UX-04: the 59 was computed and then graded against "> 15"

Review approved and found four things worth fixing. Three are cosmetic; the
fourth is the same defect this card is about, one level up.

⚠️ THE FLOOR WAS PRINTED AS 59 AND ASSERTED AS `> 15`. So a manifest change
dropping the required count to 20 would have passed while the sentence beside it
still said 59 - a number displayed but not graded, which is exactly what let
UX-01's AC 3 survive review in the first place, and exactly the shape
`test_translations.py` was already fixed for.

Now DERIVED and graded in two separate assertions, because they are two
different claims:

  1. `_EXPECT_REQ = len(schema) - len(_OPTIONAL)`, where optional is Supervisor's
     own rule - a `?` suffix, plus `inverters` because `UiOptions` marks a list
     optional - asserted EQUAL to Supervisor's required count. The printed
     number is computed, so it cannot go stale.
  2. ⚠️ AND THE WITHDRAWAL'S PREMISE, SEPARATELY. The equality alone is not
     enough and I checked why: both sides read the same `?` convention, so
     marking a key optional moves BOTH and it stays green - measured, by making
     `slew_w` optional and watching it pass. That grades Supervisor agreeing
     with us, NOT the thing AC 3 was withdrawn for. The second assertion grades
     the premise: the floor is still far above the ~15 AC 3 asked for, and if it
     ever is not, the withdrawal needs re-arguing rather than re-asserting.

Driven, both directions, against the real 2026.08.0 image:

    clean                         PASS  "floor is DERIVED: 71 schema keys minus
                                         12 optional ones is 59, and
                                         Supervisor's own required flag agrees"
    premise threshold 15 -> 40    FAIL  "the floor of 59 is still far above
                                         the ~40 AC 3 asked for"

Also: a dangling reference to `DECISIONS/UX-04-hiding-and-the-deepmerge.md`,
which was never the filename shipped, and `DOCS.md` still saying section F
"prints" what it now grades.

Not changed, and review agreed both are disclosed rather than defects: the
pair-keyed ledger cannot see a SECOND site for a pair it already holds (the
site count can grow while the pair set cannot), and the probe's assertions run
by hand rather than in CI because they need the Supervisor image - the same
status as before this card, not a regression.

Suite: 27 files, all pass. Probe: all cases passed on
ghcr.io/home-assistant/amd64-hassio-supervisor:2026.08.0, --network none.

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

goodwe_controller/DOCS.md

@@ -110,7 +110,8 @@ so Home Assistant's *Configuration* tab renders human labels and a description
 for every option instead of the raw option keys. What that does and does not buy
 you is worth stating plainly, because it was **measured against the Supervisor
 image this site runs** (`ghcr.io/home-assistant/amd64-hassio-supervisor:2026.08.0`)
-rather than assumed — `tools/supervisor_shape_probe.py` section F prints the
+rather than assumed — `tools/supervisor_shape_probe.py` section F GRADES (it
+used only to print) the
 whole rendered list, in both languages.
 
 | | |