ARB-03: pin all eight actuator call sites statically

The independent review of PR #40 found AC 6 met at three of the eight claim
construction sites while the check claimed to cover the class - this
repository's named failure mode, a check observing something other than what
it claimed, reproduced inside the check written to prevent it.

WHAT WAS WRONG. Part 10g's only call-site check was a real two-inverter cycle.
That cycle is auto, P1-healthy, no maintenance procedure, no tripped sign
watchdog, the guard idle and arbitrage off, so it reaches `device`,
`supervised` and `loop` and nothing else - three of the eight direct appends in
`Controller.cycle()`. Its own check text nevertheless read "the line a
mis-typed `actuator_of(...)` at a call site goes red on", and the PR body's
mutation table presented it as covering the class. The reviewer proved the gap
on the shipped tree: `actuator_of("maintenance")` -> `actuator_of("peak")` at
the maintenance-shaping append left test_arbiter.py, test_peakguard.py and
test_arbitrage.py ALL GREEN, while at a roster of two it built a site loop of
-1500 W against the guard's site `lo` of 1500 W and the now-misrouted
charge-only `hi = 0` - `lo > hi`, arbiter clause 3, 0 W IN THE BILLED QUARTER,
SAFETY-25 §0a's fatal case from a one-word typo. The same mutation at the
`failsafe` append survived too. The runtime detector does fire -
`scope_violations()` names it - but it only logs; nothing graded it.

THE FIX, over machinery already present. Part 10f's AST scan already reads each
`claims.append(...)` in `Controller.cycle()`. All eight direct appends expose
their actuator statically as `actuator=self.actuator_of('<literal>')`, so 10g
now requires that literal to EQUAL the source the claim is filed under, read as
SOURCE TEXT rather than evaluated - `actuator_of("peak")` at the maintenance
append is the same VALUE at the shipped roster of one and a different string
here. That pins all eight routing sites, on the line the typo is written, in
every configuration and at every roster, exactly the way 10f pins the source
set. Two further lines keep the scan from going vacuous: every direct append
must be readable in that shape (a computed or hand-written actuator fails
there), and the ten appends must still account for 10f's eight sources.

The two INDIRECT appends carry no `actuator=` at the call site to mis-type.
`peak_claim` and `arb_claim` are routed where their claim is built, and are
pinned there - `peakguard.claim()` by the SWEEP_SITE sweep over every load x
elapsed x battery x SoC x floor combination, `arbitrage.claim()` by
test_arbitrage.py. 10g now says so at the line, and says which three of the
eight its dynamic cycle actually sees, rather than rounding up.

MEASURED, NOT ARGUED. Each of the eight direct appends mutated in turn to a
wrong actuator - device->loop, supervised->peak, failsafe->safety,
safety(stopped)->device, safety(inputs missing)->maintenance,
maintenance(SET)->loop, maintenance(shaping)->peak, loop->supervised - each on
a purged tree via tools/mutation_run.sh over all 17 files. All eight RED, every
one of them on the new line.

TWO SURVIVING MUTATIONS OF THE SAME CLASS, ALSO CLOSED.

* `resolve()` did not have to honour the roster it was given: `if units is
  None:` -> `if True:` left the whole suite green. Ignoring the argument makes a
  unit that filed nothing this cycle cease to exist - a site of two reads as a
  site of one and stage 3 passes the whole grid target through to the inverter
  that spoke, which is ARCH-01's fault with its own evidence removed.
  test_arbiter.py part 7 now grades it on the one case that separates the two, a
  SILENT unit. Mutation RED in test_arbiter.py and test_peakguard.py.
* main.py's N>=2 refusal was unreachable and ungraded: `if not
  resolution.allocated:` -> `if False:` left the whole suite green, so the right
  instinct was one refactor away from being deleted as dead code. The guard is
  KEPT - the alternative default is the ARCH-01 fault - and new part 10h grades
  it on the two-inverter cycle that already existed: the 0 W, the `failsafe`
  winner, the log line naming the roster size, and the write that follows.
  Mutation RED.

AND THE WORDING CORRECTED. main.py does not "refuse to write" on
`allocated=False`. It SUBSTITUTES a 0 W failsafe and then calls
`write_setpoint(0.0)` like any other cycle. 0 W is the correct
fail-toward-inaction direction and the log text is accurate about what it
refuses - to BROADCAST the site target - but "refuses to write" overstates the
code. Said as what it does, in the CHANGELOG, at the branch in main.py, and in
10h's own check text. `resolve()`'s docstring now says the roster argument has
to be HONOURED, which is not the same as existing.

17/17 green on a purged tree.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

goodwe_controller/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -39,8 +39,22 @@ numbers.**
   an allocator** - `ALLOC-01` builds it. With at most one unit it passes the
   target through (§6.2's N=1 identity); with two or more **it declines, no
   shares, `allocated=False`**, because the obvious placeholder - hand the target
-  to each - IS the fault `ARCH-01` was filed about, and `main.py` refuses to
-  write rather than broadcast.
+  to each - IS the fault `ARCH-01` was filed about. **What `main.py` then does
+  is SUBSTITUTE, not abstain**: it replaces the resolution with a 0 W `failsafe`,
+  logs "refusing to broadcast the site target", and writes that 0 W through
+  `write_setpoint()` like any other cycle. The refusal is to BROADCAST; the
+  write still happens, in the fail-toward-inaction direction. Graded end to end
+  on a real two-inverter cycle by new **part 10h** - the branch is unreachable
+  on the shipped roster, and replacing it with `if False:` had left all 17
+  suites green.
+* **`resolve()` HONOURS the roster it is handed, and that is now graded too.**
+  Left `None` the roster is derived from the claims, which is the documented
+  default; passed explicitly it is used. Deriving it *always* - ignoring the
+  argument - makes a unit that filed nothing this cycle cease to exist, so a
+  site of two reads as a site of one and the seam passes the whole grid target
+  through to the inverter that spoke: `ARCH-01`'s fault with its own evidence
+  removed. `test_arbiter.py` part 7 grades it on the one case that separates the
+  two, a **silent unit**.
 * **The contradiction is no longer guarded against, it CANNOT BE WRITTEN DOWN.**
   The partition is by `actuator` and it is a partition: a unit's `hi` and the
   site's `lo` are never both terms of one `lo > hi` test. Constructed and swept -
@@ -68,12 +82,34 @@ numbers.**
   reading it, which is why `actuator` is the LAST field of `Claim` and not the
   first. Its spy gained `**kw` so the roster passes through unread rather than
   being silently dropped. New **part 10g** pins `CLAIM_SCOPE` to the same
-  eight-source set, so a ninth source now goes red twice; and it grades a **real
-  two-inverter cycle**, which is the only place a mis-typed `actuator_of(...)`
-  at a call site is observable - at N=1 every source legitimately routes to the
-  site, so a swap there is invisible by construction. Verified by breaking it:
-  building SAFETY-25's Option B as a ninth source still takes 10f red on the
+  eight-source set, so a ninth source now goes red twice. Verified by breaking
+  it: building SAFETY-25's Option B as a ninth source still takes 10f red on the
   line it is written.
+* **And the CALL SITES are pinned statically, at all eight of them.** 10g's
+  first cut graded routing only through a **real two-inverter cycle** and called
+  that "the line a mis-typed `actuator_of(...)` at a call site goes red on".
+  **It was not.** That cycle reaches `device`, `supervised` and `loop` and
+  nothing else - three of the eight direct appends - so a mis-type at the other
+  five survived every suite in this repository. Proved on the shipped tree by PR
+  #40's reviewer: `actuator_of("maintenance")` -> `actuator_of("peak")` at the
+  maintenance-shaping append left `test_arbiter.py`, `test_peakguard.py` and
+  `test_arbitrage.py` all green while, at a roster of two, it built a site loop
+  of -1500 W against the guard's site `lo` of 1500 W and the now-misrouted
+  charge-only `hi = 0` - `lo > hi`, arbiter clause 3, **0 W in the billed
+  quarter**, SAFETY-25 §0a's fatal case from a one-word typo. That is this
+  repository's named failure mode - **a check observing something other than
+  what it claimed** - reproduced inside the check written to prevent it, so it
+  is closed the way 10f closes it: over the **same AST scan**. All eight direct
+  appends expose their actuator as a literal `actuator=self.actuator_of('...')`,
+  so the literal is required to EQUAL the source the claim is filed under - all
+  eight, on the line the typo is written, in every configuration and at every
+  roster, whether or not any fixture reaches the state that files them.
+  **Measured: each of the eight mutated to a wrong actuator in turn, each one
+  red.** The two INDIRECT appends (`peak_claim`, `arb_claim`) carry no
+  `actuator=` at the call site to mis-type, and are pinned where their routing
+  is actually chosen - `peakguard.claim()` by the `SWEEP_SITE` sweep,
+  `arbitrage.claim()` by `test_arbitrage.py`. 10g's dynamic cycle is kept and
+  now says which three of the eight it sees instead of claiming the class.
 
 **SAFETY-25's open question is ANSWERED: the BMS cut-out is the DELIBERATE and
 only backstop for demand-driven discharge, and a loop-side reserve floor is

goodwe_controller/app/arbiter.py

@@ -433,6 +433,13 @@ def resolve(claims: list, *, units=None) -> Resolution:
     one that does not, so ALLOC-01 will pass the real roster rather than let a
     silent unit look like a smaller site.
 
+    ⚠️ AND THE ARGUMENT HAS TO BE HONOURED, WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS EXISTING.
+    Ignore it - derive always - and a unit that filed nothing this cycle ceases
+    to exist: a site of two reads as a site of one and stage 3 passes the whole
+    grid target through to the inverter that spoke, which is ARCH-01's fault
+    with its own evidence removed. That mutation survived the whole suite until
+    test_arbiter.py part 7 graded it on a SILENT unit.
+
     ⚠️ THE PARTITION IS BY `actuator`, AND IT IS A PARTITION, NOT A FILTER. Every
     claim lands in exactly one stage. That is the whole structural argument: a
     unit's `hi` and the site's `lo` are never both terms of the same `lo > hi`

goodwe_controller/app/main.py

@@ -845,14 +845,27 @@ class Controller:
             self.loop_clamped = (False, "")
 
         resolution = resolve(claims, units=self.units)
-        # ⚠️ N>=2 WITHOUT AN ALLOCATOR IS A REFUSAL, NOT A BROADCAST, and this
-        # branch is unreachable while the roster holds one unit. It is here
+        # ⚠️ N>=2 WITHOUT AN ALLOCATOR IS A REFUSAL TO BROADCAST, NOT A REFUSAL
+        # TO WRITE, and the difference is the next four lines: the resolution is
+        # REPLACED by a 0 W failsafe and then written like any other cycle at
+        # `write_setpoint(self.target)` below. Nothing is skipped. 0 W is the
+        # fail-toward-inaction direction - the setpoint is commanded to zero
+        # rather than left wherever the last cycle put it.
+        #
+        # This branch is unreachable while the roster holds one unit. It is here
         # because the alternative default is the fault ARCH-01 was filed about:
         # hand the site target to each inverter and each supplies it IN FULL, so
         # the loop gain at the meter becomes N times the per-unit gain - a
         # permanent +-2 kW limit cycle at the gain config.yaml documents as its
         # maximum, with every watchdog in §11.2 reporting healthy. `allocate()`
         # declines rather than invent a split; this is what declining costs.
+        #
+        # ⚠️ AND BEING UNREACHABLE IS NOT A REASON TO LEAVE IT UNGRADED. It was:
+        # PR #40's reviewer replaced this `if` with `if False:` and the whole
+        # 17-file suite stayed green, so the branch was one refactor away from
+        # being deleted as dead code. test_peakguard.py part 10h now drives a
+        # real two-inverter cycle and grades all four halves - the 0 W, the
+        # `failsafe` winner, the log line, and the write that follows it.
         if not resolution.allocated:
             self.log_event(f"ARBITER: no allocator for {len(self.units)} "
                            f"inverters - refusing to broadcast the site target")

goodwe_controller/test_arbiter.py

@@ -350,6 +350,44 @@ check("with two it DECLINES rather than inventing a split. ⚠️ THE OBVIOUS "
       _shares == {} and _ok is False)
 check("...and specifically it does not broadcast", 1500.0 not in _shares.values())
 
+# ⚠️ AND `resolve()` HAS TO HONOUR THE ROSTER IT IS GIVEN, WHICH IS NOT THE SAME
+# THING AS HAVING A `units` PARAMETER. Left None the roster is DERIVED from the
+# claims, and that derivation is right only for a caller that files a claim for
+# every unit every cycle. Ignore the argument and derive it always - `if units
+# is None:` -> `if True:` - and a unit that filed nothing this cycle simply
+# CEASES TO EXIST: the site of two looks like a site of one, the seam passes the
+# whole grid target through to the single inverter that spoke, and ARCH-01's
+# fault is built with the evidence for it removed. That mutation left this whole
+# suite green until this check was written (PR #40 review), so it is graded on
+# the one observation that distinguishes the two - a SILENT unit.
+_silent = resolve([Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 900.0),
+                   Claim.limit("device", P_SAFETY, -2000, 2000, "rating",
+                               actuator="inverter-a")],
+                  units=TWO)
+print(f"    roster of two, only inverter-a files: bounds="
+      f"{sorted(_silent.unit_bounds)} allocated={_silent.allocated} "
+      f"shares={_silent.shares}")
+check("resolve() HONOURS the roster it is handed rather than inferring one from "
+      "who happened to speak. inverter-b filed nothing this cycle and is still "
+      "a unit: it gets its own interval, and the site is still a site of TWO, "
+      "so the seam still DECLINES",
+      sorted(_silent.unit_bounds) == ["inverter-a", "inverter-b"]
+      and _silent.allocated is False and _silent.shares == {})
+check("...and that is the whole cost of ignoring the argument, stated as the "
+      "number it would produce: derive the roster from the claims instead and "
+      "the site is a site of ONE, so the seam passes 900 W through to "
+      "inverter-a - the silent inverter's absence read as a smaller site",
+      resolve([Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 900.0),
+               Claim.limit("device", P_SAFETY, -2000, 2000, "rating",
+                           actuator="inverter-a")]).shares
+      == {"inverter-a": 900.0})
+check("...and left None the roster IS derived from the claims, which is the "
+      "documented default every N=1 replay above depends on - so the parameter "
+      "changes the answer only where the two disagree",
+      resolve([Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 900.0),
+               Claim.limit("device", P_SAFETY, -2000, 2000, "rating",
+                           actuator="inverter-a")], units=None).allocated is True)
+
 print()
 print("ARB-03 8. verified by breaking it: a claim routed to the wrong stage (AC 6)")
 # The `peak` floor, misfiled on a unit. It is the site's floor - if it lands on

goodwe_controller/test_peakguard.py

@@ -2563,27 +2563,169 @@ check("...and the roster it was restored to is the shipped one, so nothing "
 # IT RIGHT. `actuator_of("maintenance")` written at the `device` append routes a
 # rating limit to whatever `maintenance` routes to, and at the shipped
 # one-inverter roster BOTH answers are the site, so nothing above can see it.
-# The only place it becomes observable is a cycle at a roster of two - so take
-# one, on real claims, spied at main.py's own resolve.
+# ⚠️ AND THE DYNAMIC CYCLE BELOW SEES ONLY THREE OF THE EIGHT DIRECT APPENDS.
+# That was THIS PART committing this repository's own named failure - a check
+# observing something other than what it claimed - inside the check written to
+# prevent it. The first cut of 10g called the two-inverter cycle "the line a
+# mis-typed `actuator_of(...)` at a call site goes red on", full stop. IT IS
+# NOT. That cycle is auto, P1-healthy, no maintenance procedure, no tripped sign
+# watchdog, the guard idle and arbitrage off, so it reaches `device`,
+# `supervised` and `loop` AND NOTHING ELSE. PR #40's reviewer mutated the other
+# five appends one at a time and every suite in this repository stayed GREEN,
+# this part included. At the maintenance-shaping append,
+# `actuator_of("maintenance")` -> `actuator_of("peak")` then produced, at a
+# roster of two, a site loop of -1500 W against the guard's site `lo` of 1500 W
+# and the now-misrouted charge-only `hi = 0`: `lo > hi`, arbiter clause 3, 0 W
+# IN THE BILLED QUARTER - SAFETY-25 §0a's fatal case, built by a one-word typo
+# under a green suite. The same mutation at the `failsafe` append survived too.
+#
+# So THE CALL SITES ARE PINNED STATICALLY, over 10f's own AST scan of
+# `Controller.cycle()` and for 10f's reason: a static pin sees every append on
+# the line it is written, in every configuration, whether or not any fixture
+# here reaches the state that files it. All eight direct appends expose their
+# actuator as a LITERAL - `actuator=self.actuator_of('<source>')` - so the
+# literal is simply required to EQUAL the source the claim is filed under. That
+# is what makes "a mis-typed `actuator_of(...)` goes red" a true sentence about
+# all eight rather than about the three a fixture happens to reach.
+
+
+def append_actuator(node):
+    """The actuator expression a DIRECT append routes its claim through.
+
+    ⚠️ RETURNED AS SOURCE TEXT, NOT EVALUATED, and that is the whole point.
+    `self.actuator_of('device')` and `self.actuator_of('maintenance')` are the
+    SAME VALUE at the shipped roster and two different routings; only the text
+    written at the call site tells them apart, which is exactly why every
+    dynamic check in this file is blind to the swap at N=1.
+    """
+    kw = [k for k in node.keywords if k.arg == "actuator"]
+    if len(kw) != 1:
+        return None
+    return ast.unparse(kw[0].value)
+
+
+# The appends that BUILD their claim in place - the eight whose routing is
+# chosen by hand, and the only ones where a typo is possible - against the two
+# that append a claim built elsewhere in the method and carry no `actuator=`
+# here at all.
+_direct = [n.args[0] for n in _appends if isinstance(n.args[0], ast.Call)]
+_indirect = [n.args[0].id for n in _appends if isinstance(n.args[0], ast.Name)]
+_routing = sorted(((c.args[0].value, append_actuator(c), c.lineno)
+                   for c in _direct), key=lambda r: r[2])
+_misrouted = [r for r in _routing if r[1] != f"self.actuator_of({r[0]!r})"]
+print(f"    {len(_direct)} direct appends, each read at its own line: "
+      + ", ".join(f"main.py:{ln} {s} -> {a}" for s, a, ln in _routing))
+check("all eight of `Controller.cycle()`'s DIRECT appends route through "
+      "`self.actuator_of(<string literal>)`, so this scan can read the routing "
+      "of EVERY one of them. An append that computed its actuator, or omitted "
+      "the argument, or hand-wrote a string, fails HERE rather than being "
+      "silently skipped - which is how a scan like this goes quietly vacuous, "
+      "and 10f is in this file because that already happened once",
+      len(_direct) == 8
+      and all(a is not None and a.startswith("self.actuator_of('")
+              for _s, a, _ln in _routing))
+check("⚠️ AND AT EVERY ONE OF THE EIGHT THE LITERAL IT ROUTES THROUGH IS THE "
+      "SOURCE THE CLAIM IS FILED UNDER. THIS is the line a mis-typed "
+      "`actuator_of(...)` at a call site goes red on - all eight of them, on "
+      "the line the typo is written, at every roster, INCLUDING the five "
+      "appends no fixture in this repository reaches. "
+      "`actuator_of(\"peak\")` at the maintenance append is a different string "
+      "here even though it is the same VALUE at the shipped roster of one",
+      _misrouted == [])
+check("...and the only appends this pin does NOT reach are the two that file a "
+      "claim BUILT ELSEWHERE - `peak_claim` and `arb_claim` - which have no "
+      "`actuator=` at the call site to mis-type. Their routing is pinned where "
+      "it is CHOSEN instead: peakguard.claim() by the SWEEP_SITE sweep above, "
+      "over every load x elapsed x battery x SoC x floor combination, and "
+      "arbitrage.claim() by test_arbitrage.py",
+      sorted(_indirect) == sorted(CLAIM_BUILDERS)
+      and len(_direct) + len(_indirect) == len(_appends))
+check("...and between them the ten appends account for exactly the eight "
+      "sources 10f pins, so the routing pin and the source set are one scan "
+      "and neither can drift from the other",
+      {s for s, _a, _ln in _routing} | set(CLAIM_BUILDERS.values())
+      == CLAIM_SOURCES)
+
+# THE DYNAMIC HALF, kept, and now stated for what it actually observes: a real
+# cycle proving the routing reaches the arbiter THROUGH main.py rather than only
+# through this file's reading of main.py. It grades three of the eight appends.
+# The static pin above is what covers the other five.
 c_src.units = ("inverter-a", "inverter-b")
+_n2_writes_before = len(c_src.hass.writes)
 try:
     _, _cl2 = cycle_claims(lambda: run_cycle(c_src))
+    _n2_target, _n2_reason = c_src.target, c_src.reason
+    _n2_events = list(c_src.events)
+    _n2_writes = c_src.hass.writes[_n2_writes_before:]
+    _n2_last = c_src.last_write
 finally:
     c_src.units = (app_main.UNIT_A,)
 print("    a REAL two-inverter cycle files: "
       + ", ".join(f"{c.source}@{c.actuator}" for c in _cl2))
 check("a real cycle at a roster of TWO partitions its own claims correctly - "
-      "every claim main.py filed is on an actuator its source's scope permits. "
-      "This is the line a mis-typed `actuator_of(...)` at a call site goes red "
-      "on, and it is the only place one can be seen: at N=1 every source "
-      "legitimately routes to the site, so a swap there is invisible by "
-      "construction", len(_cl2) >= 3 and scope_violations(_cl2) == [])
+      "every claim main.py filed is on an actuator its source's scope permits, "
+      "observed on the list main.py's own `resolve` was handed. ⚠️ AND THIS "
+      "SEES THREE OF THE EIGHT APPENDS, NOT THE CLASS: this state files "
+      "`device`, `supervised` and `loop`, so it is the static pin above and not "
+      "this line that covers `failsafe`, `safety` and the two `maintenance` "
+      "appends", len(_cl2) >= 3 and scope_violations(_cl2) == [])
 check("...and the partition is the expected one on the sources this state "
       "reaches: the two rating limits bind the unit, the loop claim stays on "
       "the grid connection",
       {c.source: c.actuator for c in _cl2}
       == {"device": "inverter-a", "supervised": "inverter-a",
           "loop": ACTUATOR_SITE})
+check("...and naming those three is not an accident of this fixture but the "
+      "reason the static pin exists - five of the eight sources need a state "
+      "no check in this file reaches",
+      {c.source for c in _cl2}
+      == CLAIM_SOURCES - {"failsafe", "safety", "maintenance", "peak",
+                          "arbitrage"})
+
+
+# --- 10h. ARB-03: AND WHAT MAIN.PY DOES WITH `allocated=False` --------------
+# ⚠️ AN UNREACHABLE BRANCH THAT NOTHING GRADED. The roster ships as one unit, so
+# `allocate()` never declines in production and no fixture went looking: PR
+# #40's reviewer replaced main.py's `if not resolution.allocated:` with
+# `if False:` and the whole 17-file suite stayed GREEN. The branch is the right
+# instinct - the alternative default is the fault ARCH-01 was filed about, N
+# inverters each supplying the site target IN FULL, a permanent limit cycle at
+# the meter with every §11.2 watchdog reporting healthy - and an ungraded right
+# instinct is one refactor away from being deleted as dead code. The
+# two-inverter cycle above IS that state, so it is graded on that cycle rather
+# than with a fixture of its own.
+#
+# ⚠️ AND WHAT IT DOES IS SUBSTITUTE, NOT ABSTAIN. main.py does not skip the
+# write. It replaces the resolution with a 0 W `failsafe` and then calls
+# `write_setpoint(0.0)` like any other cycle. 0 W is the correct
+# fail-toward-inaction direction and the log line is accurate about what it
+# refuses ("refusing to broadcast the site target"), but "main.py refuses to
+# write" would be the same overclaim this part just took out of 10g, so it is
+# graded as what it is: a substitution followed by a write.
+print(f"    at N=2 main.py resolved to {_n2_target:+.0f} W, reason "
+      f"{_n2_reason!r}, wrote {_n2_writes}")
+print("    and logged: "
+      + next((e for e in _n2_events if "ARBITER" in e), "(nothing)"))
+check("with two inverters and no allocator main.py does NOT hand the site "
+      "target to the roster. The resolution it acts on is the 0 W failsafe it "
+      "substitutes, and `explain()` says so - this is the branch a `if False:` "
+      "deleted with the suite still green",
+      _n2_target == 0.0 and "failsafe" in _n2_reason)
+check("...and it says WHY, in the action log, in the operator's own words - "
+      "the refusal is to BROADCAST, and it names the roster size that caused it",
+      any("refusing to broadcast the site target" in e and "2 inverters" in e
+          for e in _n2_events))
+check("...and then it WRITES that 0 W, on the same line as every other cycle. "
+      "It is a substitution, not an abstention: the setpoint is commanded to "
+      "zero rather than left wherever the last cycle put it, which is the "
+      "fail-toward-inaction direction and the opposite of leaving a stale "
+      "command standing", _n2_writes == [0.0] and _n2_last == 0.0)
+check("...and the 0 W is NOT what the site target happened to be - resolve the "
+      "same claims at a roster of ONE, where the seam passes through, and a "
+      "real number comes back. That is what says the branch does work rather "
+      "than agreeing with the resolution by luck",
+      resolve(_cl2, units=("inverter-a",)).allocated is True
+      and resolve(_cl2, units=("inverter-a",)).target_w != 0.0)
 
 
 # ==============================================================================