OPT-04: charge cheap, discharge expensive - and only when it pays

Four cards built the price stack and nothing traded on it. app/arbitrage.py is
§10.1's priority 3, and it consumes all four rather than re-deciding anything:
whether a trade is permitted at all, on which two hours, against which widened
threshold is TariffPlan.arbitrage()'s answer, and that answer cannot be
obtained without first saying whether the peak guard is holding. §9.1's "peak
shaving outranks arbitrage" is therefore honoured structurally - there is no
path to a spread that skips the question - and again in the arbiter, where
P_PEAK (50) clamps a claim filed at P_ARBITRAGE (30).

A guard that never ran is not a guard that is clear. On meter_source off the
peak guard is never evaluated; that third state is carried as None and refuses,
because charging at the rail creates the billed quantity while nothing measures
the quarter. validate.py refuses that configuration too, along with arbitrage
armed with no price source and a SoC floor at or above the ceiling.

§17: never export into a negative price. The guard is on the hour being sold
into, not on the spread - a day priced -0.30 .. -0.05 clears any threshold and
its dearest hour is still negative. Buying in a negative hour stays allowed.

resolve_tariff() may open an HTTPS connection and the tick feeds the ESP32
heartbeat, so the fetch runs in its own task at a 30 min cadence and the tick
reads an attribute and an age bound. test_arbitrage.py section 8 asserts that
structurally on the shipped AST: a fetch put back on cycle() is red.

AC4 is NOT met and is not restated - this repository holds no price history.
Section 7 replays a synthetic year and asserts the property that does not need
real prices: every executed round trip cleared its own widened requirement, and
zero discharges landed in the 522 negative-priced hours. At the shipped 0.10
EUR/kWh threshold a realistic Belgian day/night site does not trade at all.
Reported, not tuned: that number and FCST-03's widening factors are one product
decision and it is the owner's.

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

goodwe_controller/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -2,6 +2,55 @@
 
 ## Unreleased
 
+**Price arbitrage - the first strategy that trades on a price (OPT-04).**
+Four cards built the price stack and nothing traded on it. `app/arbitrage.py`
+is §10.1's priority 3: charge in the cheapest published hour, discharge in the
+dearest, **and only when the spread covers `cycle_cost_threshold_eur`**. It is
+off by default (`arbitrage_enabled: false`) - it is the first strategy in this
+add-on that commands the battery against the meter on purpose.
+
+**It consumes the four cards rather than re-deciding anything.** Whether a
+trade is permitted at all, on which two hours, and against which widened
+threshold is `TariffPlan.arbitrage()`'s answer (TARIFF-03), and that answer
+cannot be obtained without first stating whether the peak guard is holding. So
+§9.1's "give peak shaving priority over arbitrage" is honoured
+**structurally**: there is no code path to a tradeable spread that skips the
+question. And because the claim is filed at `P_ARBITRAGE` (30) while peakguard
+files its floor at `P_PEAK` (50), the arbiter clamps an arbitrage charge even
+if that interlock were bypassed. Two independent mechanisms, neither
+re-implemented here.
+
+**A guard that never ran is not a guard that is clear.** On `meter_source: off`
+there is no telegram stream, so the peak guard is never evaluated. That third
+state is carried as `None` and it **refuses**: charging at the rail creates the
+billed quantity while nothing measures the quarter it lands in. `validate.py`
+refuses that configuration at startup too, along with arbitrage armed on a site
+with no price source at all, and a SoC floor at or above the ceiling.
+
+**§17: never export into a negative price.** The guard is on the hour being
+sold into, not on the spread - a day priced -0.30 ... -0.05 has a 0.25 EUR/kWh
+spread that clears any shipped threshold and a dearest hour that is still
+negative. Buying in a negative hour stays allowed; being paid to charge is the
+right trade.
+
+**Prices are fetched in the background, never on the tick.** `resolve_tariff()`
+may open an HTTPS connection, and the control tick is what feeds the ESP32
+heartbeat - a supplier's TLS timeout there is a supplier able to push the
+add-on towards layer 1's 30 s veto. A separate task refreshes every 30 minutes;
+the tick reads an attribute and an age bound, and a plan whose refresh has
+stopped answering retires rather than standing as if it were current.
+
+**What is honestly not measured.** The acceptance criterion asked for
+net-positivity across 12 months of *replayed* prices. This repository holds no
+price history - `scenarios/` is P1 meter data - so that criterion is **not met,
+and is not restated**. What `test_arbitrage.py` section 7 does instead is
+replay a synthetic year and assert the property that does not need real prices:
+every executed round trip cleared its own widened requirement, on all of them,
+across a year containing 522 hours priced below zero and zero discharges into
+one. And at the shipped 0.10 EUR/kWh threshold a realistic Belgian day/night
+site **does not trade at all** - reported, not tuned. That number, and the
+widening factors beside it, are one product decision and it is open.
+
 **Provisional prices, and what may not rest on one (FCST-03).**
 Day-ahead prices arrive once a day, around 14–16 h CET. Until they do, §8.3 says
 the unknown hours use yesterday's profile and are flagged `provisional: true` —