SAFETY-47: what a shadow run can show, and the watts on its status row

Not a leak and not a write-path defect. Shadow mode's safety is intact -
the substitution, the re-seed, the authorisation gate and the clamp are
untouched. What was wrong is what three merged documents SAY a shadow run
can show you, and a number on the status row that can be 6.61x what a live
controller would command.

SHADOW MODE CANNOT SURFACE A CLOSED-LOOP DEFECT, AND THE DOCUMENTS NOW SAY
SO. The battery is held at 0 W and the carried command is re-seeded to it,
so every measured input - the meter, the billed-quarter accumulator behind
it, the battery power, the SoC - describes a plant that did not respond. A
closed-loop defect is one whose stimulus IS that response. This is the same
property that makes shadow mode safe, so it is not a gap to close later:
the closed-loop answer comes from the closed-loop rig or from a live run.
SAFETY-10 §5 already conceded this for the grid-following loop. It was
never the loop leg's limitation; it is the general case.

THE "STRATEGIES ARE UNAFFECTED" EXEMPTION WAS TRUE UNTIL SAFETY-45 MERGED,
ONE COMMIT EARLIER. That card sizes the buy leg as min(asked, headroom)
with headroom = (900/remaining) x (ceiling - projected), and `projected`
reads the open quarter's accumulator - the meter - which is a function of
what the battery did earlier in that quarter. Measured on TEST-23 stage 3
at peak_cap_w 1500 / house 1200 / max_w 2000, one hour at 5 s:

  SAFETY-45's limit cycle  NOT visible. 28 onsets live vs 1; grid
                           -455.5..+3200.0 W vs flat at the 1200 W house;
                           guard engaged 410/720 cycles vs 0/720.
  SAFETY-46's SoC churn    NOT visible. The SoC moves 0.000000000 pp.
  TARIFF-14's wrong hour   VISIBLE, and it is the only one: which hour, at
                           what price, clearing what spread - identical on
                           720 of 720 charging cycles at a binding cap.

The exemption narrows to exactly what survives: WHICH hour a strategy picks
and WHY are unaffected; HOW HARD it trades is not. The peak guard's ceiling
and reasons are worth reading from a shadow run; its ENGAGEMENTS are not.

THE NUMBER IS CAVEATED, NOT RE-COMPUTED, AND THAT IS THE DECISION. The
arithmetic is not wrong - 900/remaining is correct for a meter genuinely
under the ceiling, and in shadow the meter genuinely is. It is the right
answer to a question nobody asked. Both surfaces now introduce the watts as
what would have been commanded ON THIS CYCLE, in every state, and carry
shadow.SIZED_FROM_METER whenever a measured billed quarter sized them.
Rejected, and recorded in the decision doc: re-computing it (the recorded
decision would no longer be the decision the shipped path reached, while the
arbiter, clamp, SAFETY-28 gate, log and MQTT all ran on the real one - a
second controller everywhere except the wire); recording nothing (blanks the
row exactly when arbitrage is trading, and the log's edge key is the watts);
and recording the unsized ask beside it (a second number, no warning, and at
the shipped 3500/2000 both figures read 2000 W).

"UPPER BOUND" AND NOT "SMALLER", AND THE DIFFERENCE WAS MEASURED. Charging
only adds offtake, so the shadow size is >= the live size with EQUALITY at
the start of every quarter. Pairwise over 3600 charging cycles in five
configurations: 0 below, 730 exactly equal. The first draft said "smaller",
which would have been false on every one of those 730.

AND THE PREDICATE IS NOT KEYED ON WHETHER THE TRADE WAS CAPPED. arbitrage's
own sentence says "SIZED BY THE CAPACITY-TARIFF GUARD" only when the
headroom came out below the ask - in a shadow run, the START of the quarter,
where the two runs agree to the float. By the end, 900/remaining has
multiplied the headroom past the ask, the trade is not capped, the sentence
is silent, and the record is at its most wrong. A caveat keyed on it would
be quietest exactly where it is needed loudest.

SAFETY-10 §6's COMMITTED EVIDENCE COULD NEVER HAVE FAILED, FOR TWO
INDEPENDENT REASONS, AND CLOSING EITHER ALONE CLOSES NOTHING. Its fixture is
peak_cap_w 15000 against a 350 W house, so the guard never engages and the
sizing is inert - the harness's own comment says so. AND every identity row
reads the FIRST charging sample, where at elapsed=0 the projection IS the
held level and the two runs agree to the float even at a cap that does bind.
Measured: widening the fixture alone leaves that comparison passing. That
second reason is a new shape for MUTATION.md's habit-4 list - an INDEX, not
a fixture - and it is recorded there as the twelfth instance. §6 is re-taken
at a binding cap across the whole run: 716 of 720 charging cycles differ,
headroom 300.0..54000.0 W in shadow against 299.9..307.8 W live, recorded
-2000.0 W against a live -302.4 W.

THE GRADER IS test_arbitrage.py PART 3d, beside SAFETY-45's own closed-loop
regression and built on the same s45_loop() harness, so the runs differ in
one argument. Three lines stand in for _write_unit()'s substitution and
_shadow_settle()'s record and re-seed, marked as a transcription;
test_clamp.py part 8 remains the check on the shipped placement. The section
carries its own precondition into every check: a mutation that stopped
either run trading made it raise on its first min(), kill the file and
report ZERO reds - FCST-06's shape, driven rather than imagined.

AND THE FIX'S OWN FIRST DRAFT CARRIED THE SAME DEFECT. Deleting the caveat
from the action-log line left all 29 files green, because the sentence was
an f-string inside _shadow_settle() and the only suite that drives it uses a
meter_source:off fixture where no arbitrage decision exists. It is
shadow.log_line() now, for the reason words() is a function.

14 mutations, no survivors; M13 and M14 are +0 B and were confirmed on disk
by sha256 with every run purged. M14's first form was aimed at the wrong
direction and correctly survived - min->max makes the shadow record larger,
which is still an upper bound. All 29 check files green.

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

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/SAFETY-10-shadow-mode.md

@@ -1,6 +1,12 @@
 # SAFETY-10 — shadow mode, and why "default-on" is not `true`
 
 **Status:** decided and implemented on branch `SAFETY-10`.
+⚠️ **AMENDED BY SAFETY-47, and three of the claims below were false when this
+was merged.** §5's "the strategies are unaffected" exemption, §4's peak-guard
+row and §6's evidence table are corrected in place and each correction is
+marked. The amendments are marked rather than rewritten silently, because what
+this card believed is part of why the defect shipped. See
+`DECISIONS/SAFETY-47-what-a-shadow-run-can-show.md`.
 **Card:** SAFETY-10 — *"Shadow mode (default-on, log-only decisions)"*.
 **Nothing here reached the inverter.** No deployment, no `ha addons update`, no
 contact with 192.168.2.158 or 192.168.2.221. Everything below was measured in
@@ -26,6 +32,12 @@ the CI image and on TEST-23 stage 3's closed-loop rig.
    and **latch a trip that survives into live operation and a restart**. §4.
 4. **The loop leg's shadow decision is one slew step, not a trajectory, and
    that is a real limitation of this feature.** §5.
+5. ⚠️ **SAFETY-47: and neither is anything else that depends on the plant
+   answering back. A shadow run cannot surface a closed-loop defect at all**,
+   by the same construction that makes it safe — the battery is held at 0 W, so
+   every measured input describes a plant that did not respond. Of the three
+   defects §"WHAT DEFECT THIS PREVENTS" was written for, exactly one —
+   TARIFF-14's wrong quarter-hour — is visible from a shadow run. §5, §6.
 
 ---
 
@@ -130,9 +142,9 @@ shadow run can report *"it would have hit the rating here"*.
 | surface | what it carries |
 |---|---|
 | status banner | `SHADOW MODE - the battery is NOT being controlled...`, **first in the cascade**, amber — red, with the latch named, if one is standing |
-| status row `Shadow mode` | which rung decided, the watts it **would have commanded**, where the inverter actually is, and `Resolution.explain()` |
+| status row `Shadow mode` | which rung decided, the watts it **would have commanded on this cycle**, where the inverter actually is, and `Resolution.explain()` — plus, when a measured billed quarter sized those watts, SAFETY-47's caveat saying so (`shadow.SIZED_FROM_METER`) |
 | status row `Commanded` | `0 W` — the truth, which the row above reconciles with the `Why` row below it |
-| action log | one line when shadow mode comes on; one line per **change of decision** (winner or rounded watts), carrying the arbiter's own sentence |
+| action log | one line when shadow mode comes on; one line per **change of decision** (winner, rounded watts, or SAFETY-47's caveat state), carrying the arbiter's own sentence and the same caveat the row carries — `shadow.log_line()` is the one sentence both read |
 | MQTT | `status: shadow`, its own value, below `failsafe` |
 
 The action log is **edge**-logged, not level-logged: the log holds 40 rows, and
@@ -149,7 +161,7 @@ minutes at the 15 s cycle floor.
 | SAFETY-03 clamp | **OBSERVES** | Runs on the decision, sets `clamp_last`, logs every engagement. Changes no command |
 | SAFETY-28 write gate | **OBSERVES** | Same placement, same reason: the question is who chose the number |
 | SAFETY-18 meter freeze | **OBSERVES**, unchanged | It takes no action live either; both halves of its conjunction are as true in shadow |
-| SAFETY-07/24/25 peak guard | **OBSERVES** | Level-triggered, unlatched, files its claim as usual — SAFETY-45's limit cycle is visible from a shadow run, which is the point |
+| SAFETY-07/24/25 peak guard | **OBSERVES, AND SEES ONLY THE HOUSE** | Level-triggered, unlatched, files its claim as usual, so the recorded decision is the real one *for this meter*. ⚠️ **AMENDED BY SAFETY-47.** This row used to end "SAFETY-45's limit cycle is visible from a shadow run, which is the point". It is not: every term of `wanted = batt_w + excess` is measured, and in shadow mode the battery contributes nothing to either. Measured on the rig, same hour, same unsized code — **410 of 720 cycles engaged live, 0 of 720 in shadow** |
 | SAFETY-31 circulation | **OBSERVES AND MAY LATCH** | Its evidence is *measured* power. Packs pushing against each other while all are told 0 W is a real fault |
 | SAFETY-42 delivery | **OBSERVES AND MAY LATCH** | Same, against a share that is 0 W |
 | operator stop | **SUPPRESSED AS A CLAIM, ENFORCED AT THE WIRE** | The one deliberate change. Its `P_SAFETY` 0 W claim out-ranks everything, so leaving it in makes the recorded decision `"stopped"` on every cycle and the run answers the wrong question. The actuator ends at the same number either way, and the wire substitution is **strictly stronger**: a claim can be out-ranked, and it cannot |
@@ -186,12 +198,47 @@ is a closed-loop property, it did not happen, and reporting it would be a
 simulation of a plant that does not exist; three cycles in, such a number
 describes nothing.
 
-The strategies are unaffected: arbitrage, the peak guard and maintenance all
-file `SET` claims at a fixed power from level-triggered inputs. That is why the
-three defects this card was written for — SAFETY-45's 28 onsets an hour,
-TARIFF-14's wrong quarter-hour, SAFETY-46's ceiling churn — are all visible from
-a shadow run, and the loop's ramp is not. Graded, named, in
-`test_watchdog.py` part 10 as `RECORDED LIMITATION`.
+⚠️ **AMENDED BY SAFETY-47 — THE PARAGRAPH THAT STOOD HERE WAS THE DEFECT.**
+It read:
+
+> The strategies are unaffected: arbitrage, the peak guard and maintenance all
+> file `SET` claims at a fixed power from level-triggered inputs. That is why
+> the three defects this card was written for — SAFETY-45's 28 onsets an hour,
+> TARIFF-14's wrong quarter-hour, SAFETY-46's ceiling churn — are all visible
+> from a shadow run, and the loop's ramp is not.
+
+It was true until **SAFETY-45 merged, one commit before this card**. That
+change makes the buy leg `min(asked, headroom)` with
+
+```
+headroom = (900 / remaining) x (ceiling - projected)
+```
+
+and `projected` reads the **open quarter's accumulator** — the meter — which is
+a function of what the battery did earlier in that same quarter. The strategy
+is closed-loop, and the loop's one-slew-step limitation above is not a special
+case of anything: **it is the general case**, and the limitation is the whole
+feature's, not the loop leg's.
+
+**The correct statement, and it is now graded rather than asserted:**
+
+> A shadow run cannot surface a **closed-loop** defect — one whose stimulus is
+> the plant's response to the controller — because the battery is held at 0 W
+> and there is no response to be the stimulus. **Which** hour a strategy picks
+> and **why** are unaffected, because the clock and the price series are not
+> functions of the battery. **How hard** it trades is not.
+
+Of the three defects this card was written for:
+
+| | visible from a shadow run? | measured |
+|---|---|---|
+| SAFETY-45's limit cycle | **no** | 28 charge onsets live, **1** in shadow; grid −455.5 … +3200.0 W live, **flat at the 1200 W house** in shadow; guard engaged 410/720 live, **0/720** in shadow |
+| SAFETY-46's SoC churn | **no** | the SoC moves **0.000000000 pp** in a shadow run. No SoC limit can be *reached* in one |
+| TARIFF-14's wrong quarter-hour | **yes**, and it is the one | which hour, at what price, clearing what spread: identical live and shadow on **720 of 720** charging cycles, at a binding cap |
+
+Graded in `test_arbitrage.py` part **3d** — the same closed loop part 3c uses,
+run once live and once in shadow — and the loop leg's own limitation stays
+named in `test_watchdog.py` part 10 as `RECORDED LIMITATION`.
 
 ---
 
@@ -218,22 +265,60 @@ The closed-loop half is `/home/homelab/s10-mut/shadowloop.py` on TEST-23 stage
 3's rig: the same hour, twice, against `plantsim.Plant` through the firmware's
 own frame encoder.
 
+⚠️ **SUPERSEDED BY SAFETY-47 — THE TABLE THAT STOOD HERE COULD NEVER HAVE GONE
+RED, FOR TWO INDEPENDENT REASONS.** It read `arb_power_w` −2000 W *"identical"*,
+`arb_reason` *"identical, verbatim"*, arbiter winner *"identical"*, and
+concluded *"the decision happened, at the same instant, for the same reason, at
+the same signed power — and the battery did not move."* The battery half is
+true and is unchanged. The **decision** half was decoration:
+
+1. **the fixture is `peak_cap_w: 15000` against a 350 W house**, so the
+   capacity guard never engages and SAFETY-45's sizing is in the run and inert.
+   The harness's own comment says so — *"at this scenario's `peak_cap_w: 15000`
+   it is not binding anyway"* — which is MUTATION.md habit 4 written down
+   beside the check it disables;
+2. **every identity row reads the FIRST charging sample.** At `elapsed = 0`
+   the projection *is* the held level, so the two runs agree to the float there
+   **even at a cap that does bind**. Measured: closing reason (1) alone leaves
+   that comparison passing.
+
+Both had to be closed. Re-taken below at **`peak_cap_w` 1500 / house 1200 /
+`max_w` 2000**, one hour at a 5 s cycle, **across the whole run** — harness
+`/home/homelab/s47-mut/shadowloop47.py`, same rig, same three transcribed
+lines.
+
 | | live | shadow |
 |---|---|---|
-| `plant_cmd_w` | −2000 W throughout | **0 W throughout** |
-| `batt_w` | −2000 .. −40.6 W | **0.0 W, exactly** |
-| SoC | 50.000 → **62.331 %** | 50.0 → **50.0 %** |
-| grid | 390.6 .. 2350 W | **350 W = the house, exactly** |
-| `ARBITRAGE_CHARGE` samples | 3600 | **3600** |
-| first charge instant | 2026-01-15T00:00:00+00:00 | **identical** |
-| `arb_power_w` | −2000 W | **identical** |
-| `arb_reason` | the strategy's own sentence | **identical, verbatim** |
+| grid | 1224.1 … 1506.0 W — **held up at the ceiling** | **1200.0 W flat = the house, exactly** |
+| SoC | 50.000019 → **51.856789 %** | 50.000000 → **50.000000 %** |
+| `ARBITRAGE_CHARGE` cycles | 720 / 720 | **720 / 720** |
+| first charging cycle, `arb_power_w` | −300.0000 W | **identical — and this is why the old table passed** |
+| `arb_power_w`, **whole run** | −307.799 … −299.930 W | **−2000.000 … −300.000 W** |
+| …cycles where the two differ | — | **716 of 720** |
+| `arb_reason`, whole run | the strategy's own sentence | **differs on 719 of 720** |
+| measured charging headroom | 299.93 … 307.80 W | **300.0 … 54 000.0 W** |
+| final recorded command | **−302.4 W** | **−2000.0 W — 6.61× the live figure** |
+| price / spread / which hour | | **identical on 720 of 720** |
 | arbiter winner | `arbitrage` | **identical** |
 
-The decision happened, at the same instant, for the same reason, at the same
-signed power — and the battery did not move.
+**What the re-taken table says.** The decision still *happens*, at the same
+instant, on the same hour, at the same price, for the same *kind* of reason,
+and the battery still does not move — those were the card's real claims and
+they hold. What does **not** hold is that the decision is the *same decision*:
+its **size** is a function of a meter the battery never moved, and at this cap
+the recorded figure is 6.61× what a live controller commands. 54 000 W of
+"headroom" under a 1500 W ceiling is `900/remaining` multiplying a gap the
+battery never closed.
 
-⚠️ **Three lines of that harness are a TRANSCRIPTION and are marked as one.**
+⚠️ **And the SoC row is the second half of it.** 0.000000000 pp of movement is
+not a curiosity: it is the proof that **no SoC-limit behaviour is reachable
+from a shadow run at all**, which §5 used to promise.
+
+SAFETY-47 puts the caveat on both surfaces that carry the number and narrows
+the three documents' claims; `test_arbitrage.py` part 3d is the CI-side grader
+so this class cannot recur.
+
+⚠️ **Three lines of each harness are a TRANSCRIPTION and are marked as one.**
 `priceloop.Rig` has no `_write_unit()`, no clamp and no failsafe machine
 (divergence 2 of its README), so the substitution's **placement** is
 transcribed there. The shipped placement is graded by `test_clamp.py` part 8,