3 Commits

Include renames

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
adminandClaude Opus 5	83911ed637	SAFETY-20: measure the freeze rail against the reachable ceiling, not max_w ... SAFETY-18's conjunction needs `abs(commanded_w) >= 0.95 * max_w`, but the emitted command is clipped to the setpoint device's own [dev_min, dev_max] range as well as to max_w - in clamp_to_rating()'s second stage and again as the arbiter's `device` P_SAFETY limit claim. Measured on the shipped predicate at the ticket's numbers, max_w 5000 on a +-4700 W inverter: looks_frozen(unchanged_s=3600, commanded_w=4700, max_w=5000) -> False The command is pinned at the hardware's rail, the meter has been frozen for an hour, and term 2 is unsatisfiable by construction because 4700 < 4750. Any device rating at or below 0.95 * max_w disarms the conjunction outright, and the status page then printed `armed (... command is over 4750 W)` - a guard that cannot fire, advertising that it can, which is the failure SAFETY-15, SAFETY-19 and validate.py rule 5 all exist to prevent. The rail is now measured against min(max_w, |dev_min|, |dev_max|), through a new `rail_ceiling_w()` threaded into looks_frozen(), FreezeWatchdog.evaluate() and both call sites in main.py. An unread rating leaves the old behaviour exactly, and correctly: hass.limits() returns None whenever ESPHome is not up, and on that path no device clamp is applied either, so max_w really is the ceiling. A rating larger than max_w cannot raise the rail - this is a min(), not a swap. THE DELIBERATE CHOICE, since SAFETY-03 has landed. The arithmetic was kept rather than substituting Decision.i_clamped / Decision.clamped. i_clamped is the integrator bound (control.py:208, `bounded != i_w`), not "the command is at the device rating", and `clamped` is the max_w output bound, unreachable on a default install - neither is the device rail. More decisively, both answer "did the LOOP ask for more than a bound", while the rail term asks "is the command standing at the ceiling", and those coincide only when the loop is the claimer that won. A maintenance SET or a peak-guard floor reaches the ceiling through arbiter LIMIT claims with no clamp engaging at all, so a boolean rail would go False exactly during a maintenance phase running against a frozen meter - which freeze.py's own docstring names as the same fault with a worse actuator behind it. The predicate is also public with two call sites that pass DIFFERENT command values (self.target, and `standing` = last_write); a per-cycle boolean cannot be passed per call site, so substituting it would have silently decided the pre-clamp-versus-wire question that PM recorded as still open. AC 1 governs, and it is satisfied literally. The smaller of the two device bounds, not a per-sign pair. A per-sign rail is tighter and is not wrong, but it is two rails needing two coverage verdicts on a status row that carries one number, and the only configuration that distinguishes them is refused at startup anyway. The symmetric ceiling can only lower the rail, which widens term 2 rather than disarming it; term 1 carries the whole no-false-positive argument and is untouched. A ceiling of 0 W is NOT COVERED, not "armed at 0 W". A device that can command nothing in one direction would make `abs(command) >= 0` true of every command including a parked one - term 2 degenerately TRUE, collapsing the conjunction into the bare unchanged_s > N threshold TEL-05 refused for false-tripping at this controller's own operating point. rail_unreachable() returns the reason, looks_frozen() stays silent, and the page uses the NOT COVERED row the unsupported-transport case already has - a second reason to use that surface, not a new mechanism. AC 4, decided rather than assumed: NO NEW validate.py RULE. The configuration is max_w above the device rating, which rule 2 (CFG-01) already refuses on the identical predicate, re-run by run_control() once the real rating is known: validate_startup_config({... max_w: 5000}, -4700, 4700) -> ['max_w is 5000 W but number.sp accepts at most 4700 W - THE DEVICE WINS ...'] A rail-specific rule would fire on a strict subset of that (0.95 * max_w > dev_max implies max_w > dev_max) and could never be the rule that stopped a start. The residue is the state where hass.limits() answered (None, None) - ESPHome not up at boot, range checks skipped rather than guessed at, rating never re-read - and there is nothing to refuse there by construction, which is why the answer is a runtime row. Recorded in validate.py's "deliberately not refused" list and pinned by four checks in test_validate.py, so the decision's premise goes red if rule 2 is ever softened back to a warning. HOW REACHABLE THIS IS, stated rather than glossed. Because rule 2 refuses the configuration whenever the rating is known, min(max_w, dev_max) IS max_w on every install that reaches the control loop with a rating it could read, and this change is arithmetically dead there. That is clamp.py's argument for its own second stage word for word: the case where it bites is the case where the startup gate did not run or no longer holds, and a guard that quietly assumes the gate ran is a guard that reports armed in exactly the state it cannot fire in. Verified by breaking it, per this project's rule. Reverting rail_w() to bare max_w fails nine checks; deleting the NOT COVERED handling fails five. The one that mattered: shipping the corrected predicate while NOT passing the rating from check_meter_frozen() left the entire suite green, because nothing graded the caller - so test_freeze.py part 5b now drives the real cycle() on a +-4700 W device and asserts on the notification that leaves the process, and the unwiring mutation fails three checks there. The peak-guard call site's wiring is still ungraded (behind p1_enabled, needs a fed averager for `frozen` to have any observable consequence) and that gap is named in the file rather than implied. Full suite: 15/15 in goodwe-addon-ci. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>	2026-09-01 02:14:07 +02:00
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5	4e66583a52	SAFETY-03 review fixes: both clamp stages always run, and two checks that could not fail ... 1. BEHAVIOURAL, and a regression this PR introduced. clamp_to_rating() returned early from the max_w stage, so the device bound was applied only when the rating bound had NOT fired - the bigger the overshoot, the less the guard did. At max_w 5000 against a +-4000 device, +9999 emitted +5000 W, outside the device range, while +4500 was correctly held to +4000. It undid the pre-PR guarantee "never send a value the device will reject outright" and undercut this module's own case for max_w-not-min(), which rests on that stage catching a validation that did not run. Both stages now always run; the result names both bounds when both bite (max_w+device). Asserted over a 492-point sweep, because the defect was invisible to any single-value check sitting inside one stage. 2. The hysteresis check issued range(CLEAR_CYCLES - 1) clean cycles, which at CLEAR_CYCLES = 1 issues zero, passes, and prints "0 clean cycles do NOT clear it" - green for the chatter setting the constant exists to prevent. Now: ONE clean cycle must not clear the alarm, a literal that does not move with the constant, and the de-assert count is measured by looping until it clears. 3. The re-assert check stimulated at REASSERT_S + 9, green for any value including 3600 - the hour of silence the module promises not to produce. Now stated in wall-clock terms: a loop pinned across the 900 s capacity-tariff quarter must speak at least 5 times and on no more than 20% of cycles. Pinned in both directions. Red confirmed for each: the restored early return (3 checks), CLEAR_CYCLES = 1 (1), REASSERT_S = 3600 (1) and REASSERT_S = 0 (3). Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC	2026-08-30 15:52:09 +02:00
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5	c040aac4b8	SAFETY-03: alarm when a computed setpoint exceeds the rating, do not just clip it ... The clamp was never the missing half. specs.md 10.3 records an unclamped integrator climbing ~130 W per 4 s past 10 kW and reporting 14 768 W pinned at the 5 kW rail; clipped silently that is a flat, legal-looking 5000 W hold and nothing says the loop asked for three times it. write_setpoint() - the one path every write takes - now clamps to the VALIDATED max_w and reports whether the raw value differed; check_output_clamp() raises OUTPUT_CLAMP as a notification, an ERROR, an event row and a red status banner. Not a trip: the clamped value is written and the loop keeps running. The rating is max_w and nothing is min()ed at runtime - CFG-01 already refuses a max_w outside the device range at startup. The device range is applied second as defence in depth; it cannot bite after a successful validation, so if it ever does it alarms too and names the bound. No new config key. Decision grew i_clamped / clamped booleans, and that is the load-bearing part: `reason` is one string that slew-limiting and the saturation freeze overwrite, so an alarm keyed on it is silent on exactly the cycles a winding loop produces. Mutating main.py back onto the string drops the 10.3 replay from 2 engagements to 0. Distinct from saturation by construction - no shared reason code, notification id, status row or counter - and checked in the negative, after first asserting the saturation freeze really did engage. Two things found by running it rather than by reading it: a row per engagement flushed the 40-row event log and evicted SAFETY-18's own METER FROZEN? row (now coalesced per episode with an exact count), and a naive clamp turns a nan into a command at the full rating because every comparison against nan is False. test_clamp.py is new: assert-based, no framework. Six author mutations reproduced red, including "clamp kept, alarm deleted". Two of the check's own hypotheses about the freeze/clamp interaction were refused by its sweep and rewritten to what it measured. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC	2026-08-30 15:22:22 +02:00