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

TEST-21: delivery_hold_s's floor re-derived, and 30.0 s did not reproduce
checks / unit (pull_request) Failing after 2s
Details

Browse Source 
No code and no option changes. What changes is a number this repository claimed
about a shipped safety constant.

`delivery_hold_s: 185` shipped resting on "30.0 s, the worst continuous
legitimate episode at the shipped threshold across all 2640 runs", plus a lag
sweep giving 45.0 s and 90.0 s - from a harness `DECISIONS/SAFETY-42` §1
deliberately did NOT commit, because it imports `plantsim` and `frame_check` out
of admin/goodwe. So the floor under a safety constant could not be re-run. That
is PROC-01's shape, with eleven instances in three days.

The harness is committed now, in admin/goodwe as `sim/delivery_window.py`, and
NOT here. `plantsim` and `frame_check` are that repo's; restating them in this
tree is CI-08's coupling, which has broken three times, and the alternative
fate - skipped for want of its imports - is a green that establishes nothing.
There the dependency runs one way: THIS repo's `control`, `arbiter` and the
shipped `delivery.delinquent()` are imported live out of whichever checkout is
under test. Its `--selftest` is now a step in that repo's `checks.yml`, so a
change here that moves `saturation_w`, `max_w`, `delivery_hold_s` or the shape
of `delinquent()` goes red there instead of leaving a stale number here.

    cd goodwe/sim && GOODWE_ADDON_REPO=/path/to/goodwe-addon \
        python3 -B delivery_window.py --selftest --campaign --blag

⚠️ THE HEADLINE DID NOT REPRODUCE: 35.0 s, not 30.0 s. Recorded as measured. The
harness was not adjusted until it agreed - the one correction made during the
rebuild was made AGAINST the doc's number (§1 records it) and made every figure
LARGER.

WHAT REPRODUCED - and it is the part the compatibility promise rests on:
  * the N=1 control arm is 0.0 s at EVERY threshold in EVERY run. §3.2's algebra
    measured, not argued.
  * the flapping family is 0.0 s everywhere in all 840 runs - the family that
    defeated SAFETY-30's site window still cannot touch this check.
  * 45.0 s at twice A's lag, to the cycle.

WHAT DID NOT:
  * the headline, by one control cycle (30.0 -> 35.0 s); the reversal family by
    two (20.0 -> 30.0 s).
  * the NON-MONOTONE curve. §3.3 finding 3 read 55.0 s at 250 W against 40.0 s
    at 100 W as a property of the reduction. This rebuild's curve is monotone.
    The mechanism is real and is still the reason not to read either table as a
    sensitivity curve, but it is an ARGUMENT now, not a measurement, and it is
    written down as weaker.
  * the low-threshold rows, badly (40.0 -> 120.0 s at 100 W). Nothing ships
    there, but that gap is the honest measure of how much of the original table
    was a property of axes nobody wrote down. §3.3 fixes every axis COUNT and
    RANGE and no individual value; the rebuild prints its choices above its own
    table so the caveat travels with the number.
  * the four-times-slower row moved the OTHER way: 75.0 s, not 90.0 s.

185 s IS NOT CHANGED. It is 5.29x the re-measured worst (the record claimed
6.2x), 2.47x the four-times-slower case, 6.2x the firmware's LINK_STALE_S veto
and 4.9x inside the billing quarter. All four bounds clear and none narrowly,
and the ordering of the argument is unchanged. Moving a shipped safety constant
because a margin went from 6.2x to 5.3x while every bound holds would re-open
SAFETY-41's four-attempt false-trip regime for nothing.

⚠️ ONE CONSEQUENCE AN OPERATOR CAN HIT. At 30.0 s the rig's floor coincided with
the firmware's veto and a reader could not tell which was binding. At 35.0 s the
rig's is strictly the binding one - and it is ABOVE the schema's own
`int(30,900)` minimum. `delivery_hold_s: 30` is therefore below a MEASURED
legitimate episode and would report on ordinary saturation. Both translations
now say so. Raising the schema floor is a change to a shipped option's contract
and is left to its own card rather than smuggled in here.

⚠️ THE B-LAG ROWS ARE RELABELLED THROUGHOUT. Inverter B does not physically
exist (~2026-09-12); `plantsim.INVERTER_B` is A COPIED, `measured=False`. Every
two-inverter figure in this record is two copies of A, and the lag sweep is a
SENSITIVITY STUDY ON A HYPOTHESIS ABOUT B, not a measurement of it. The old
wording - "MEASURED, not felt" - overstated exactly that, and "the RAMP does not
move it at all" was too strong: halving it is worth 0 s at A's lag and +5 s at
twice it.

Touched: DECISIONS/SAFETY-42 §1 and §3.3, app/delivery.py's provenance comment,
config.yaml's `delivery_hold_s` block, both translations, CHANGELOG Unreleased.
26/26 suites pass.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
This commit is contained in:
admin
2026-09-07 19:07:09 +02:00
co-authored by Claude Opus 5
parent 6e7b23388c
commit 3625b44677
6 changed files with 370 additions and 84 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
goodwe_controller/app/delivery.py
+84 -33
View File
@@ -264,36 +264,66 @@ DELIVERY_OPTION_DEFAULTS = {
# such family, so reading its numbers across would have understated this.
#
# Every run was executed a second time at a roster of ONE, on the same
# stimulus, as the control. Worst CONTINUOUS legitimate episode:
# stimulus, as the control.
#
# ⚠️ RE-RUN BY TEST-21 (2026-09-07) AND THE HEADLINE DID NOT REPRODUCE. The
# harness that produced the original table was never committed, which is
# PROC-01's shape; it is committed now, in the OTHER repository, as
# `admin/goodwe:sim/delivery_window.py` (it imports `plantsim` and
# `frame_check`, which that repo owns - restating them here would be CI-08's
# coupling, and CI-08 has broken three times). Re-derive it with:
#
# cd goodwe/sim && GOODWE_ADDON_REPO=/path/to/goodwe-addon \
# python3 -B delivery_window.py --selftest --campaign --blag
#
# Worst CONTINUOUS legitimate episode. Second block is the re-run:
#
# threshold reversals flapping weighted N=1 control (1890 runs)
# 100 W 40.0 s 0.0 s 75.0 s 0.0 s
# 250 W 55.0 s 0.0 s 60.0 s 0.0 s
# * 500 W 20.0 s 0.0 s 30.0 s 0.0 s
# 700 W 20.0 s 0.0 s 20.0 s 0.0 s
# 1000 W 15.0 s 0.0 s 15.0 s 0.0 s
# 2000 W 10.0 s 0.0 s 5.0 s 0.0 s
# 100 W 40.0 s 0.0 s 75.0 s 0.0 s } 2026-09-06
# 250 W 55.0 s 0.0 s 60.0 s 0.0 s } harness
# * 500 W 20.0 s 0.0 s 30.0 s 0.0 s } NOT
# 700 W 20.0 s 0.0 s 20.0 s 0.0 s } COMMITTED
# 1000 W 15.0 s 0.0 s 15.0 s 0.0 s } - see
# 2000 W 10.0 s 0.0 s 5.0 s 0.0 s } DECISIONS
#
# threshold reversals flapping weighted N=1 control (2640 runs)
# 100 W 120.0 s 0.0 s 165.0 s 0.0 s } TEST-21
# 250 W 65.0 s 0.0 s 100.0 s 0.0 s } 2026-09-07
# * 500 W 30.0 s 0.0 s 35.0 s 0.0 s } committed
# 700 W 25.0 s 0.0 s 30.0 s 0.0 s } harness,
# 1000 W 15.0 s 0.0 s 25.0 s 0.0 s } re-runnable
# 1500 W 0.0 s 0.0 s 20.0 s 0.0 s }
# 2000 W 0.0 s 0.0 s 0.0 s 0.0 s }
#
# * is the shipped threshold, `Tuning.saturation_w`.
#
# ⚠️ THREE THINGS IN THAT TABLE ARE WORTH MORE THAN THE ROW THEY SIT ON.
# (a) The N=1 column is ZERO EVERYWHERE, in all 1890 runs at every
# threshold. The compatibility promise is measured, not argued.
# (b) The FLAPPING column is zero everywhere too - and that is the family
# that defeated SAFETY-30's site window (980 s at N=2, 1000 s at N=1, no
# window inside the billing quarter surviving it). It cannot touch this
# check, because a common stimulus makes BOTH units short at once and
# the subset stops being proper.
# (c) THE CURVE IS NOT MONOTONE - 55.0 s at 250 W against 40.0 s at 100 W -
# and that is a property of the reduction, not noise: a lower threshold
# puts MORE units into the short set, which can turn a proper subset
# into the whole roster and BREAK the run. Do not read it as a
# sensitivity curve.
# (a) The N=1 column is ZERO EVERYWHERE, at every threshold, IN BOTH
# CAMPAIGNS. The compatibility promise is measured, not argued, and it
# is the part that reproduced most cleanly.
# (b) The FLAPPING column is zero everywhere too, in both - and that is the
# family that defeated SAFETY-30's site window (980 s at N=2, 1000 s at
# N=1, no window inside the billing quarter surviving it). It cannot
# touch this check, because a common stimulus makes BOTH units short at
# once and the subset stops being proper.
# (c) THE ORIGINAL CURVE WAS NOT MONOTONE - 55.0 s at 250 W against 40.0 s
# at 100 W - and that was read as a property of the reduction: a lower
# threshold puts MORE units into the short set, which can turn a proper
# subset into the whole roster and BREAK the run. ⚠️ THE RE-RUN'S CURVE
# IS MONOTONE. The mechanism is real and is still the reason not to read
# either table as a sensitivity curve, but it is no longer something
# these numbers demonstrate - it is an argument now, not a measurement.
#
# THE BOUNDS THE VALUE ANSWERS TO:
#
# LOWER, from the rig - 30.0 s, the worst continuous legitimate episode at
# the shipped threshold across all 2640 runs.
# LOWER, from the rig - 35.0 s (TEST-21; the original record said 30.0 s
# and it did not reproduce), the worst continuous legitimate episode at
# the shipped threshold across all 2640 runs. ⚠️ THIS IS NOW STRICTLY THE
# BINDING LOWER BOUND: at 30.0 s it coincided with the firmware's veto
# below and a reader could not tell which was doing the work; at 35.0 s it
# is ABOVE it, and it is above the schema's own `int(30,900)` floor too -
# so an operator who sets `delivery_hold_s` to 30 is below a MEASURED
# legitimate episode. That is what "derived, do not change" is for.
#
# LOWER, from the firmware - `inverter.LINK_STALE_S`, 30 s. A unit not
# executing its share for less than the firmware's own veto window is a
@@ -302,26 +332,47 @@ DELIVERY_OPTION_DEFAULTS = {
# second, louder alarm about a state already being handled - the
# SAFETY-15/SAFETY-19 failure exactly.
#
# MARGIN, from INVERTER B NOT EXISTING, AND IT IS MEASURED RATHER THAN
# GUESSED. The campaign's B is A COPIED (`plantsim.INVERTER_B`,
# `measured=False`), so the 30.0 s above is two identical machines.
# Sweeping a DIFFERENT second unit through the weighted family: the worst
# legitimate episode is insensitive to B's RAMP (30.0 s at half A's) and
# scales with its LAG - 45.0 s at twice A's measured 10 s lag, 90.0 s at
# four times it. That is the sensitivity the margin has to carry until
# SPIKE-04 measures the real unit.
# MARGIN, from INVERTER B NOT EXISTING. ⚠️ THIS IS A SENSITIVITY STUDY ON
# A HYPOTHESIS ABOUT B, NOT A MEASUREMENT OF B, and the wording here used
# to say "MEASURED rather than GUESSED", which overstated it. B is not
# installed (~2026-09-12). The campaign's B is A COPIED
# (`plantsim.INVERTER_B`, `measured=False`), so the 35.0 s above is TWO
# IDENTICAL MACHINES and every row below is a what-if. NO ROW HERE IS B's
# LAG. Sweeping a DIFFERENT second unit through the weighted family
# (2026-09-06 -> TEST-21 re-run):
#
# B lag / ramp original re-run
# 10.0 s / 800 W/s 30.0 s 35.0 s (= A, both copies)
# 20.0 s / 800 W/s 45.0 s 45.0 s
# 10.0 s / 400 W/s 30.0 s 35.0 s
# 20.0 s / 400 W/s 45.0 s 50.0 s
# 40.0 s / 200 W/s 90.0 s 75.0 s (4x A's lag)
#
# The LAG moves it roughly linearly; the RAMP barely does. "The ramp does
# not move it AT ALL" was too strong - halving it is worth 0 s at A's lag
# and +5 s at twice it - so the ramp is second-order, not absent. That is
# the sensitivity the margin has to carry until SPIKE-04 measures the real
# unit.
#
# UPPER, from the bill - 900 s, the quarter that sets the capacity tariff.
# A site running short of one unit's share must be reported well inside
# one.
#
# 185 s: thirty-seven control cycles. 6.2x the worst legitimate episode this
# rig produces, 2.06x the worst a second unit FOUR TIMES slower than A
# produces, 6.2x the firmware's own veto window, and 4.9x inside the
# quarter. ⚠️ DELIBERATELY NOT 180 - that is SAFETY-02's site hold and this
# 185 s: thirty-seven control cycles. Against the TEST-21 re-run: 5.29x the
# worst legitimate episode this rig produces (35.0 s), 2.47x the worst a
# hypothetical second unit FOUR TIMES slower than A produces (75.0 s), 6.2x
# the firmware's own veto window (30 s), and 4.9x inside the quarter
# (900 s). ⚠️ DELIBERATELY NOT 180 - that is SAFETY-02's site hold and this
# is a different check on a different quantity, so a reader must not be
# able to think it was carried across - and not 150 or 200.
#
# ⚠️ 185 STANDS AND IS NOT CHANGED. The record claimed 6.2x the measured
# worst; the re-run makes it 5.29x. All four bounds still clear and none of
# them narrowly, and the ordering of the argument is unchanged. A shipped
# safety constant is not moved because a margin went from 6.2x to 5.3x while
# every bound holds - moving it would re-open SAFETY-41's four-attempt
# false-trip regime for nothing. What changed is the CLAIM, not the value.
#
# WHAT IT COSTS, stated rather than hidden: up to 185 s of a site running
# short by one unit's share before anybody is told. Against a fault that ran
# 6 h 25 m unnoticed, and against a guard that TAKES NO ACTION, this window