SAFETY-43: delinquency measured against the ask, not against a flat 500 W

`delivery.delinquent()` named a unit whose `short_by()` gap exceeded an
ABSOLUTE `min_w = Tuning.saturation_w = 500 W`. OPT-09's SoC-aware weights
shrink a low-headroom unit's share, and shrinking the share shrinks the gap, so
a unit standing at +125 W and delivering 0 W - 100 % delinquent - was never
named. Measured end to end on the real loop (test_packshare.py part 8b):

    load 1500 W, B wedged at 15 %, equal weights    named on 199/200 cycles
    load 1500 W, B wedged at 15 %, OPT-09 weights   named on   0/200 cycles

⚠️ The suppressed regime is the quiet one: at a load the healthy sibling covers,
the meter is satisfied, `unmet_w` is 0 and no action-log line fires, so this
alarm is the ONLY instrument that would have told the operator.

WHAT CHANGED, in one line:

    named if  short_by() > min_w  OR  short_by() > frac * share

⚠️ `min_w` WAS NOT LOWERED. It exists to stop normal saturation being reported
as delinquency, and lowering it trades a missed alarm for a false one on every
unit at once - SAFETY-41's four-attempt regime. This is a SECOND way to be
named, not a looser first one: all seven of test_delivery.py part 1's existing
fixtures answer identically under both rules, and the absolute arm's suppression
window is still exactly 1000 W / 6500 W, still asserted in part 8b.

THE FRACTION IS DERIVED, 0.85. admin/goodwe:sim/delivery_window.py gained a
`--fractions` axis and grades the constant over the SAME 2640 no-fault runs that
produced `delivery_hold_s`'s 35.0 s floor. Worst continuous legitimate episode,
worst of three families, twenty fractions:

    frac   0.05  0.10  0.15  0.20  0.25  0.30  0.35  0.40  0.45  0.50
    worst  90.0  90.0  70.0  70.0  60.0  55.0  55.0  60.0  45.0  45.0  s
    frac   0.55  0.60  0.65  0.70  0.75  0.80 *0.85  0.90  0.95  0.99
    worst  40.0  40.0  45.0  45.0  45.0  45.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  s
    absolute arm alone: 35.0 s (SAFETY-42 §3.3, reproduced in the same runs)

⚠️ NO CLIFF ANYWHERE: 0.45-0.99 is flat within one control cycle, and it is not
monotone - §3.3's own mechanism (c). ⚠️ "Zero false namings" is NOT achievable
at any fraction and the record says so; what is zero is false ALARMS - 90.0 s
worst against a 185 s hold, so nothing comes within 95 s of notifying anybody.
N=1 control 0.0 s at every fraction in all 2640 one-inverter runs; flapping
0.0 s in all 840.

DRIVEN. Part 8b pinned the SUPPRESSED behaviour and said "if it ever goes red
because the alarm fired, read the card that made it fire". It now grades BOTH
rules on one run - `share_frac=None` is SAFETY-42's rule exactly:

    OPT-09 weights, absolute arm alone   named on   0/200
    OPT-09 weights, the shipped rule     named on 200/200

POSITIVE CONTROL. Same fixture, same weights, same 125 W share, one legitimate
fact changed: a pack at its own 10 % cut-out is named on 0/200 (account() still
gates it), and a unit delivering HALF its share is named on 0/200.

N=1 BYTE-IDENTICAL, asserted: `plan()` handed a `weights` mapping that raises on
any read still answers identically at a roster of one, and the same mapping
raises at a roster of two; `delinquent()` answers {} on all 84 single-unit
(share, measured, rule) combinations including 0 of 125 W.

MUTATION, run on fresh :ro trees: M12 (drop the relative arm), M13 (frac -> 1.0)
and M14 (frac -> 0.05) are all red on named checks. The constant cannot move in
either direction unseen.

⚠️ CFG-07 gets ONE CONTROL CYCLE WORSE and is deliberately not fixed here: the
worst legitimate episode goes 35.0 -> 40.0 s, so the schema's `int(30,900)`
false-tripping band widens from [30,35] to [30,40]. CFG-07 should be re-derived
against 40.0 s.

No option value, no schema bound and no default changed. 27/27 suites green.

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

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/OPT-09-soc-aware-weights.md

@@ -161,17 +161,18 @@ its floor is `account()`'s explained case, so SAFETY-42 stays silent - and after
 this card that ask does not arrive in the first place, which removes the benign
 arm from the detector's input rather than teaching it a new discriminator.
 
-⚠️ **BUT THE WEIGHT DOES MOVE, AND IT NARROWS SAFETY-42's DETECTION WINDOW. THIS
-IS A DETECTION REGRESSION AT N=2 AND IT IS NOT FIXED HERE.** An earlier draft of
+⚠️ **BUT THE WEIGHT DOES MOVE, AND IT NARROWED SAFETY-42's DETECTION WINDOW.
+THAT WAS A DETECTION REGRESSION AT N=2, IT WAS NOT FIXED HERE, AND SAFETY-43
+CLOSED IT - see the block at the end of this section.** An earlier draft of
 this section said "no envelope closes and no weight moves - OPT-09 cannot see it
 at all". The second clause was **false**, and it was load-bearing for the claim
 that the two cards do not overlap. A weight is a function of the pack's ENERGY
 HEADROOM, not of what the pack delivers, so a wedged unit's weight moves whenever
 its headroom differs from its sibling's - which is the ordinary case this card
-exists to exploit. And `delivery.delinquent()` (`app/delivery.py:484`)
-names a unit only while its `short_by()` gap exceeds `min_w =
-Tuning.saturation_w` - the comparison is `app/delivery.py:531`, and it is
-**500 W in absolute watts**. Shrinking a unit's share shrinks its gap. Shrink the
+exists to exploit. And `delivery.delinquent()`
+named a unit only while its `short_by()` gap exceeded `min_w =
+Tuning.saturation_w`, and that was **500 W in absolute watts** with nothing
+else beside it. Shrinking a unit's share shrinks its gap. Shrink the
 share far enough and the gap drops below 500 W while the unit is still delivering
 nothing, and the alarm stops firing.
 
@@ -200,20 +201,47 @@ a 9600 W site; above it - once the healthy pack is at its own rating and
 `_fill()`'s last-resort pass hands the wedged unit a big share again - the alarm
 returns. ⚠️ BOTH BOUNDS ARE ARITHMETIC ABOUT `_fill()`'s PROPORTIONAL REGIME AND NEITHER IS A REACHABLE STEADY STATE. Swept on this fixture, the healthy pack's own 5000 W rating binds FIRST: suppressed 0/200 up to a 3000 W load, 4/200 at 4000 W, 41/200 at 4900 W (site target 5320 W, the largest reached with the wedged unit still under 500 W), then 195/200 at 5000 W once `_fill()` pins A at its cap and hands B 3000 W. So the alarm returns BELOW the 6500 W formula bound, not above it. The equal-weights 1000 W bound is unreachable for the same reason - the equal arm names the wedged unit 199/200 at every load swept, 1000 W included.
 
-`test_packshare.py` part 8b grades all of it and **pins the current,
-unflattering behaviour**, so that the day it changes a named check moves. The
-closure - `delinquent()` measured against the ask rather than a flat 500 W - is
-card **SAFETY-43**.
+`test_packshare.py` part 8b graded all of it and **pinned the unflattering
+behaviour**, so that the day it changed a named check would move. It has moved.
 
-So the seam, stated accurately: **OPT-09 stops the ask AND narrows SAFETY-42's
-detection window for a low-headroom unit.** The two cards do not merely meet from
-opposite sides; this one takes something away from the other one. Closing the gap
-means making `delinquent()` relative to the ask rather than absolute, which is
-SAFETY-42's code and a design change - it is filed as its own card, deliberately
-not done here, and this paragraph is its input. Until then this is a **disclosed
-residual**, in the same voice as SAFETY-13's "2 of 272" and SAFETY-42's own "the
-discriminator does not exist": at two inverters, a wedged unit with materially
-less energy headroom than its sibling can go unreported at ordinary house loads.
+### ⚠️ CLOSED BY SAFETY-43 - THIS IS NO LONGER A DISCLOSED RESIDUAL
+
+This section used to end *"until then this is a disclosed residual [...] at two
+inverters, a wedged unit with materially less energy headroom than its sibling
+can go unreported at ordinary house loads"*. That sentence is **retired, not
+softened**, and what replaces it is a measurement rather than an intention.
+
+`delivery.delinquent()` is now relative to the ask **as well as** absolute:
+
+    named if  short_by() > min_w   OR   short_by() > frac * share
+
+with `frac = delivery.DELIVERY_SHARE_FRACTION`. A unit delivering 0 of 125 W is
+100 % delinquent and is named; a unit delivering 0 of 1500 W was already named
+and still is. On the **same fixture, under the same weights**, part 8b now
+grades both rules in one run - `share_frac=None` is SAFETY-42's absolute arm,
+exactly:
+
+    load 1500 W  OPT-09 weights  absolute arm alone   named on   0/200 cycles
+    load 1500 W  OPT-09 weights  the shipped rule     named on 200/200 cycles
+
+⚠️ **`min_w` WAS NOT LOWERED, AND THAT IS THE HALF THAT MATTERS HERE.** The
+absolute arm's suppression window is still exactly the arithmetic above - 1000 W
+at equal weights, 6500 W at these - and part 8b still asserts both numbers.
+Lowering `saturation_w` would have traded a missed alarm for a false one on
+every unit at once, which is SAFETY-41's four-attempt regime. SAFETY-43 added a
+**second** way to be named and left the first where it was.
+
+⚠️ **AND WHAT OPT-09 STILL DOES NOT DO IS UNCHANGED.** This card stops the site
+ASKING a pack whose own SoC says it cannot deliver; it does not re-allocate a
+wedged unit's watts, and SAFETY-43 did not make it. The alarm got louder; the
+loop did not move. The derivation of `frac` - swept over the same 2640 no-fault
+runs that produced `delivery_hold_s`'s floor - is in
+`DECISIONS/SAFETY-43-delinquency-relative-to-the-ask.md`.
+
+So the seam, stated accurately **as of SAFETY-43**: OPT-09 stops the ask, and it
+still narrows the ABSOLUTE arm's window for a low-headroom unit exactly as
+described above - but it no longer narrows the DETECTOR, because the detector no
+longer reads only that arm.
 
 ⚠️ **And OPT-09 supplies the mechanism SAFETY-42 said was missing, without
 connecting it.** That module's rejection of re-allocation rests on *"the only

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/SAFETY-42-unit-delivery.md

@@ -142,6 +142,16 @@ take the **longest run of consecutive cycles** on which it names anybody — not
 count of naming samples, because the window is cleared by any cycle that does
 not.
 
+⚠️ **SINCE [[SAFETY-43]] THE ROWS OF §3.3's TABLE ARE GRADED WITH
+`share_frac=None`** — `delinquent()`'s ABSOLUTE arm alone, which is this card's
+rule exactly. Said here because it is the difference between §3.3 still meaning
+what it is labelled as and quietly becoming a table about a different predicate:
+SAFETY-43 added a SECOND way to be named, the harness grades it in its own rows
+(`--fractions`), and the numbers below are unchanged and were re-measured to
+confirm it. `DECISIONS/SAFETY-43-delinquency-relative-to-the-ask.md` §3 carries
+those rows and what they cost — the worst legitimate episode goes from 35.0 s to
+40.0 s at the shipped fraction, which does not move `delivery_hold_s`.
+
 ⚠️ **ONE THING THE RESTATEMENT DID NOT SAY, AND IT IS LOAD-BEARING.** "The
 command standing before the write" is the **controller's** standing command —
 `Inverter.standing_w()`, i.e. `last_write` — and **not** the far end of the

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/SAFETY-43-delinquency-relative-to-the-ask.md

@@ -0,0 +1,306 @@
+# SAFETY-43 — delinquency measured against the ask, not against a flat 500 W
+
+**Status: closed.** `delivery.delinquent()` names a unit whose `short_by()` gap
+exceeds `min_w` **or** exceeds a fraction of that unit's own share. The fraction
+is `delivery.DELIVERY_SHARE_FRACTION = 0.85`, derived on the campaign in §3.
+
+⚠️ **INVERTER B DOES NOT PHYSICALLY EXIST** (expected ~2026-09-12; NOTES.md
+§1.1b). `plantsim.INVERTER_B` is inverter A **copied**, `measured=False`, and
+`test_packshare.py`'s plant is modelled in that file. **Every two-inverter
+figure in this document is two copies of A.** Nothing here is a measurement of
+inverter B.
+
+## 0. The defect, and why it is the quiet regime that matters
+
+[[OPT-09]] passes SoC- and capacity-aware weights to the allocator. A weight is
+a function of a pack's **energy headroom**, not of what the pack delivers, so a
+**wedged** unit — one that accepts its share and produces nothing — is weighted
+down exactly like a legitimately low-headroom one. `delinquent()` read an
+**absolute** gap, `min_w = Tuning.saturation_w = 500 W`. Shrinking the share
+shrinks the gap. Measured end to end on the real loop (`test_packshare.py`
+part 8b: real `compute()`, real `plan()`, real `packshare.weights()`, real
+`delivery.account()`, real `delinquent()`; B wedged at a healthy 15 % against its
+own 10 % cut-out, so no envelope closes and `account()` explains nothing — a
+SAFETY-42 **true positive** by that card's own definition):
+
+    load 1500 W  equal weights   shares {a:1500, b:1500}   named on 199/200
+    load 1500 W  OPT-09 weights  shares {a:1505, b: 125}   named on   0/200
+
+A unit delivering **0 of 125 W** is 100 % delinquent and 125 W short. Only the
+absolute threshold disagreed.
+
+⚠️ **THE SUPPRESSED REGIME IS THE DANGEROUS ONE.** At a load the healthy sibling
+covers, the meter is satisfied (grid within 5 W of zero on that fixture),
+`unmet_w` is 0 because both units *accepted* their shares, no envelope closes and
+no action-log line fires. The delinquency alarm is the **only** instrument that
+would have told the operator the site was quietly running one inverter.
+
+## 1. What was NOT done, and it is the larger half of this card
+
+⚠️ **`min_w` WAS NOT LOWERED.** It is `Tuning.saturation_w` — the gap at which
+the control law itself concludes the inverter is not following — and it exists to
+stop **normal saturation** being reported as delinquency. Lowering it trades a
+missed alarm for a false one on every unit at once. [[SAFETY-41]] spent **four
+attempts** on notification cadence in this system and the owner's words were
+*"i'm getting really annoyed by the notifications in my HA"*.
+
+So the change is an **`or`**, never a looser first arm:
+
+    named if  short_by() > min_w   OR   short_by() > frac * share
+
+Everything `min_w` named before is still named. Nothing `min_w` refused becomes
+noisy **unless the unit is delivering almost none of its ask**, which is not
+saturation-shaped at all. `test_delivery.py` part 1 runs all seven of its
+existing `delinquent()` fixtures under **both** rules — `share_frac=None` is
+SAFETY-42's rule exactly — and requires identical answers on every one.
+
+The absolute arm's suppression window is therefore **unchanged**: still
+`site target < 2·min_w` = 1000 W at equal weights, still
+`site target < min_w·(w_A+w_B)/w_B` = 6500 W under OPT-09's weights on part 8b's
+fixture. Part 8b still asserts both numbers, now as evidence that the first arm
+did not move.
+
+## 2. The evidence is a diff between two rules on ONE run
+
+`delinquent()` takes `share_frac`, and **`None` means the absolute arm alone**.
+That parameter exists for one reason: so the red and the green come out of one
+run over one tree instead of out of two commits that a reader has to trust.
+`test_packshare.py` part 8b grades every cycle twice:
+
+    load 1500 W  OPT-09 weights  absolute arm alone   named on   0/200 cycles
+    load 1500 W  OPT-09 weights  the shipped rule     named on 200/200 cycles
+
+    load 1500 W  equal weights   absolute arm alone   named on 199/200 cycles
+    load 1500 W  equal weights   the shipped rule     named on 200/200 cycles
+
+The equal-weights arm gains **exactly one cycle** — the first, where the slew
+limit holds the split at 500/500, a 500 W gap is not *over* a 500 W threshold
+(the absolute bound is strict) and the relative arm names a box delivering none
+of its 500 W. That single cycle is the whole of what this card costs an arm that
+was already firing.
+
+⚠️ **THE PIN THAT INVERTED.** Part 8b was written by OPT-09 to pin the
+**suppressed** behaviour, and its comment said: *"if it ever goes red because the
+alarm fired, read the card that made it fire before 'fixing' this line."* This is
+that card. The pin now asserts the opposite answer and keeps the old one beside
+it, measured rather than remembered.
+
+## 3. ⭐ Deriving the fraction
+
+⚠️ **DERIVED ON THE SAME CAMPAIGN AS `delivery_hold_s`'s FLOOR**, not chosen.
+`admin/goodwe:sim/delivery_window.py` — the harness [[TEST-21]] committed —
+gained a second grading axis: the same **2640 no-fault runs at N=2** (three
+families × 6 gains × 5 slews × write staggers; every unit executes the share the
+allocator gave it) and the same **2640 N=1 control runs**, graded at the shipped
+`min_w = 500 W` for each candidate fraction, on every cycle of every run — so a
+pass grades every fraction it is given, and the absolute arm beside them, over
+one tree and one set of runs. Every row in a pass is comparable to every other
+row in it, run for run.
+
+    cd goodwe/sim && GOODWE_ADDON_REPO=/path/to/goodwe-addon \
+        python3 -B delivery_window.py --selftest --campaign --fractions
+
+⚠️ **`FRACTIONS` IN THAT FILE HOLDS TEN VALUES AND THE TABLE BELOW HAS TWENTY.**
+It was run twice - one pass over `(0.25, 0.50, 0.60, 0.70, 0.75, 0.80, 0.85,
+0.90, 0.95, 0.99)`, the shipped list, and one over `(0.05, 0.10, 0.15, 0.20,
+0.30, 0.35, 0.40, 0.45, 0.55, 0.65)` with only that tuple changed, to resolve
+the low end. **The absolute-arm control row came out identical in both**
+(30.0 / 0.0 / 35.0 / 0.0), which is what says the two passes are one campaign.
+
+### 3.1 The curve
+
+Worst **continuous** legitimate episode (the measure `DeliveryWatchdog` actually
+sees — its window is cleared by any cycle that does not name), runs naming in
+brackets:
+
+| `share_frac` | reversals (of 1050) | flapping (of 840) | weighted (of 750) | **N=1 control (2640)** |
+|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
+| absolute only | 30.0 s (460) | 0.0 s (0) | 35.0 s (403) | **0.0 s (0)** |
+| 0.05 | 85.0 s (826) | 0.0 s (0) | 90.0 s (616) | **0.0 s (0)** |
+| 0.10 | 75.0 s (824) | 0.0 s (0) | 90.0 s (607) | **0.0 s (0)** |
+| 0.15 | 70.0 s (836) | 0.0 s (0) | 70.0 s (609) | **0.0 s (0)** |
+| 0.20 | 70.0 s (839) | 0.0 s (0) | 60.0 s (629) | **0.0 s (0)** |
+| 0.25 | 55.0 s (832) | 0.0 s (0) | 60.0 s (611) | **0.0 s (0)** |
+| 0.30 | 55.0 s (840) | 0.0 s (0) | 50.0 s (614) | **0.0 s (0)** |
+| 0.35 | 55.0 s (840) | 0.0 s (0) | 55.0 s (618) | **0.0 s (0)** |
+| 0.40 | 50.0 s (840) | 0.0 s (0) | 60.0 s (658) | **0.0 s (0)** |
+| 0.45 | 45.0 s (840) | 0.0 s (0) | 45.0 s (627) | **0.0 s (0)** |
+| 0.50 | 45.0 s (840) | 0.0 s (0) | 45.0 s (636) | **0.0 s (0)** |
+| 0.55 | 40.0 s (840) | 0.0 s (0) | 40.0 s (636) | **0.0 s (0)** |
+| 0.60 | 40.0 s (840) | 0.0 s (0) | 40.0 s (645) | **0.0 s (0)** |
+| 0.65 | 35.0 s (840) | 0.0 s (0) | 45.0 s (635) | **0.0 s (0)** |
+| 0.70 | 35.0 s (840) | 0.0 s (0) | 45.0 s (635) | **0.0 s (0)** |
+| 0.75 | 35.0 s (840) | 0.0 s (0) | 45.0 s (635) | **0.0 s (0)** |
+| 0.80 | 35.0 s (840) | 0.0 s (0) | 45.0 s (635) | **0.0 s (0)** |
+| **0.85** | **35.0 s (840)** | **0.0 s (0)** | **40.0 s (635)** | **0.0 s (0)** |
+| 0.90 | 35.0 s (840) | 0.0 s (0) | 40.0 s (635) | **0.0 s (0)** |
+| 0.95 | 35.0 s (840) | 0.0 s (0) | 40.0 s (635) | **0.0 s (0)** |
+| 0.99 | 35.0 s (840) | 0.0 s (0) | 40.0 s (635) | **0.0 s (0)** |
+
+Worst of the three families, which is what `delivery_hold_s` has to cover:
+
+    frac   0.05  0.10  0.15  0.20  0.25  0.30  0.35  0.40  0.45  0.50
+    worst  90.0  90.0  70.0  70.0  60.0  55.0  55.0  60.0  45.0  45.0  s
+
+    frac   0.55  0.60  0.65  0.70  0.75  0.80 *0.85  0.90  0.95  0.99
+    worst  40.0  40.0  45.0  45.0  45.0  45.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  40.0  s
+
+⚠️ **THE FIRST ROW IS THE CONTROL AND IT REPRODUCED SAFETY-42 §3.3 EXACTLY** —
+30.0 s / 0.0 s / 35.0 s, and the same argmax (`gain=0.2 slew_w=1000 stagger=4
+split=0.10/0.90`, ±2200 W reversal). It is measured **in the same run** as every
+row below it, which is what makes those rows a comparison rather than a claim.
+
+### 3.2 What the curve says
+
+* ⚠️ **THERE IS NO CLIFF ANYWHERE IN THE CURVE, AND THAT IS THE FINDING.** From
+  **0.45 to 0.99** every figure is 40.0 or 45.0 s — within **one control cycle
+  (5.0 s)** of every other — and below 0.45 it rises **gradually**: 60.0 s at
+  0.25, 70.0 s at 0.15, 90.0 s at 0.05. A reviewer asking "why 0.85 and not
+  0.90?" is asking about a difference this campaign cannot resolve, and the
+  honest answer is that it cannot.
+* ⚠️ **IT IS NOT MONOTONE** — 0.40 reports 60.0 s where 0.35 reports 55.0, and
+  0.65–0.80 report 45.0 s where 0.55/0.60 and 0.85–0.99 report 40.0 — and that is
+  SAFETY-42 §3.3's own mechanism (c) rather than noise in the plant: **a more
+  sensitive rule puts MORE units into the short set, which can turn a proper
+  subset into the WHOLE roster and END the episode.** The reduction is not
+  monotone in its own threshold. Do not read this column as a sensitivity curve
+  in the ordinary sense.
+* **The shoulder is at about 0.45**, and it is a shoulder rather than an edge:
+  the reversal family's naming count saturates at 840 of 1050 runs from 0.30
+  upward, so below the shoulder what grows is the LENGTH of an episode, not the
+  number of runs that have one.
+* **The N=1 column is 0.0 s at every fraction, in all 2640 one-inverter runs.**
+  The compatibility promise is measured for the new arm, not argued.
+* **The flapping family is 0.0 s at every fraction, in all 840 runs.** A common
+  stimulus makes both units short at once and the subset stops being proper —
+  the property that defeated SAFETY-30's site window still holds.
+
+### 3.3 ⚠️ "Zero false namings" is not available at ANY fraction
+
+The card asked for *the largest fraction that yields zero false namings across
+the whole no-fault campaign*. **There is none.** Every fraction adds naming
+cycles: the reversal family goes from 460 runs naming to 840, the weighted family
+from 403 to 635. A relative arm that never fired on a legitimate transient would
+be a relative arm that never fired at all — the write stagger lands B's number up
+to four cycles late, and a unit whose new command has not arrived is, for those
+cycles, delivering a small fraction of what is standing on its wire.
+
+What **is** zero at every fraction is **false alarms**:
+
+> the longest continuous legitimate episode anywhere in the 20-point sweep is
+> **90.0 s** — at 0.05, the most sensitive fraction measured — against a
+> `delivery_hold_s` of **185 s**. Nothing in 2640 no-fault runs comes within
+> **95 s** of notifying an operator, **at any fraction measured**. At the
+> shipped 0.85 it is 40.0 s, i.e. 145 s of slack.
+
+That is the quantity SAFETY-41 cares about and it is the one this card had to
+protect. Stated as margin, at the shipped fraction: **185 s is 4.62×** the worst
+legitimate episode, where the absolute arm alone gave 5.29×.
+
+### 3.4 The bounds 0.85 answers to
+
+* **LOWER, from the campaign** — the shoulder at about **0.45**, below which the
+  added episode starts to grow (60.0 s at 0.25, 90.0 s at 0.05). 0.85 is 0.40
+  above it.
+* **UPPER, from the card's own case** — strictly **below 1.0**. At 1.0 the arm
+  can only fire on a unit that is *importing* while asked to discharge, which is
+  SAFETY-30's fault and not this one, so a unit delivering **none** of its share
+  (gap/share exactly 1.0) would be missed. The 0.15 below 1.0 is what covers a
+  wedged box reporting a small standby figure instead of a clean zero.
+* **UPPER, from the hold** — every fraction in the flat range leaves
+  `delivery_hold_s` between **4.11×** (45.0 s) and **4.62×** (40.0 s) the worst
+  legitimate episode, well inside the four bounds SAFETY-42 §3.3 requires of it.
+  **`delivery_hold_s` IS NOT CHANGED BY THIS CARD.**
+* ⚠️ **NOT DERIVED, AND SAID SO: the exact value inside [0.45, 1.0).** The
+  campaign cannot separate them. 0.85 is the midpoint of the argument above —
+  0.40 of margin above the shoulder, 0.15 below the ceiling — and a
+  re-derivation that moved it to 0.90 would be moving a number this campaign
+  never resolved. It is not moved for that reason.
+
+## 4. The positive control — what the relative arm must still NOT say
+
+A card that adds a way to raise an alarm has to show what it did **not** add.
+`test_packshare.py` part 8b runs the same fixture, the same weights and the same
+125 W share with the one fact that makes the shortfall legitimate changed:
+
+| fixture | named |
+|---|---|
+| B wedged at a healthy 15 % (the fault) | **200 / 200** |
+| B at its own 10 % cut-out, otherwise identical trace | **0 / 200** |
+| B delivering **half** its share | **0 / 200** |
+
+The first and second have **identical power traces** — 0 W against a positive
+share, 100 % of the ask missing, the relative arm's exact shape — and what
+separates them is `account()`, the pack's own `bms_soc_floor`. SAFETY-43 did not
+go near that gate, and the third row is ordinary tracking on a small share, which
+neither arm reports.
+
+`test_delivery.py` part 1 carries the same controls on the predicate itself,
+including that the relative bound is **strict** (a gap of exactly `frac · share`
+is not over it) and that the proper-subset rule still refuses a site-wide cause
+(both units delivering none of a 125 W share names nobody).
+
+## 5. N=1 is byte-identical, and it is asserted rather than argued
+
+The live install is **N=1**. Two independent statements, each graded against the
+thing that would break it (`test_packshare.py` part 8b):
+
+1. **`allocator.plan()` returns before `weights` is read at all.** Graded by
+   handing it a `weights` mapping that **raises on any read**: at a roster of one
+   it answers identically to the same call with no weights; at a roster of two
+   the same mapping is read and raises, so the tripwire is a real one.
+2. **`delinquent()` answers `{}` at a roster of one for every input** — 84
+   combinations of (share, measured, rule), including **0 of 125 W**, the exact
+   input this card added an arm for. `len(asked) < 2` returns before either
+   threshold is compared, so the fraction is never even multiplied.
+
+Nothing in this card is reachable at one inverter. It must land before inverter B
+is commissioned (~2026-09-12), not before the next deploy.
+
+## 5b. Mutation — the fraction is pinned from BOTH directions
+
+⚠️ **RUN, NOT REASONED ABOUT.** Each mutation was applied to a tree **copied
+fresh** from this branch and mounted `:ro` inside the checks image, so no `.pyc`
+could go stale — MUTATION.md's defect, and all three of these are **reds**, the
+direction that defect cannot fabricate. Recorded in full in `test_packshare.py`
+part 11 as M12–M14.
+
+| mutation | caught by |
+|---|---|
+| **M12** drop the relative arm, keep `gap > min_w` — *the card itself reverted* | `test_delivery.py` part 1 (1 named check) and `test_packshare.py` 8b (4): the GREEN check goes back to 0/200, the equal arm back to 199, the 6000 W arm back to 195/199. `test_alloc.py` and `test_control.py` stay green — nothing outside this check moves. |
+| **M13** `DELIVERY_SHARE_FRACTION` 0.85 → **1.0** — *too loose* | 5 named checks, including part 8b's PRECONDITION that the fraction is strictly below 1.0. At 1.0 the card is a no-op: gap/share of exactly 1.0 is not *over* 1.0. |
+| **M14** `DELIVERY_SHARE_FRACTION` 0.85 → **0.05** — *too sensitive* | `test_delivery.py` parts 1 and **4b** (4 named checks) and part 8b's DERATED positive control: a unit delivering half its share starts being named, and 4b's `saturation_w` pin goes vacuous. |
+
+M13 and M14 are the pair that matters: the constant cannot be moved in **either**
+direction without a named check moving with it.
+
+## 6. ⚠️ [[CFG-07]] is adjacent and is NOT absorbed here
+
+CFG-07 is that `delivery_hold_s` is declared `int(30,900)` in `config.yaml`'s
+schema while the measured worst legitimate episode at the shipped threshold is
+**35.0 s** — so the schema offers an operator a value (30) that is **below a
+measured legitimate episode** and would report on ordinary saturation.
+
+**This card makes it worse, and by exactly one control cycle.** The relative arm
+takes the worst legitimate episode from **35.0 s to 40.0 s** at the shipped
+fraction, so the band of schema-legal but false-tripping values widens from
+`[30, 35]` to `[30, 40]`. The floor the schema should have is now **40 s**, not
+35 s. It is not fixed here: raising a schema floor is an option-surface change
+with its own compatibility argument (an existing config carrying `35` would start
+being refused), and folding it into a safety fix would hide it. **CFG-07 should
+be re-derived against 40.0 s, not 35.0 s.**
+
+## 7. Provenance of every number in this document
+
+| number | where it came from |
+|---|---|
+| 199/200, 0/200, 200/200, shares 1505/125 | `test_packshare.py` part 8b, run |
+| 35.0 s absolute-arm floor, and its argmax | `delivery_window.py --campaign`, re-run here, reproduces SAFETY-42 §3.3 |
+| every row of §3.1 | `delivery_window.py --campaign --fractions`, two passes over the same campaign with `FRACTIONS` changed between them |
+| 1000 W / 6500 W suppression windows | part 8b's arithmetic, asserted there |
+| 185 s, 5.29× | SAFETY-42 §3.3 / TEST-21, unchanged by this card |
+| 4.62× | 185 / 40.0, printed by the campaign |
+| 0/200 on both positive controls | part 8b, run |
+| 84 single-unit rosters | part 8b, run |
+
+⚠️ Every two-inverter figure above is **two copies of inverter A**.