SAFETY-119
8
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5.5
|
770988c902 |
TEST-26: a missing value in a check is a named FAIL, not a traceback
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 8m44s
Checks and prints that indexed an empty list, exhausted next(), or formatted None killed the rest of their file (FCST-06). Read them through the new named_absence.py (nth/first/field/given/present) and conjoin a presence term. - every site in the brief, plus the family the new scan and a sweep found - test_named_absence.py: scans every test_*.py for unguarded filtered-list indexing, next() without a default and numeric formats on maybe-None names; proven to bite; prints what it cannot see, counted - test_price.py 16a: the `_T17_CAPS is _T17_CAPS` tautology now grades the two assemble() calls' arguments - test_control.py: coverage table re-measured on runs graded to the end Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5.5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
e1b9254626 |
SAFETY-45: a price-driven charge is SIZED by the capacity guard, not switched by it
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 7m42s
With arbitrage armed at the shipped defaults, arbitrage and the capacity-tariff guard drove each other in a sustained limit cycle. Re-measured on TEST-23 stage 3's closed rig against |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
1448bd909b |
SAFETY-43: the no_account switch was graded by nothing
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 6m29s
Review's remaining non-blocking finding, and it is B1's shape one level down -
in the fix for B1.
`wedged_loop`'s `no_account=True` was used in exactly ONE place: the cut-out
fixture, where it PROVABLY cannot change the answer, because a pack at its own
cut-out is never asked and the gate is never reached. Review neutered the switch
so it removed nothing, and the file stayed GREEN while printing
...named=(nobody); with account() DELETED: 0/200
with `account()` not deleted. A line asserting a mechanism that did not happen.
⭐ THE SWITCH DOES BITE, ON A FIXTURE THIS HELPER COULD ALREADY REACH. At the
same cut-out with EQUAL weights, `plan()` hands B a 50/50 share, so the account
gate is the only thing keeping it silent. Measured:
cut-out, OPT-09 weights gate on 0/200 gate DELETED 0/200
cut-out, EQUAL weights gate on 0/200 gate DELETED 200/200
Asserted. Driven: neutering the switch now goes RED on exactly that check, and
nothing else.
Two things this buys beyond closing the finding. It proves the switch removes
the gate, so the printed "with account() DELETED" line is about a run in which
something was. And it gives part 8b the end-to-end account-gate control ON A
POSITIVE SHARE that the block previously had to outsource to test_delivery.py
part 1 - the arm is no longer only true, it is locally demonstrated.
Suite: 27 files, all pass.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
|
||
|
Claude Opus 5
|
b21e229adf |
SAFETY-43 round 2: the cut-out "positive control" was vacuous, and the record
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 6m29s
stated the wrong mechanism ⚠️ REVIEW FINDING, BLOCKING, AND IT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS WRONG RATHER THAN THE BEHAVIOUR. Part 8b's cut-out arm claimed an "identical power trace" to the wedged arm and that "what separates them is `account()`". EVERY PART OF THAT WAS FALSE, and the check survived deleting the gate it named. Measured: cut-out arm, account() live named 0/200, distinct B shares: [0] cut-out arm, account() FORCED None named 0/200, distinct B shares: [0] wedged arm, account() live named 200/200, shares 77/125/133/154 W At its own cut-out the pack's usable energy ABOVE that cut-out is zero, so `weights()` answers 0.0, `_fill()`'s preferred pass gives it nothing, the healthy sibling covers the load alone so the last-resort pass never runs, and its share is 0 W ON ALL 200 CYCLES. A unit with a 0 W share is not in `asked`, so `len(asked) < 2` returns {} BEFORE EITHER ARM IS EVALUATED and `account()` is never consulted. Nothing was identical, "100 % of the ask" was 0/0, and the arm never reached the comparison it was written to grade. WHAT REPLACES IT IS A BETTER FACT, NOT A WEAKER ONE: at its own cut-out OPT-09 STOPS ASKING THE PACK AT ALL, so SAFETY-43's relative arm is never reached. That is a SECOND, INDEPENDENT protection sitting UPSTREAM of `account()` - the allocator declines to ask before the detector has to decline to alarm. So the arm is kept and re-pointed, not deleted: * the 0 W share is now ASSERTED (`_sat_last[1][Bee] == 0`), not inferred from the silence - a control that cannot say WHY it is quiet cannot fail; * the arm runs a SECOND time with `account()` DELETED (`no_account=True`) and must still be silent, which is what proves which mechanism does the work; * the account gate's claim is re-pointed at test_delivery.py part 1, where it is graded on a REAL positive 125 W share. ⚠️ AND IT WAS INVISIBLE FOR ONE REASON WORTH KEEPING: that was the ONLY line in part 8b that did not print its shares. `inverter-b+0` would have been on screen from the first run. Every line in the part prints them now. The derated control's vacuity guard also now asserts ITS OWN unit is asked, rather than re-asserting a different run's 200/200 - which is exactly why the old guard could not see this. ALSO, from the same review: N1 app/delivery.py said 0.05 was "twelve times more sensitive" than 0.85. 0.85/0.05 = 17 and no reading of the pair gives 12. An unsupported number in shipped source; replaced with what was actually measured. N2 M14's recorded count was 4 named checks in test_delivery.py and it is 5 - part 1's pre-existing "a shortfall AT the threshold is not one" also goes red. It under-claimed, so it never inflated the evidence, but a recorded figure that does not reproduce is still one. N3 test_delivery.py part 1 printed the alarm sentence with a bare `delinquent(...)["b"]`, which raises KeyError under M12/M13 and ABORTED THE FILE AT PART 1, leaving parts 2-8 ungraded. The direction is safe (an abort is a red; MUTATION.md's defect fabricates only greens) but the recorded coverage read smaller than the truth. It is a `.get` now, and M12/M13's counts are re-run: 7 and 7 named checks, not 5 and 6. CFG-07: the assessment is unchanged (worse by one control cycle, 35.0 -> 40.0 s, deliberately not fixed here) and now says WHEN it has to close - BEFORE INVERTER B IS COMMISSIONED (~2026-09-12), because the band is unreachable at N=1 and commissioning B is when it first becomes reachable - and that CFG-07 HAS NO DECISION DOCUMENT IN THIS TREE, so whoever takes it writes one first. No behaviour change. `delinquent()`'s two arms, the fraction, `min_w` and the N=1 path are all untouched by this commit. 27/27 suites green. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU |
||
|
Claude Opus 5
|
2271e147c6 |
SAFETY-43: delinquency measured against the ask, not against a flat 500 W
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 6m20s
`delivery.delinquent()` named a unit whose `short_by()` gap exceeded an
ABSOLUTE `min_w = Tuning.saturation_w = 500 W`. OPT-09's SoC-aware weights
shrink a low-headroom unit's share, and shrinking the share shrinks the gap, so
a unit standing at +125 W and delivering 0 W - 100 % delinquent - was never
named. Measured end to end on the real loop (test_packshare.py part 8b):
load 1500 W, B wedged at 15 %, equal weights named on 199/200 cycles
load 1500 W, B wedged at 15 %, OPT-09 weights named on 0/200 cycles
⚠️ The suppressed regime is the quiet one: at a load the healthy sibling covers,
the meter is satisfied, `unmet_w` is 0 and no action-log line fires, so this
alarm is the ONLY instrument that would have told the operator.
WHAT CHANGED, in one line:
named if short_by() > min_w OR short_by() > frac * share
⚠️ `min_w` WAS NOT LOWERED. It exists to stop normal saturation being reported
as delinquency, and lowering it trades a missed alarm for a false one on every
unit at once - SAFETY-41's four-attempt regime. This is a SECOND way to be
named, not a looser first one: all seven of test_delivery.py part 1's existing
fixtures answer identically under both rules, and the absolute arm's suppression
window is still exactly 1000 W / 6500 W, still asserted in part 8b.
THE FRACTION IS DERIVED, 0.85. admin/goodwe:sim/delivery_window.py gained a
`--fractions` axis and grades the constant over the SAME 2640 no-fault runs that
produced `delivery_hold_s`'s 35.0 s floor. Worst continuous legitimate episode,
worst of three families, twenty fractions:
frac 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
worst 90.0 90.0 70.0 70.0 60.0 55.0 55.0 60.0 45.0 45.0 s
frac 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 *0.85 0.90 0.95 0.99
worst 40.0 40.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 45.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 s
absolute arm alone: 35.0 s (SAFETY-42 §3.3, reproduced in the same runs)
⚠️ NO CLIFF ANYWHERE: 0.45-0.99 is flat within one control cycle, and it is not
monotone - §3.3's own mechanism (c). ⚠️ "Zero false namings" is NOT achievable
at any fraction and the record says so; what is zero is false ALARMS - 90.0 s
worst against a 185 s hold, so nothing comes within 95 s of notifying anybody.
N=1 control 0.0 s at every fraction in all 2640 one-inverter runs; flapping
0.0 s in all 840.
DRIVEN. Part 8b pinned the SUPPRESSED behaviour and said "if it ever goes red
because the alarm fired, read the card that made it fire". It now grades BOTH
rules on one run - `share_frac=None` is SAFETY-42's rule exactly:
OPT-09 weights, absolute arm alone named on 0/200
OPT-09 weights, the shipped rule named on 200/200
POSITIVE CONTROL. Same fixture, same weights, same 125 W share, one legitimate
fact changed: a pack at its own 10 % cut-out is named on 0/200 (account() still
gates it), and a unit delivering HALF its share is named on 0/200.
N=1 BYTE-IDENTICAL, asserted: `plan()` handed a `weights` mapping that raises on
any read still answers identically at a roster of one, and the same mapping
raises at a roster of two; `delinquent()` answers {} on all 84 single-unit
(share, measured, rule) combinations including 0 of 125 W.
MUTATION, run on fresh :ro trees: M12 (drop the relative arm), M13 (frac -> 1.0)
and M14 (frac -> 0.05) are all red on named checks. The constant cannot move in
either direction unseen.
⚠️ CFG-07 gets ONE CONTROL CYCLE WORSE and is deliberately not fixed here: the
worst legitimate episode goes 35.0 -> 40.0 s, so the schema's `int(30,900)`
false-tripping band widens from [30,35] to [30,40]. CFG-07 should be re-derived
against 40.0 s.
No option value, no schema bound and no default changed. 27/27 suites green.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
|
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
cab267c4f3 |
OPT-09: the 6500 W window is a bound the ratings never let the site reach
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 6m10s
Round-2 non-blocking findings, both fixed. ⚠️ THE WINDOW FIGURE WAS ARITHMETIC NOBODY HAD RUN. `min_w * (w_A + w_B) / w_B` = 6500 W is correct about `_fill()`'s PROPORTIONAL regime and is not a reachable steady state: the healthy pack's own 5000 W rating binds first. SWEPT on part 8b's own fixture, reproduced rather than transcribed: load equal OPT-09 site target A B 1000 199/200 0/200 1080 997 83 2000 199/200 0/200 2170 2003 167 3000 199/200 0/200 3250 3000 250 4000 199/200 4/200 4340 4006 334 4500 199/200 8/200 4890 4514 376 4900 199/200 41/200 5320 4911 409 <- largest suppressed 5000 199/200 195/200 8000 5000 3000 <- A at its rating 6000 199/200 195/200 8000 5000 3000 So the alarm returns BELOW the formula bound, not above it, and the largest site target reached with the wedged unit still under the 500 W threshold is 5320 W - not 6500. The equal-weights "suppressed below 1000 W" bound is unreachable for the same reason: the equal arm names the wedged unit 199/200 at EVERY load swept, 1000 W included. The formula and its check are kept, because the mechanism they state is right and it is the mechanism that generalises to other ratings. What was wrong was the sentence around them, in four places, implying the site passes through the bound. Each now carries the sweep and says the rating binds first. ⚠️ THIS NUMBER CAME FROM THE REVIEW, NOT FROM THE BRANCH, and was adopted in good faith by the implementer. The reviewer found it in round 2 and said so. That is worth recording: a figure arriving from a trusted reviewer got less scrutiny than one written by the author, and PROC-01's eight fabricated numbers in two days is now nine. The rule that catches it is the same either way - run it before you ship it. Also: the DECISIONS header's base sha, stale for the third time ( |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
8d83ef0dfb |
OPT-09: the weights DO move on a wedged unit, and that narrows SAFETY-42
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 6m11s
B1, the blocking review finding. §5 of the decision said:
"A wedged unit reads a healthy SoC, so no envelope closes and no weight
moves - OPT-09 cannot see it at all."
The first clause is true and is about the ENVELOPE. The second clause is
FALSE, and it was load-bearing for the claim that OPT-09 and SAFETY-42 meet
without overlapping. A weight is a function of a pack's ENERGY HEADROOM, not
of what the pack delivers, so a wedged unit's weight moves whenever its
headroom differs from its sibling's - the ordinary case this card exists to
exploit. And delivery.delinquent() (app/delivery.py:484, threshold at :531)
names a unit only while its short_by() gap exceeds min_w = Tuning.saturation_w
= 500 W in ABSOLUTE WATTS. Shrinking the share shrinks the gap below the
threshold, and the alarm stops firing on a unit still delivering nothing.
So the seam, stated accurately: OPT-09 stops the ask AND narrows SAFETY-42's
detection window for a low-headroom unit. That is a DETECTION REGRESSION at
N=2. It is disclosed here, not fixed: making delinquent() relative to the ask
rather than absolute is SAFETY-42's code and a design change, filed as its own
card.
1. THE CORRECTION, in the three places that carried the claim
* DECISIONS/OPT-09-soc-aware-weights.md §5 - rewritten. States the seam
accurately, quotes the sentence it is replacing, carries the measured
rows and the window arithmetic, and names the residual in the same voice
as SAFETY-13's "2 of 272" and SAFETY-42's "the discriminator does not
exist". Also drops "they meet and do not overlap" from the opening.
* app/packshare.py - a new section in the module docstring, immediately
after "weights are a comfort choice for stability and not for delivery",
which is where the over-read starts.
* CHANGELOG.md - a new paragraph in the SAFETY-42 entry, ending on the
operator-facing sentence: a wedged inverter with less energy headroom
than its sibling can now go unreported at ordinary house loads.
test_packshare.py part 8's closing check and its "what this file cannot
see" list repeated the same false clause; both now say the ENVELOPE cannot
reach a wedged unit and point at part 8b for what the WEIGHTS do to it.
2. THE GRADED CHECK - test_packshare.py part 8b, 6 named checks
The reviewer's probe, reproduced: real compute(), real plan(), real
packshare.weights(), real delivery.account(), real delivery.delinquent();
the only model is the plant (A obeys within one cycle inside its rating,
B accepts its share and delivers 0 W). Unit B is WEDGED at 15 % against
its own 10 % floor, so envelope() does not close and account() explains
nothing - a SAFETY-42 true positive by that card's own definition, which
a PRECONDITION check asserts before anything is concluded from it.
load 1500 W, B wedged at 15 %, equal weights named on 199/200 cycles,
site target +3000 W, shares a+1500, b+1500, grid +0 W, named=[b]
load 1500 W, B wedged at 15 %, OPT-09 weights named on 0/200 cycles,
site target +1630 W, shares a+1505, b+125, grid -5 W, named=(nobody)
load 6000 W, B wedged at 15 %, equal weights named on 199/200 cycles
load 6000 W, B wedged at 15 %, OPT-09 weights named on 195/200 cycles
suppression window: equal weights, site target < 1000 W; OPT-09
weights, site target < 6500 W of a 9600 W site
THE CHECKS ASSERT THE CURRENT, UNFLATTERING BEHAVIOUR ON PURPOSE - that
the weighted arm names NOBODY where the equal arm names the wedged unit.
A check asserting the alarm still fires would fail, and papering over it
would be worse than the original defect. The 6000 W row is there so the
part is not pinning "the weighted arm never names anybody": past the
healthy pack's own rating, _fill()'s last-resort pass hands the wedged
unit 3000 W and both arms name it. The window is real and it has an edge.
MUTATION - packshare.weights() keeps its shape and forces every weight to
1.0 (M11 in part 11's table, which now has 11 rows). RUN on a purged tree
with python3 -B, not reasoned about:
load 1500 W, B wedged at 15 %, equal weights named on 199/200 cycles,
site target +3000 W, shares a+1500, b+1500, grid +0 W, named=[b]
load 1500 W, B wedged at 15 %, OPT-09 weights named on 199/200 cycles,
site target +3000 W, shares a+1500, b+1500, grid +0 W, named=[b]
load 6000 W, B wedged at 15 %, OPT-09 weights named on 199/200 cycles,
site target +4000 W, shares a+2000, b+2000, grid +4000 W, named=[b]
suppression window: equal weights < 1000 W; OPT-09 weights < 1000 W
FAIL AND WITH OPT-09's WEIGHTS IT IS NAMED ON NONE OF THE 200 [...]
FAIL ...and the arithmetic behind it, stated as a window [...]
FAIL AND IT IS NOT THAT THE WEIGHTED ARM NEVER NAMES ANYBODY [...]
test_packshare.py exits 1. Restored: exits 0.
3. THREE PROC-01 PROSE DEFECTS
* DECISIONS/OPT-09-soc-aware-weights.md:3 said "Base: release/1.0 @
464d398". The branch was rebased; git merge-base HEAD
|
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
f8e501393f |
OPT-09: the weights parameter nothing ever passed, and what it cannot do
`allocator.plan()` has taken a `weights` argument since ALLOC-01 and NOTHING
had ever passed one - main.py called `resolve()` without it and the arbiter
defaulted it to 1.0 per unit - so the site target was split 50/50 regardless
of what either pack could do. Two things now feed it, and they are different
kinds of thing:
* a `pack` UNIT claim at P_SAFETY that CLOSES a unit's envelope at its own
`bms_soc_floor` or at 100 % - a PERMISSION, obeyed absolutely, so an empty
pack is not asked to discharge and its share goes to the sibling;
* SoC-aware weights by ENERGY headroom in kWh - a PREFERENCE, which
`_fill()`'s last-resort pass will override the moment the sibling saturates.
Measured (test_packshare.py part 8): at a load one pack cannot cover, the
weighted arm and the shipped arm command the IDENTICAL watts into an empty pack
and deliver the IDENTICAL watts. Only the envelope stops the ask, and what it
buys is not delivery - it is a reported `unmet_w` where the record used to read
impeccable. Weights are a comfort choice for STABILITY and NOT for DELIVERY.
Also: an optional per-entry `capacity_kwh` (schema change, all-or-nothing across
the roster, rule 9 refuses a partial one); per-pack arbitrage sizing, with the
sell side's no-op stated rather than hidden; and a 0 W trade refused by name,
because a 0 W arbitrage claim is a park order that outranks the loop.
SAFETY-42 and this card meet at one hazard from opposite sides - OPT-09 stops
the site ASKING a pack whose SoC says it cannot deliver, SAFETY-42 alarms when a
pack that said it could does not - and its end-to-end fixture moved as a result.
Its finding is unchanged and is now stated on the two quantities its rejected
discriminator actually reads.
Not filed at all at a roster of one: at N=1 every source routes to the site, so
the interval would bound the SITE TARGET, and SAFETY-25's decided Option A
stands untouched on the live install.
⚠️ INVERTER B DOES NOT EXIST. Its 4600 W / 20.48 kWh / 10 % are FROM DATASHEET
AND SERIAL, and `sim/plantsim.py`'s INVERTER_B is inverter A copied
(`measured=False`), so every two-inverter figure here is arithmetic or two
copies of A. No hardware was touched.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
|