CI-02 probe F: the ORIGINAL gate, unchanged, on the same unmergeable PR

goodwe_controller/app/validate.py

@@ -170,6 +170,29 @@ WHAT IS DELIBERATELY *NOT* REFUSED, because it is untidy rather than unsafe:
   - `maintenance_discharge_w` above `max_w`. Clamped, not contradicted, and the
     clamp names itself in the arbiter's explain() - see rule 6. Warned about,
     not refused.
+  - A device rating that makes SAFETY-18's freeze rail unreachable. SAFETY-20's
+    AC 4, decided here rather than left implicit: **NO NEW RULE, and rule 2 is
+    the reason.** The configuration the ticket is about is `max_w` above the
+    setpoint device's rating, which is rule 2 EXACTLY - already refused, on the
+    identical predicate, since CFG-01, and re-run by `run_control()` once
+    ESPHome is up and the real rating is known. A second rule phrased as
+    "`RAIL_FRAC * max_w` exceeds the device rating" would fire on a strict
+    subset of the configurations rule 2 already refuses (`0.95 * max_w > dev_max`
+    implies `max_w > dev_max`), so it could never be the rule that stopped a
+    start, and its whole visible effect would be a second entry in a refusal
+    list that already names the problem.
+
+    ⚠️ AND IT WOULD NOT COVER THE CASE THAT REMAINS, WHICH IS WHY THE STATUS ROW
+    IS NOT A CONSOLATION PRIZE. The residue after rule 2 is the state where
+    `hass.limits()` answered `(None, None)` - ESPHome not up when the add-on
+    booted - so the range checks were SKIPPED rather than guessed at, and the
+    rating is never re-read afterwards. There is nothing to refuse at startup in
+    that state, by construction: the number a refusal would need does not exist
+    yet. That is a runtime coverage question, and the runtime surface -
+    `freeze.rail_unreachable()` and the NOT COVERED row it feeds - is where it
+    is answered. Compare rule 5, which CAN be settled at startup because both
+    `sign_disagree_w` and `max_w` are config and are both known at boot.
+
   - `peak_soc_floor` below `maintenance_soc_floor`, or above it. They are
     DIFFERENT QUANTITIES (SAFETY-24: a drain target versus a spend limit) and
     every ordering of the two is a legitimate site configuration. Refusing on