SAFETY-43: the no_account switch was graded by nothing

Review's remaining non-blocking finding, and it is B1's shape one level down -
in the fix for B1.

`wedged_loop`'s `no_account=True` was used in exactly ONE place: the cut-out
fixture, where it PROVABLY cannot change the answer, because a pack at its own
cut-out is never asked and the gate is never reached. Review neutered the switch
so it removed nothing, and the file stayed GREEN while printing

    ...named=(nobody); with account() DELETED: 0/200

with `account()` not deleted. A line asserting a mechanism that did not happen.

⭐ THE SWITCH DOES BITE, ON A FIXTURE THIS HELPER COULD ALREADY REACH. At the
same cut-out with EQUAL weights, `plan()` hands B a 50/50 share, so the account
gate is the only thing keeping it silent. Measured:

    cut-out, OPT-09 weights   gate on   0/200   gate DELETED     0/200
    cut-out, EQUAL weights    gate on   0/200   gate DELETED   200/200

Asserted. Driven: neutering the switch now goes RED on exactly that check, and
nothing else.

Two things this buys beyond closing the finding. It proves the switch removes
the gate, so the printed "with account() DELETED" line is about a run in which
something was. And it gives part 8b the end-to-end account-gate control ON A
POSITIVE SHARE that the block previously had to outsource to test_delivery.py
part 1 - the arm is no longer only true, it is locally demonstrated.

Suite: 27 files, all pass.

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

goodwe_controller/test_packshare.py

@@ -865,6 +865,31 @@ print(f"    load 1500 W, B AT ITS OWN {FLOOR:.0f} % CUT-OUT, OPT-09 weights, "
       + ", named="
       + (str(sorted(_sat_last[3])) if _sat_last[3] else "(nobody)")
       + f"; with account() DELETED: {_sat_nogate:3d}/200")
+# ⚠️ AND THE `no_account=True` SWITCH ITSELF WAS GRADED BY NOTHING. It is used
+# in exactly one place - the fixture above - where it PROVABLY cannot change the
+# answer, because a cut-out pack is never asked and the gate is never reached.
+# Review neutered the switch so it removed nothing: the file stayed GREEN and
+# printed "with account() DELETED: 0/200" while `account()` had not been
+# deleted. A line asserting a mechanism that did not happen - B1's shape, one
+# level down, in the fix for B1.
+#
+# The switch DOES bite, on a fixture already reachable from this helper: at the
+# cut-out with EQUAL weights, `plan()` hands B a 50/50 share, so the gate is the
+# only thing keeping it silent. Measured: gate on 0/200, gate deleted 200/200.
+# That proves the switch removes the gate, AND gives this part the end-to-end
+# account-gate control on a POSITIVE share that it otherwise has to outsource to
+# test_delivery.py part 1.
+_eq_gate, _eq_last = wedged_loop(1500.0, False, b_soc=FLOOR)
+_eq_nogate, _ = wedged_loop(1500.0, False, b_soc=FLOOR, no_account=True)
+print(f"    ...and the SWITCH is real: same cut-out, EQUAL weights so B IS "
+      f"asked ({_eq_last[1][Bee]:+d} W last cycle) - gate on {_eq_gate:3d}/200, "
+      f"gate DELETED {_eq_nogate:3d}/200")
+check("⭐ THE `no_account` SWITCH ACTUALLY REMOVES THE GATE, on a fixture where "
+      "the gate is the only thing keeping the pack silent. Without this the "
+      "line above prints 'with account() DELETED' about a run in which nothing "
+      "was deleted - which is exactly the defect this block was rewritten for",
+      _eq_gate == 0 and _eq_nogate == 200 and _eq_last[1][Bee] > 0)
+
 check("A PACK AT ITS OWN CUT-OUT IS NEVER ASKED, SO THE RELATIVE ARM IS NEVER "
       "REACHED. Its usable energy above its own cut-out is zero, `weights()` "
       "answers 0.0 for it, the healthy sibling covers the load so `_fill()`'s "