UX-08 2c review: unit settings anchor to inverters, plainer texts

- messages.setting() for one inverter in the list reads
  “Inverter rating” for inverter-b (inverters.max_w), so the config panel
  files per-unit reasons under `inverters`, where the value is changed.
- The tariff card and plausibility reasons name
  “Distribution, levies and VAT” (price_taxes_eur_kwh) again.
- The wrong-direction reasons say "safety stop", the sign_disagree_w
  option says what it protects, and the roster, price-entity,
  integrator_max_w and capacity_kwh texts read more plainly.
- NL: stuurprint -> stuurmodule, "De piekbeperking".

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com>

goodwe_controller/test_inverter.py

@@ -1653,7 +1653,7 @@ check("a flat setpoint_entity left set BESIDE a declared roster is refused. It "
       "names an actuator the roster does not, so nothing would ever write it - "
       "a site running quietly smaller than its own configuration, which is the "
       "'silently a different config' outcome this card ranks below a refusal",
-      _why(_p_flat, "but the “Inverter list” (inverters) has"))
+      _why(_p_flat, "but the “Inverter list” (inverters) is also filled in"))
 _p_dup = validate_startup_config(_opts(setpoint_entity="", inverters=[
     dict(name="twin", setpoint_entity="number.sp_a", max_w=A_RATING),
     dict(name="twin", setpoint_entity="number.sp_b",
@@ -1739,8 +1739,8 @@ check("the fixture actually desynchronises the two lists, or the two checks "
 check("⚠️ RULE 5 NAMES THE UNIT THE NUMBER CAME OFF. The weakest cap is "
       "inverter-c's 1000 W; it sits at caps index 1, and `_unit_label(opts, 1)` "
       "is inverter-B. The refusal says inverter-c",
-      _why(_p_skew, "(max_w) for inverter-c is 1000 W")
-      and not _why(_p_skew, "(max_w) for inverter-b is 1000 W"))
+      _why(_p_skew, "for inverter-c (inverters.max_w) is 1000 W")
+      and not _why(_p_skew, "for inverter-b (inverters.max_w) is 1000 W"))
 # ⚠️ MAINT-05 MOVED RULE 6's SUBJECT, AND THIS CHECK MOVED WITH IT. It used to
 # assert the refusal named inverter-b, because rule 6 graded the FIRST entry
 # with a usable cap - `Controller.maint_unit` was `inverters[0]` and the shaping
@@ -1754,15 +1754,15 @@ check("⚠️ RULE 6 TOO, AND SINCE MAINT-05 IT IS THE WEAKEST PACK IT NAMES. "
       "inverter-c's 1000 W sits at caps index 1, and `_unit_label(opts, 1)` is "
       "inverter-B - so a caps index leaking into a roster index would say "
       "inverter-b here. The refusal says inverter-c, with inverter-c's number",
-      _why(_p_skew, "(maintenance_charge_w) is 3000 W, but the “Inverter rating” (max_w) for "
-                    "inverter-c is 1000 W")
-      and not _why(_p_skew, "(maintenance_charge_w) is 3000 W, but the “Inverter rating” (max_w) for "
+      _why(_p_skew, "(maintenance_charge_w) is 3000 W, but the “Inverter rating” for "
+                    "inverter-c (inverters.max_w) is 1000 W")
+      and not _why(_p_skew, "(maintenance_charge_w) is 3000 W, but the “Inverter rating” for "
                             "inverter-b"))
 check("...and it is no longer graded against the FIRST usable cap at all, which "
       "is the behaviour change MAINT-05 makes here: inverter-b's 2000 W was the "
       "pre-card answer and appears nowhere in the maintenance refusal now",
-      not _why(_p_skew, "(maintenance_charge_w) is 3000 W, but the “Inverter rating” (max_w) for "
-                        "inverter-b is 2000 W"))
+      not _why(_p_skew, "(maintenance_charge_w) is 3000 W, but the “Inverter rating” for "
+                        "inverter-b (inverters.max_w) is 2000 W"))
 check("...and the counterfactual, so this is not a check that would pass on a "
       "validator that named nothing: the OLD expressions still evaluate, on "
       "this same config, to the wrong names",