Merge release/1.0 into SAFETY-18 - CHANGELOG only

MAINT-04 (#10) landed on release/1.0 mid-review, so both branches had
prepended a stanza. config.yaml and DOCS.md auto-merged clean; only the
CHANGELOG needed a hand. Both stanzas are kept verbatim, MAINT-04's
Unreleased above the new 0.5.2 - no text from either author edited.
MAINT-04 is unreleased and 0.5.2 is being cut here, so a release manager
may want to fold the two; that is an editorial call, not a reviewer's.

Full suite green on the merged tree: arbiter, control, loop, maintenance,
p1, validate, watchdog, freeze.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC

goodwe_controller/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,86 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## Unreleased
+
+**Cheap-window maintenance charging was unreachable at the shipped defaults, and
+now the config that makes it unreachable is refused (MAINT-04).** `config.yaml`
+shipped `max_w: 2000` against `maintenance_charge_w: 2500`. The cheap-window
+shaping files `Claim.limit(hi = -maintenance_charge_w)` against the supervised
+SAFETY limit's `lo = -max_w`, so `lo > hi` — the arbiter's clause 3, correctly
+resolved to **0 W** and logged as a CONTRADICTION. **Maintenance silently never
+charged in a cheap window on a default install**, and the only evidence read
+like a bug in the arbiter rather than like the two numbers an operator set.
+Measured against the real arbiter, loop asking +500 W:
+
+```
+max_w=2000  hi=-2500  ->     +0 W  contradiction=True
+max_w=2500  hi=-2500  ->  -2500 W  limited by supervised(max_w)
+max_w=3000  hi=-2500  ->  -2500 W  limited by maintenance(cheap-window charge)
+```
+
+`validate_startup_config()` now refuses `maintenance_charge_w > max_w` (rule 6),
+the same shape as CFG-01's `sign_disagree_w >= max_w`: a number the operator set,
+overridden by a layer they cannot see. Equality is reachable (`-max_w` is a
+single valid point) and deliberately not refused. Verified by starting the
+add-on on the pre-fix pair: exit 78, the refusal banner, no traceback.
+
+**`maintenance_discharge_w` was checked, not assumed, and it is NOT the same
+case.** The shaping is not symmetric. The drain phase does not shape the loop,
+it OWNS the actuator — `Claim.set(P_MAINTENANCE, +discharge_w)` — and a SET is
+*clamped* by the limits above it rather than contradicted by them. 2500 against
+a 2000 W ceiling emits **+2000 W**, and the arbiter's own `explain()` prints
+`maintenance -> 2000 W, limited by supervised(max_w)` every cycle. Nothing is
+silent and energy still moves; the cycle completes slower (13.8 kWh usable at
+2000 W is ~6.9 h against the 720 min drain timeout). **Warned about, not
+refused.**
+
+**The shipped defaults changed so the validator does not reject them.**
+`maintenance_charge_w` and `maintenance_discharge_w` are now **2000**, at the
+shipped `max_w`. `max_w` was deliberately NOT raised instead: it is the
+supervised safety ceiling and raising a default upward ships more power to every
+new install. Raising `max_w` (the reference install runs 5000) is what unlocks a
+faster maintenance cycle — raise it first, then these. `test_validate.py` now
+reads `config.yaml` itself and asserts the shipped numbers pass the rule, so a
+default that the validator refuses cannot ship again.
+
+### ⚠️ Upgrading an existing default install: the add-on may refuse to start
+
+An install still carrying `maintenance_charge_w: 2500` against `max_w: 2000`
+now meets rule 6 and **exits 78 with the refusal banner** instead of starting.
+That is the intended behaviour — the configuration was already broken, it was
+just silent about it — but an add-on that will not come back after an update
+needs the fix stated here rather than only in the log.
+
+**The fix, either way: set `maintenance_charge_w` to `2000` or lower, OR raise
+`max_w` to `2500` or higher** (Settings → Add-ons → GoodWe RS485 Controller →
+Configuration), then start it. The banner in the log says the same thing and
+names both numbers.
+
+Whether you hit this at all depends on whether the Supervisor kept the old
+value, and **both cases are covered above because we did not verify which one
+applies here.** The Supervisor merges an add-on's *stored* options over the
+defaults in `config.yaml`, so:
+
+- **A key the operator never edited** re-derives from the new `config.yaml` and
+  becomes 2000 on upgrade. Non-event, nothing to do.
+- **A key the operator did set** persists at 2500 and the add-on refuses to
+  start until it is changed. Note this includes anyone who used the
+  Configuration page's YAML editor, which writes the whole options block back —
+  so "I never touched that field" is not a guarantee the old value is gone.
+
+⚠️ **This is reasoned from the Supervisor's documented merge behaviour, not
+measured on the live install.** The reference install's stored options could not
+be read (`/api/hassio/` refuses a long-lived token) and probing it was out of
+scope — it regulates a real battery. It runs `max_w: 5000` and is unaffected
+either way.
+
+⚠️ **Known, deliberately left, and worth a follow-up:** `main.py` and
+`maintenance.py` still fall back to **2500** when the key is absent from the
+options dict, while `config.yaml` and `validate.py` now say 2000. Unreachable on
+a Supervisor install (every key is always supplied) and reachable only from
+tests/`sim`. The real fix is one source of truth for option defaults, which is
+bigger than this ticket and touches files another ticket is in.
+
 ## 0.5.2
 
 **A meter frozen at a wrong-but-fresh value now raises an alarm. It still is not

goodwe_controller/DOCS.md

@@ -418,8 +418,8 @@ help - see "Why the tuning is what it is".
 | `maintenance_enabled` | false | Enable the monthly cycle |
 | `maintenance_interval_days` | 28 | Minimum gap between cycles |
 | `maintenance_start_hour` | 10 | Hour of day a due cycle begins |
-| `maintenance_discharge_w` | 2500 | Drain rate (exports the surplus) |
+| `maintenance_discharge_w` | 2000 | Drain rate (exports the surplus). Above `max_w` it is **clamped** to `max_w` — the drain phase SETs the setpoint and the arbiter bounds it, saying so on the status page (`limited by supervised(max_w)`). Warned about, not refused: the cycle still completes, just slower |
-| `maintenance_charge_w` | 2500 | Charge ceiling, capped again by peak headroom |
+| `maintenance_charge_w` | 2000 | Charge ceiling, capped again by peak headroom. Must stay **at or below `max_w`** or the cheap-window shaping (`hi = -maintenance_charge_w`) contradicts the supervised limit (`lo = -max_w`), the arbiter resolves it to **0 W**, and maintenance silently never charges in a cheap window — **the add-on refuses to start** |
 | `maintenance_soc_floor` | 11 | Drain target — stay just above the inverter's own floor |
 | `maintenance_soc_target` | 99 | Charge target |
 | `maintenance_hold_min` | 120 | Hold at full so the BMS can balance |

goodwe_controller/app/maintenance.py

@@ -28,9 +28,10 @@ _LOG = logging.getLogger("goodwe.maint")
 
 IDLE, DRAIN, CHARGE, HOLD = "idle", "drain", "charge", "hold"
 
-# A drain of a 13.5 kWh usable pack at 2500 W is ~5 h even with no house load
+# A drain of a 13.8 kWh usable pack (300 Ah x 51.2 V, DoD 90) at the shipped
-# helping. 12 h means the battery is not following commands - a fault, not a
+# 2000 W is ~6.9 h even with no house load helping - and less in practice, since
-# slow day. The charge phase deliberately waits for sun and for cheap hours, so
+# house load drains alongside the export and soc_floor stops short of empty.
+# 12 h means the battery is not following commands - a fault, not a slow day. The charge phase deliberately waits for sun and for cheap hours, so
 # it is expected to span a night; 36 h still bounds it.
 DRAIN_TIMEOUT_MIN = 720
 CHARGE_TIMEOUT_MIN = 2160

goodwe_controller/app/validate.py

@@ -85,6 +85,37 @@ NOT READY banner already names the problem, (b) does not apply.
      watchdog: armed". A disarmed guard that advertises itself as armed is the
      one thing this project has decided repeatedly it will not ship.
 
+  6. `maintenance_charge_w` above `max_w`.  [(a)]
+     The same shape as 5, and found the same way - by checking a worked example
+     against what actually ships. maintenance's cheap-window shaping files
+     `Claim.limit(hi=-maintenance_charge_w)` at P_MAINT_SHAPE, against the
+     `supervised` SAFETY limit's `lo=-max_w`. Both bind (P_SAFETY and
+     P_MAINT_SHAPE both outrank the loop that wins the SET), so a charge rate
+     above the ceiling gives `lo > hi` - the arbiter's clause 3, which it
+     correctly resolves to 0 W and logs as a CONTRADICTION. Measured against
+     the arbiter, loop asking +500 W:
+
+         max_w=2000  hi=-2500  ->     +0 W  contradiction=True
+         max_w=2500  hi=-2500  ->  -2500 W  limited by supervised(max_w)
+         max_w=3000  hi=-2500  ->  -2500 W  limited by maintenance(...)
+
+     So MAINTENANCE SILENTLY NEVER CHARGES IN A CHEAP WINDOW until max_w is at
+     or above the charge rate, and the only evidence is a contradiction line
+     that reads like a bug in the arbiter rather than like the two numbers the
+     operator set. Equality is fine and deliberately not refused - at
+     max_w == charge_w the window is a single reachable point, -max_w.
+
+     ⚠️ `maintenance_discharge_w` IS NOT THE SAME CASE, and this was checked
+     rather than assumed. THE SHAPING IS NOT SYMMETRIC: the drain phase does
+     not shape the loop, it OWNS the actuator - `Claim.set(P_MAINTENANCE,
+     +discharge_w)`. A SET is clamped by the limits above it, not contradicted
+     by them, so 2500 against a 2000 W ceiling emits +2000 W and the arbiter's
+     own explain() says `maintenance -> 2000 W, limited by supervised(max_w)`
+     on the status page every cycle. That is neither (a) - nothing is silent -
+     nor (b) - it moves energy and the cycle still completes, just slower
+     (13.8 kWh usable at 2000 W is ~6.9 h against the 720 min DRAIN_TIMEOUT).
+     It is warned about below, not refused.
+
 WHAT IS DELIBERATELY *NOT* REFUSED, because it is untidy rather than unsafe:
 
   - `integrator_max_w` above `max_w`. DOCS.md is right that the only thing the
@@ -102,6 +133,9 @@ WHAT IS DELIBERATELY *NOT* REFUSED, because it is untidy rather than unsafe:
     NOT READY banner.
   - `meter_poll_s` above half `meter_max_age_s`. One missed poll costs a stale
     reading and a 0 W cycle. Warned about in p1.py, not refused.
+  - `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.
 """
 
 import logging
@@ -269,6 +303,52 @@ def validate_startup_config(opts: dict, dev_min=None, dev_max=None) -> list[str]
             f"sign_disagree_w below {max_w:.0f} W (300 W is the measured "
             "default), or raise max_w.")
 
+    # --- 6. a maintenance charge the ceiling can actually accommodate --------
+    # ⚠️ Strictly `>`, matching the arbiter exactly. The shaping is
+    # `Claim.limit(hi=-charge_w)` against `supervised`'s `lo=-max_w`, so
+    # charge_w == max_w leaves the single reachable point -max_w and works;
+    # only ABOVE is `lo > hi`, arbiter clause 3, 0 W and a contradiction.
+    #
+    # Not scoped to maintenance_enabled, deliberately. The pair is
+    # contradictory whether or not the schedule is on, and scoping it would
+    # leave the trap armed for the one operator action - ticking
+    # maintenance_enabled - that cannot possibly be expected to change what a
+    # charge rate means.
+    # ⚠️ THE FALLBACK IS config.yaml's SHIPPED VALUE, and it has to be kept
+    # equal to it - that is the whole point of AC3. It is reachable only when a
+    # caller hands over a dict with the key missing (sim/inject.py, a test); the
+    # Supervisor always supplies every key from config.yaml, so on a real
+    # install the argument is always present.
+    #
+    # ⚠️ KNOWN MISMATCH, LEFT DELIBERATELY AND FLAGGED RATHER THAN FIXED HERE:
+    # `main.py` still falls back to 2500 in two places
+    # (`opts.get("maintenance_charge_w", 2500)`), as does maintenance.py's
+    # MaintConfig dataclass. So a dict with the key ABSENT is accepted by this
+    # rule at 2000 and then built by main.py at 2500 - the contradiction this
+    # rule exists to catch, in the one case it cannot see. It is unreachable on
+    # a Supervisor install and those files are another ticket's right now.
+    # THE REAL FIX is one source of truth for option defaults; until then the
+    # divergence is PINNED BY A CHECK rather than by this comment - see
+    # test_validate.py, "the KNOWN cross-file default divergence". It asserts
+    # the mismatch as it stands and goes red if EITHER side moves, including
+    # when somebody closes it in main.py, at which point this block and that
+    # check both get deleted.
+    charge_w = _number(opts, "maintenance_charge_w", 2000.0)
+    if charge_w is None:
+        problems.append(
+            f"maintenance_charge_w {opts.get('maintenance_charge_w')!r} is not a number")
+    elif max_w is not None and max_w > 0 and charge_w > max_w:
+        problems.append(
+            f"maintenance_charge_w is {charge_w:.0f} W but max_w is "
+            f"{max_w:.0f} W, so a maintenance charge in a cheap window can "
+            "never happen: the shaping asks the arbiter for at most "
+            f"{-charge_w:.0f} W while the supervised limit allows no less than "
+            f"{-max_w:.0f} W, which is a contradiction it resolves to 0 W - "
+            "THE CEILING WINS, and what you would see is an ARBITER "
+            "CONTRADICTION line that reads like a bug rather than like these "
+            f"two numbers. Lower maintenance_charge_w to {max_w:.0f} W or less, "
+            f"or raise max_w to at least {charge_w:.0f} W.")
+
     # --- warnings: real, but not worth refusing over -------------------------
     integ = opts.get("integrator_max_w")
     integ_w = None if not integ else _number(opts, "integrator_max_w", None)
@@ -280,6 +360,25 @@ def validate_startup_config(opts: dict, dev_min=None, dev_max=None) -> list[str]
             "saturation. 0 (follow max_w) is the recommended value.",
             integ_w, max_w)
 
+    # ⚠️ THE SIBLING OF RULE 6, AND NOT THE SAME CASE - see the docstring. The
+    # drain phase OWNS the actuator (`Claim.set` at P_MAINTENANCE), and a SET is
+    # clamped by the limits above it rather than contradicted by them. So this
+    # drains at max_w instead of the configured rate, the arbiter says so in
+    # words on the status page every cycle, and the cycle still completes -
+    # slower, and eating into maintenance.DRAIN_TIMEOUT_MIN. Loud and it moves
+    # energy, so it is neither (a) nor (b): warned, not refused.
+    disch_w = _number(opts, "maintenance_discharge_w", 2000.0)
+    if disch_w is not None and max_w is not None and max_w > 0 and disch_w > max_w:
+        _LOG.warning(
+            "maintenance_discharge_w %.0f W is above max_w %.0f W. Not refused - "
+            "the drain phase SETS the setpoint and the arbiter clamps it to "
+            "%.0f W and names the clamp ('limited by supervised(max_w)'), so "
+            "nothing is silent and the cycle still completes. But it drains at "
+            "%.0f W, not the %.0f W you configured, and the drain phase has a "
+            "720 min timeout. Lower it to %.0f W or raise max_w to remove the "
+            "surprise.",
+            disch_w, max_w, max_w, max_w, disch_w, max_w)
+
     return problems
 
 

goodwe_controller/config.yaml

@@ -138,8 +138,23 @@ options:
   maintenance_enabled: false
   maintenance_interval_days: 28
   maintenance_start_hour: 10
-  maintenance_discharge_w: 2500
+  # ⚠️ BOTH MUST STAY AT OR BELOW max_w, and that is why they are 2000 rather
-  maintenance_charge_w: 2500
+  # than the 2500 they shipped as. The cheap-window charge shaping asks the
+  # arbiter for `hi = -maintenance_charge_w` against the supervised `lo =
+  # -max_w`: above the ceiling that is `lo > hi`, a contradiction resolved to
+  # 0 W, so maintenance would SILENTLY NEVER CHARGE in a cheap window on a
+  # default install. validate.py refuses that config (rule 6), so these
+  # defaults had to become self-consistent with the max_w above rather than
+  # ship a configuration the validator rejects.
+  #
+  # The discharge side is clamped rather than contradicted - it drains at max_w
+  # and the arbiter says so - so it is only warned about; it is 2000 here for
+  # symmetry and to keep the shipped config warning-free.
+  #
+  # Raising max_w (the live reference install runs 5000) is what unlocks a
+  # faster maintenance cycle. Raise max_w FIRST, then these.
+  maintenance_discharge_w: 2000
+  maintenance_charge_w: 2000
   maintenance_soc_floor: 11
   maintenance_soc_target: 99
   maintenance_hold_min: 120

goodwe_controller/test_validate.py

@@ -26,9 +26,15 @@ def check(name, cond):
 
 def base(**over):
     """A configuration that must start. Everything else is this, spoilt."""
+    # ⚠️ The maintenance rates are named EXPLICITLY, at the values config.yaml
+    # ships (MAINT-04). They are not decoration: with the key absent, rule 6
+    # falls back to main.py's 2500 W, which against this 2000 W ceiling is a
+    # genuine refusal - so a base() without them would be a config that does
+    # not start, and every check below would be measuring the wrong thing.
     o = {"setpoint_entity": "number.goodwe_setpoint", "max_w": 2000,
          "soc_entity": "sensor.soc", "batt_entity": "sensor.batt",
-         "meter_source": "off"}
+         "meter_source": "off",
+         "maintenance_charge_w": 2000, "maintenance_discharge_w": 2000}
     o.update(over)
     return o
 
@@ -151,6 +157,170 @@ check("with meter_source off the number governs nothing and is not refused",
 check("the constant is the firmware's, not a rounded guess",
       FIRMWARE_INGEST_VETO_S == 30.0)
 
+# --------------------------------------------------------------------------- #
+print("6. a maintenance charge the ceiling can actually accommodate (MAINT-04)")
+# ⚠️ THE SHIPPED BUG. config.yaml shipped max_w 2000 against
+# maintenance_charge_w 2500, so the cheap-window shaping asked for hi=-2500
+# against the supervised lo=-2000 - lo > hi, arbiter clause 3, 0 W. Maintenance
+# silently never charged in a cheap window on a default install.
+p = validate_startup_config(base(max_w=2000, maintenance_charge_w=2500),
+                            -5000, 5000)
+check("maintenance_charge_w above max_w is refused", len(p) == 1)
+check("...and the message names the charge rate", why(p, "2500"))
+check("...and the ceiling", why(p, "2000"))
+check("...and says which one wins", why(p, "THE CEILING WINS"))
+# ⚠️ Equality is REACHABLE, not a near miss: lo=-2000, hi=-2000 is the single
+# point -2000 W. Refusing it would be exactly the trivia that gets a validator
+# deleted, and it is the boundary the rule is written `>` for.
+check("maintenance_charge_w exactly at max_w starts",
+      validate_startup_config(base(max_w=2000, maintenance_charge_w=2000),
+                              -5000, 5000) == [])
+check("below it starts",
+      validate_startup_config(base(max_w=2000, maintenance_charge_w=1500),
+                              -5000, 5000) == [])
+# Not scoped to maintenance_enabled: the pair is contradictory either way, and
+# scoping would leave the trap armed for the one action - ticking the box - that
+# cannot be expected to change what a charge rate means.
+check("...and it is refused with maintenance_enabled off, as shipped",
+      why(validate_startup_config(
+          base(max_w=2000, maintenance_charge_w=2500,
+               maintenance_enabled=False), -5000, 5000), "THE CEILING WINS"))
+
+# ⚠️ THE SIBLING, CHECKED RATHER THAN ASSUMED. The shaping is NOT symmetric:
+# drain files Claim.set at P_MAINTENANCE and owns the actuator, so the ceiling
+# CLAMPS it (+2000 W) instead of contradicting it, and the arbiter's explain()
+# names the clamp every cycle. Loud, and it still moves energy - so warned, not
+# refused. If someone later "fixes the asymmetry" by making this a refusal,
+# this check goes red and they have to justify it.
+check("maintenance_discharge_w above max_w WARNS but starts",
+      validate_startup_config(base(max_w=2000, maintenance_discharge_w=2500),
+                              -5000, 5000) == [])
+
+# The demonstration the rule is derived from, asserted rather than described.
+from app.arbiter import (                   # noqa: E402
+    Claim, P_LOOP, P_MAINTENANCE, P_MAINT_SHAPE, P_SAFETY, resolve,
+)
+
+def _charge(max_w, charge_w):
+    return resolve([Claim.limit("supervised", P_SAFETY, -max_w, max_w, "max_w"),
+                    Claim.limit("maintenance", P_MAINT_SHAPE, hi=-charge_w,
+                                reason="cheap-window charge"),
+                    Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 500.0, "grid")])
+
+def _drain(max_w, disch_w):
+    return resolve([Claim.limit("supervised", P_SAFETY, -max_w, max_w, "max_w"),
+                    Claim.set("maintenance", P_MAINTENANCE, disch_w, "drain"),
+                    Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 500.0, "grid")])
+
+r = _charge(2000, 2500)
+check("arbiter: the refused pair really does emit 0 W",
+      r.target_w == 0.0 and r.contradiction)
+r = _charge(2000, 2000)
+check("arbiter: the permitted equality really does charge",
+      r.target_w == -2000.0 and not r.contradiction)
+r = _charge(3000, 2500)
+check("arbiter: raising max_w above the rate charges at the rate",
+      r.target_w == -2500.0 and not r.contradiction)
+r = _drain(2000, 2500)
+check("arbiter: the drain SET is clamped, not contradicted",
+      r.target_w == 2000.0 and not r.contradiction)
+check("...and the clamp names itself, which is why it is not refused",
+      "supervised" in (r.bound_by or "") and "limited by" in r.explain())
+
+# --------------------------------------------------------------------------- #
+print("the SHIPPED defaults must pass the rule they are governed by (AC3)")
+# ⚠️ Shipping a default the validator refuses would be worse than the bug it
+# refuses. Read config.yaml itself rather than a transcription of it - a
+# transcription is what lets the two drift apart silently. Regex, not PyYAML:
+# the add-on image has no PyYAML (Dockerfile installs py3-aiohttp/py3-paho-mqtt
+# only) and a check that skips on ImportError is not a check.
+import os                                   # noqa: E402
+import re                                   # noqa: E402
+
+_CFG = os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)), "config.yaml")
+with open(_CFG, encoding="utf-8") as _fh:
+    _txt = _fh.read()
+_shipped = {k: float(v) for k, v in re.findall(
+    r"^  (max_w|maintenance_charge_w|maintenance_discharge_w|sign_disagree_w): "
+    r"(-?\d+(?:\.\d+)?)\s*$", _txt, re.M)}
+check("config.yaml really was read (all four defaults found)",
+      set(_shipped) == {"max_w", "maintenance_charge_w",
+                        "maintenance_discharge_w", "sign_disagree_w"})
+check(f"the shipped defaults are accepted {_shipped}",
+      validate_startup_config(base(**_shipped), -5000, 5000) == [])
+check("...and the shipped charge rate is at or under the shipped ceiling",
+      _shipped["maintenance_charge_w"] <= _shipped["max_w"])
+check("...and the shipped discharge rate too, so it warns about nothing",
+      _shipped["maintenance_discharge_w"] <= _shipped["max_w"])
+
+# --------------------------------------------------------------------------- #
+print("the KNOWN cross-file default divergence, pinned rather than commented")
+# ⚠️ WHAT THIS GUARDS, AND WHY IT ASSERTS THE BUG RATHER THAN THE FIX.
+# config.yaml and validate.py now default maintenance_charge_w to 2000, while
+# main.py's two `opts.get(..., 2500)` fallbacks and MaintConfig's dataclass
+# default still say 2500. So an options dict with the key ABSENT is ACCEPTED by
+# rule 6 at 2000 and then built by main.py at 2500 - which is a contradiction:
+#
+#     validate_startup_config -> []            (accepted)
+#     MaintConfig().charge_w  -> 2500.0
+#     arbiter                 -> 0.0 W, contradiction=True
+#
+# That is the bug rule 6 exists to catch, passing rule 6. It is unreachable on a
+# Supervisor install (every key is always supplied from config.yaml) but fully
+# reachable from sim/inject.py and from tests - which is exactly where anyone
+# debugging maintenance works.
+#
+# The fix is ONE SOURCE OF TRUTH for option defaults. That is a bigger change
+# than this ticket and it lands in main.py, which another ticket is live in - so
+# the divergence is RECORDED here instead of closed. The check therefore passes
+# on the mismatch and FAILS when either side moves, in EITHER direction:
+#
+#   - config.yaml moves           -> FAIL: re-decide what the fallback should be
+#   - main.py is fixed to match   -> FAIL: the divergence is gone, DELETE this
+#                                    check and the ⚠️ block in validate.py
+#
+# A comment cannot do that, and "a comment where a check belonged" is this
+# repo's most repeated defect.
+_APP = os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)), "app")
+
+def _read(*parts):
+    with open(os.path.join(*parts), encoding="utf-8") as fh:
+        return fh.read()
+
+# Every literal fallback for this key in main.py, whatever the call shape.
+_main_falls = [float(m) for m in re.findall(
+    r'\.get\(\s*"maintenance_charge_w"\s*,\s*(-?\d+(?:\.\d+)?)\s*\)',
+    _read(_APP, "main.py"))]
+# ...and MaintConfig's own dataclass default, which is the one that bites when
+# main.py is bypassed entirely (a Maintenance built straight from defaults).
+_dc_falls = [float(m) for m in re.findall(
+    r"^\s*charge_w:\s*float\s*=\s*(-?\d+(?:\.\d+)?)\s*$",
+    _read(_APP, "maintenance.py"), re.M)]
+
+check(f"main.py's fallbacks are still found and still 2500 {_main_falls}",
+      len(_main_falls) == 2 and set(_main_falls) == {2500.0})
+check(f"MaintConfig's default is still found and still 2500 {_dc_falls}",
+      len(_dc_falls) == 1 and set(_dc_falls) == {2500.0})
+check(f"...and config.yaml still ships 2000, so the divergence is UNCHANGED "
+      f"(shipped {_shipped['maintenance_charge_w']:.0f}, code 2500)",
+      _shipped["maintenance_charge_w"] == 2000.0)
+
+# ⚠️ And the consequence itself, through the REAL code rather than through the
+# numbers above - so that if someone "fixes" this by changing a literal without
+# understanding it, the thing that goes red is the behaviour, not the transcript.
+from app.maintenance import MaintConfig      # noqa: E402
+
+_absent = {k: v for k, v in base().items() if k != "maintenance_charge_w"}
+_built = MaintConfig().charge_w
+check("with the key ABSENT the validator accepts...",
+      validate_startup_config(_absent, -5000, 5000) == [])
+check(f"...while the code would build {_built:.0f} W against a "
+      f"{_absent['max_w']:.0f} W ceiling...", _built > _absent["max_w"])
+_r = _charge(_absent["max_w"], _built)
+check("...which the arbiter resolves to 0 W as a contradiction - the hole, "
+      "asserted so it cannot widen unnoticed",
+      _r.target_w == 0.0 and _r.contradiction)
+
 # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- #
 print("max_w must be a positive magnitude")
 # Schema-blocked on a real install, but validate_startup_config() is also
@@ -168,7 +338,8 @@ check("...and the message explains it would read as a trip, not a mistake",
 # threshold the ceiling can actually reach, and the interaction gets its own
 # check below.
 check("the smallest sane max_w still starts",
-      validate_startup_config(base(max_w=1, sign_disagree_w=0.5), -5000, 5000) == [])
+      validate_startup_config(base(max_w=1, sign_disagree_w=0.5,
+                                   maintenance_charge_w=1), -5000, 5000) == [])
 check("...but that same 1 W ceiling with the DEFAULT sign threshold is refused",
       why(validate_startup_config(base(max_w=1), -5000, 5000), "never fire"))
 

goodwe_controller/test_watchdog.py

@@ -145,8 +145,13 @@ check("300 W under a 2000 W ceiling is accepted", p == [])
 p = validate_startup_config({**base, "max_w": 2000, "sign_disagree_w": 2000},
                             -5000, 5000)
 check("a threshold AT max_w is refused", len(p) == 1 and "never fire" in p[0])
-p = validate_startup_config({**base, "max_w": 500, "sign_disagree_w": 3000},
+# ⚠️ maintenance_charge_w is named here only to keep this case about the SIGN
-                            -5000, 5000)
+# rule. MAINT-04 added a second rule against the same ceiling, and a 500 W
+# max_w is also below the 2000 W shipped maintenance charge - so without this
+# the dict is refused twice, for two correct but different reasons, and the
+# `len(p) == 1` below would be measuring the interaction rather than this rule.
+p = validate_startup_config({**base, "max_w": 500, "sign_disagree_w": 3000,
+                             "maintenance_charge_w": 500}, -5000, 5000)
 check("a threshold above max_w is refused", len(p) == 1 and "never fire" in p[0])
 p = validate_startup_config({**base, "max_w": 2000, "sign_disagree_w": 1999},
                             -5000, 5000)