8fa4febfef5bae7e65db9f726b54071cf97db12d
9
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 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
|
||
 adminandClaude Opus 5
|
f000547518 |
SAFETY-30: grade each inverter against its own power, and the site's total against the meter
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 4m38s
THE DEFECT, in one line. `inv.sign_wd.evaluate(stood, self.grid, ...)` compared
the command THIS controller put on ONE actuator against what the WHOLE SITE is
exchanging with the network. At a roster of one those are two views of the same
thing - specs.md §6.2's identity - and that is what makes the check sound and
what earned it the best record in the safety table (NOTES.md: 93 % agreement
while healthy against 4 % during runaway, four observed episodes, zero false
positives). At two inverters they are not, and it fails in BOTH directions:
FALSE TRIP inverter A commanded -1500 W while the meter reads +1500 W is
evidence of nothing when inverter B is discharging 3000 W exactly
as told. Nothing is faulty and the highest-value check fires.
MISSED the converse, and it is worse. A unit commanded +1500 W and
MEASURED at -1500 W, beside a sibling at +1500 W, leaves P1
exactly where a healthy site leaves it. The summation destroys the
evidence and no threshold recovers it.
DEV-02 had already shipped the per-INSTANCE half - one SignWatchdog per
inverter, namespaced latch, a trip on B no longer latching A. What was left was
the COMPARISON, and it is two questions rather than one:
PER UNIT this unit's standing command against ITS OWN measured power
(`Inverter.batt`, holding register 0x0518, per-instance since
DEV-02). Conclusion: "the actuator I am driving is not doing what I
told it" - a fact about one device, so the remedy stays the per-unit
`failsafe` SET that arbiter.CLAIM_SCOPE has classified SCOPE_UNIT
from the day it was written. That entry read "the evidence is
site-wide and the remedy is not"; the first half is now simply true.
SITE the SUM of the standing commands against the meter, as a new
`sign_site` SET at P_SAFETY on the site actuator, latched under flat
`site_sign_tripped` / `site_sign_reason`. This is the 2026-08-20
fault day and NO per-unit check can see it, because every inverter
may be faithfully executing its share of a number that is itself
wrong. It stops every inverter and the banner names the site.
WHAT IT IS NOT, said here because two guards that overlap without saying so is
how a false-alarm generator gets built. It is not SAFETY-31: circulation.py
compares the units AGAINST EACH OTHER and catches them pushing power THROUGH
each other, which nets to zero at the meter and about which no single command is
evidence. This compares each unit against ITS OWN COMMAND. They overlap in
exactly one scenario - a unit reversing while its sibling pulls the other way -
and test_watchdog.py asserts on that fixture that both fire and what each
concludes. It is also not the saturation freeze, which is a MAGNITUDE test
(|command - measured| > 500 W) that shapes the loop and fires on a merely
saturated unit; this is a DIRECTION test that latches and parks one.
THE FOUR NUMBERS, RE-DERIVED AT TWO INVERTERS - one carried with a justification
and one refused. 1890 closed-loop runs on admin/goodwe's TEST-19 two-master rig
in which NOTHING is faulty, swept over the whole range config.yaml accepts for
`gain` and `slew_w`, across load reversals with write staggers and flapping
loads, and RUN AT BOTH ROSTERS so the N=1 arm is the control:
unit_sign_disagree_w 250 `saturation_w / 2`. The check gates on both sides,
opposed, so the smallest gap it can see is 500 W -
exactly where compute()'s own anti-windup test
already says the inverter is not following. It
cannot fire on a divergence the control law calls
ordinary tracking. Worst legitimate opposition at
250 W: 10.0 s; the curve is nearly flat, because a
unit's own power chases its own command.
unit_sign_disagree_s 85 8.5x that 10.0 s, 2.8x the firmware's own 30 s
link veto (inverter.LINK_STALE_S), under half the
180 s site hold.
site_sign_disagree_w 300 CARRIED. Its argument is the meter's noise floor
and the 15 W deadband; the roster touches neither,
and the campaign agrees - the gate opens in 994 of
1050 runs at two inverters and 955 of 1050 at one.
site_sign_disagree_s 325 NOT CARRIED, and this is the number the card
exists to not assume. The worst legitimate
crossing at 300 W is 110 s with one inverter and
215 s with TWO, because the command must travel a
rail that is the roster sum at a `slew_w` that is
not - reachable at gain 0.05, slew_w 50 and a
2.2 kW load reversal, all schema-legal. 180 s
would have shipped a false trip. 325 s is 1.51x
the measured worst, inside the 900 s billing
quarter and inside every episode of the fault day.
AT ONE INVERTER NOTHING CHANGES, and "nothing" is asserted rather than assumed.
The two questions are the same sentence there, so only the detector that shipped
is armed: same comparison against the meter, same 300 W / 180 s, same reason
string byte for byte, same namespaced latch and flat rollback mirror, same
`failsafe` claim, same banner, same single status row - and the site detector is
NEVER CALLED, counted on the object over twelve cycles.
VERIFIED BY BREAKING IT. Thirteen mutations on fresh per-mutation trees with no
__pycache__, mounted :ro, with the battery refusing to report at all unless the
baseline is green. Twelve red on the first pass. M4 - the site half armed at N=1
as well - SURVIVED, because the check read `disagree_since is None` and the unit
detector trips first, parks the inverter and leaves the site standing at 0 W:
the assertion ran, the sentence was true, and the data could not reach the
failure it named. Replaced with a call counter on the object; M4 is red now.
Recorded as a survivor in DECISIONS/SAFETY-30-per-unit-sign.md §5, with the
first battery's own RED BASELINE - a shared mutation directory read mid-copy -
discarded rather than reported.
RECORDED, NOT FIXED: the site comparison is defeated by a square-wave load whose
half period is about one control cycle, which holds it opposed for ~1000 s. The
N=1 control arm is what makes that interpretable - it is identical at the roster
this add-on ships, so it is a property of comparing a lagged command against a
meter and has nothing to do with the second inverter. It wants an alternation
test rather than a number, and a card of its own.
SAFETY-24's lo-only asymmetry proof re-run unchanged: 1296 combinations, 0
negative floors, `hi` +inf on every claim, every claim on the SITE actuator.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
|
||
|
adminandClaude Opus 5
|
7ef3d23245 |
SAFETY-31: measure circulating power, which nets to zero at the meter
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 4m28s
Inverter A charging at 3 kW while inverter B discharges at 3 kW nets ~0 W at
P1. The site reads idle while both packs are cycled through two round-trip
conversion losses continuously, for no benefit, and the wear is real.
NOTHING EXISTING CAN SEE IT, AND THAT IS STRUCTURAL. Every guard in this
add-on is a consumer of the NET figure at the grid connection: SAFETY-02's
sign watchdog gates on abs(grid_w) > 300 and the gate never opens at a netted
zero; the peak guard and the capacity tariff both bill grid exchange.
Circulating power is precisely the component of per-inverter power that the
sum destroys, so no threshold on any existing detector could reach it.
WHAT ALLOC-01 ALREADY COVERED, AND IS NOT RE-IMPLEMENTED HERE. Its AC 7
shipped the sign-coherence gate (allocator.REFUSE_SIGN, graded by
test_alloc.py part 6): an allocation whose shares carry two signs is REFUSED,
both units named, no shares returned. That is the COMMAND half - the allocator
can no longer command circulating power. This commit is the MEASUREMENT half:
circulation the allocator NEVER COMMANDED.
app/circulation.py the sensor and the trip
main.py site_circulating_w, the evaluation, the claim, the alarm
arbiter.py `circulation` classified SCOPE_SITE, with the argument
store.py a flat, site-level durable latch
mqtt.py sensor.goodwe_circulating_power
config.yaml two options, two schema ranges, CFG-03 discipline
THE SENSOR: sum(|Bi|) - |sum(Bi)|. Zero when the units pull the same way,
2*min(|Ba|,|Bb|) when they oppose. DERIVED FROM MEASURED PER-INVERTER POWER -
Inverter.batt, register 0x0518 - and never from the allocation record. The
cheap version would be simpler and worth nothing: ALLOC-01's gate already
guarantees the record is sign-coherent, so a record-derived sensor reads zero
BY CONSTRUCTION and can only confirm that the allocator agrees with itself,
which is the third failure mode MUTATION.md names. What this catches is a unit
ignoring or lagging its share, a stale share still being executed, a
maintenance or SAFETY-25 pin holding one unit while the loop drives the other,
or HW-01's power stage running its last instruction for 6 h 25 m with the
comms dead and the allocation record impeccable throughout. batt became
per-instance in DEV-02; before that this could not have been written.
VERIFIED BY MAKING ONE UNIT IGNORE ITS SHARE, on the TEST-19 two-master rig:
S = -2500 W shares a = -1250 W b = -1250 W <- record ok, ONE sign, sums
MEASURED A = -1250 W B = +1000 W <- hardware
sensor over the RECORD : 0 W
sensor over MEASURED power : 2000 W -> trips at 190 s
and the card's own scenario, A -3000 W against B +3000 W at zero house load:
the meter reads +0 W, the sensor reads 6000 W, and the shipped SignWatchdog's
predicate is FALSE on 30 of 30 cycles.
WHAT "ACTED ON" MEANS - decided, and recorded in DECISIONS/. The trip files
Claim.set("circulation", P_SAFETY, 0.0) on the SITE actuator: every inverter
to 0 W, latched. HW-01 established that commanding a wedged inverter achieves
nothing, so the remedy is not aimed at it. A circulating loop needs TWO
participants and one of them is THIS CONTROLLER, faithfully driving the
listening sibling into the one that stopped listening. Stopping (1) halves the
loop, which needs no cooperation from the wedged unit, and (2) - the more
important half - makes the residue VISIBLE at the meter instead of cancelled
at it, where every ordinary guard can finally see it. What it cannot do is
stop the wedged unit; the notification says so and names the isolator as the
last actuator. SITE-scoped because the quantity is defined over the roster and
is identically zero for any one unit - there is no fact of the matter about
which of two opposing inverters is the offender, so filing it per-unit would
invent an attribution and could park the only unit still listening.
THE WINDOW IS FROM THE RIG, NOT A ROUND NUMBER (AC 3). 924 closed-loop runs in
which NOTHING is faulty, over both families of legitimate opposition (7
reversals x 5 write staggers; 7 flap periods x 4 amplitudes), swept across the
whole range the schema accepts for gain and slew_w. Worst CONTINUOUS
legitimate opposition by threshold: 505.0 s at 100 W, 40.0 s at 250 W, 10.0 s
at 300 W, 5.0 s at 400 W and above. The knee is 400 W and it is the schema
floor - below it, ordinary operation holds the sensor over the line for
minutes and no window inside the 900 s billing quarter could tell that from a
fault. circulation_w 700 is 1.75x the knee, the headroom bought for inverter
B's ramp and lag being PLACEHOLDERS until SPIKE-04 measures them.
circulation_hold_s 75 clears three bounds: 15x the worst legitimate episode,
2.5x the firmware's own LINK_STALE_S veto, 12x inside the quarter. A momentary
opposition while one unit slews through zero is LEGITIMATE - writes are
serialised, so B's number lands up to a cycle after A's - and 0 of the 924
runs trip.
THE ALARM SURVIVES AN HA RESTART (SAFETY-34). persistent_notification is in
memory, which is exactly how the 2026-09-02 outage went unseen for 6 h 25 m
with the detector correct throughout. The latch is persisted to /data as flat
site-level keys and the notification is RE-RAISED on the first cycle after
every start, through the same code path as a fresh trip - two paths would be
two chances for the restart one to rot unnoticed.
AT N=1 NOTHING CHANGES (AC 5). |B| - |B| is 0 for every reading including one
nobody took, no claim is ever filed, the arbitration is byte-identical, and
the status page says n/a rather than claiming to watch something that cannot
happen.
VERIFIED BY BREAKING IT (AC 4). 18 mutations, all RED on named checks, each on
a freshly copied tree with no __pycache__ mounted :ro. M10 - the sensor
rewritten to read self.allocation.shares - is the headline: it takes AC 2 red.
Three mutations are +0 B, the risky delta, and are marked as such. One
equivalent mutant (the max(0.0,...) guard) is ARGUED rather than claimed:
searched over 700 000 rosters without a negative. One genuine SURVIVOR was
found and closed - publish() turning an unknown into a published 0 W, the
sensor's own None rule defeated one layer out. Full ledger in DECISIONS/.
arbiter.CLAIM_SCOPE gains its ninth source, so test_peakguard.py's 10f and 10g
tripwires and test_arbiter.py's scope table went red on the line the append
was written. Updated deliberately, with the argument, as their own comments
require. Full 19-file suite green.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
|
||
|
Claude
|
591c35ed01 |
SAFETY-28: gate the write path on the allocation record, not on key count
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 4m19s
specs §1.5 makes "any configuration in which two writers can reach one
actuator" a non-goal. That non-goal was enforced by counting config keys:
validate.py's ACTUATOR_WRITE_KEYS = ("setpoint_entity",), consumed at rule 1,
with a comment stating the guarantee outright - "there is exactly one such
key, so a second writer is not expressible in the options schema at all".
That was true and it graded THE SHAPE OF THE OPTIONS SCHEMA, not the writes.
Add CFG-04's per-inverter config - a roster of inverters each with its own
setpoint_entity - and there are two real writers with len() of that tuple
still equal to 1. The check stays green while the property it protects is
gone. sim/inject.py's two_writers scenario asserted on the same tuple, so it
went green too. That is this repository's named failure mode: a check that
observes something other than what it claims to observe.
Demonstrated rather than argued. test_validate.py part 2 now constructs the
hazardous per-inverter config, asserts that the OLD proxy is still green on
it, and then asserts the new check refuses it. Against release/1.0's
validator the updated sim scenario reports: "validate_startup_config()
ACCEPTED a configuration in which 3 declarations reach the ONE actuator
number.goodwe_setpoint ... the old proxy reports 1 write key(s) on this same
config and is therefore GREEN on it".
THE WRITE PATH IS NOW GATED ON THE RECORD
=========================================
Controller.write_refusal() asks Allocation.authorises() whether the single
allocator placed exactly this number, for this unit, on this tick.
write_setpoint() refuses anything else. A second writer with arithmetic of
its own cannot satisfy that - its number appears in no record - so it has to
file a Claim and go through resolve(), which is the one allocator. "Exactly
one allocator per shared resource" stops being a convention somebody can
forget and becomes something the write path checks.
The refusal is a SUBSTITUTION, not a return: 0 W goes on the wire in place of
the number nothing stands behind. Returning would leave the inverter latched
on its last command with the ESP32 heartbeat still being fed - holding an
unauthorised setpoint quietly, which is the outcome the gate exists to stop.
AC 1 is "refused at the write path, not merely logged", and test_clamp.py
part 7a grades the device's writes, not the log.
The gate sits BELOW the non-finite coercion and ABOVE the clamp. Below,
because a nan is loss of input and rule 1 has already turned it into 0 W.
Above, because the question is who chose this number, and the answer is only
meaningful about the number that was asked for - gating the CLAMPED value
would refuse exactly the cycles SAFETY-03 exists for, since a clamped write
differs from the allocator's share by construction. Mutation M7 moves the
gate below the clamp and turns nine checks red, part 6c among them.
A STALE RECORD CANNOT BE REPLAYED
=================================
Every Allocation now carries the `tick` it was made for. It is handed IN by
the caller - plan(..., tick=) - rather than counted inside the allocator,
because test_alloc.py part 10 grades that the module holds no state at all,
and a serial number incremented in there would be the cached-across-ticks
thing the envelope rule forbids wearing a different hat.
Controller.alloc_tick advances ONCE PER RESOLUTION, not once per loop
iteration, and both halves are load-bearing:
* a new allocation makes the previous record stale immediately, so a record
whose envelopes have moved cannot authorise a write. That is the replay
half (AC 2), graded by capturing a real record, running another real
cycle, putting the old one back and observing refusal.
* the "inputs missing, not yet stale" hold returns BEFORE the allocator
runs, exactly so one dropped meter reading does not zero the inverter,
and the heartbeat re-affirms self.target through this same gate while it
does. A tick incremented per loop iteration would refuse that heartbeat
and turn the hold into the outage it exists to prevent. Graded.
An UNSTAMPED record (tick None) authorises nothing: "I cannot say when I was
made" fails closed rather than reading as tick zero.
THE FAILSAFE CANNOT DEADLOCK BEHIND THE GATE, AND HERE IS WHY
=============================================================
write_setpoint() is also how layer 2 commands 0 W. cycle()'s two refusal
branches substitute a 0 W failsafe and write it like any other cycle;
shutdown() and the operator's stop button do the same. EVERY ONE OF THOSE
RUNS WHILE THE ALLOCATOR HAS REFUSED - ok is False and there are no shares -
so a gate that asked the allocator's permission to command zero would block
the safety write behind the very component whose failure the safety write
answers. A gate that can do that is worse than the hole it closes.
Resolved by authorising 0 W unconditionally, and on the VALUE rather than on
a failsafe=True flag: a flag is an assertion by the caller, which is exactly
what a second writer would pass; the value is a fact about what will be
written. The argument that this is safe and not merely convenient is that the
hazard §1.5 names is N-times loop gain from BROADCAST - handing every inverter
the same target so each supplies it in full (allocator.py's opening argument;
TEST-19 measured a permanent 4000 W p2p limit cycle at gain 1.0 with no guard
firing). At S = 0 the broadcast and the correct allocation COINCIDE: a_i = 1
for every unit gives every unit 0 W, which is exactly its share. There is no
over-command to make at zero. Said at the line, in write_refusal().
test_clamp.py part 7c drives it end to end through the real cycle() and the
real REFUSE_EMPTY branch: the allocator refuses every tick, the device still
sees 0 W, and the action log says ARBITER: REFUSED rather than WRITE REFUSED
so the two failures stay distinguishable to whoever has to debug them.
unmet_w IS STILL NOT ok
=======================
The gate reads ok and the unit's share and never unmet_w. allocator.py:179
says why: an allocation that could not place every watt is still safe to
write, and fusing them would let one saturated inverter park the whole site.
Graded on a record with 3800 W unmet and every share legal - mutation M5 adds
`or self.unmet_w` to the gate and that check goes red.
THE CONFIG CHECK, REPLACED RATHER THAN DELETED
==============================================
actuator_writers() counts WRITERS PER ACTUATOR instead of option keys. It
walks the options TREE rather than looking for a container called `inverters`,
because CFG-04 has not chosen that name yet and a census that guessed wrong
would go green while two writers existed - the same defect one step along.
Entity ids are folded to lower case so a second writer cannot be smuggled in
as Number.X versus number.x.
Two inverters with two entities are ACCEPTED - that is what the per-inverter
roster is for, and a validator that refuses the feature it guards is one
somebody switches off. Two declarations aimed at ONE entity are refused,
naming the actuator and every writer pointed at it. That includes the case an
author will meet first - keeping setpoint_entity as A's and listing A again -
because "they happen to be the same entity, so it is fine" is precisely the
reasoning that makes two writers invisible.
ACTUATOR_WRITE_KEYS survives ONLY as the enumeration a census needs, with its
guarantee comment deleted; nothing asserts on its length any more. Keeping the
name is also what stops admin/goodwe's current two_writers scenario failing on
an AttributeError between the two merges.
WHAT NEITHER CHECK OBSERVES, SAID OUT LOUD
==========================================
The census sees CONFIGURED writers. A second write path added in CODE - a
hass.set_number() call next to some new strategy - declares nothing and is
invisible to it, exactly as it was invisible to the tuple. That half is not
closed at startup and cannot be; it is closed at runtime by the record gate,
which does not care what the options look like or who called the method. The
two checks are deliberately different kinds, and only the runtime one survives
a schema this file has not seen yet.
EVIDENCE
========
* Full 18-file suite green on a purged tree (tools/mutation_run.sh).
* Verified by breaking it - seven mutations, each on a purged tree, each
reverted and re-verified:
M1 remove the gate -> test_clamp red (4 checks)
M2 make the zero exit an amnesty -> test_clamp red (12 checks)
M3 drop the tick comparison -> test_clamp red (5 checks)
M4 delete the census refusal -> test_validate red (3 checks)
M5 fuse unmet_w into ok -> test_clamp red (1 check)
M6 freeze the tick on the live path -> test_clamp red (2 checks)
M7 move the gate below the clamp -> test_clamp red (9 checks)
* AC 5: no existing check was weakened. The two edits to test_clamp.py are
fixtures, not assertions - parts 5 and 6c call write_setpoint() directly
with a number nothing allocated, which is now refused, so they say where
their number came from. Every assertion in both parts is unchanged, and
part 7f asserts that across part 3's sixty real cycles the gate refused
zero writes.
* admin/goodwe's TEST-19 norig scenarios (planner_binding, two_master_plant,
two_master_broadcast) still pass against this tree - they import the
add-on's control law across the repo boundary.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
186e13ceca |
ALLOC-01: allocate the site grid target, sum-invariant, never broadcast
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 4m6s
ARB-03 left `allocate()` as a documented seam that passed through at N<=1 and
DECLINED at N>=2, with the reasoning recorded at the line: the obvious
placeholder - hand the site target to each inverter - IS the ARCH-01 fault, and
"a placeholder that cannot be told apart from the real thing by any guard we
have is worse than no placeholder". This fills the seam.
WHY A BROADCAST IS A FAULT AND NOT AN INEFFICIENCY. The control primitive is
meter emulation: the master reports a FABRICATED grid reading and the inverter
regulates itself to it, so one number means "the battery moves X W" to this
add-on and "the grid is at X W" to the inverter - an identity that holds only at
N=1. Hand two inverters the same target and each supplies it IN FULL, so the
loop gain at the meter becomes N times the per-unit gain. Reproduced on
admin/goodwe's two-master rig against this tree: -400 W export overshoot at
gain 0.6, and at gain 1.0 - which config.yaml accepts as its documented maximum
- a permanent 4000 W peak-to-peak limit cycle, commands alternating
1000/2000/1000/0 W, with NOT ONE GUARD FIRING. The sign watchdog is evaluated on
every cycle and never trips, because the disagreement flips on alternate ticks
and never holds its 180 s window.
WHAT WAS BUILT. `app/allocator.py`, host-side and strictly above the driver
seam. It consumes intervals and a number and nothing else - no claims, no
priorities, and no measurement, because an allocator that read P1 would be a
SECOND integrator on the site measurement.
* ENVELOPE CLAMP, from ARB-03 stage 1's `UnitBounds`, read PER TICK. `plan()`
is a pure function and the module holds no state, so there is nowhere for a
construction-time envelope to be cached.
* WATER-FILL by weight, with the surplus of a full unit moving to the others.
Weights express PREFERENCE, envelopes express PERMISSION: a zero weight is
honoured while another unit has headroom and overridden when it does not,
because the SUM is the safety property and stranding capacity behind a
comfort choice manufactures a standing error at the meter.
* LARGEST-REMAINDER ROUNDING. The target is rounded ONCE, at the top; every
sum below that line is integer arithmetic, so it cannot drift. Measured: a
per-unit round() drifts -125 W over 50 000 ticks at three inverters.
* THE ALLOCATION RECORD, with `unmet_w`, `dropped` and a per-unit reason.
`ok` is one boolean for SAFETY-28 to gate on, and `unmet_w` is deliberately
NOT fused into it - a saturated inverter must not park the whole site.
THE STABILITY PROPERTY IS STRUCTURAL. With sum(a_i) = 1 the gain at the meter is
sum(a_i * g_i), a convex combination of the per-unit gains, so it lies in
[min g_i, max g_i] FOR ANY SPLIT. That is what makes the weights a comfort
choice rather than a tuning parameter, and it is why a bad split cannot
destabilise the site. Graded directly, and measured end to end: 90/10, 50/50 and
100/0 give a bit-identical aggregate trace at the meter, and a gain sweep to 1.0
at every split has a flat tail at all 84 combinations.
THE TWO REFUSALS main.py NOW MAKES, AND WHY THERE ARE TWO. `allocated=False` no
longer means "no allocator"; it means no safe split EXISTS - a mis-routed claim,
an empty envelope set, or a split that could only be made by commanding one pack
to charge while another discharges. Separately, and this guard is the price of
making allocate() succeed rather than something inherited, main.py refuses to
act on a valid split it cannot DELIVER: there is one `setpoint_entity`, so
writing the site target to the one inverter it can reach would over-command that
inverter by exactly the other's share. Commanding a partial site is a worse
instruction than commanding nothing. DEV-02 gives it the second writer.
scope_violations() IS NOW CONSUMED, AND AS A REFUSAL. ARB-03 left it logging
without changing the resolution. A mis-routed claim means the number about to be
divided may itself be wrong, and dividing a number that may be wrong is worse
than not dividing it - the same answer clause 3 already gives a contradiction.
It is NOT promoted into an envelope: a unit-scoped claim that landed on the site
names no unit, so promoting it would mean guessing one, or applying one
inverter's rating to a sibling that does not have it.
AT N<=1 IT IS A PASS-THROUGH, BYTE-IDENTICAL: the share is the site target, as a
float, unrounded and unclamped. All 17 existing suites replay unedited.
test_peakguard.py part 10h and test_arbiter.py part 7 were RE-AIMED, not
deleted. PR #40's reviewer proved that refusal branch was unreachable and
untested once; removing its trigger without giving it a new one would have
rebuilt the hole. Part 10h now drives three real cycles - a deliverable split, a
dead sibling, and every master stale - and grades all three.
KNOWN AND NOT CLOSED HERE: at a roster of two the loop's `actual_w` is one
inverter's power used as a site measurement, because the add-on binds a single
`inverter_power` sensor. That is the SENSING half of the same N=1 identity this
card removes from the COMMANDING half, and it makes the aggregate trace
split-dependent below gain 1.0. Measured with its counterfactual in test_alloc.py
part 8 and tools/alloc_sim.py --splits. It belongs to DEV-02.
Verified: all 18 suites green in the CI image. 16 mutations run through
tools/mutation_run.sh on a purged tree; 13 red, and the 3 survivors are recorded
in test_alloc.py part 12 with the reason each cannot be caught.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
38f6680639 |
ARB-03: pin all eight actuator call sites statically
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 3m45s
The independent review of PR #40 found AC 6 met at three of the eight claim construction sites while the check claimed to cover the class - this repository's named failure mode, a check observing something other than what it claimed, reproduced inside the check written to prevent it. WHAT WAS WRONG. Part 10g's only call-site check was a real two-inverter cycle. That cycle is auto, P1-healthy, no maintenance procedure, no tripped sign watchdog, the guard idle and arbitrage off, so it reaches `device`, `supervised` and `loop` and nothing else - three of the eight direct appends in `Controller.cycle()`. Its own check text nevertheless read "the line a mis-typed `actuator_of(...)` at a call site goes red on", and the PR body's mutation table presented it as covering the class. The reviewer proved the gap on the shipped tree: `actuator_of("maintenance")` -> `actuator_of("peak")` at the maintenance-shaping append left test_arbiter.py, test_peakguard.py and test_arbitrage.py ALL GREEN, while at a roster of two it built a site loop of -1500 W against the guard's site `lo` of 1500 W and the now-misrouted charge-only `hi = 0` - `lo > hi`, arbiter clause 3, 0 W IN THE BILLED QUARTER, SAFETY-25 §0a's fatal case from a one-word typo. The same mutation at the `failsafe` append survived too. The runtime detector does fire - `scope_violations()` names it - but it only logs; nothing graded it. THE FIX, over machinery already present. Part 10f's AST scan already reads each `claims.append(...)` in `Controller.cycle()`. All eight direct appends expose their actuator statically as `actuator=self.actuator_of('<literal>')`, so 10g now requires that literal to EQUAL the source the claim is filed under, read as SOURCE TEXT rather than evaluated - `actuator_of("peak")` at the maintenance append is the same VALUE at the shipped roster of one and a different string here. That pins all eight routing sites, on the line the typo is written, in every configuration and at every roster, exactly the way 10f pins the source set. Two further lines keep the scan from going vacuous: every direct append must be readable in that shape (a computed or hand-written actuator fails there), and the ten appends must still account for 10f's eight sources. The two INDIRECT appends carry no `actuator=` at the call site to mis-type. `peak_claim` and `arb_claim` are routed where their claim is built, and are pinned there - `peakguard.claim()` by the SWEEP_SITE sweep over every load x elapsed x battery x SoC x floor combination, `arbitrage.claim()` by test_arbitrage.py. 10g now says so at the line, and says which three of the eight its dynamic cycle actually sees, rather than rounding up. MEASURED, NOT ARGUED. Each of the eight direct appends mutated in turn to a wrong actuator - device->loop, supervised->peak, failsafe->safety, safety(stopped)->device, safety(inputs missing)->maintenance, maintenance(SET)->loop, maintenance(shaping)->peak, loop->supervised - each on a purged tree via tools/mutation_run.sh over all 17 files. All eight RED, every one of them on the new line. TWO SURVIVING MUTATIONS OF THE SAME CLASS, ALSO CLOSED. * `resolve()` did not have to honour the roster it was given: `if units is None:` -> `if True:` left the whole suite green. Ignoring the argument makes a unit that filed nothing this cycle cease to exist - a site of two reads as a site of one and stage 3 passes the whole grid target through to the inverter that spoke, which is ARCH-01's fault with its own evidence removed. test_arbiter.py part 7 now grades it on the one case that separates the two, a SILENT unit. Mutation RED in test_arbiter.py and test_peakguard.py. * main.py's N>=2 refusal was unreachable and ungraded: `if not resolution.allocated:` -> `if False:` left the whole suite green, so the right instinct was one refactor away from being deleted as dead code. The guard is KEPT - the alternative default is the ARCH-01 fault - and new part 10h grades it on the two-inverter cycle that already existed: the 0 W, the `failsafe` winner, the log line naming the roster size, and the write that follows. Mutation RED. AND THE WORDING CORRECTED. main.py does not "refuse to write" on `allocated=False`. It SUBSTITUTES a 0 W failsafe and then calls `write_setpoint(0.0)` like any other cycle. 0 W is the correct fail-toward-inaction direction and the log text is accurate about what it refuses - to BROADCAST the site target - but "refuses to write" overstates the code. Said as what it does, in the CHANGELOG, at the branch in main.py, and in 10h's own check text. `resolve()`'s docstring now says the roster argument has to be HONOURED, which is not the same as existing. 17/17 green on a purged tree. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com> |
||
|
adminandClaude Opus 5
|
06f95e0a64 |
ARB-03: restore Claim.actuator and make resolve() three-stage
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 3m45s
specs.md:467 declares `actuator: str` as the FIRST field of `Claim`.
app/arbiter.py:55 had no such field. The specification designed
per-actuator claims and the implementation dropped it, so every claim was
implicitly about "the one and only actuator", resolve() returned one scalar
Resolution.target_w, and main.py assigned it to one self.target. THERE WAS
NO SEAM AN ALLOCATOR COULD OCCUPY - and ARCH-01 (specs.md §6.2, 2026-09-02)
decided the site grid target is ALLOCATED across several inverters and never
broadcast. This is a regression fix against the written design; creating that
seam is the whole of the change.
WHY IT MATTERS, IN THE UNITS THE SYSTEM IS BILLED IN. The control primitive
is meter emulation: the master reports a fabricated grid reading and the
inverter regulates itself to it, so one number means "the battery moves X W"
to the add-on and "the grid is at X W" to the inverter - an identity that
holds only at N=1. Broadcast one target to two inverters and each supplies it
in full; the loop gain at the meter becomes N times the per-unit gain, which
at the gain config.yaml:374 accepts is a permanent limit cycle with every
watchdog in §11.2 reporting healthy. And a per-inverter reserve filed as a
site `hi` against the peak guard's site `lo` is `lo > hi`, arbiter clause 3,
0 W IN THE BILLED QUARTER - the parked battery SAFETY-25's memo calls fatal.
THE SPLIT, VERIFIED AT EACH CONSTRUCTION SITE RATHER THAN ACCEPTED FROM THE
SURVEY. Four sources are about the GRID CONNECTION and are SITE claims:
`loop` (compute() regulates grid_w, the P1 measurement, and §6.2's whole
architecture is one integrator on P1 whose output is then split), `peak` (the
15-minute average offtake AT the grid connection, which is what the capacity
tariff bills - one quarter-hour peak per site, not one per pack),
`arbitrage` (buys and sells at the grid against a day-ahead price; the price
is a property of the connection and the energy crosses the meter) and
`safety` (both construction sites read: "stopped" is the operator switching
control off for the site, "inputs missing" is the site's own meter gone -
neither is about a pack, and both must stop every inverter).
Four are about a pack, a device or one write and are PER-INVERTER: `device`
(one inverter's own reported min/max - there is no site rating),
`supervised` (max_w caps what may be WRITTEN to one setpoint entity, §11.3,
so it is scoped like `device` for the same reason), `maintenance` (§12's
recalibration is a pack procedure - drain THIS pack, charge THIS pack,
recalibrate THIS pack's counter) and `failsafe`. `failsafe` is the entry that
needed the reading rather than the survey: SAFETY-02's EVIDENCE is site-wide
(it compares P1 against the standing command) but its CONCLUSION is
"the unit I am driving is pushing power the wrong way" and its remedy is to
park that unit. At N>=2 the same evidence cannot be attributed to a sibling
this controller never commanded, so a site-wide stop would park an inverter
this watchdog never graded. The reasoning for all eight is recorded AT THE
LINE, in arbiter.CLAIM_SCOPE and again at each claims.append in main.py.
WHAT WAS BUILT. resolve() is three stages, each a separate function so a test
can construct a case at any one of them:
pre_resolve() - one inverter's own claims -> that unit's interval. Clauses
1 and 2 transposed: the unit's own winning SET gates its
own limits. The SET's value travels BESIDE the interval,
not inside it - folding a -2500 W drain into
[-2500, -2500] would turn "clamped to max_w" into
"contradicts max_w", a different and wrong answer.
site_resolve() - THE SHIPPED ARBITER, UNCHANGED. Same code, new name.
allocate() - THE SEAM, AND DELIBERATELY NOT AN ALLOCATOR. ALLOC-01
builds it. At N<=1 it passes the target through (§6.2's
identity). At N>=2 it DECLINES - no shares,
allocated=False - and main.py refuses to write rather than
broadcast, because the obvious placeholder (hand the target
to each) is the fault ARCH-01 was filed about and no guard
we have can tell it apart from the real thing.
THE CONTRADICTION IS NOT GUARDED AGAINST, IT CANNOT BE WRITTEN DOWN. The
partition is by `actuator` and it is a partition: a unit's `hi` and the site's
`lo` are never both terms of one `lo > hi` test. Constructed and swept - 40
filings (every per-inverter source x unit x bound, including a unit
contradicting ITSELF at lo 900 > hi 100) against a live site floor, and not
one moves the site target or raises a contradiction. A unit's own impossible
pair parks that unit and says so on its own bounds; it does not park the site.
That is SAFETY-25 §0c's table made mechanical.
AT N=1 THIS IS A PURE REFACTOR, AND THAT IS PROVEN RATHER THAN ASSERTED. With
one inverter the fabricated grid reading and the battery setpoint are the same
number, so the grid connection and the only unit ARE one actuator:
actuator_for() routes every source to the site, no claim is filed on a unit,
stage 2 sees the whole list and answers what the shipped arbiter answered.
All 17 suites replay UNEDITED above the ARB-03 sections and are green on the
same numbers; test_arbiter.py additionally runs 13 claim lists through both
resolve() and site_resolve() and compares target, winner, binder,
contradiction flag, the considered list and the operator line.
EVIDENCE, BY BREAKING EACH THING (tools/mutation_run.sh, purged tree):
* Claim's dataclass default emptied -> RED (test_arbiter)
...and it survived until the check was added: the two helpers pass their
own default down, so the FIELD's default never ran. Now checked directly.
* `peak` reclassified SCOPE_UNIT -> RED (arbiter x4, peakguard x2)
* `maintenance` reclassified SCOPE_SITE -> RED (arbiter x4, peakguard)
* the N=1 identity dropped in actuator_for() -> RED (arbiter, peakguard
incl. the maintenance/peak suppression checks, freeze) - which is the
measurement that says splitting at N=1 would be a behaviour change
* resolve() stops partitioning -> RED (arbiter x4)
* allocate() broadcasts at N>=2 -> RED (arbiter x2)
* stage 1 drops clause-2 gating -> RED (arbiter)
* a call site routes `device` through `loop` -> RED (peakguard 10g)
* SAFETY-25 Option B built as a ninth source -> RED (peakguard 10f, both
halves, plus 10g) - the tripwire still bites
SAFETY-24's asymmetry proof is re-run and holds: 0 negative floors over the
shipped sweep, `hi` still +inf on every claim the guard files, and it now also
asserts every one of them is on the SITE actuator - a floor bound to one
inverter's share would leave the site, the thing the capacity tariff meters,
with no floor at all.
test_peakguard.py part 10f is kept, not adapted around. `source` is still
Claim.set()'s first positional argument precisely so its AST scan keeps
reading it, which is why `actuator` is the LAST field of Claim and not the
first - moving `source` off position 0 would silently blind the tripwire that
guards SAFETY-25's deferred option. The one adaptation is `**kw` on its spy,
so main.py's roster passes through unread rather than being silently dropped.
New part 10g pins CLAIM_SCOPE to the same eight-source set and grades a REAL
two-inverter cycle, which is the only place a mis-typed actuator_of(...) at a
call site is observable - at N=1 every source legitimately routes to the site,
so a swap there is invisible by construction.
No config key, no option, no operator surface, no default moved. Inverter B
does not exist yet and nothing here measures it.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
|
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
bdd7f18a54 |
OPT-04: charge cheap, discharge expensive - and only when it pays
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 3m16s
Four cards built the price stack and nothing traded on it. app/arbitrage.py is §10.1's priority 3, and it consumes all four rather than re-deciding anything: whether a trade is permitted at all, on which two hours, against which widened threshold is TariffPlan.arbitrage()'s answer, and that answer cannot be obtained without first saying whether the peak guard is holding. §9.1's "peak shaving outranks arbitrage" is therefore honoured structurally - there is no path to a spread that skips the question - and again in the arbiter, where P_PEAK (50) clamps a claim filed at P_ARBITRAGE (30). A guard that never ran is not a guard that is clear. On meter_source off the peak guard is never evaluated; that third state is carried as None and refuses, because charging at the rail creates the billed quantity while nothing measures the quarter. validate.py refuses that configuration too, along with arbitrage armed with no price source and a SoC floor at or above the ceiling. §17: never export into a negative price. The guard is on the hour being sold into, not on the spread - a day priced -0.30 .. -0.05 clears any threshold and its dearest hour is still negative. Buying in a negative hour stays allowed. resolve_tariff() may open an HTTPS connection and the tick feeds the ESP32 heartbeat, so the fetch runs in its own task at a 30 min cadence and the tick reads an attribute and an age bound. test_arbitrage.py section 8 asserts that structurally on the shipped AST: a fetch put back on cycle() is red. AC4 is NOT met and is not restated - this repository holds no price history. Section 7 replays a synthetic year and asserts the property that does not need real prices: every executed round trip cleared its own widened requirement, and zero discharges landed in the 522 negative-priced hours. At the shipped 0.10 EUR/kWh threshold a realistic Belgian day/night site does not trade at all. Reported, not tuned: that number and FCST-03's widening factors are one product decision and it is the owner's. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC |
||
|
adminandClaude Opus 5
|
017b798fe6 |
Precedence arbiter: one rule instead of an if/else ladder
Two controllers writing one actuator is the failure this system exists to
avoid. "Exactly one writer" was true, but only as a convention held up by
careful reading - which does not survive an EV charger and a heat pump wanting
the same battery.
Strategies now return claims and arbiter.py resolves them:
highest-priority `set` wins (none at all means 0 W), then every `limit` whose
priority is >= that set's applies, most restrictive first; contradictory
limits command 0 W and are flagged as the bug they are.
The second clause is the whole point. "Money outranks maintenance" used to be a
hand-written exception inside a Jinja template; it is now a consequence of the
priorities - the charge-only limit binds the loop but cannot bind a
higher-priority peak claim.
Also: maintenance shaping moved out of control.py, which is a controller again
and not a policy engine; the loop now tracks the arbiter's actual output rather
than its own last wish, so it does not jump when it regains control; and every
decision explains itself ("loop -> 0 W, limited by maintenance(charge-only)")
in the UI and the log.
19 new assertions in test_arbiter.py, each one a precedence question someone
will eventually ask in the field. Deployed to the reference site as 0.2.0 and
holding grid within a few watts of zero.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_016NckgXecasQb2eSsPYNSW6
|