SAFETY-02: a loop can be fresh, tracking and inside its rating and still push the wrong way

The stale-input watchdog asks whether the meter is still talking. The saturation
freeze asks whether the inverter can follow. The output clamp asks whether the
number is too big. A loop can pass all three while charging the battery out of
the grid, because the only thing wrong is the sign.

On 2026-08-20 a commercial controller did exactly that four times in one day,
for up to 77 minutes at a stretch, reaching a commanded -14 768 W against a
±5000 W inverter. app/watchdog.py compares the emitted setpoint against the
authoritative P1 figure and, when they oppose each other with both over 300 W
for 180 s continuously, files a failsafe SET claim at P_SAFETY, commands 0 W and
latches there until an operator starts control again.

Validated against that day rather than against an argument: sim/replay_sign.py
in the infra repo drives this module over the committed captures of both
2026-08-20 and the healthy 2026-08-23 and reaches 18 trips on the fault day -
every one inside a window NOTES.md §4.7 accounts for - and 0 on the healthy day.
The four episodes do share one signature: 0.3 / 0.9 / 10.5 / 0.0 % sign
agreement inside them against 92.9 % healthy.

Three decisions the ticket could not make:

- It is DISARMED whenever the grid-following loop is not what is driving. Sign
  agreement is a property of a loop that follows the meter, and a maintenance
  grid charge opposes the meter by design - 2500 W of charge into a house
  drawing 500 W is +3000 W on the meter against a -2500 W command, for hours.
  The gate tests the emitted number, not the winning claim's name, because a
  limit claim can let the loop "win" and still replace its value.
- The trip LATCHES. Commanding 0 W removes the command side of the comparison,
  so the disagreement always clears the moment the trip works.
- sign_disagree_w at or above max_w is refused at startup. The arbiter never
  lets a command exceed max_w, so such a threshold leaves the watchdog incapable
  of firing while the status page still reports it armed.

What it does not catch, said out loud: an inverter that ACTS opposite to its
command moves the meter further the same way, leaving command and meter in
agreement. That is the saturation freeze's job.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Du77usMj8XNKNFZGmUiWDa

goodwe_controller/test_validate.py

@@ -160,8 +160,17 @@ for bad in (0, -1, -2000):
     check(f"max_w {bad} is refused", len(p) == 1 and why(p, "must be positive"))
 check("...and the message explains it would read as a trip, not a mistake",
       why(validate_startup_config(base(max_w=0), -5000, 5000), "contradiction"))
+# ⚠️ SAFETY-02 changed what this case has to say, and the change is real rather
+# than bookkeeping: with a 1 W ceiling the default 300 W sign-disagreement
+# threshold is unreachable, so rule 5 refuses - correctly, because the watchdog
+# would report itself armed while being incapable of firing. What this check is
+# FOR is "a positive max_w is not itself a refusal", so it now names a sign
+# 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), -5000, 5000) == [])
+      validate_startup_config(base(max_w=1, sign_disagree_w=0.5), -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"))
 
 # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- #
 print("what must NOT be refused - a validator that fires on trivia gets deleted")