test_price: grade the Why row of the same render, not a second read of why_words

Since UX-10 the waiting sentence counts its seconds when it is read, so the
second read could cross a second boundary on a loaded runner ("1 second" in
the row, "2 seconds" in the check). CI run 953 on this PR failed that way;
test_price.py passes locally on the same tree.

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

goodwe_controller/test_price.py

@@ -4412,12 +4412,16 @@ check(f"AC, AND THE WHOLE OF DEFECT 4: 'trading is off' and 'trading is on "
       f"`off (arbitrage_enabled)` for both - naming an option that is `true` "
       f"in the options blob",
       _T11_OFF[0]["Arbitrage"] != _T11_ON_HELD[0]["Arbitrage"])
+# ⚠️ THE "Why" ROW OF THE SAME RENDER, NOT A SECOND READ OF `why_words`. Since
+# UX-10 the waiting sentence counts its seconds when it is read, so reading the
+# property again here, after the other renders above, could cross a second
+# ("1 second" in the row, "2 seconds" now) - CI run 953 on PR #141 did.
 check(f"...and the armed-but-held row carries the CONTROL LOOP'S OWN REASON "
-      f"({_T11_ON_HELD[1].why_words!r}), so the operator is told which input is "
+      f"({_T11_ON_HELD[0]['Why']!r}), so the operator is told which input is "
       f"missing rather than being sent to look at a switch that is already on. "
       f"The reason comes from main.py, not from this file",
-      _T11_ON_HELD[1].why_words
-      and _T11_ON_HELD[1].why_words in _T11_ON_HELD[0]["Arbitrage"])
+      _T11_ON_HELD[0]["Why"].startswith("A reading is missing")
+      and _T11_ON_HELD[0]["Why"] in _T11_ON_HELD[0]["Arbitrage"])
 check(f"...and a cycle that DID reach the step renders the strategy's own "
       f"sentence - {_T11_ON_OK[1].arb.explain()[:50]!r} - rather than a "
       f"re-derivation of it, which is the guarantee OPT-04 put on this row and "