SAFETY-38: pin site_standing with shares that cannot answer for the site

`app/main.py:1598`'s `site_standing = float(sum(standing.values()))` is the
first argument of SAFETY-30's latching, site-stopping sign detector AND the
`commanded_w` handed to SAFETY-18's `looks_frozen()`. It was pinned by nothing.
Coverage only: not one byte of `app/` moves - the shipped `sum` is correct.

WHY THE SUITE COULD NOT SEE IT. `_sign_site`, the only N>=2 site fixture in the
repository, runs shares of about -2500 W EACH - every one individually over its
320 W gate - so sum, mean and max(key=abs) all agree on it. Its values happen to
be equal, and a check comparing two things that happen to be equal cannot see
the difference it names. MUTATION.md habit 4, ninth instance, inside the site
half of the card that names the rule in its own text. At N=1 it is arithmetic
rather than a fixture defect: sum == mean == max == the one share, identically.

THE FIXTURE (test_watchdog.py part 9). Two SIMULATED units rated 220 W and
280 W, both obeying exactly, inverted gain, house importing 2000 W: the site
commands -500 W against a +2500 W meter and NO SINGLE SHARE clears the shipped
300 W gate. Four candidate reductions, four distinct answers, one over the gate
- sum -500, mean -250, max(key=abs) -280, [0] -220 - asserted as a precondition.
The asymmetry is load-bearing, and the smaller unit is first so [0] stays
distinct from max(key=abs). Gate shipped; only the hold is shortened.

BOTH CONSUMERS. 9b drives the same discrimination at SAFETY-18's threshold: the
site rail is 0.95 x 500 = 475 W, so the sum rails it while 250, 280 and 220 do
not. Shipped: BLIND_FROZEN, floor 0 W. Under both surviving mutations: not blind
at all, no floor filed - the battery may keep importing through a quarter whose
billed average is unobservable. The open quarter is backfilled with the stuck
reading so the mutant cannot reach the same action by the coverage route and
mask the difference. 9c asserts the N=1 identity on a real one-inverter tree.

SAFETY-32 already closes `list(standing.values())[0]` structurally and this card
does not claim it. Its disclosed blind spot - semantics are invisible to a shape
pin, permanently - is why the mean and max(key=abs) needed a behavioural set.

AND THE SEARCH FOR THE NEXT SURVIVOR FOUND ONE. `float(self.target)` - the
arbiter's site target instead of the sum of what stands on the wire - is -11 B
and survives all 20 files on untouched release/1.0 @ f72c48d, because every
fixture that existed was built where the two are the same number. They separate
when a device's reported range is narrower than its max_w: the `device` claim is
filed per actuator and never bounds the site target. Closed here by a
counterfactual that asks for -500 W while -250 W stands.

10 mutations of that one line, each on a fresh full-repo copy mounted :ro,
purged by tools/mutation_run.sh, the edit re-read from disk and the byte delta
printed. Ledger and honest gaps in DECISIONS/SAFETY-38-site-standing-pin.md.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU

goodwe_controller/MUTATION.md

@@ -135,12 +135,13 @@ manufactures them from a **fixture**: the check runs, the assertion is
 evaluated, the sentence above it is true — and the numbers it compares are
 arranged so that the failure it describes could not have changed the answer.
 
-It is not hypothetical and it is not rare. EIGHT instances in two weeks; four
+It is not hypothetical and it is not rare. NINE instances in two weeks; four
 were found by review, two - CFG-04's fixture pair - by an author's own mutation
 battery, which is the cheaper place, one by review again, in the one
 place nobody had thought to point the rule at: not a check in the suite, but a
-COMMITTED EVIDENCE ARTIFACT four documents cite - and the eighth INSIDE THE FIX
-WRITTEN TO CLOSE THE SEVENTH.
+COMMITTED EVIDENCE ARTIFACT four documents cite - the eighth INSIDE THE FIX
+WRITTEN TO CLOSE THE SEVENTH, and the ninth inside the SITE HALF of the card
+that names the rule in its own text.
 
 ⚠️ **AND IT HAS NOW APPEARED IN SIX CONSECUTIVE CARDS.** The seventh instance,
 MAINT-05's, is the one that says why: the defect is not carelessness about
@@ -234,6 +235,33 @@ same place twice, the check is decoration.
   assertion cannot fail is exactly the thing this section is about. Two habits
   follow, and both are habit 5 and 6 below.
 
+* **SAFETY-38** — `main.py`'s
+  `site_standing = float(sum(standing.values()))`, the first argument of
+  SAFETY-30's latching site sign detector *and* SAFETY-18's `looks_frozen()`
+  input. `test_watchdog.py`'s `_sign_site` is the suite's **only** N≥2 site
+  fixture, and it runs shares of about **−2500 W each** — every one
+  individually over the 320 W gate it is configured with. On numbers like those
+  `sum`, the mean and `max(key=abs)` **all agree**, so the reduction could be
+  swapped for either of the other two and the site guard went **blind with all
+  19 files green** — still commanding −500 W of charge into a +2500 W import at
+  t = 595 s with `following=True`. At a roster of **one** it is worse and it is
+  not a fixture defect at all: `sum == mean == max == the one share`
+  *identically*, so every such mutation is genuinely **equivalent** there and no
+  N=1 fixture could ever separate them. The fixture that separates them is the
+  one the detector exists for — **per-unit shares EACH BELOW the gate whose SUM
+  clears it** — and it is now `test_watchdog.py` part 9, at asymmetric ratings
+  so that all four candidate reductions give four **distinct** answers.
+
+  ⚠️ **AND THE CARD'S OWN SEARCH FOR ITS NEXT SURVIVOR FOUND ONE, WHICH IS THE
+  POINT OF ASKING.** Having built the fixture, the question *what mutation would
+  this NOT see?* produced `float(self.target)` — the arbiter's site target
+  instead of the sum of what stands on the wire — at **−11 B**, green across the
+  whole suite, because every fixture in the repository was built where the two
+  are the same number. They separate only when a device's reported range is
+  narrower than its `max_w`, since the `device` claim is filed **per actuator**
+  and never bounds the site target. Closed in the same commit, by a
+  counterfactual that asks for −500 W while −250 W stands.
+
 Note what these have in common with a masked rung: the mutation *runs*, and the
 suite is *honestly* green. Nothing in a purge, a fingerprint or a disassembly
 can see it, because the code under test really did behave identically on the