admin/goodwe-addon
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests 1 Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

TEL-12: several PV inverters, and one absent member is an absent TOTAL
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 7m59s
Details

Browse Source 
0.11.0 shipped `pv_entity` as a single string. The reference site's owner
reported within minutes of it going live that they have several PV inverters
and could configure one - which is ordinary for a multi-string roof, not a
property of one house. `pv_entities` is the roster and the row carries the
SITE total.

⚠️ THE HARD PART IS ABSENCE, NOT THE LIST. Three configured, one `unavailable`,
and the sum of the other two is a SMALLER NUMBER INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM A REAL
ONE. Read back by OPT-10 that says "there was less PV than there was" - the "no
irradiance" conclusion the channel exists to TEST. So `pv.total()` answers
`None` the moment any configured entity is absent: the topic carries HA's own
`None`, the entity goes to `unknown`, the recorder records a GAP. The
alternative (the partial sum beside a contributor count) was implemented and
run as mutation N1b; it loses because the MQTT row is read COLD a week later by
an attribution that would believe it, while the qualifying count would live in a
second entity with its own history. The partial information is not thrown away -
the STATUS PAGE names every entity that reported, with its watts, and every one
that did not, with its reason, because that surface is read LIVE by a human who
wants the diagnostic.

⚠️ AND THE MIRROR: a member honestly reporting 0 W is SUMMED. The test is
`is None`, never falsiness - a roster that blanked the site on a zero would
report an absence on every clear evening.

THE SURFACE IS MEASURED, NOT PREFERRED. `pv_entity` could not become a list:
tools/supervisor_shape_probe.py §G shows Supervisor 2026.08.0 answering an
0.11.0 install's stored string with `Invalid list for option 'pv_entity'`, and
deepmerge's list strategy is `override` so a `[]` default does not rescue it -
the live add-on would not start. `match(.*)?` does accept both shapes and is
rejected for a different, measured reason: it validates nothing (a string, a
list and the integer 417 all pass) and renders as a plain text box. So
`pv_entities` joins `pv_entity` and REPLACES it when set, CFG-04's rule for
`inverters:`, with a status caution saying which key won - a union would
double-count the inverter the old key still names.

STILL NOT A CONTROL INPUT. tools/tel11_pv_trace.py was extended rather than
replaced and now grades five claims over three document sets. The control hash
is UNMOVED - 846a10a5b89e… on `unset` and on `one`, on both trees - and the
roster control document is byte-identical between the two trees. 2/5 is a claim
TEL-11 could not make: with 0.11.0 as the baseline, "one entity behaves exactly
as 0.11.0 does" is a real cross-tree identity over control AND telemetry.

⚠️ TEL-11's OWN `--compare` REFUSAL HAD TO CHANGE, and that is MUTATION.md habit
24: a discriminator defined as "the baseline lacks this feature" dies on the
release that ships the feature, and dies as a false refusal.

Twelve mutations, each on a fresh purged `cp -a`, no survivors. N5 is +0 B
(`sum` -> `max`, the same three characters) and was run on a fresh copy with
`cmp` confirming the edit on disk. The fixture is three distinct NON-ZERO
contributions in two units with absence driven at EVERY position - a member
contributing 0 W could go absent without moving the sum of the rest, which is
habit 23 with a coinciding value in the arithmetic rather than in the plant.

31/31 in the CI image. Not deployable as merged: config.yaml stays at 0.11.0,
so predeploy_check.py reports a NO-OP until PKG cuts a version. A CHANGELOG
entry is wanted and deliberately not written - 11b forbids `## Unreleased` and
the bump is PKG's call; DECISIONS/TEL-12-several-pv-inverters.md is the
material it needs.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
This commit is contained in:
admin
2026-09-24 22:13:25 +02:00
co-authored by Claude Opus 5
parent cccb2fa07b
commit 0ef9565071
13 changed files with 1893 additions and 125 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/TEL-12-several-pv-inverters.md
+359
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,359 @@
# TEL-12 — several PV inverters, and why a partial total is worse than none
TEL-11 shipped `pv_entity` as a single `str?` in 0.11.0. The owner of the
reference site reported **within minutes of it going live** that they have
several PV inverters and could configure one.
That is not a property of one house. A multi-string or multi-orientation roof
routinely carries two or three inverters, each publishing its own power sensor
into Home Assistant, and the add-on is sold to clients. So the channel had to
become a roster.
**OPT-10 is blocked on this and cannot start recording until it lands.** Which
sets the bar: the number this channel publishes has to be one an attribution can
believe, or the week of history OPT-10 is waiting for is worse than no history.
---
## 1. The surface: `pv_entities` beside `pv_entity`, and the measurement that
decided it
Two candidates, and they differ on exactly one question nobody in this
repository could answer by reading: **does Supervisor accept a stored STRING for
a key whose schema has become a LIST?** 0.11.0 shipped `pv_entity: str?`; the
live install *has* a string persisted in it; and an upgrade that refuses that
string leaves an add-on which will not start — CFG-04 §B's trap, in the other
direction, with the schema needed to fix it pinned to the version that cannot be
installed.
It was measured, against the release image, by a new **§G** of
`tools/supervisor_shape_probe.py` — the instrument CFG-04 built for exactly this
kind of question:
```
docker run --rm -v "$PWD:/w:ro" -v "$PWD/tools:/probe:ro" --entrypoint python3 \
ghcr.io/home-assistant/amd64-hassio-supervisor:2026.08.0 \
/probe/supervisor_shape_probe.py
```
```
== G. TEL-12: the SHAPE of a several-inverter PV option ==
PASS the shipped defaults with a 0.11.0 `pv_entity` STRING on top are ACCEPTED - the baseline every refusal below is varied from
pv_entity='sensor.pv_power' pv_entities=[]
PASS ⭐ THE MEASUREMENT THAT DECIDED THE SURFACE: with `pv_entity` declared as a LIST, the string an 0.11.0 install has persisted is REFUSED, and the refusal names the key - so that shape would leave the live add-on unable to start on upgrade
Invalid list for option 'pv_entity' in GoodWe RS485 Controller (local_goodwe_controller)
PASS ...and a shipped `pv_entity: []` DEFAULT does not rescue it: deepmerge's list strategy is `override`, so the operator's string survives the merge and is refused anyway
Invalid list for option 'pv_entity' in GoodWe RS485 Controller (local_goodwe_controller)
PASS ...(the list shape itself is fine - it is only the STORED STRING it refuses, which is what makes this a migration and not a schema question)
a list value validates
PASS ⚠️ ONE SPELLING DOES ACCEPT BOTH - `match(.*)?` - AND IT IS REJECTED FOR A DIFFERENT REASON, MEASURED HERE: it validates NOTHING. A string passes, a list passes, and so does the integer 417; and the Configuration tab renders it as a plain text box rather than a repeatable field, so an operator cannot enter a second inverter in the UI at all
string=True list=True integer-417=True ui=[{"name": "pv_entity", "optional": true, "type": "string"}]
PASS ⭐ THE SHIPPED SHAPE: an 0.11.0 blob - `pv_entity` a string, no `pv_entities` key at all, because it did not exist when that blob was written - validates against THIS manifest, with the new key defaulted to the empty list. The live install upgrades without touching its options
PASS ...and a three-entity roster validates, per-entry, with both keys set - which the add-on resolves by REPLACEMENT and says so on its status page
["sensor.pv_east", "sensor.pv_west", "sensor.pv_garage"]
PASS ⭐ ...and the shipped `options:` block with ONLY `pv_entities` removed is REFUSED, BY NAME - `Missing option 'pv_entities' in root`. That is why the `pv_entities: []` default is load-bearing, exactly as `inverters: []` is: Supervisor treats a nested list as required unless its element is an OPTIONAL scalar, and `- str` is not one
Missing option 'pv_entities' in root in GoodWe RS485 Controller (local_goodwe_controller)
PASS ...and the Configuration tab renders it as a REPEATABLE string field (`multiple: true`), so an operator adds their second and third inverter in the UI rather than in YAML
[{"name": "pv_entity", "optional": true, "type": "string"}, {"name": "pv_entities", "multiple": true, "required": true, "type": "string"}]
PASS a DOWNGRADE to a schema without `pv_entities` drops the key with a warning rather than refusing, and leaves `pv_entity` standing - so rolling back to 0.11.0 returns the install to its single entity rather than bricking it
== all cases passed ==
```
| Claim | Evidence |
|---|---|
| **Option 1 — `pv_entity` becomes a list — cannot ship** | §G: `Invalid list for option 'pv_entity'` on the string an 0.11.0 install has stored |
| …and a `[]` default does not rescue it | §G: `_OPTIONS_MERGER`'s list strategy is `override`, so the operator's string survives the merge and is refused anyway |
| …and it is not a *schema* problem | §G: a list **value** validates fine against a list schema. It is a **migration**, and a migration is a bigger ticket than this |
| **One key CAN carry both shapes** — `match(.*)?` | §G, and reported even though it *passes*, because "no spelling accepts both" would have been a **false reason** to reject option 1 |
| …and it loses anyway, for a measured reason | §G: it validates nothing at all — a string, a list, and the integer `417` all pass — and the Configuration tab renders it as a plain text box, so an operator cannot add a second inverter in the UI |
| **Option 2 — `pv_entities` beside `pv_entity` — ships** | §G: the 0.11.0 blob validates untouched, the new key defaults to `[]`, three entities validate, the UI renders `multiple: true` |
| `pv_entities: []` in `options:` is load-bearing | §G: the shipped defaults **minus only that key** are refused with `Missing option 'pv_entities' in root` — CFG-04 §B's isolated counterfactual, for this key |
| A downgrade is not the trap in reverse | §G: a schema without the key **drops** it and leaves `pv_entity` standing |
`p1_phase_import_entities` (`options: []` + `schema: - str`) is the shipped
precedent for the pair; nothing new was invented.
**So the surface is uglier than option 1 and that is the correct trade.** The
cleanest surface that breaks the one install this card exists to fix is not the
cleanest surface.
### And `pv_entities` REPLACES `pv_entity` rather than extending it
CFG-04's rule for `inverters:` ("declared, it REPLACES those six keys"), applied
to the only upgrade path that matters. The install being upgraded **has**
`pv_entity` set, to inverter A. Opening the Configuration tab, the natural action
is to put *all* the inverters in the new repeatable field — and under a union
rule that **double-counts A** unless the operator also remembers to clear the old
key. A doubled total is the same defect as a partial one pointing the other way,
in the one channel that exists to be believed a week later.
Under replacement the effective roster is exactly what one key says, and no
arithmetic depends on a de-duplication rule the operator has to know about. It
de-duplicates *within* the list (a site cannot have two sensors with one
entity_id, so a repeated id is a typo that would double that inverter), and
`Controller.checks()` prints a **caution** whenever both keys are set saying
which one won — a replacement nobody is told about is the "one of which silently
wins" `config.yaml` refuses elsewhere.
⚠️ It is a **caution and never a refusal to start**. `validate.py` still does not
mention either key. A telemetry channel that could stop a battery site from
starting would be observability with a foot in the control path.
---
## 2. ⚠️⚠️ The decision the card turns on: absence of ONE is absence of the TOTAL
Three inverters configured, one `unavailable`. The sum of the other two is **a
smaller number indistinguishable from a real one.** Fed into OPT-10's
attribution it reads as *"there was less PV than there was"* — which is the "no
irradiance" conclusion the channel exists to **test** rather than to manufacture.
Two designs were genuinely available:
**(a) publish the total as absent** — `pv.total()` answers `None`, the topic
carries HA's own `None`, the entity goes to `unknown`, the recorder stores a gap.
**(b) publish the partial sum alongside a count of how many contributed.**
**(a) shipped.** It wins on the one question that matters, which is *who reads
the number and when*:
* The **MQTT row** is read back **cold**, a week later, by OPT-10 and by anything
that plots `sensor.goodwe_pv_power` over that week. A partial sum there is a
smaller number indistinguishable from a real one, and the count that would
have qualified it lives in a **second entity with its own history** — so
believing the total requires joining two recorder series by timestamp to find
out which samples to distrust. Nobody re-derives that. And it is worse than a
gap in exactly the direction that matters: **a gap makes the attribution say
"I do not know"; a partial makes it say something false.**
* The **status page** is read **live**, by a human who wants the diagnostic. So
the partial information is *not* thrown away — the row names every entity that
did report, with its watts, and every one that did not, with its reason, and
states plainly that there is no site total. Different reader, different
instant, different rule.
A count published beside the total would also carry **no information** in the
state (a) admits: the total is published *only* when every entity contributed, so
the count would be the constant `len(roster)`.
And this **extends** TEL-11's rule rather than weakening it. `mqtt.py`'s
`ABSENT_AS_UNKNOWN` is still exactly one key and `publish()`'s `None` handling is
untouched: the line that turns an absence into HA's `unknown` did not have to
change, because "absence is never zero" already covered this one layer up.
### The mirror, which matters just as much
A member honestly reporting **0 W** is **summed**, not treated as absent. The
test is `watts is None`, never falsiness. Shading, a tripped string and
nightfall are all real zeros, and a roster that blanked the site whenever one
member read zero would report an absence **on every clear evening** and defeat
the channel from the other end.
### ⚠️ And the answer is NOT "document a template sensor that adds them up"
An operator may legitimately prefer one, and `pv_entity` will happily point at
it. Shipping it as *the* answer pushes the absence problem onto them unseen: a
template sensor summing an `unavailable` source silently yields the partial
total — the same defect one layer down, in a place this add-on cannot see or
report. DOCS.md says so in those terms.
### The three published states, side by side
| what happened | frame | `goodwe_ctl/pv` | status page |
|---|---|---|---|
| no roster at all | no `pv` key | no topic, no entity | no row |
| 1200 / 2100 / 450 W, all three | `pv: 3750.0` | `3750.0` | `PV 3 750 W` + one ok row naming all three |
| all three answer, one of them `0 W` | `pv: 1650.0` | `1650.0` | `PV 1 650 W` |
| one of the three `unavailable` | `pv: None` | `None` → `unknown`, recorder **gap** | `PV —` + a caution naming the missing entity, its reason, and what the others reported |
| all three gone | `pv: None` | as above | as above |
---
## 3. Still not a control input
Unchanged, and re-proved at the new roster size.
`tools/tel11_pv_trace.py` was **extended rather than replaced** — the file name
still says TEL-11 because `DECISIONS/TEL-11-pv-production.md` §5 and
`test_pv.py`'s mutation table quote it, and a renamed instrument makes both
references dangle for no gain.
It now produces **three** document sets per tree — `unset`, `one`, `multi` — and
grades five claims. The roster cells live in their own document precisely so
`unset` and `one` keep the `control` hashes TEL-11 recorded; appending cells to
an existing document would have moved a hash whose stability is itself the
evidence.
```
$ python3 tools/tel11_pv_trace.py --compare base.json head.json
HEAD is B; baseline is A - its roster cells ARE its unset cells, which is what a tree that has never heard of `pv_entities` does with them.
supports_roster A False / B True (self-reported; the verdict above is MEASURED)
tree A fa92ba6a6fc6d49c0f87a494e03b530a8575212a0b2c3046629cb400ef2ae0d4
tree B 0b39198015b6a5a3f7538d4157d77ecadc89311daef18fce883762d94d8351eb
control A unset 846a10a5b89e321086d535825925721e2f791012e8405948d4fd38d3f9d0be5f
control B unset 846a10a5b89e321086d535825925721e2f791012e8405948d4fd38d3f9d0be5f
control A one 846a10a5b89e321086d535825925721e2f791012e8405948d4fd38d3f9d0be5f
control B one 846a10a5b89e321086d535825925721e2f791012e8405948d4fd38d3f9d0be5f
control A multi 2aafbfedfb9cc939082b36eeb7493289808fb21cd41113322d4817de0e414a30
control B multi 2aafbfedfb9cc939082b36eeb7493289808fb21cd41113322d4817de0e414a30
telemetry A unset a443a6ceaffe072b44bcd5f2ad946c1ed6c9e01b69e278eca631f7f4d7892164
telemetry B unset a443a6ceaffe072b44bcd5f2ad946c1ed6c9e01b69e278eca631f7f4d7892164
telemetry A one 4e6d1cb289a957223ad0205f732a6fec6110ce1f2032c98ad60694e67625274f
telemetry B one 4e6d1cb289a957223ad0205f732a6fec6110ce1f2032c98ad60694e67625274f
telemetry A multi d269168ffece375027c2c18ea33631a961ff92775781884a0592d6a37d78845c
telemetry B multi 550a49a73f39267ba28b1e78cd12b8f5c71ef7269bbbd2e12112696be0fef1ff
OK 1/5 UNSET: control AND telemetry are byte-identical to the baseline tree. …
OK 2/5 ONE ENTITY: control AND telemetry are byte-identical to 0.11.0's single-entity path - the same commands, the same payloads, the same status rows, the same announcement.
OK 3/5 CONTROL, ONE ENTITY: the control document is byte-identical with the channel switched on - PV reaches no decision.
OK 4/5 CONTROL, THREE ENTITIES: every roster cell's control document equals its grid world's `unset` one - 30 cells over 5 grid worlds, covering three healthy entities, one dead at EVERY position, all three dead and one honestly reporting 0 W. Neither the total nor any PARTIAL total reaches a decision, and the document is byte-identical to the BASELINE tree's for the same cells.
OK 5/5 CONTROL OF THE CONTROL: the telemetry document DOES move under a roster (30 stimulus cells differ from their grid world's unset telemetry), so 1/5-4/5 are identities this instrument could have broken. AND in no cell with a dead member does the PV row carry the partial sum of the survivors, while every cell whose members all ANSWER publishes its total - including the one where a member honestly reports 0 W.
$ echo $?
0
```
**The control hash is unmoved: `846a10a5b89e…` on `unset` and on `one`, on both
trees.** The roster control document `2aafbfedfb9c…` is byte-identical between
the two trees, which is the strongest available form of the claim — the baseline
runs those cells with a key it has never heard of, so its control document for
them *is* 0.11.0's.
⚠️ **2/5 is a claim TEL-11 could not make.** TEL-11's baseline had no channel at
all to be identical to; TEL-12's baseline is 0.11.0, so "one entity behaves
exactly as 0.11.0 does" is a real cross-tree identity over **both** documents.
`pv.total()` passes a single entity's `(watts, why)` through verbatim for exactly
this reason, and `Controller.checks()` keeps 0.11.0's two f-strings in a
`len(...) == 1` branch rather than generalising them.
### ⚠️ TEL-11's `--compare` refusal had to change, and that is a finding
TEL-11's rule was *"exactly ONE side's `set` document may differ from its own
`unset` — that side is the HEAD"*. It was correct evidence when written, because
`release/1.0` predated `pv_entity` entirely. `release/1.0` is 0.11.0 now, **both**
sides react to `pv_entity`, and that refusal fires on **every honest run**. The
discriminator is the roster instead: only the HEAD has heard of `pv_entities`, so
only the HEAD's `multi` document fails to reduce to its own `unset` one.
It is asserted from the **documents**, not from `tree.supports_roster` — a
self-report is the tree describing itself, whereas "this side's behaviour did not
move when `pv_entities` was set" is the tree being measured. `supports_roster` is
printed beside the verdict so a disagreement between the two is visible.
See MUTATION.md habit 24.
---
## 4. Mutation battery
Twelve mutations, each on a **fresh `cp -a`** of the clean worktree (never
reverted — habit 18 / TARIFF-09's method), `__pycache__` purged before the run
and the tree checked for one afterwards, byte delta from `stat` and the edit
confirmed on disk with `cmp`, suites run in the CI image with `checks.yml`'s own
command one file at a time under a `:ro` mount.
| mutation | bytes | reds |
|---|---|---|
| N1 `total()` returns the partial sum, not an absence | +42 B | 6 named in `test_pv.py` + 1 crash |
| **N1b ⭐ THE REJECTED DESIGN: the partial sum with a contributor count** | −282 B | **10 named + the trace `REFUSED 5/5`** |
| N2 absence tested by falsiness (`not w`) | −4 B | 2 named |
| N3 `pv_entities` UNIONS with `pv_entity` | −27 B | 3 named |
| N4 the de-duplication dropped | −15 B | 1 named |
| N5 `sum` → `max` over the roster | **+0 B** | 6 named |
| N6 the roster-of-one stops passing `why` through | +13 B | 8 named |
| N7 `optional_keys()` back to reading `pv_entity` | −6 B | 1 named + 1 crash |
| N8 `self.grid -= self.pv_w` in `read_inputs()` | +106 B | 3 named + the trace (52 cells on 2/5, 26 on 3/5, 10 on 4/5) |
| N9 the roster caution made a `bad` row (NOT READY) | +1 B | 1 named |
| N10 `entity_is_ignored()` always False | +10 B | 2 named |
| N11 `pv_entities: []` deleted from `options:` | −18 B | 2 named in `test_translations.py` + `11 CASE(S) FAILED` in the probe |
**No survivors.**
⚠️ **N5 is `+0 B` — the risky delta.** `sum` and `max` are the same three
characters, so neither the file size nor its mtime moved, and TEST-15's
stale-bytecode defect is exactly what manufactures a survivor there. The run was
on a fresh purged copy and `cmp` confirmed the edit on disk before it started.
⚠️ **N1b is the row that matters, and it is not a defect.** It is the *other*
defensible design, implemented and run. The point is that the checks and the
instrument can **tell the two apart** — an unexamined partial sum is what the
card forbids, so a check that could not see one would be decoration:
```
REFUSED 5/5: THE PARTIAL SUM IS ON THE WIRE at [('EXPORT-6K/EAST-DEAD', '2550.0'),
('EXPORT-6K/GARAGE-DEAD', '3300.0'), ('EXPORT-6K/WEST-DEAD', '1650.0'),
('IMPORT-3K/EAST-DEAD', '2550.0'), ('IMPORT-3K/GARAGE-DEAD', '3300.0'),
('IMPORT-3K/WEST-DEAD', '1650.0')] … - a smaller number indistinguishable from a
real one, which is the defect this card exists to prevent.
```
⚠️ **N8's 1/5 stays GREEN and that is correct rather than a miss.** With no PV
entity configured `pv_w` is `None` and the leak cannot fire — which is what makes
1/5 a claim about the **default** and 2/5–4/5 the claims about the channel.
### The fixture values are the design (habit 10 and habit 23)
`test_pv.py` carries **two** rosters over the same three entities, because the
two claims need different magnitudes and one fixture cannot serve both.
* **Parts 8–10: 1200 W + 2.1 kW + 450 W = 3750 W.** The sum is separable from
max (2100), min (450), first (1200), last (450), mean (1250), count (3) and
every partial of itself (2550 / 1650 / 3300) — the family is computed, printed
and asserted non-colliding as its own precondition. One member is in **kW** so
"correct against their own units" is exercised. **Not one member is zero**: a
member contributing 0 W could go absent without moving the sum of the rest, and
a fixture like that cannot tell "published the absence" from "published the
partial sum" — habit 23 with a coinciding value in the *fixture* rather than in
the plant, which is precisely the trap the brief named. Absence is driven at
**every position** of the roster, not at one (habit 10's fixture-as-a-SET), and
each position's partial is **derived from the fixture** rather than typed
beside it.
* **Part 6: 1500 W + 4.5 kW + 2000 W = 8000 W.** Sized so every *partial*
(6500 / 3500 / 6000) would still **move** a loop settling on a 600 W import.
Habit 23's own question is asked twice — shift the meter by 8000 W, and again
by 3500 W, the smallest partial any single dead member could produce — because
a leak of the partial is a different mutation leaking a smaller number.
### Two false results this card produced, and what they were
Both were in the **instrument**, and both are recorded rather than tidied away.
1. `partial_w`/`partial_wire` were first written **inside** each telemetry cell.
They are a fact about the *stimulus*, produced by the tool and identical on
both trees — so every roster cell differed from its unset reference for a
reason that was not behaviour, and the HEAD/baseline discriminator fired on
*both* sides. They live in a separate top-level `partials` map now.
2. The `WEST-ZERO` cell (all three answer, one honestly reporting 0 W) had its
**true total** labelled as its "partial". 5/5 then refused the *shipped* tree
for publishing 1650 W, which it is required to publish. A cell with no dead
member has no partial to leak, and `never` is `None` there.
---
## 5. What none of this can see
* **Home Assistant itself.** That `None` on the state topic renders as state
`unknown` and that the recorder keeps a gap is read out of HA's source and
quoted in `app/mqtt.py`; whether the long-term statistics table then
interpolates across the gap is HA's behaviour, and OPT-10 will be reading it.
* **Whether the operator's sensors are telling the truth.** A sensor wired
backwards reads −4 kW at noon and is summed as −4 kW. There is deliberately no
`pv_invert` — §2 of the TEL-11 record is the argument, and it holds at a roster.
* **A roster larger than three.** Three is the smallest size at which the sum
separates from the reduction family *and* absence can be driven at every
position. Nothing here says what twenty entities do to a cycle's latency — the
read is `asyncio.gather`ed across the roster for exactly that reason, so a slow
sensor costs what one costs, but that is an argument rather than a measurement.
* **A PV roster combined with a two-inverter battery roster.** No fixture
crosses CFG-04's `inverters:` with `pv_entities`.
* **The real MQTT transport, and wall-clock behaviour.** As TEL-11.
---
## 6. Not deployable as merged
`config.yaml` stays at `0.11.0`, so `tools/predeploy_check.py` reports a NO-OP
until PKG cuts a version. A CHANGELOG entry is **wanted** and was deliberately
not written: `test_version_gate.py` 11b forbids an `## Unreleased` heading and
the bump is PKG's call. The material an entry needs is this file.
The option surface moves **76 keys → 77**, one new optional key, `pv_entities`,
empty on every install that does not set it.