SAFETY-28: gate the write path on the allocation record, not on key count

specs §1.5 makes "any configuration in which two writers can reach one
actuator" a non-goal. That non-goal was enforced by counting config keys:
validate.py's ACTUATOR_WRITE_KEYS = ("setpoint_entity",), consumed at rule 1,
with a comment stating the guarantee outright - "there is exactly one such
key, so a second writer is not expressible in the options schema at all".

That was true and it graded THE SHAPE OF THE OPTIONS SCHEMA, not the writes.
Add CFG-04's per-inverter config - a roster of inverters each with its own
setpoint_entity - and there are two real writers with len() of that tuple
still equal to 1. The check stays green while the property it protects is
gone. sim/inject.py's two_writers scenario asserted on the same tuple, so it
went green too. That is this repository's named failure mode: a check that
observes something other than what it claims to observe.

Demonstrated rather than argued. test_validate.py part 2 now constructs the
hazardous per-inverter config, asserts that the OLD proxy is still green on
it, and then asserts the new check refuses it. Against release/1.0's
validator the updated sim scenario reports: "validate_startup_config()
ACCEPTED a configuration in which 3 declarations reach the ONE actuator
number.goodwe_setpoint ... the old proxy reports 1 write key(s) on this same
config and is therefore GREEN on it".

THE WRITE PATH IS NOW GATED ON THE RECORD
=========================================
Controller.write_refusal() asks Allocation.authorises() whether the single
allocator placed exactly this number, for this unit, on this tick.
write_setpoint() refuses anything else. A second writer with arithmetic of
its own cannot satisfy that - its number appears in no record - so it has to
file a Claim and go through resolve(), which is the one allocator. "Exactly
one allocator per shared resource" stops being a convention somebody can
forget and becomes something the write path checks.

The refusal is a SUBSTITUTION, not a return: 0 W goes on the wire in place of
the number nothing stands behind. Returning would leave the inverter latched
on its last command with the ESP32 heartbeat still being fed - holding an
unauthorised setpoint quietly, which is the outcome the gate exists to stop.
AC 1 is "refused at the write path, not merely logged", and test_clamp.py
part 7a grades the device's writes, not the log.

The gate sits BELOW the non-finite coercion and ABOVE the clamp. Below,
because a nan is loss of input and rule 1 has already turned it into 0 W.
Above, because the question is who chose this number, and the answer is only
meaningful about the number that was asked for - gating the CLAMPED value
would refuse exactly the cycles SAFETY-03 exists for, since a clamped write
differs from the allocator's share by construction. Mutation M7 moves the
gate below the clamp and turns nine checks red, part 6c among them.

A STALE RECORD CANNOT BE REPLAYED
=================================
Every Allocation now carries the `tick` it was made for. It is handed IN by
the caller - plan(..., tick=) - rather than counted inside the allocator,
because test_alloc.py part 10 grades that the module holds no state at all,
and a serial number incremented in there would be the cached-across-ticks
thing the envelope rule forbids wearing a different hat.

Controller.alloc_tick advances ONCE PER RESOLUTION, not once per loop
iteration, and both halves are load-bearing:

  * a new allocation makes the previous record stale immediately, so a record
    whose envelopes have moved cannot authorise a write. That is the replay
    half (AC 2), graded by capturing a real record, running another real
    cycle, putting the old one back and observing refusal.
  * the "inputs missing, not yet stale" hold returns BEFORE the allocator
    runs, exactly so one dropped meter reading does not zero the inverter,
    and the heartbeat re-affirms self.target through this same gate while it
    does. A tick incremented per loop iteration would refuse that heartbeat
    and turn the hold into the outage it exists to prevent. Graded.

An UNSTAMPED record (tick None) authorises nothing: "I cannot say when I was
made" fails closed rather than reading as tick zero.

THE FAILSAFE CANNOT DEADLOCK BEHIND THE GATE, AND HERE IS WHY
=============================================================
write_setpoint() is also how layer 2 commands 0 W. cycle()'s two refusal
branches substitute a 0 W failsafe and write it like any other cycle;
shutdown() and the operator's stop button do the same. EVERY ONE OF THOSE
RUNS WHILE THE ALLOCATOR HAS REFUSED - ok is False and there are no shares -
so a gate that asked the allocator's permission to command zero would block
the safety write behind the very component whose failure the safety write
answers. A gate that can do that is worse than the hole it closes.

Resolved by authorising 0 W unconditionally, and on the VALUE rather than on
a failsafe=True flag: a flag is an assertion by the caller, which is exactly
what a second writer would pass; the value is a fact about what will be
written. The argument that this is safe and not merely convenient is that the
hazard §1.5 names is N-times loop gain from BROADCAST - handing every inverter
the same target so each supplies it in full (allocator.py's opening argument;
TEST-19 measured a permanent 4000 W p2p limit cycle at gain 1.0 with no guard
firing). At S = 0 the broadcast and the correct allocation COINCIDE: a_i = 1
for every unit gives every unit 0 W, which is exactly its share. There is no
over-command to make at zero. Said at the line, in write_refusal().

test_clamp.py part 7c drives it end to end through the real cycle() and the
real REFUSE_EMPTY branch: the allocator refuses every tick, the device still
sees 0 W, and the action log says ARBITER: REFUSED rather than WRITE REFUSED
so the two failures stay distinguishable to whoever has to debug them.

unmet_w IS STILL NOT ok
=======================
The gate reads ok and the unit's share and never unmet_w. allocator.py:179
says why: an allocation that could not place every watt is still safe to
write, and fusing them would let one saturated inverter park the whole site.
Graded on a record with 3800 W unmet and every share legal - mutation M5 adds
`or self.unmet_w` to the gate and that check goes red.

THE CONFIG CHECK, REPLACED RATHER THAN DELETED
==============================================
actuator_writers() counts WRITERS PER ACTUATOR instead of option keys. It
walks the options TREE rather than looking for a container called `inverters`,
because CFG-04 has not chosen that name yet and a census that guessed wrong
would go green while two writers existed - the same defect one step along.
Entity ids are folded to lower case so a second writer cannot be smuggled in
as Number.X versus number.x.

Two inverters with two entities are ACCEPTED - that is what the per-inverter
roster is for, and a validator that refuses the feature it guards is one
somebody switches off. Two declarations aimed at ONE entity are refused,
naming the actuator and every writer pointed at it. That includes the case an
author will meet first - keeping setpoint_entity as A's and listing A again -
because "they happen to be the same entity, so it is fine" is precisely the
reasoning that makes two writers invisible.

ACTUATOR_WRITE_KEYS survives ONLY as the enumeration a census needs, with its
guarantee comment deleted; nothing asserts on its length any more. Keeping the
name is also what stops admin/goodwe's current two_writers scenario failing on
an AttributeError between the two merges.

WHAT NEITHER CHECK OBSERVES, SAID OUT LOUD
==========================================
The census sees CONFIGURED writers. A second write path added in CODE - a
hass.set_number() call next to some new strategy - declares nothing and is
invisible to it, exactly as it was invisible to the tuple. That half is not
closed at startup and cannot be; it is closed at runtime by the record gate,
which does not care what the options look like or who called the method. The
two checks are deliberately different kinds, and only the runtime one survives
a schema this file has not seen yet.

EVIDENCE
========
* Full 18-file suite green on a purged tree (tools/mutation_run.sh).
* Verified by breaking it - seven mutations, each on a purged tree, each
  reverted and re-verified:
    M1 remove the gate                -> test_clamp red (4 checks)
    M2 make the zero exit an amnesty  -> test_clamp red (12 checks)
    M3 drop the tick comparison       -> test_clamp red (5 checks)
    M4 delete the census refusal      -> test_validate red (3 checks)
    M5 fuse unmet_w into ok           -> test_clamp red (1 check)
    M6 freeze the tick on the live path -> test_clamp red (2 checks)
    M7 move the gate below the clamp  -> test_clamp red (9 checks)
* AC 5: no existing check was weakened. The two edits to test_clamp.py are
  fixtures, not assertions - parts 5 and 6c call write_setpoint() directly
  with a number nothing allocated, which is now refused, so they say where
  their number came from. Every assertion in both parts is unchanged, and
  part 7f asserts that across part 3's sixty real cycles the gate refused
  zero writes.
* admin/goodwe's TEST-19 norig scenarios (planner_binding, two_master_plant,
  two_master_broadcast) still pass against this tree - they import the
  add-on's control law across the repo boundary.

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

goodwe_controller/app/arbiter.py

@@ -416,11 +416,19 @@ def allocate(target_w: float, bounds: dict, *, weights=None, live=None,
 
 
 def allocate_record(target_w: float, bounds: dict, *, weights=None, live=None,
-                    scope_errors=(), site_priority=None) -> tuple:
-    """`allocate()` plus the record - `(shares, allocated, allocation)`."""
+                    scope_errors=(), site_priority=None, tick=None) -> tuple:
+    """`allocate()` plus the record - `(shares, allocated, allocation)`.
+
+    `tick` is SAFETY-28's freshness token: it identifies the tick the record is
+    FOR and is handed straight through to `allocator.plan()`. Left None the
+    record is UNSTAMPED, which the write gate refuses - so a caller that intends
+    the record to authorise a write must pass one. Every existing caller in this
+    repository wants the arithmetic and not the authority, and gets None.
+    """
     rec = allocator.plan(target_w, bounds, weights=weights, live=live,
                          scope_errors=scope_errors,
-                         site_priority=site_priority, site_key=ACTUATOR_SITE)
+                         site_priority=site_priority, site_key=ACTUATOR_SITE,
+                         tick=tick)
     return rec.shares, rec.ok, rec
 
 
@@ -472,7 +480,8 @@ def site_resolve(claims: list) -> Resolution:
                       winner_priority=winner.priority)
 
 
-def resolve(claims: list, *, units=None, weights=None, live=None) -> Resolution:
+def resolve(claims: list, *, units=None, weights=None, live=None,
+            tick=None) -> Resolution:
     """The three stages, in order, over one cycle's claims.
 
     `units` is the site's roster of inverters. Left None it is derived from the
@@ -499,6 +508,14 @@ def resolve(claims: list, *, units=None, weights=None, live=None) -> Resolution:
     with its own evidence removed. That mutation survived the whole suite until
     test_arbiter.py part 7 graded it on a SILENT unit.
 
+    ⚠️ `tick` IS SAFETY-28's FRESHNESS TOKEN AND IT IS NOT OPTIONAL ON THE LIVE
+    PATH. It identifies the tick this resolution is FOR, and it ends up on
+    `Resolution.allocation.tick`, where the write gate compares it against the
+    tick it is writing on. A record with no tick cannot authorise a write, which
+    is why main.py passes `self.alloc_tick` and why a test that only wants the
+    arbiter's arithmetic can leave it out and be sure it has not accidentally
+    minted a licence to write.
+
     ⚠️ 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`
@@ -533,5 +550,6 @@ def resolve(claims: list, *, units=None, weights=None, live=None) -> Resolution:
     out.unit_bounds = bounds
     out.shares, out.allocated, out.allocation = allocate_record(
         out.target_w, bounds, weights=weights, live=live,
-        scope_errors=out.scope_errors, site_priority=out.winner_priority)
+        scope_errors=out.scope_errors, site_priority=out.winner_priority,
+        tick=tick)
     return out