SAFETY-42 round 2: pin the two thresholds at a config that is not the shipped one

THE BLOCKER. At the `delinquent()` call site, `self.tuning.saturation_w` ->
`250.0` (-19 B) was a survivor of all 23 suites. It is not an equivalent
mutant: two copies of inverter A, B wedged, `saturation_w: 1800` (inside its
own schema int(100,2000)) and a load of 1600 W put B's shortfall strictly
between the literal and the configured value - head names nobody, the mutant
names B. At the shipped 500 both name it, which is exactly why every fixture
in part 4 was blind: their gaps are all above both thresholds.

It matters beyond a mutation score. `delivery.py`'s MIN_W_IS_SATURATION_W note
and the `delivery_hold_s` block in config.yaml both promise an operator, in
shipped prose, that there is no fourth copy of a threshold to keep in step and
no way for the two to drift - raise `saturation_w` and this check moves with
you. A literal at the call site removes exactly that promise, silently, and
the promise is why the design was chosen over a `delivery_w` key.

ASKING THE SAME QUESTION OF EVERY OTHER NUMBER THIS CHECK READS FOUND A SECOND
SURVIVOR OF ALL 23 SUITES: `bms_floor=inv.bms_soc_floor` -> `10.0` (-13 B),
invisible because config.yaml's own example states 10 % and every fixture in
this file used it. Two arms bracket it: a pack at 15 % against its own 25 %
cut-out is cold and must stay unnamed (the literal names an empty pack), and a
pack at 8 % against its own 5 % cut-out is wedged and must be named (the
literal explains the fault away). One arm on each side leaves no constant at
all.

`delivery_hold_s` and `is_live()`'s window were ALREADY pinned - the fixtures
had to move them to run - and `LINK_STALE_S` has no option behind it, so
"pinned across a changed config" is not available for it and is not claimed.
DECISIONS section 9 enumerates all of it with the deltas and which check kills
which.

Verified in the CI image, tree mounted :ro, `python3 -B`, `__pycache__` purged
and counted before every run (TEST-15):
  R5 saturation_w -> 250.0                    -19 B  killed by part 4b(a)
  R6 bms_soc_floor -> 10.0                    -13 B  killed by part 4b(b), both arms
  R7 arm(self.delivery_cfg) -> DeliveryConfig()  -1 B  killed (already)
  R8 is_live(now) -> is_live(now, 3600.0)      +8 B  killed (already)
  R9 pack cut-out -> conjoined site floor    +105 B  killed twice
  head: 23/23 test files PASS, no bytecode written during the run.

No shipped behaviour changes: the only edits to app/ are comments.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU

goodwe_controller/config.yaml

@@ -522,7 +522,11 @@ options:
   # half of this check is `saturation_w`, the option two blocks down, read
   # directly: it is already the gap at which the control law itself concludes
   # the inverter is not following, and a second key would be a fourth place a
-  # threshold has to be kept in step and a way for the two to disagree.
+  # threshold has to be kept in step and a way for the two to disagree. So
+  # RAISING `saturation_w` raises this check with it, and test_delivery.py part
+  # 4b holds that promise by running the same fault at two different
+  # `saturation_w` values and requiring two different answers - a check that
+  # only ever ran at 500 could not tell this wiring from a hard-coded number.
   #
   # How long ONE inverter may stand at a discharge share it is not producing -
   # short by more than `saturation_w` - while at least one sibling is NOT in