SAFETY-38 round 2: assert the ordered pair, and correct the M3 attribution

Two blockers, one of them mine to fix and one a mis-measurement to undo. No
`app/` change in either: the shipped `sum` is correct.

1. A ZERO-BYTE SURVIVOR AT THE CALL SITE ONE LINE BELOW THE PINNED VALUE.
   Round 1 pinned `site_standing` and never pinned WHERE IT GOES. Swapping the
   detector's first two arguments at main.py:1620 -
   `evaluate(site_standing, self.grid, ...)` -> `evaluate(self.grid, site_standing, ...)`
   - is a ZERO-BYTE edit and left the round-1 tree fully green. The cost is the
   banner: the site stands at -500 W of charge into a +2500 W import and the
   LATCHING, SITE-STOPPING alarm reads "commanded +2500 W against a meter
   reading -500 W" - which instrument read what, inverted, on the one line
   somebody woken by it reads first (watchdog.py:658-665).

   Round 1's check could not reach it. It asserted `"-500 W"` appears SOMEWHERE
   in the sentence; under the swap it still does, IN THE METER SLOT. A substring
   test grades PRESENCE, never ARRANGEMENT. It now asserts the ORDERED PAIR:
   `f"commanded {sum:+.0f} W against a meter reading {grid:+.0f} W"`. Measured:
   red in test_watchdog.py on that one named check, green in the other twenty.

2. THE M3 ATTRIBUTION WAS FALSE, AND HOW IT BECAME FALSE IS THE USEFUL PART.
   Round 1 recorded `list(standing.values())[0]` as closed by SAFETY-32's
   package-wide pin and told future authors NOT TO RE-COVER IT. Re-measured on
   release/1.0 @ 86eaef2 carrying only that edit: the full 21-file suite is
   GREEN and test_peakguard.py is PASS PASS PASS PASS PASS in isolation. THE
   MUTATION SURVIVES. It was originally measured once, that run hit CI-06's
   ~20% flake, and the red was recorded as a kill.

   The mechanism, read off 12j's own enumeration rather than argued: 12j taints
   names BOUND to roster values and lists ACCUMULATED in a loop. `standing` is a
   dict filled by SUBSCRIPT assignment (main.py:1554/1558), so it never enters
   the taint set and 1599 is not a roster site. On the mutated tree 12j lists
   main.py:1553, 1555 and 1690 - not 1599. Part 9a and 9b close it.

   Corrected in all four places it was committed: DECISIONS section 1 and
   section 4, CHANGELOG, and the part 9 header that carried the instruction.

MEASUREMENT, all on 86eaef2, fresh copy per mutation, mounted :ro, bytecode
purged by tools/mutation_run.sh, edit re-read from disk, byte delta printed:
  * M1-M10 re-run INDEPENDENTLY rather than carried forward - all 10 red, at
    the deltas the table records (M1/M2/M4 re-run in the exact wrapped form).
  * M11, the argument swap: 0 bytes, red on one check in one file.
  * W1 `"sign_site": SCOPE_SITE -> SCOPE_UNIT`: 0 bytes, red; part 9a is one of
    the two killers.
  * W2 `"circulation": SCOPE_SITE -> SCOPE_UNIT`: 0 bytes, red - but ENTIRELY
    on pre-existing checks. This card adds nothing to circulation and does not
    claim it.
Control: 21/21 green before and after. The suite is 21 files, not 20 - TEL-07
added test_mqtt.py in the rebase onto 86eaef2.

DECISIONS section 6a enumerates what was NOT closed: SAFETY-31's circ_wd
detector itself, the other eight CLAIM_SCOPE entries, actuator_of()'s body, the
n_units > 1 guard, and the fact that the "green in the other twenty files" half
of the ledger was re-verified on 86eaef2 only for M3 and M11.

MUTATION.md gains habit 14 - assert the ordered pair, not the substring - and
records this as the tenth instance of the family, found INSIDE THE FIX WRITTEN
TO CLOSE THE NINTH, for the second time in that list.

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

goodwe_controller/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -44,13 +44,35 @@ shipped `sum` is correct and must not be "fixed".**
   `[0]` are **the same number** — all three mutations are genuinely *equivalent*
   on a shipped install and no N=1 fixture could ever separate them. Printed and
   checked, beside the site detector still being absent there. Part 9c.
-* **ONE OF THE THREE WAS ALREADY CLOSED, AND THIS CARD DOES NOT RE-COVER IT.**
-  [[SAFETY-32]]'s package-wide structural pin catches
-  `list(standing.values())[0]` on the line it is written, at every roster
-  length, with no fixture. Its own disclosed blind spot — *"SEMANTICS. `min` →
-  `max` → the mean are edits invisible to any shape pin, permanently"* — is why
-  the other two needed this card, and it is now confirmed by measurement rather
-  than taken on trust.
+* **⚠️ A CORRECTION, AND IT IS THE MOST USEFUL LINE IN THIS CARD.** An earlier
+  revision of this entry said one of the three — `list(standing.values())[0]` —
+  was **already closed** by [[SAFETY-32]]'s package-wide structural pin, and
+  told future authors not to re-cover it. **That was false.** It had been
+  measured **once**, that run hit `test_peakguard.py`'s [[CI-06]] flake (a
+  measured **~20%** false-red rate), and the red was recorded as a mutation
+  **kill**. Re-measured on `release/1.0` @ `86eaef2` carrying only that edit:
+  the **full 21-file suite is green** and `test_peakguard.py` passes **five for
+  five** in isolation — **the mutation survives.** The reason SAFETY-32 cannot
+  see it is not the shape: part 12j taints names *bound* to roster values and
+  lists *accumulated* in a loop, and `standing` is a dict filled by **subscript
+  assignment**, so it never enters the taint set and `sum(standing.values())` is
+  not a roster site at all. 12j's own enumeration on the mutated tree lists
+  `main.py:1553`, `1555`, `1690` — **not `1599`**. **All three mutations needed
+  this card; all three are now covered by it.** *A single red from
+  `test_peakguard.py` proves nothing — re-run it five times in isolation and
+  name the failing check.*
+* **⚠️ AND A ZERO-BYTE SURVIVOR ONE LINE BELOW THE ONE THIS CARD PINNED.**
+  Pinning the *value* `site_standing` said nothing about **where it goes**.
+  Swapping the detector's first two arguments —
+  `evaluate(site_standing, self.grid, …)` → `evaluate(self.grid, site_standing, …)`
+  — is **zero bytes** and left the tree fully green, because the check asserted
+  only that `"-500 W"` appeared **somewhere** in the banner. It still does:
+  **in the meter slot.** The swapped banner reads *"commanded +2500 W against a
+  meter reading −500 W"* — a site charging at −500 W into a +2500 W import, told
+  to the operator **exactly backwards**, on the one line somebody woken by a
+  latching site-stopping alarm reads first. The check now asserts the **ordered
+  pair** rather than a substring, and is red on it. **No `app/` change:** the
+  hole was in the test.
 * **⭐ A SURVIVOR THIS CARD WENT LOOKING FOR AND CLOSED.**
   `site_standing = float(self.target)` — the arbiter's site *target* instead of
   the sum of what actually **stands on the wire** — is **−11 bytes** and
@@ -60,13 +82,19 @@ shipped `sum` is correct and must not be "fixed".**
   unit's share and never the site target. A site asking for −500 W while −250 W
   stands would then take a **latching site-wide false trip** under its own
   300 W gate. Closed by part 9a's device-clamped counterfactual.
-* **10 mutations of that one line, each on a fresh full-repo copy mounted `:ro`,
+* **13 mutations — 11 of that line and its call site, plus 2 zero-byte edits to
+  the arbiter claim wiring — each on a fresh full-repo copy mounted `:ro`,
   bytecode purged by `tools/mutation_run.sh`, the edit re-read from disk and the
-  byte delta printed. All 10 red — every one of them in `test_watchdog.py` and
-  in nothing else.** ⚠️ One **false red** from `test_peakguard.py` on M10 did
-  not reproduce in four subsequent runs; it is CI-06's known flakiness, no claim
-  here rests on it, and it is recorded rather than quietly dropped. Ledger and
-  the honest gaps in `DECISIONS/SAFETY-38-site-standing-pin.md`.
+  byte delta printed. All 13 red.** Every one was **re-run independently** in
+  this round rather than carried forward from the previous round's report. The
+  claim-wiring pair (`sign_site` and `circulation` moved from site scope to unit
+  scope) closes two gaps a reviewer disclosed — though **`circulation`'s kill
+  belongs entirely to pre-existing checks and is not claimed by this card.**
+  ⚠️ One **false red** from `test_peakguard.py` on M10 did not reproduce in four
+  subsequent runs; it is CI-06's known flakiness, no claim here rests on it, and
+  it is recorded rather than quietly dropped — unlike the one that *was*
+  believed, two bullets up. Ledger, and an **enumerated list of what was not
+  mutated**, in `DECISIONS/SAFETY-38-site-standing-pin.md` §4a, §4b and §6a.
 
 **Inverter B gets its own MQTT device, and inverter A keeps the one it has
 (TEL-07).** MQTT discovery announced **one** device, and every entity hung off