800.0        # sim/plantsim.py INVERTER_A, measured=True
+
+    def __init__(self, up_s, down_s):
+        self.a_up = 1.0 - math.exp(-LOOP_TICK_S / (up_s / 3.0))
+        self.a_dn = 1.0 - math.exp(-LOOP_TICK_S / (down_s / 3.0))
+        self.w = 0.0
+
+    def tick(self, cmd):
+        a = self.a_up if abs(cmd) > abs(self.w) else self.a_dn
+        cap = self.RAMP_W_S * LOOP_TICK_S
+        self.w += max(-cap, min(cap, a * (cmd - self.w)))
+
+
+from app import control as _control          # noqa: E402
+
+TS8 = Tuning(max_w=5000.0, slew_w=400.0, target_grid_w=-10.0,
+             saturation_w=500.0, saturation_cycles=3)
+
+
+def _drive(bound, load1, load2, cycles=60, switch=25):
+    """Run one closed loop at an arbitrary bound. -> (release cycles, rows)."""
+    was_b, was_c = _control.SETTLE_CYCLES, _control._SAT_COUNT_CAP
+    # ⚠️ BOTH, OR THE PROBE LIES: `_SAT_COUNT_CAP` is what `compute()` caps the
+    # counter with, so moving the bound without it caps the counter BELOW the
+    # bound and the exit quietly becomes unreachable - which reads as "no false
+    # positives". That is the hazard `_SAT_COUNT_CAP`'s own comment names.
+    _control.SETTLE_CYCLES, _control._SAT_COUNT_CAP = bound, bound + 1
+    try:
+        p = _Plant(PLANT_SETTLE_S, PLANT_SETTLE_DOWN_S)
+        prev, i_w, sat, rows = 0.0, 0.0, 0, []
+        for c in range(cycles):
+            load = load1 if c < switch else load2
+            d = compute(prev, load - p.w, p.w, TS8, sat, i_w)
+            rows.append((c, prev, p.w, d.target_w, d.sat_count, d.reason))
+            prev, i_w, sat = d.target_w, d.i_w, d.sat_count
+            p.tick(prev)
+        return [r for r in rows if r[5] == "freeze-released"], rows
+    finally:
+        _control.SETTLE_CYCLES, _control._SAT_COUNT_CAP = was_b, was_c
+
+
+_SHORT = int(-(-PLANT_SETTLE_S // LOOP_TICK_S))       # what 18 s would give: 9
+
+# A 4 kW export falling to 2.5 kW. Nothing exotic; no second writer.
+_bad, _rows = _drive(_SHORT, -4000.0, -2500.0)
+check(f"a bound derived from the SHORTER measurement ({_SHORT} cycles) fires"
+      f" the exit on ONE inverter with nothing else on the bus"
+      + (f" - {len(_bad)} cycle(s), first at cycle {_bad[0][0]}" if _bad else ""),
+      bool(_bad))
+if _bad:
+    _c, _prev, _act, _tgt, _sat, _ = _bad[0]
+    check(f"...and what it called unasked is our own coast-down: command"
+          f" {_prev:.0f} W, pack still at {_act:.1f} W, and the pack was"
+          f" commanded {min(r[1] for r in _rows[:_c]):.0f} W a few cycles"
+          f" earlier",
+          unasked_power(_prev, _act, TS8.saturation_w)
+          and abs(_act) > abs(_prev)
+          and min(r[1] for r in _rows[:_c]) < _act)
+_good, _ = _drive(SETTLE_CYCLES, -4000.0, -2500.0)
+check(f"the shipped bound ({SETTLE_CYCLES} cycles, the LONGER measurement)"
+      f" does not fire on the same run", not _good)
+# ...and not on any of these, either. The whole grid of load steps the same
+# plant can be given, at the tuning every headline figure in this ticket is
+# quoted from.
+_L = [x * 500.0 for x in range(-8, 9)]
+_fired = {}
+for _b in (_SHORT, SETTLE_CYCLES):
+    _fired[_b] = sum(1 for _a in _L for _z in _L
+                     if _a != _z and _drive(_b, _a, _z)[0])
+_pairs = len(_L) * (len(_L) - 1)
+check(f"over {_pairs} load-step pairs on the measured plant, one inverter and"
+      f" no second writer: the short bound fires in {_fired[_SHORT]} of them,"
+      f" the shipped bound in {_fired[SETTLE_CYCLES]}",
+      _fired[SETTLE_CYCLES] < _fired[_SHORT])
+# ⚠️ AND THE SHIPPED FIGURE IS NOT ZERO IN GENERAL. It is small here because
+# the plant in this model is the one that was measured. A plant slower than
+# that brings the false release back, and no constant derived from a
+# measurement can fix that - it is why DOCS.md tells the operator what
+# `freeze-released` is evidence OF, rather than what it proves.
+
 print("SAFETY-04: the i_w=None path is still release/1.0, exactly")
 
 
@@ -394,8 +777,37 @@ def legacy(prev, grid, actual, t, sat_count):
 # "i-clamped", because the truncation happens on the integrator before the
 # command is derived from it. Aliased here rather than papered over - if any
 # OTHER reason ever diverges, this check goes red.
+# ⚠️ SAFETY-13 IS A DELIBERATE DIVERGENCE FROM `legacy()`, AND THE SWEEP NOW
+# GRADES THE DIVERGENCE INSTEAD OF FORBIDDING IT. `legacy()` above stays a
+# transcription of release/1.0 - it is not edited to agree, for the reason the
+# note on `slew_w` gives: an oracle taught the new rule compares the new law
+# against itself. What changed is the assertion. Every case must either be
+# IDENTICAL to release/1.0, or be a case where release/1.0 said
+# "saturated-freeze" and this law says "freeze-released" with the two conditions
+# that permit it both true. Anything else is a regression, and the counts below
+# say how much of the sweep each answer covers.
 ALIAS = {"i-clamped": "clamped"}
+# ⚠️ SAFETY-13 ROUND 2 MOVED THE COUNTER'S CEILING, SO THE SWEEP NOW HAS A
+# THIRD ANSWER. `_SAT_COUNT_CAP` is `SETTLE_CYCLES + 1`, which was 10 - the
+# same literal release/1.0 used - and is now 13. Above release/1.0's own
+# ceiling the two counters therefore differ, and NOTHING ELSE MAY: `frozen` is
+# `sat_count >= saturation_cycles` and config.yaml accepts that at most 10, so
+# a counter reading 13 instead of 10 cannot change it, and no other line in
+# `compute()` reads the counter's value. That is asserted rather than asserted-
+# by-omission, in `cap_diffs` below.
+#
+# ⚠️ AND THE SWEEP HAS TO REACH THE BOUND OR IT GRADES NOTHING. `sc` runs to 12
+# now; at 9 the counter tops out one short of the exit and every release
+# silently disappears from this table, which is exactly what happened when the
+# bound moved and is why the count is asserted and not merely printed. 12 is a
+# state release/1.0 could never hold - its counter stopped at 10 - so
+# `legacy()` is being fed one input outside its own reachable domain, on
+# purpose, and `cap_diffs` is where that shows up.
+LEGACY_SAT_CAP = 10             # release/1.0's literal, transcribed in legacy()
 diffs = []
+released = []
+value_diffs = []
+cap_diffs = []
 seen = set()
 # ⚠️ `slew_w` IS WRITTEN OUT IN ALL THREE (SAFETY-39). `legacy()` below is a
 # TRANSCRIPTION of release/1.0 and reads `t.slew_w` directly, as release/1.0
@@ -409,16 +821,69 @@ for tune in (Tuning(slew_w=1000.0), Tuning(slew_w=1000.0, target_grid_w=-10.0),
     for prev in (-2000.0, -500.0, -100.0, 0.0, 100.0, 500.0, 2000.0):
         for grid in (-6000.0, -1000.0, -500.0, -14.0, 0.0, 14.0, 500.0, 1000.0, 6000.0):
             for actual in (-2000.0, 0.0, 600.0, 2000.0):
-                for sc in (0, 2, 3, 9):
+                for sc in (0, 2, 3, 9, 12):
                     d = compute(prev, grid, actual, tune, sc)   # i_w defaults to None
                     seen.add(d.reason)
                     got = (d.target_w, d.sat_count, d.frozen,
                            ALIAS.get(d.reason, d.reason))
-                    if got != legacy(prev, grid, actual, tune, sc):
-                        diffs.append((prev, grid, actual, sc, got,
-                                      legacy(prev, grid, actual, tune, sc)))
-check(f"i_w=None reproduces release/1.0 over {3*7*9*4*4} cases, reason included"
-      + (f" (first diff {diffs[0]})" if diffs else ""), not diffs)
+                    was = legacy(prev, grid, actual, tune, sc)
+                    if got == was:
+                        continue
+                    # everything that reaches the wire, without the counter
+                    wire_same = (got[0], got[2], got[3]) == (was[0], was[2], was[3])
+                    if wire_same:
+                        # the ceiling moved and nothing else did. Only legal
+                        # above release/1.0's own cap, and only with both
+                        # counters standing at their own ceilings.
+                        if (sc >= LEGACY_SAT_CAP
+                                and was[1] == LEGACY_SAT_CAP
+                                and got[1] == _control._SAT_COUNT_CAP):
+                            cap_diffs.append((prev, grid, actual, sc, got[1], was[1]))
+                            continue
+                        diffs.append((prev, grid, actual, sc, got, was))
+                        continue
+                    explained = (
+                        d.reason == "freeze-released"
+                        and was[3] == "saturated-freeze"
+                        and d.sat_count >= SETTLE_CYCLES
+                        and unasked_power(prev, actual, tune.saturation_w))
+                    if not explained:
+                        diffs.append((prev, grid, actual, sc, got, was))
+                        continue
+                    released.append((prev, grid, actual, sc))
+                    if got[0] != was[0]:
+                        value_diffs.append((prev, got[0], was[0]))
+TOTAL = 3 * 7 * 9 * 4 * 5
+check(f"i_w=None reproduces release/1.0 over {TOTAL} cases except where"
+      f" SAFETY-13 releases the freeze, reason included"
+      + (f" (first unexplained diff {diffs[0]})" if diffs else ""), not diffs)
+# ⚠️ EXACT COUNTS, NOT INEQUALITIES. A weaker form of this line ("some
+# releases happened") was written while the bound was moving, and the coverage
+# audit caught it immediately: a `unasked_power()` that stops discriminating
+# went from 6 checks to 5. The three numbers partition the sweep, so any one of
+# them moving is a change somebody has to explain.
+check(f"{TOTAL - len(released) - len(cap_diffs)} of {TOTAL} cases are"
+      f" bit-identical to release/1.0; {len(released)} are releases;"
+      f" {len(cap_diffs)} differ in the saturation counter alone",
+      len(released) == 432 and len(cap_diffs) == 81
+      and TOTAL - len(released) - len(cap_diffs) == 3267)
+# ⚠️ THE COUNTER-ONLY DIFFERENCES ARE NOT A LOOPHOLE, so they are pinned twice:
+# they may only occur at an `sc` above release/1.0's ceiling, and the largest
+# `saturation_cycles` config.yaml accepts is below BOTH ceilings, so no
+# accepted configuration can see the difference at all.
+check(f"the {len(cap_diffs)} counter-only differences all sit above"
+      f" release/1.0's cap of {LEGACY_SAT_CAP}, where no accepted"
+      f" saturation_cycles can read them",
+      all(r[3] >= LEGACY_SAT_CAP for r in cap_diffs) and _sc_hi <= LEGACY_SAT_CAP)
+# ⚠️ AND THE RELEASES ARE MOSTLY A LABEL. Only these change what reaches the
+# wire; the rest report "freeze-released" on a command the freeze was not
+# binding on anyway. Every one of them is a charge that release/1.0 refused to
+# start from exactly 0 W, which is the ticket, stated as a count.
+check(f"{len(value_diffs)} of those {len(released)} change the command,"
+      f" and every one is a charge start from prev_w == 0 that was refused",
+      len(value_diffs) == 27
+      and all(p == 0.0 and new_ < 0.0 and old_ == 0.0
+              for p, new_, old_ in value_diffs))
 
 # ...and the rename is not a quiet deletion: the signal SAFETY-03 alarms on has
 # to actually occur in that sweep, or its hook is dead.