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/test_price_forecast.py

@@ -71,6 +71,7 @@ from app.price_forecast import (
     MAINTENANCE_CHARGE, MAINTENANCE_DRAIN, Gate, Irreversible, committed_hours,
     fill_from_yesterday, price_permits, begin_phase,
 )
+from app.arbitrage import ArbitrageDecision
 from app.static_tariff import Arbitrage, TariffPlan
 
 UTC = timezone.utc
@@ -582,7 +583,13 @@ _ctors = {"Gate.permit": Gate.permit, "Gate.block": Gate.block,
           "Arbitrage.allow": Arbitrage.allow, "Arbitrage.refuse": Arbitrage.refuse,
           "Arbitrage.match": Arbitrage.match,
           "_Allowed.__init__": _st._Allowed.__init__,
-          "_Refused.__init__": _st._Refused.__init__}
+          "_Refused.__init__": _st._Refused.__init__,
+          # ⚠️ OPT-04's outcome type is scanned HERE, in the same dict, rather
+          # than by a hand-written case in test_arbitrage.py - which is TEST-14's
+          # actual instruction. A new outcome type extends the SCAN; a
+          # hand-written case is the thing that gets forgotten, and the whole
+          # reason this dict exists instead of five separate checks.
+          "ArbitrageDecision.__init__": ArbitrageDecision.__init__}
 _with_defaults = derived(lambda: {n: d for n, d in
                                   ((n, _defaulted(f)) for n, f in _ctors.items())
                                   if d})
@@ -835,13 +842,28 @@ print("7. CFG-03 and validate.py rule 7 - what this ticket did NOT widen")
 _defaults = derived(lambda: sorted(_price.PRICE_OPTION_DEFAULTS))
 _cfg = derived(lambda: open(os.path.join(HERE, "config.yaml"),
                             encoding="utf-8").read())
-check(f"FCST-03 added ZERO option keys: the in-code mirror still holds exactly "
-      f"TARIFF-02's and TARIFF-03's {_defaults}",
+# ⚠️ THIS LIST IS A DRIFT PIN, NOT A BAN ON EVER ADDING AN OPTION. FCST-03 added
+# none, and said so here. OPT-04 added FOUR - and added them to this ONE dict
+# and to config.yaml, which is precisely the behaviour CFG-03 asks for: the
+# alternative is a fourth freehand copy in main.py's `o.get(k, X)` fallbacks.
+# The pin is what makes such an addition a decision somebody signs rather than a
+# thing that appears; whoever adds the fifth comes here and says which card and
+# why, as this line does.
+_OPT04_KEYS = ["arbitrage_enabled", "cycle_cost_threshold_eur",
+               "arbitrage_soc_floor", "arbitrage_soc_ceiling"]
+check(f"the in-code mirror holds exactly TARIFF-02's, TARIFF-03's and OPT-04's "
+      f"keys - FCST-03 still added none of its own {_defaults}",
       _defaults == sorted(["price_provider", "price_markup_eur_kwh",
                            "price_taxes_eur_kwh", "export_price_eur_kwh",
                            "price_csv_path", "price_feed_url",
                            "price_horizon_h", "price_timeout_s",
-                           "static_profile"]))
+                           "static_profile"] + _OPT04_KEYS))
+# ...and the four are genuinely NEW, not a rename of something that was already
+# there, or the line above would pass while the mirror silently lost a key.
+check("...and OPT-04's four keys are additions rather than replacements: the "
+      "nine TARIFF-02/03 keys are all still present",
+      isinstance(_defaults, list)
+      and len(set(_defaults) - set(_OPT04_KEYS)) == 9)
 check("...and every one of them is still in config.yaml, which stays the "
       "source of truth",
       isinstance(_cfg, str)