admin/goodwe-addon
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests 1 Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

SAFETY-48: what the lead cap actually does to a frozen integrator, and what the peak figure depends on
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 7m55s
Details

Browse Source 
Four review findings, none of them in executable code. The control law, the
tests and the instruments' arithmetic are untouched; every number below was
re-measured against the committed 16-day capture before it was written down.

R1 - app/control.py carried a justification the decision record and MUTATION.md
habit 22 had already retracted, and it was false about the code it sits in. It
said an unconditional placement "would also pull the integrator toward a
command the SATURATION freeze is pinning", priced at 118 of 256 250 ticks. The
118 was measured against a different pair; on the pair the sentence names the
two forms are bit-identical - 0 of 256 246 ticks, re-measured. And the narrow
form that shipped DOES move a saturation-frozen integrator: it runs before the
freeze block and is not gated on `frozen`. Of 79 160 frozen ticks the cap
changes `i_w` on 1095, and on 679 of those it moves it further out on the side
it was already on - putting back magnitude the freeze had just let fall, which
the freeze's own rule forbids. Worst case 2424 W, at prev_w -3400 W, grid
+4697 W, actual -4144 W, sat_count 2 -> 3: the freeze leaves the integrator at
-176 W and the cap drags it to -2600 W. It never overrides a same-cycle refusal
(the freeze clipped on 75 512 ticks, the slew bound on none of them), and that
is stated too. It is also where SAFETY-13's settle values went: gating the cap
on `not frozen` puts test_control.py part 5 back at -1190 W exactly, while part
4(b) does not come back - that one moved for the winding reason.

R3 - the record read its own sensitivity table backwards. `fit_plant()` picks
lag 7.5 s on battery-power RMS, which separates it from 2.5 s by 0.3 %, while
the tool's own printed fidelity measure (export against the recorded 29.43 kWh)
prefers 2.5 s by the whole 35 % gap. Swept properly: at every lag <= 5.0 s
release/1.0's worst quarter is ALREADY 3434 W and this card changes it by
exactly zero. The 3739 -> 3434 W headline exists at one plant. New section 3a
carries the table; the export reduction now leads every summary and the peak is
presented as lag-dependent. The form-A rejection is strengthened rather than
weakened: form A is worse on the billed quarter at every lag where release/1.0
produces a peak at all, and at every top-N cut of the quarters.

R2 - DOCS.md stated modelled watts to the owner as measurement. It now leads
with the export reduction, says the figures are simulated, and says plainly
that no capacity-tariff improvement is promised.

R4 - tools/slew_sim.py --slew narrated "the OVER-ABSORPTION does not move, and
at the slowest slews it is slightly WORSE" while printing a monotonically
falling column. That sentence is TRUE on release/1.0 (reproduced:
958/1107/1133/1058/987/1029/1150/1143/1081) and false under this branch's law
(777/734/663/563/553/507/435/358/321), so SAFETY-39 is not retracted: its
record gets a forward reference, and the script now reads SLEW_LEAD_STEPS out
of the law it imported and narrates from the column it just printed. Both
branches of that narration were driven.

R5 - three counts in the L table were decoration and are re-driven in the CI
image on a `cp -a`, purged, `:ro`, one file at a time: L5 is 5+5 with the
function names exchanged and 5+4 with the branch bodies exchanged (two
mutations wearing one name, now listed separately), L6 is 6+3. The separable-
state count is grid-dependent and three sweeps disagree, so all three are
quoted with their grids and the load-bearing claim is WHERE they separate.

R7 - "a large import answered too weakly" is not what the aggregate shows. Form
A cuts import by 5.45 kWh and export by 5.18 kWh, and paired per tick delivers
8.56 kWh less offtake energy on the ticks release/1.0 was importing. The harm
is a tail redistribution inside quarters that already net to offtake. The
conclusion stands; the sentence is narrowed to it.

Verified: the full suite in the CI image, purged tree, `:ro` mount, one file at
a time, exactly the command in .gitea/workflows/checks.yml - 30/30, exit 0.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
This commit is contained in:
glenn schrooyen
2026-09-19 02:37:01 +02:00
co-authored by Claude Opus 5
parent 03ef61fa3b
commit a6af332048
6 changed files with 364 additions and 71 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files
goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/SAFETY-39-slew-against-the-rail.md
+17
View File
@@ -187,6 +187,23 @@ over-absorption. So the rig does not choose the number — **the constraint
chooses it, and the rig says what the constraint does and does not buy.** That
is the same relationship the 2026-08-22 table had to its own three columns.
⚠️ **FORWARD REFERENCE, ADDED BY SAFETY-48 — THIS TABLE AND THIS SENTENCE ARE
TRUE OF release/1.0's LAW AND FALSE OF THE ONE THAT REPLACED IT.** Nothing above
is retracted: re-run on release/1.0 today the same rig prints the same column
(958 / 1107 / 1133 / 1058 / 987 / 1029 / 1150 / 1143 / 1081 W), flat,
non-monotone, 800 better than 556. Under SAFETY-48's lead cap the **same script
on the same plant** prints 777 / 734 / 663 / 563 / 553 / 507 / 435 / 358 / 321 W
— falling monotonically, so a slower slew is now *better* and the sentence above
inverts. The mechanism SAFETY-39 identified is exactly why: `slew_w` bounds the
OUTPUT while the integrator goes on accumulating `gain · error`, so slowing the
slew used to buy nothing; bound the integrator's lead and it starts to.
`tools/slew_sim.py --slew` now names which of the two laws it is running under
before it narrates the column, and
`DECISIONS/SAFETY-48-bounding-the-integrator-lead.md` §6 carries both tables and
the independent confirmation from `test_control.py`'s own plant model. ⚠️ **This
does NOT re-open the choice of 556**: the constraint picks the number, the rig
does not, and that is unchanged in both laws.
⚠️ **A single step is not evidence here.** The deadband, the 10 W quantisation
and the phase of the step against the tick move the result by hundreds of watts,
non-monotonically. The first cut of this derivation was a single step and ranked
goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/SAFETY-48-bounding-the-integrator-lead.md
+189 -35
View File
@@ -19,15 +19,22 @@ does not deploy and does not bump the version.
2. ⚠️ **THE FORM THE CARD ASKED FOR RAISES THE BILLED QUANTITY, AND THAT IS WHY
IT IS NOT WHAT SHIPPED.** Reusing the asymmetric freeze on a carried slew
flag cuts export 13 % and moves the worst quarter-hour average **offtake**
from 3739 W to **3935 W**, with the mean quarter +2.7 W. A frozen integrator
stops at `prev + gain·error`, which undershoots what the site needs by
`1 − gain`, so a large import is answered too weakly for as long as the ramp
lasts. §3.
from 3739 W to **3935 W**, with the mean quarter +2.7 W — and on the billed
quarter it is worse at **every plant lag where release/1.0 produces a peak
at all** (a tie at lag 0, worse at 2.5 / 5.0 / 7.5 / 10.0 s) and at **every
top-N cut of the quarters**, which makes this the least lag-sensitive result
in the card. The harm is a tail redistribution inside quarters that already
net to offtake, not a weaker answer to import in aggregate. §3, §3a.
3. **What ships bounds the LEAD at one slew step, only where the slew is what
stopped the command, and only in the leading direction.** Export 39.6 → 34.1
kWh, wasted throughput 4.67 → 3.19 kWh, sign reversals 2992 → 2770, worst
quarter-hour offtake 3739 → **3434 W** (it improves), median recovery 232 →
199 s. §4.
stopped the command, and only in the leading direction.** The robust result
is the **export reduction — 39.6 → 34.1 kWh, and it falls at every plant and
tuning tried** — with wasted throughput 4.67 → 3.19 kWh, sign reversals
2992 → 2770 and median recovery 232 → 199 s. ⚠️ **The billed quarter is not
something this card can claim.** It reads 3739 → **3434 W** at the fitted
plant lag of 7.5 s; at every lag ≤ 5.0 s — including the one that best
reproduces the recorded export — release/1.0 is *already* at 3434 W and this
card moves it by exactly zero. The lag is not identified by the data. §4,
§3a.
4. **Two committed numbers moved and neither is a silent edit.** SAFETY-13's
released command settles lower, because there is less wound integrator to
settle onto; and SAFETY-39's *"the slew does not own the over-absorption"* is
@@ -124,15 +131,82 @@ offtake, and form A raises it by **196 W** — and raises the MEAN quarter by
2.7 W, so this is systematic and not one unlucky quarter. It does so in **five
of the six** plant and tuning variants in `--sensitivity`; the sixth is a tie.
The mechanism is not subtle once it is stated: a frozen integrator stops at
The per-cycle mechanism is that a frozen integrator stops at
`prev + gain·error(first cycle)`, which is `(1 − gain)` short of what the site
needs — 40 % short at `gain: 0.6`. For an EXPORT that under-correction is free;
for an IMPORT it is offtake, for as long as the ramp lasts.
needs — 40 % short at `gain: 0.6`.
⚠️ **AND THE SENTENCE THAT USED TO FOLLOW THAT ONE WAS TOO BIG FOR THE DATA.**
It read *"for an IMPORT it is offtake, so a large import is answered too weakly
for as long as the ramp lasts"*. The aggregate does not show a weaker answer to
import: form A cuts total import by **5.45 kWh** and export by **5.18 kWh**
against release/1.0, and paired tick by tick it delivers **8.56 kWh LESS**
offtake energy on the ticks release/1.0 spent importing (lower on 38 229 such
ticks, higher on 19 669). What form A moves is the **TAIL, within quarters that
already net to offtake** — the worst quarter goes 3739 → 3935 W, the top five
3260 → 3300 W, the top fifty 1880.0 → 1882.7 W. The capacity tariff bills the
worst quarter and nothing else, so a redistribution that leaves the mean alone
and lifts the maximum is exactly the trade that is refused here. The conclusion
is unchanged; the causal sentence is now the one the data supports.
⚠️ **THE CARD SAID "do not invent a second rule", AND THE MEASUREMENT SAYS TO.**
That instruction is recorded here rather than quietly dropped. What ships is a
different rule; the paragraph above is why.
## 3a. ⚠️ The plant lag is NOT identified by this recording, and the billed quarter is the claim that depends on it
`fit_plant()` picks `lag 7.5 s` because it minimises **battery-power RMS**. That
objective barely distinguishes the candidates — 375.3 W at 7.5 s against 376.4 W
at 2.5 s, **0.3 %** — while the tool's *own* printed fidelity measure, replayed
export against the **29.43 kWh this install actually exported**, prefers 2.5 s by
the whole of the 35 % gap the header warns about. Two measures on the same data
disagree, and nothing here breaks the tie.
So the sweep has to be read as a sensitivity, not as a confirmation:
| plant lag | fit RMS W | replayed export kWh (release/1.0) | **worst 15-min offtake W:** release/1.0 | form A | SAFETY-48 | mean quarter ΔW |
|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| 0.0 | 392.3 | 23.5 | **3434** | 3434 | **3434** | +0.53 |
| 2.5 | **376.4** | **28.9** ← nearest 29.43 | **3434** | ⚠️ 3732 | **3434** | −0.59 |
| 5.0 | 378.0 | 32.1 | **3434** | ⚠️ 3711 | **3434** | −1.02 |
| 7.5 | **375.3** ← chosen | 39.6 | 3739 | ⚠️ 3935 | **3434** | −2.39 |
| 10.0 | 384.2 | 75.4 | 3954 | ⚠️ 4326 | **3434** | −4.65 |
(The RMS column is `fit_plant()`'s own inner sweep pinned to one lag — best `tau`
and a re-fitted gain/offset at that lag. The export and quarter columns follow
`--sensitivity`'s convention instead: only the lag is substituted into the
global fit, everything else held. That is why the lag 5.0 and 10.0 export
figures are the ones already printed in §7b.)
⚠️ **AT EVERY LAG ≤ 5.0 s THE IMPROVEMENT IS NOT AN IMPROVEMENT — IT IS AN
ABSENCE.** release/1.0's worst quarter is *already* 3434 W there and SAFETY-48
changes it by **exactly zero**. §7b's paragraph used to read the `3434 → 3434`
rows as "the direction does not move"; that is the wrong reading. The direction
has nothing to move: at those plants release/1.0 never produces a quarter worse
than 3434 W in the first place, and the 3739 → 3434 W headline exists only at
the single longest lag `fit_plant()` happens to select. **The peak claim is a
property of the plant model, not of the card.** What the card can claim on the
billed quantity is that it does not make it worse, at any lag.
⚠️ **AND THE ONE RESULT HERE THAT IS NOT LAG-SENSITIVE IS THE FORM-A
REJECTION.** Form A's worst quarter is the worst of the three at **every lag
where release/1.0 produces a peak at all** — 3732, 3711, 3935, 4326 against
release/1.0's 3434, 3434, 3739, 3954 at lags 2.5 / 5.0 / 7.5 / 10.0, and a tie
at lag 0.0 where both sit at 3434. It is worse at every top-N cut of the
quarters at the fitted plant (top-1 3934.6 against 3738.7, top-5 3299.7 against
3260.5, top-10 2890.6 against 2871.0, top-50 1882.7 against 1880.0, top-100
1481.7 against 1479.0), and it raises the mean quarter. §3 understated this: the rejection does not rest on one unlucky
quarter at one plant, which is exactly the objection a lag-sensitive result
invites.
⚠️ **WHAT WOULD SETTLE IT IS NOT IN THIS RECORDING.** Both objectives above are
computed from the same four recorded entities, and they disagree; nothing else
in the capture breaks the tie, and this card did not go looking for a third
objective after seeing which lag each of the first two preferred. A driven step
response — the command timestamped where it is written rather than where Home
Assistant recorded it — is what identifies a lag. That is a rig measurement and
it is not this card. Until it exists, the export reduction is what this card
delivers and the peak figure is a plant-model artefact.
## 4. What ships
```python
@@ -154,13 +228,23 @@ Four properties, and each of them is a decision:
thirty files until a check was written for it.** Applying it to every cycle
instead — `i_w = max(target - cap, min(target + cap, i_w))` after
`target = slewed`, −92 B — is **bit-identical on the shipped configuration**:
0 of 256 246 ticks differ over the 16-day recording. The two are separable on
**2050 of 257 400** swept states, every one of them at `integrator_max_w`
ABOVE `max_w` — the configuration `control.py` says is the only way its
`clamped` reason is reachable. There the integrator is *deliberately* allowed
above the rail, and an unconditional cap would drag it back to the command
every cycle and make the option inert. `test_telemetry.py` part 4 drives that
configuration, and the unconditional form is red on it.
0 of 256 246 ticks differ over the 16-day recording. The two separate **only**
where `integrator_max_w` is set ABOVE `max_w` — the configuration `control.py`
says is the only way its `clamped` reason is reachable. There the integrator
is *deliberately* allowed above the rail, and an unconditional cap would drag
it back to the command every cycle and make the option inert.
`test_telemetry.py` part 4 drives that configuration, and the unconditional
form is red on it.
⚠️ **THE COUNT OF SEPARABLE STATES IS DECORATION AND THREE SWEEPS DISAGREE
ABOUT IT.** This card's grid gave **2050 of 257 400**; an independent review
measured **1220 of 246 064**; a third, smaller grid (four tunings × 7 `prev_w`
× 9 `grid_w` × 5 `actual_w` × 8 `i_w` including `None` × 4 `sat_count`) gives
**776 of 40 320** — and that third one is spelled out here precisely because
the first two are not, which is the whole reason they cannot be reconciled.
No count here should be read as exact without the grid beside it. All three
agree on the load-bearing part, which is **where**: every separable state sits
in the `integrator_max_w > max_w` tuning and nowhere else.
⚠️ **AND AN EARLIER DRAFT OF THIS BULLET GAVE THE WRONG REASON AND THE WRONG
NUMBER.** It said the two forms differ on 118 ticks because an unconditional
@@ -170,6 +254,21 @@ Four properties, and each of them is a decision:
does not apply to the placement actually being compared, which sits before
the freeze. The figures above are the ones that were measured on the pair the
sentence names.
⚠️ **AND THE SATURATION STORY IS NOT MERELY INAPPLICABLE — IT IS BACKWARDS.
THE NARROW CAP THAT SHIPPED *DOES* MOVE A SATURATION-FROZEN INTEGRATOR.** It
sits before the freeze block and is not gated on `frozen`. Measured on the
same 16 days at the live shape: of **79 160** frozen ticks the cap changed
`i_w` on **1095**, and on **679** of those it moved it further out on the side
it was already on — putting back magnitude the freeze had just let fall, which
is the one direction the freeze's rule ("may fall, never rise") exists to
forbid. Worst case **2424 W**, at
`prev_w −3400 W, grid +4697 W, actual −4144 W, sat_count 2 → 3`: the freeze
leaves the integrator at **−176 W**, the slew binds, and the cap drags it to
**−2600 W**. It never overrides a *same-cycle* refusal — the freeze clipped
`moved` on 75 512 ticks and the slew bound on none of them — but the claim
that this placement leaves the frozen path alone is false, and §5 is where
that shows up in a committed number.
* **It is written one-sided, and that is a CLARITY choice, not a correctness
one.** ⚠️ **An earlier draft of this file and of the comment in `control.py`
said the two-sided band `max(slewed - cap, min(slewed + cap, i_w))` was a bug
@@ -235,22 +334,35 @@ writer holding the pack at +700 W, the command pinned, then released — settles
at **−800 W** where release/1.0 settled at −1190 W against an integrator of
−1194 W; and its sibling run settles at **−1200 W** where release/1.0 settled at
−2390 W. The property AC 4 asserts is unchanged: the released command stops at
the frozen integrator and not at the rail. What changed is how far that
integrator had been allowed to wind. Both literals in `test_control.py` were
re-baselined **with the reason beside them**, and the second is now asserted
against `i_w` rather than against a number.
the frozen integrator and not at the rail.
⚠️ **AND THE TWO MOVED FOR TWO DIFFERENT REASONS, WHICH THE ONE-LINE EXPLANATION
"how far that integrator had been allowed to wind" COVERS ONLY HALF OF.** Gating
the cap on `not frozen` — one line, `if frozen: _lead_cap = float("inf")`, so
the cap becomes a no-op while frozen — puts **part 5 back at release/1.0's
−1190 W exactly**. That run moved because the cap **fires on frozen cycles**
(§4). **Part 4(b) does not come back**: it is −1200 W gated and −1200 W shipped,
against release/1.0's −2390 W, because *that* one moved for the winding reason.
Both literals in `test_control.py` were re-baselined **with the reason beside
them**, and the second is now asserted against `i_w` rather than against a
number.
**The alternative that avoids it was measured and rejected.** Gating the cap on
`not frozen` leaves SAFETY-13 bit-identical and gives export 34.9 kWh (against
34.07), worst quarter 3461 W (against 3434), wasted 3.5 kWh (against 3.19) — and
a worst observed lead of **4966 W**, i.e. no bound at all on the quantity this
`not frozen` as above gives export **34.71 kWh** (against 34.07), worst quarter
**3434 W** (the same as shipped), wasted **3.49 kWh** (against 3.19) — and a
worst observed lead of **4961 W**, i.e. no bound at all on the quantity this
card exists to bound. A bound with an exception large enough to drive a truck
through is not a bound.
through is not a bound. ⚠️ These four figures replace an earlier set (34.9,
3461 W, 3.5 kWh, 4966 W) that does not reproduce on this tree with the gate
spelled as above; the gate spelling is written out here so the next reader can
re-run it rather than re-derive it.
**One quarter-hour in 1534 is 532 W worse.** The billed figure is a MAXIMUM, and
the maximum improves (3739 → 3434 W); no quarter under SAFETY-48 reaches
release/1.0's own worst. The mean moves the right way. The tail is reported
because a maximum over 1534 quarters is decided by one of them.
at the fitted plant lag the maximum improves (3739 → 3434 W); no quarter under
SAFETY-48 reaches release/1.0's own worst. The mean moves the right way. The
tail is reported because a maximum over 1534 quarters is decided by one of them
— and §3a is the reason that improvement is not claimed as a benefit of the
card: at every shorter plant lag release/1.0's own maximum is already 3434 W.
## 6. The independent confirmation, which arrived as a failing check
@@ -280,6 +392,25 @@ slew owns a share of the over-absorption it did not own before. `gain` is still
not touched here, for SAFETY-39's own reason: two live control-law constants
moving in one release makes the next measurement uninterpretable.
⚠️ **AND THE RIG SAYS THE SAME THING, WHICH MEANS TWO COMMITTED TRANSCRIPTS
CHANGED MEANING UNDER THIS CARD.** `tools/slew_sim.py --slew` runs the same
derivation on admin/goodwe's `plantsim.Plant`, a third model again. Worst-case
over-absorption over its 51-step family, `slew_w` from 1000 down to 250:
| `slew_w` | 1000 | 800 | 700 | 600 | 556 | 500 | 400 | 300 | 250 |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| release/1.0 | 958 | 1107 | 1133 | 1058 | 987 | 1029 | 1150 | 1143 | 1081 |
| **this branch** | 777 | 734 | 663 | 563 | 553 | 507 | 435 | 358 | 321 |
release/1.0's row is flat and non-monotone and **800 really is better than 556**
on that column — SAFETY-39 measured it correctly and its §3 sentence is true of
the law it was written against. This branch's row falls monotonically. So
SAFETY-39's record is not retracted; it is given a **forward reference**, and
`slew_sim.py`'s own narration now reads `SLEW_LEAD_STEPS` out of the control law
it imported and says which of the two tables it is printing. MUTATION.md habit 8
— a committed transcript is a check, and a transcript whose prose contradicts
its own table is a failing one.
## 7. Verified by breaking it
**The law.** `test_telemetry.py` part 4 and `test_control.py`'s SAFETY-39
@@ -304,18 +435,32 @@ after and after the revert:
| # | mutation to `app/control.py` | bytes | reds |
|---|---|---:|---|
| L1 | the whole SAFETY-48 block deleted | −195 B | 5 in `test_telemetry.py`, 4 in `test_control.py` |
| L2 | `SLEW_LEAD_STEPS = 0` — the velocity form | −0 B | 4 + 3 |
| L2 | `SLEW_LEAD_STEPS = 0` — the velocity form | +0 B | 4 + 3 |
| L3 | `SLEW_LEAD_STEPS = 12` — a cap above the rail | +1 B | 4 + 3 |
| L4 | the cap applied unconditionally, outside the slew branch | −92 B | 1 — **and it was a SURVIVOR of all thirty files before that check existed** |
| L5 | `min`/`max` swapped — the cap on the wrong side | +0 B | 2 + 5, one of them `test_control.py`'s own "frozen integrator never deadlocks" over 13 041 states |
| L6 | the lead measured against `prev_w` rather than the command emitted | +0 B | 4 + 3 |
| L4 | the cap applied unconditionally, outside the slew branch | −92 B | 1 + 0 — **and it was a SURVIVOR of all thirty files before that check existed** |
| L5a | the `min`/`max` FUNCTION names exchanged | +0 B | 5 + 5, one of them `test_control.py`'s own "frozen integrator never deadlocks" over 13 041 states |
| L5b | the two BRANCH BODIES exchanged — the other reading of "the cap on the wrong side" | +0 B | 5 + 4, and it does **not** reach the deadlock sweep |
| L6 | the lead measured against `prev_w` rather than the command emitted | +0 B | 6 + 3 |
⚠️ **L5 AND L6 ARE BOTH ZERO BYTES** — `min`/`max` and `slewed`/`prev_w` are
each the same length — so no fingerprint and no byte delta can see either, and
one of L5's reds is `test_control.py`'s own *"frozen integrator never
one of L5a's reds is `test_control.py`'s own *"frozen integrator never
deadlocks"* sweep over 13 041 states, written by SAFETY-13 for a different
reason.
⚠️ **THREE OF THESE COUNTS WERE WRONG AND ARE RE-MEASURED ABOVE, WHICH IS
MUTATION.md's REPORTING RULE 3 APPLIED TO THIS CARD'S OWN TABLE.** The earlier
row gave L5 as 2 + 5 and L6 as 4 + 3; driven again in the CI image on a `cp -a`
of this tree, purged, `:ro`, one file at a time, they are **5 + 5** and
**6 + 3**. ⚠️ **AND "L5" NAMED TWO DIFFERENT MUTATIONS.** "`min`/`max` swapped"
can mean the function names exchanged or the branch bodies exchanged; they are
both red, they are both the cap on the wrong side, and they give different
counts (5 + 5 against 5 + 4) and reach different checks. A row that writes one
number for a mutation a reader cannot re-derive from its own description is a
row that cannot be re-run, so both spellings are listed. The directions in the
original table were all correct; the counts were decoration, and decoration in
a mutation table reads as evidence.
## 7b. The transcript, quoted rather than summarised
`python3 tools/replay_recorded_loop.py --sensitivity`, on this branch, 58 s:
@@ -362,7 +507,16 @@ SENSITIVITY - the ranking, not the watts
```
⚠️ **`--sensitivity` IS THE RANKING AND NOT THE WATTS.** The export figure moves
by a factor of two across these plants; what does not move is the direction.
by a factor of two across these plants; what does not move is the direction —
**on export**. ⚠️ **THE `worst quarter W` COLUMN IS NOT THE SAME KIND OF
EVIDENCE AND THIS PARAGRAPH USED TO TREAT IT AS IF IT WERE.** Three of its six
rows read `3434 -> 3434`, and that is not "the direction holds": it is
release/1.0 *already sitting at 3434 W* on those plants, with nothing for the
card to improve. §3a sweeps the lag properly and finds the same thing at every
lag ≤ 5.0 s. The billed-quarter improvement in the A/B table above exists at one
plant, the one `fit_plant()` selects by an objective that separates it from its
neighbour by 0.3 %.
Two rows deserve naming rather than rounding: at `slew_w: 555.6` (the rail) and
at `gain: 0.3` the mean quarter-hour delta is −0.17 W and **+0.16 W** — ties,
not improvements. Both are regimes where `|error| > slew_w / gain` is rarely