goodwe-addon

577 Commits 206 Branches 19 Tags

2 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5	a6af332048	SAFETY-48: what the lead cap actually does to a frozen integrator, and what the peak figure depends on checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 7m55s Details Four review findings, none of them in executable code. The control law, the tests and the instruments' arithmetic are untouched; every number below was re-measured against the committed 16-day capture before it was written down. R1 - app/control.py carried a justification the decision record and MUTATION.md habit 22 had already retracted, and it was false about the code it sits in. It said an unconditional placement "would also pull the integrator toward a command the SATURATION freeze is pinning", priced at 118 of 256 250 ticks. The 118 was measured against a different pair; on the pair the sentence names the two forms are bit-identical - 0 of 256 246 ticks, re-measured. And the narrow form that shipped DOES move a saturation-frozen integrator: it runs before the freeze block and is not gated on `frozen`. Of 79 160 frozen ticks the cap changes `i_w` on 1095, and on 679 of those it moves it further out on the side it was already on - putting back magnitude the freeze had just let fall, which the freeze's own rule forbids. Worst case 2424 W, at prev_w -3400 W, grid +4697 W, actual -4144 W, sat_count 2 -> 3: the freeze leaves the integrator at -176 W and the cap drags it to -2600 W. It never overrides a same-cycle refusal (the freeze clipped on 75 512 ticks, the slew bound on none of them), and that is stated too. It is also where SAFETY-13's settle values went: gating the cap on `not frozen` puts test_control.py part 5 back at -1190 W exactly, while part 4(b) does not come back - that one moved for the winding reason. R3 - the record read its own sensitivity table backwards. `fit_plant()` picks lag 7.5 s on battery-power RMS, which separates it from 2.5 s by 0.3 %, while the tool's own printed fidelity measure (export against the recorded 29.43 kWh) prefers 2.5 s by the whole 35 % gap. Swept properly: at every lag <= 5.0 s release/1.0's worst quarter is ALREADY 3434 W and this card changes it by exactly zero. The 3739 -> 3434 W headline exists at one plant. New section 3a carries the table; the export reduction now leads every summary and the peak is presented as lag-dependent. The form-A rejection is strengthened rather than weakened: form A is worse on the billed quarter at every lag where release/1.0 produces a peak at all, and at every top-N cut of the quarters. R2 - DOCS.md stated modelled watts to the owner as measurement. It now leads with the export reduction, says the figures are simulated, and says plainly that no capacity-tariff improvement is promised. R4 - tools/slew_sim.py --slew narrated "the OVER-ABSORPTION does not move, and at the slowest slews it is slightly WORSE" while printing a monotonically falling column. That sentence is TRUE on release/1.0 (reproduced: 958/1107/1133/1058/987/1029/1150/1143/1081) and false under this branch's law (777/734/663/563/553/507/435/358/321), so SAFETY-39 is not retracted: its record gets a forward reference, and the script now reads SLEW_LEAD_STEPS out of the law it imported and narrates from the column it just printed. Both branches of that narration were driven. R5 - three counts in the L table were decoration and are re-driven in the CI image on a `cp -a`, purged, `:ro`, one file at a time: L5 is 5+5 with the function names exchanged and 5+4 with the branch bodies exchanged (two mutations wearing one name, now listed separately), L6 is 6+3. The separable- state count is grid-dependent and three sweeps disagree, so all three are quoted with their grids and the load-bearing claim is WHERE they separate. R7 - "a large import answered too weakly" is not what the aggregate shows. Form A cuts import by 5.45 kWh and export by 5.18 kWh, and paired per tick delivers 8.56 kWh less offtake energy on the ticks release/1.0 was importing. The harm is a tail redistribution inside quarters that already net to offtake. The conclusion stands; the sentence is narrowed to it. Verified: the full suite in the CI image, purged tree, `:ro` mount, one file at a time, exactly the command in .gitea/workflows/checks.yml - 30/30, exit 0. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU	2026-09-19 02:37:01 +02:00
adminandClaude Opus 5	5d7e275df4	SAFETY-39: slew_w is a ratio to the rail, and gain is what is still wrong checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 5m16s Details `slew_w: 1000` was derived on 2026-08-22 against a clamp of 1500 W, where "capping how far the loop can jump ahead of the inverter" was true because the rail itself bounded the excursion. The live install went to max_w 5000 and the constant did not move, so the loop crosses its whole output range in 10 s against a plant NOTES.md §5.10 measured at ~18 s. Measured on the owner's system 2026-09-05 11:43-11:46: a 3.4 kW export drove the setpoint 380 -> 5000 W in five 2 s ticks, the battery to -5154 W past a 5000 VA rating, and the grid from 3.4 kW of EXPORT to 2.8 kW of IMPORT. Nothing was broken; the rail moved. REPRODUCED FIRST, and one half of it is not reproducible at all. On plantsim.Plant and on an independent in-repo model: the setpoint stepping a full 1000 W per tick to the rail (48 of 51 export steps), and the meter crossing from export into import. The -5154 W figure is NOT reproducible in either model, because both clamp the plant at its rating - so the card's AC "battery no longer exceeds max_w in simulation" is unfalsifiable and was rewritten rather than met. THE DELIVERABLE IS THE RELATIONSHIP. SLEW_RAIL_FRAC = LOOP_TICK_S / PLANT_SETTLE_S = 2 s / 18 s = 1/9 slew_w = 0 now means FOLLOW THE RAIL - SLEW_RAIL_FRAC * max_w - exactly as integrator_max_w = 0 already means follow max_w. It is the shipped default: 222 W at max_w 2000, 556 W at 5000, 1067 W at a ~9600 W two-inverter site. validate.py rule 10 refuses an explicit value faster than that, graded against sum(unit_caps(opts)) - the roster sum, i.e. Controller.site_max_w - so a second inverter moves the bound with no operator action. VERIFIED BY BREAKING IT: restoring slew_w 1000 at max_w 5000 is refused, and the refusal names the rail, the crossing time, the measurement and what to do. Equality, one watt of slack, the live interim 400 and slew_w 0 at every rating all still start. GAIN IS THE CONSTANT THAT IS STILL WRONG, and it is NOT changed here. Over 51 export steps the over-absorption is FLAT in slew (958 W at 1000, 1081 W at 250) and monotone in gain (987 W at 0.6, 876 at 0.3, 435 at 0.2): slew_w bounds the OUTPUT, while the integrator moves gain*error per cycle and reaches a 5000 W rail in under three ticks whatever the slew is. Two control-law constants moving in one release on a running house makes the next measurement uninterpretable. ⚠️ N=2: the site rail becomes sum(max_w) ~ 9600 W (inverter B FROM DATASHEET AND SERIAL, not measured, and sim/plantsim.py's INVERTER_B is A copied), and the enforced ratio produces 1067 W there automatically. But a growing rail LOOSENS this bound, and the >= 900 W symptom goes stale at N=2 the same way the constant did - both stated in the record rather than left to be discovered. Nothing reached the inverter. The live install still runs the interim slew_w 400 applied by hand on 2026-09-05, which rule 10 accepts unchanged. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU	2026-09-06 01:10:15 +02:00

Author

SHA1

Message

Date

glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5

a6af332048

SAFETY-48: what the lead cap actually does to a frozen integrator, and what the peak figure depends on

checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 7m55s

Details

Four review findings, none of them in executable code. The control law, the
tests and the instruments' arithmetic are untouched; every number below was
re-measured against the committed 16-day capture before it was written down.

R1 - app/control.py carried a justification the decision record and MUTATION.md
habit 22 had already retracted, and it was false about the code it sits in. It
said an unconditional placement "would also pull the integrator toward a
command the SATURATION freeze is pinning", priced at 118 of 256 250 ticks. The
118 was measured against a different pair; on the pair the sentence names the
two forms are bit-identical - 0 of 256 246 ticks, re-measured. And the narrow
form that shipped DOES move a saturation-frozen integrator: it runs before the
freeze block and is not gated on `frozen`. Of 79 160 frozen ticks the cap
changes `i_w` on 1095, and on 679 of those it moves it further out on the side
it was already on - putting back magnitude the freeze had just let fall, which
the freeze's own rule forbids. Worst case 2424 W, at prev_w -3400 W, grid
+4697 W, actual -4144 W, sat_count 2 -> 3: the freeze leaves the integrator at
-176 W and the cap drags it to -2600 W. It never overrides a same-cycle refusal
(the freeze clipped on 75 512 ticks, the slew bound on none of them), and that
is stated too. It is also where SAFETY-13's settle values went: gating the cap
on `not frozen` puts test_control.py part 5 back at -1190 W exactly, while part
4(b) does not come back - that one moved for the winding reason.

R3 - the record read its own sensitivity table backwards. `fit_plant()` picks
lag 7.5 s on battery-power RMS, which separates it from 2.5 s by 0.3 %, while
the tool's own printed fidelity measure (export against the recorded 29.43 kWh)
prefers 2.5 s by the whole 35 % gap. Swept properly: at every lag <= 5.0 s
release/1.0's worst quarter is ALREADY 3434 W and this card changes it by
exactly zero. The 3739 -> 3434 W headline exists at one plant. New section 3a
carries the table; the export reduction now leads every summary and the peak is
presented as lag-dependent. The form-A rejection is strengthened rather than
weakened: form A is worse on the billed quarter at every lag where release/1.0
produces a peak at all, and at every top-N cut of the quarters.

R2 - DOCS.md stated modelled watts to the owner as measurement. It now leads
with the export reduction, says the figures are simulated, and says plainly
that no capacity-tariff improvement is promised.

R4 - tools/slew_sim.py --slew narrated "the OVER-ABSORPTION does not move, and
at the slowest slews it is slightly WORSE" while printing a monotonically
falling column. That sentence is TRUE on release/1.0 (reproduced:
958/1107/1133/1058/987/1029/1150/1143/1081) and false under this branch's law
(777/734/663/563/553/507/435/358/321), so SAFETY-39 is not retracted: its
record gets a forward reference, and the script now reads SLEW_LEAD_STEPS out
of the law it imported and narrates from the column it just printed. Both
branches of that narration were driven.

R5 - three counts in the L table were decoration and are re-driven in the CI
image on a `cp -a`, purged, `:ro`, one file at a time: L5 is 5+5 with the
function names exchanged and 5+4 with the branch bodies exchanged (two
mutations wearing one name, now listed separately), L6 is 6+3. The separable-
state count is grid-dependent and three sweeps disagree, so all three are
quoted with their grids and the load-bearing claim is WHERE they separate.

R7 - "a large import answered too weakly" is not what the aggregate shows. Form
A cuts import by 5.45 kWh and export by 5.18 kWh, and paired per tick delivers
8.56 kWh less offtake energy on the ticks release/1.0 was importing. The harm
is a tail redistribution inside quarters that already net to offtake. The
conclusion stands; the sentence is narrowed to it.

Verified: the full suite in the CI image, purged tree, `:ro` mount, one file at
a time, exactly the command in .gitea/workflows/checks.yml - 30/30, exit 0.

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

2026-09-19 02:37:01 +02:00

adminandClaude Opus 5

5d7e275df4

SAFETY-39: slew_w is a ratio to the rail, and gain is what is still wrong

checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 5m16s

Details

`slew_w: 1000` was derived on 2026-08-22 against a clamp of 1500 W, where
"capping how far the loop can jump ahead of the inverter" was true because the
rail itself bounded the excursion. The live install went to max_w 5000 and the
constant did not move, so the loop crosses its whole output range in 10 s
against a plant NOTES.md §5.10 measured at ~18 s. Measured on the owner's system
2026-09-05 11:43-11:46: a 3.4 kW export drove the setpoint 380 -> 5000 W in five
2 s ticks, the battery to -5154 W past a 5000 VA rating, and the grid from
3.4 kW of EXPORT to 2.8 kW of IMPORT. Nothing was broken; the rail moved.

REPRODUCED FIRST, and one half of it is not reproducible at all. On
plantsim.Plant and on an independent in-repo model: the setpoint stepping a full
1000 W per tick to the rail (48 of 51 export steps), and the meter crossing from
export into import. The -5154 W figure is NOT reproducible in either model,
because both clamp the plant at its rating - so the card's AC "battery no longer
exceeds max_w in simulation" is unfalsifiable and was rewritten rather than met.

THE DELIVERABLE IS THE RELATIONSHIP.
  SLEW_RAIL_FRAC = LOOP_TICK_S / PLANT_SETTLE_S = 2 s / 18 s = 1/9
  slew_w = 0 now means FOLLOW THE RAIL - SLEW_RAIL_FRAC * max_w - exactly as
  integrator_max_w = 0 already means follow max_w. It is the shipped default:
  222 W at max_w 2000, 556 W at 5000, 1067 W at a ~9600 W two-inverter site.
  validate.py rule 10 refuses an explicit value faster than that, graded against
  sum(unit_caps(opts)) - the roster sum, i.e. Controller.site_max_w - so a
  second inverter moves the bound with no operator action.

VERIFIED BY BREAKING IT: restoring slew_w 1000 at max_w 5000 is refused, and the
refusal names the rail, the crossing time, the measurement and what to do.
Equality, one watt of slack, the live interim 400 and slew_w 0 at every rating
all still start.

GAIN IS THE CONSTANT THAT IS STILL WRONG, and it is NOT changed here. Over 51
export steps the over-absorption is FLAT in slew (958 W at 1000, 1081 W at 250)
and monotone in gain (987 W at 0.6, 876 at 0.3, 435 at 0.2): slew_w bounds the
OUTPUT, while the integrator moves gain*error per cycle and reaches a 5000 W
rail in under three ticks whatever the slew is. Two control-law constants moving
in one release on a running house makes the next measurement uninterpretable.

⚠️ N=2: the site rail becomes sum(max_w) ~ 9600 W (inverter B FROM DATASHEET AND
SERIAL, not measured, and sim/plantsim.py's INVERTER_B is A copied), and the
enforced ratio produces 1067 W there automatically. But a growing rail LOOSENS
this bound, and the >= 900 W symptom goes stale at N=2 the same way the constant
did - both stated in the record rather than left to be discovered.

Nothing reached the inverter. The live install still runs the interim slew_w 400
applied by hand on 2026-09-05, which rule 10 accepts unchanged.

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

2026-09-06 01:10:15 +02:00