91ea676af4accb5d75dffff73fa1e76074b9acbb
5
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 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 |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
878a6ce452 |
MAINT-04: refuse a maintenance charge the ceiling cannot deliver
config.yaml shipped max_w 2000 against maintenance_charge_w 2500. The cheap-window shaping files Claim.limit(hi = -maintenance_charge_w) against the supervised SAFETY limit's lo = -max_w, so lo > hi - the arbiter's clause 3, correctly resolved to 0 W and logged as a CONTRADICTION. Maintenance silently never charged in a cheap window on a default install, and the only evidence read like a bug in the arbiter rather than like the two numbers the operator set. validate_startup_config() now refuses maintenance_charge_w > max_w, the same shape as CFG-01's sign_disagree_w >= max_w. Equality is reachable (-max_w is a single valid point) and is not refused. Demonstrated by starting the add-on on the pre-fix pair: exit 78 and the refusal banner. maintenance_discharge_w was checked rather than assumed and is NOT the same case: the drain phase OWNS the actuator (Claim.set at P_MAINTENANCE), so the ceiling clamps it to +2000 W and the arbiter's explain() names the clamp every cycle. Loud, and it still moves energy - warned, not refused. The shipped maintenance rates drop to 2000 so the defaults pass the rule; max_w was deliberately not raised, because it is the supervised safety ceiling. test_validate.py now reads config.yaml itself, so a default the validator refuses cannot ship again. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
e40eb0768d |
SAFETY-02: the P_PEAK assertion was pinning the test's copy of the gate
Review finding 2, and it is the same duplication `disagrees()` just removed, so
it gets the same fix rather than a follow-up card.
`following_from()` in test_watchdog.py was a TRANSCRIPTION of the gate in
main.py, carrying "keep the two in step" as an instruction - which is exactly the
arrangement that does not keep two things in step. Measured: editing the shipped
gate alone to `winner in ("loop", "peak")` left every suite green while the
watchdog went blind for the duration of every peak event. The row whose whole job
is to force whoever lands peak shaving to come and change an expectation did not
do that.
The expression is now `watchdog.loop_is_following()`, called by main.py and by
the test. One definition, two callers, same reasoning as `disagrees()`: the copy
that drifts is always the one in the harness doing the grading.
⚠️ AND EXTRACTING IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT - the drift proof still came out green
after the extraction, which is why it was worth running rather than assuming. The
realistic P_PEAK row has peak shaving asking for MORE than the loop, so the
magnitude term rejects it whatever `winner` says and masks the term under test. A
second row with peak asking for LESS makes `winner` the only deciding term. With
that row, widening the shipped gate fails two checks; without it, none.
Also enforcing the write ordering that was documented and not asserted: swapping
the two `store.set` calls passed everything. A store that fails the second write
now proves the property the ordering exists for - a crash mid-trip leaves a
reason with no latch, never a latch with no explanation. Swapping them now turns
that check red.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Du77usMj8XNKNFZGmUiWDa
|
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
cc4e88490b |
SAFETY-02 review: a latch that a restart clears is not a latch
BLOCKER. `auto` was persisted and `sign_wd.tripped` was not, so reconstructing the Controller against the same store - which is what a container restart does - brought it back ARMED, into the same fault, unattended: tripped=False, banner back to NOT READY, and it resumed commanding -1000 then -2000 W before re-tripping 180 s later. "Restart the add-on" is the first thing an operator looking at a FAILSAFE banner and a 0 W inverter will try, and under a supervisor that restarts a crashed add-on it is a loop of three-minute wrong-direction bursts. DOCS.md's "it does not clear itself" was false across a restart. `sign_tripped` and `sign_reason` are Store keys now, beside the maintenance state and for the reason store.py's own docstring gives. Written the moment the trip happens - reason first, flag second, so a crash between the two can never persist a latch with no explanation - restored in Controller.__init__, cleared only by the operator's start. The regression is covered: reverting the restore fails seven checks in test_watchdog.py. Review follow-ups, no behaviour change: - The arming gate is tested against the REAL arbiter. It is the decision the ticket turns on and it was asserted in three comment blocks and verified by nothing - every case passed `following` in as a literal. Twelve claim configurations now derive it from resolve(), including the redirect case `winner == "loop"` alone would have got wrong and the `lo` limit that raises magnitude without flipping sign. - The MQTT `status: "failsafe"` value is tested. The check that claimed to cover it restated the line above it and never touched the payload. - The worked example described a config that does not ship: at the defaults maintenance_charge_w 2500 against max_w 2000 is an arbiter contradiction and 0 W, not a -2500 W charge. Rewritten at 1500 W. The contradiction is a real pre-existing bug - a default cheap-window maintenance charge silently never happens - filed separately and deliberately not fixed here. - Forward hazard recorded at the gate: `winner == "loop"` disarms the watchdog under any higher-priority SET, and a peak-shaving strategy at P_PEAK IS grid-following in sign, so it would blind this for every peak event. - disagrees() is public so the replay harness stops carrying its own copy of the predicate it grades. - held_s takes the clock instead of reading one. - The two limits are now each stated in both places rather than one each. - The no-false-positive argument is tied to control.py's freeze permitting the command to cross zero; under the shrink-only encoding control.py records as rejected, this would false-trip on a load step. - Measured figures corrected: 93.4 % / 4212 of 17280, per-cluster 0.3/0.9/10.5/0.0, and the near-circularity of those figures is now stated rather than leaned on. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Du77usMj8XNKNFZGmUiWDa |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
9aed43990b |
SAFETY-02: a loop can be fresh, tracking and inside its rating and still push the wrong way
The stale-input watchdog asks whether the meter is still talking. The saturation freeze asks whether the inverter can follow. The output clamp asks whether the number is too big. A loop can pass all three while charging the battery out of the grid, because the only thing wrong is the sign. On 2026-08-20 a commercial controller did exactly that four times in one day, for up to 77 minutes at a stretch, reaching a commanded -14 768 W against a ±5000 W inverter. app/watchdog.py compares the emitted setpoint against the authoritative P1 figure and, when they oppose each other with both over 300 W for 180 s continuously, files a failsafe SET claim at P_SAFETY, commands 0 W and latches there until an operator starts control again. Validated against that day rather than against an argument: sim/replay_sign.py in the infra repo drives this module over the committed captures of both 2026-08-20 and the healthy 2026-08-23 and reaches 18 trips on the fault day - every one inside a window NOTES.md §4.7 accounts for - and 0 on the healthy day. The four episodes do share one signature: 0.3 / 0.9 / 10.5 / 0.0 % sign agreement inside them against 92.9 % healthy. Three decisions the ticket could not make: - It is DISARMED whenever the grid-following loop is not what is driving. Sign agreement is a property of a loop that follows the meter, and a maintenance grid charge opposes the meter by design - 2500 W of charge into a house drawing 500 W is +3000 W on the meter against a -2500 W command, for hours. The gate tests the emitted number, not the winning claim's name, because a limit claim can let the loop "win" and still replace its value. - The trip LATCHES. Commanding 0 W removes the command side of the comparison, so the disagreement always clears the moment the trip works. - sign_disagree_w at or above max_w is refused at startup. The arbiter never lets a command exceed max_w, so such a threshold leaves the watchdog incapable of firing while the status page still reports it armed. What it does not catch, said out loud: an inverter that ACTS opposite to its command moves the meter further the same way, leaving command and meter in agreement. That is the saturation freeze's job. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01Du77usMj8XNKNFZGmUiWDa |