TEL-12: several PV inverters, and one absent member is an absent TOTAL

0.11.0 shipped `pv_entity` as a single string. The reference site's owner
reported within minutes of it going live that they have several PV inverters
and could configure one - which is ordinary for a multi-string roof, not a
property of one house. `pv_entities` is the roster and the row carries the
SITE total.

⚠️ THE HARD PART IS ABSENCE, NOT THE LIST. Three configured, one `unavailable`,
and the sum of the other two is a SMALLER NUMBER INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM A REAL
ONE. Read back by OPT-10 that says "there was less PV than there was" - the "no
irradiance" conclusion the channel exists to TEST. So `pv.total()` answers
`None` the moment any configured entity is absent: the topic carries HA's own
`None`, the entity goes to `unknown`, the recorder records a GAP. The
alternative (the partial sum beside a contributor count) was implemented and
run as mutation N1b; it loses because the MQTT row is read COLD a week later by
an attribution that would believe it, while the qualifying count would live in a
second entity with its own history. The partial information is not thrown away -
the STATUS PAGE names every entity that reported, with its watts, and every one
that did not, with its reason, because that surface is read LIVE by a human who
wants the diagnostic.

⚠️ AND THE MIRROR: a member honestly reporting 0 W is SUMMED. The test is
`is None`, never falsiness - a roster that blanked the site on a zero would
report an absence on every clear evening.

THE SURFACE IS MEASURED, NOT PREFERRED. `pv_entity` could not become a list:
tools/supervisor_shape_probe.py §G shows Supervisor 2026.08.0 answering an
0.11.0 install's stored string with `Invalid list for option 'pv_entity'`, and
deepmerge's list strategy is `override` so a `[]` default does not rescue it -
the live add-on would not start. `match(.*)?` does accept both shapes and is
rejected for a different, measured reason: it validates nothing (a string, a
list and the integer 417 all pass) and renders as a plain text box. So
`pv_entities` joins `pv_entity` and REPLACES it when set, CFG-04's rule for
`inverters:`, with a status caution saying which key won - a union would
double-count the inverter the old key still names.

STILL NOT A CONTROL INPUT. tools/tel11_pv_trace.py was extended rather than
replaced and now grades five claims over three document sets. The control hash
is UNMOVED - 846a10a5b89e… on `unset` and on `one`, on both trees - and the
roster control document is byte-identical between the two trees. 2/5 is a claim
TEL-11 could not make: with 0.11.0 as the baseline, "one entity behaves exactly
as 0.11.0 does" is a real cross-tree identity over control AND telemetry.

⚠️ TEL-11's OWN `--compare` REFUSAL HAD TO CHANGE, and that is MUTATION.md habit
24: a discriminator defined as "the baseline lacks this feature" dies on the
release that ships the feature, and dies as a false refusal.

Twelve mutations, each on a fresh purged `cp -a`, no survivors. N5 is +0 B
(`sum` -> `max`, the same three characters) and was run on a fresh copy with
`cmp` confirming the edit on disk. The fixture is three distinct NON-ZERO
contributions in two units with absence driven at EVERY position - a member
contributing 0 W could go absent without moving the sum of the rest, which is
habit 23 with a coinciding value in the arithmetic rather than in the plant.

31/31 in the CI image. Not deployable as merged: config.yaml stays at 0.11.0,
so predeploy_check.py reports a NO-OP until PKG cuts a version. A CHANGELOG
entry is wanted and deliberately not written - 11b forbids `## Unreleased` and
the bump is PKG's call; DECISIONS/TEL-12-several-pv-inverters.md is the
material it needs.

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

.gitea/workflows/checks.yml

@@ -3,12 +3,35 @@
 # of real coverage including a wall-clock cadence test, and not one machine ever
 # ran them. Every merge here was a human reading a diff.
 #
-# ⚠️ NO `paths:` FILTER, AND ITS ABSENCE IS LOAD-BEARING. Branch protection on
-# release/1.0 requires the context `checks / unit (pull_request)`. Gitea leaves a
-# required context it never receives PENDING forever, so the moment this workflow
-# learns to sit a PR out, that PR becomes unmergeable. Condition a STEP if you
+# ⚠️ NO EVENT FILTER OF ANY KIND - NO `paths:`, AND SINCE CI-9 NO `branches:`
+# EITHER - AND THAT ABSENCE IS LOAD-BEARING. Branch protection on release/1.0
+# requires the context `checks / unit (pull_request)`. Condition a STEP if you
 # must; never the workflow.
 #
+# ⚠️ CI-01 WROTE THE REASON DOWN WRONG, AND THE WRONG REASON WAS THE SAFE-
+# SOUNDING ONE. It said an unreceived required context sits PENDING forever, so
+# a sat-out pull request becomes unmergeable - annoying, but fail-safe. That is
+# not what this Gitea does. MEASURED on Gitea 1.27.3, 2026-09-19, throwaway
+# PR #94: when a workflow exists but its event filter does not match, Gitea does
+# not stay silent. It POSTS the required context itself, with state `skipped`:
+#
+#   GET /api/v1/repos/admin/goodwe-addon/commits/<head sha>/statuses
+#     [{"status":"skipped","context":"checks / unit (pull_request)",
+#       "description":"Skipped","target_url":""}]      <- no run, no job, no url
+#
+#   GET /api/v1/repos/admin/goodwe-addon/commits/<head sha>/status
+#     {"state":"success","total_count":1}              <- the rollup LAUNDERS it
+#
+# and Gitea's merge gate accepts it. Same PR, same head sha, one status on it
+# and that status a skip, POST .../pulls/94/merge answered 409 `head out of
+# date` - the 409 being a deliberately wrong `head_commit_id` in the probe, i.e.
+# the request had ALREADY CLEARED BRANCH PROTECTION. The control, a required
+# context with no status at all, answered 405 `Not all required status checks
+# successful`. So the true failure mode is the exact inverse of the one written
+# here before: sitting a pull request out does not make it unmergeable, it makes
+# it MERGEABLE WITHOUT EVER BEING TESTED, and the badge says success while it
+# happens. Fail-open, not fail-closed. Do not reintroduce a filter here.
+#
 # ⚠️ THE RUNNER IS SHARED WITH THE OTHER REPO'S RIG. `goodwe-runner` on
 # 192.168.2.147 carries the labels `self-hosted` and `goodwe-rig` and is
 # registered `:host`, and it is the only runner there is - so this job wears the
@@ -23,9 +46,116 @@
 # that step; a green from this workflow is a claim about content that can land.
 name: checks
 
+# ⚠️ CI-9: `pull_request:` TAKES NO `branches:` LIST, ON PURPOSE. It used to
+# read `branches: [release/1.0, master]`, which meant a STACKED pull request -
+# one whose base is another feature branch rather than a release branch - did
+# not match, and so was skipped, laundered to `success`, and mergeable untested
+# by the mechanism described at the top of this file.
+#
+# ⚠️ AND RETARGETING DID NOT REPAIR IT, WHICH IS WHAT MADE THIS P1. The skip is
+# a COMMIT STATUS ON THE HEAD SHA, not a property of the pull request, so moving
+# the base afterwards leaves it exactly where it was. Observed live on PR #93
+# (2026-09-19): retargeted TEL-10 -> release/1.0, and the 10:05:00 `skipped`
+# stayed attached to head a6af332 with the rollup still reading success. It was
+# caught by a human who forced a real execution by reopening the pull request
+# (run 799, 10:56). Reproduced deliberately on throwaway PR #94: retargeted onto
+# a branch carrying a byte-identical copy of release/1.0's protection rule, and
+# the single `skipped` status survived the retarget unchanged - no new run, no
+# new status - and still cleared the gate.
+#
+# ⚠️ WHY NOT FIX THIS AT THE GATE INSTEAD, which would be the better place. It
+# cannot be done. Gitea's branch protection cannot express "this context must be
+# SUCCESS" as opposed to "this context must be PRESENT AND NOT FAILING". The
+# whole of its status-check vocabulary is two fields - `enable_status_check`
+# (bool) and `status_check_contexts` (a list of globs MATCHING CONTEXT NAMES) -
+# confirmed against this server's own schema at /swagger.v1.json, definitions
+# EditBranchProtectionOption and CreateBranchProtectionOption. There is no field
+# for the required STATE anywhere in either. The success/skip comparison lives
+# in Gitea's compiled code, so the only lever left is upstream of it: make sure
+# the context is never a skip in the first place. Hence this block.
+#
+# ⚠️ WHAT THIS COSTS, stated honestly, because it is a real trade. Every pull
+# request now runs the full suite, including the intermediate steps of a stack
+# that nobody intends to merge on its own. A run is ~8 minutes wall clock
+# (run 799: 7m55s) on a runner that is `capacity: 1` and shared with the other
+# repo's rig, so each extra run is ~8 minutes of slot that a rig campaign then
+# queues behind.
+#
+# SCALE OF THE NEW WORK, re-derived from the API and stated with its denominator,
+# because the first version of this paragraph had a made-up one. Counting the 93
+# pull requests that predate this ticket (#1..#93; CI-9's own #94..#98 excluded,
+# and note /pulls caps a page at 50, so this needs paging to see at all): 92 were
+# opened against release/1.0 and would have run anyway, and exactly ONE was
+# stacked - #2, TEL-01 -> SAFETY-04, closed unmerged, 2026-08-24. No pull request
+# has ever targeted `master`, so half the old filter was dead from the start.
+#
+# ⚠️ THAT 92 IS AN UPPER BOUND, NOT A CENSUS, and the reason is this very bug.
+# The API reports a pull request's CURRENT base, so one that was opened stacked
+# and later retargeted is recorded against its final base and is invisible here.
+# #93 is precisely that case - opened 2026-09-19T10:05:00 on TEL-10, retargeted,
+# merged into release/1.0 at 11:05:26 the same morning, under three hours before
+# CI-9 was opened - and it counts in the 92. So the true historical stacking rate
+# is somewhere above 1/93, and unmeasurable from here.
+#
+# The bill is therefore small today and grows with however much stacking the team
+# adopts. It is worth paying: the alternative is that the cheap case stays
+# untested and indistinguishable from the tested one.
+#
+# ⚠️ THIS DOES NOT CHANGE GITEA'S ACCEPTANCE OF A `skipped` REQUIRED CONTEXT -
+# that half is in its compiled code and is not reachable from this repository.
+# The CONSEQUENCE, though, is very largely closeable from here, and is closed:
+# after this edit there is nothing in this repository that produces a skip -
+# there is exactly one workflow file, it now has no event filter of any kind,
+# and the other candidate cause was MEASURED and is not one. The `guard the
+# trigger` step below then keeps it that way mechanically rather than by asking
+# the next editor to read this comment.
+#
+# ⚠️ READ THE BLIND SPOTS ON THAT STEP BEFORE TRUSTING THE SENTENCE ABOVE.
+# "Mechanically" holds only for a reintroduced filter that still names the
+# PR's own base. For blind spots 1 and 3 the defence IS this comment, because
+# the guard lives inside the workflow that a filter makes Gitea skip. Blind
+# spot 3 is the one that matters: a filter naming a branch THIS pull request
+# does not target is itself skipped, lands green and untested, and then every
+# subsequent pull request the filter DOES NOT NAME is skipped too. That is the
+# gate off, silently.
+#
+# ⚠️ THAT DIRECTION IS THE WHOLE POINT AND IT IS EASY TO WRITE BACKWARDS. A
+# pull request that MATCHES the filter still runs; it is the one the filter
+# excludes that Gitea sits out, reports `skipped`, and the rollup launders
+# into `success`. An earlier draft of this very clause said "matching it is
+# skipped", which is the inverse of the measurement and contradicted the
+# paragraph directly below.
+#
+# ⚠️ AND THE DANGEROUS ONE IS NOT `branches: [main]`, WHICH AT LEAST LOOKS
+# WRONG. It is `branches: [release/1.0]`, which looks like tightening onto the
+# protected branch and is what a careful person would write. Every day-to-day
+# pull request still runs and still goes green, so nothing appears broken -
+# and the only thing switched off is the `release/1.0` -> `master` release
+# PR, i.e. the one whose content reaches an installed system. SEC-2 made that
+# PR the mandated release path (docs/RELEASE.md), so this is now a live route
+# rather than a hypothetical one.
+#
+# Closing it needs a SECOND permanently unfiltered workflow posting its own
+# context, with that context added to the `status_check_contexts` of BOTH
+# `release/1.0` AND `master` - both carry the rule since SEC-2, and adding it
+# to one alone leaves the hole open on the other. A forge change, with the
+# owner.
+#
+# THE MEASUREMENT, because the obvious guess is wrong and was nearly written
+# here as fact. A skip-ci keyword in a commit message (`[skip ci]`, `[ci skip]`,
+# `[no ci]`, `[skip actions]`, `[actions skip]`) does NOT behave like a filter
+# miss. On throwaway PR #94, head b36effb, commit subject ending `[skip ci]`:
+#
+#   .../commits/b36effb/statuses   ->  []                  <- NO status, not a skip
+#   .../commits/b36effb/status     ->  {"state":"pending"} <- so the rollup is pending
+#   POST .../pulls/94/merge        ->  405 Not all required status checks successful
+#
+# i.e. skip-ci is FAIL-CLOSED - it withholds the context entirely, which is the
+# pending-forever behaviour CI-01's header wrongly attributed to a filter miss.
+# It blocks the merge rather than laundering it, so it needs no fix and no
+# app.ini change. Only the filter miss ever posted a `skipped`.
 on:
   pull_request:
-    branches: [release/1.0, master]
   workflow_dispatch:
 
 # ⚠️ NO `concurrency:` BLOCK, AND ITS ABSENCE IS AS LOAD-BEARING AS THE MISSING
@@ -224,6 +354,140 @@ jobs:
             exit 1
           fi
 
+      # ⚠️ THE GUARD ON THE TRIGGER. THIS STEP EXISTS BECAUSE PROSE ALREADY
+      # FAILED IN THIS FILE, ONCE, FOR TWENTY DAYS.
+      #
+      # `git show 9c1a23328a` is CI-01's first commit. It shipped the header
+      # "⚠️ NO `paths:` FILTER, AND ITS ABSENCE IS LOAD-BEARING" and the line
+      # `branches: [release/1.0, master]` IN THE SAME COMMIT, EIGHTEEN LINES
+      # APART. The comment forbade one kind of event filter while the code
+      # directly above the job carried another, and nobody caught it through 84
+      # merges until the gate let a stacked pull request through. So the whole of
+      # CI-9's fix rests on an invariant - "checks.yml has no event filter" -
+      # that has already been silently violated in this exact file by the person
+      # who wrote the warning against violating it. A louder comment is not a
+      # remedy for that. A red step is.
+      #
+      # WHY THIS CAN WORK AT ALL, given CI-9 rejected the card's option 3 (a step
+      # that detects its own workflow having been skipped) as impossible. That
+      # option is impossible because a skipped workflow runs no steps, so there
+      # is nothing alive to notice. This is the different, tractable case: it
+      # fires on the pull request that REINTRODUCES a filter, and it does so
+      # whenever the filter being reintroduced STILL NAMES THAT PULL REQUEST'S
+      # OWN BASE - the ordinary case, because a filter put back by hand names
+      # the release branch people are actually targeting. The edit then has to
+      # get past this step before it can start causing skips. It is a ratchet,
+      # not a skip detector.
+      #
+      # ⚠️ AND IT IS THE HEAD'S WORKFLOW THAT DECIDES WHETHER ANYTHING RUNS, NOT
+      # THE BASE'S. An earlier draft of this comment claimed the reintroducing
+      # pull request "is still graded by the unfiltered workflow which is on the
+      # base today". That was wrong, it contradicted the checkout step's own note
+      # a few lines below, and the error was not cosmetic: it made this step
+      # sound like an unconditional ratchet, which is exactly the false comfort
+      # CI-9 exists to stamp out. MEASURED on PR #101 - head carrying a filter
+      # that excludes the base, base carrying the unfiltered workflow - and the
+      # result was no run at all, the context posted `skipped`, the rollup
+      # reading `success`, and the gate CLEARED (409). Gitea takes the workflow
+      # file from refs/pull/<n>/head, so a head that filters itself out is simply
+      # never graded, and nothing on the base can reach out and stop it. That is
+      # what blind spot 3 below is made of.
+      #
+      # WHAT IT INSPECTS is the MERGED tree in $WS - the content that would
+      # actually land on the base - not the branch tip and not the copy of this
+      # file that Gitea used to decide whether to run. Those are three different
+      # trees here (see the long note on the checkout step) and only the merged
+      # one is the thing being authorised.
+      #
+      # ⚠️ THREE ACKNOWLEDGED BLIND SPOTS. NOT ONE OF THEM IS CLOSEABLE FROM
+      # INSIDE THIS FILE, and the reason is the same in all three: each is a case
+      # where THIS WORKFLOW IS ITSELF THE THING THAT GETS SKIPPED, and a guard
+      # that lives inside a skipped workflow does not run. Closing them needs a
+      # SECOND, permanently unfiltered workflow whose own context is added to
+      # release/1.0's `status_check_contexts`, so that something survives to
+      # report when this file is sat out. That is a forge change and the
+      # repository owner's decision; it is being put to them separately and is
+      # deliberately NOT held as a blocker on CI-9.
+      #
+      #   1. A reintroduced `paths:` filter crafted to exclude the reintroducing
+      #      pull request's OWN diff would skip that pull request, so this step
+      #      would not run to object to it.
+      #
+      #   2. An edit that lands on a feature branch through a stacked pull
+      #      request is graded by the HEAD's workflow, so a filter already
+      #      present in the head hides the edit from this step - until that
+      #      branch is proposed for release/1.0, where (unless it is case 3) the
+      #      base matches the reintroduced filter and this step runs and bites.
+      #      Caught at the release boundary, which is the boundary that matters.
+      #
+      #   3. ⚠️ THE WORST OF THE THREE, AND WORSE THAN BOTH OF THE OTHERS PUT
+      #      TOGETHER: a reintroduced `branches:` filter that simply DOES NOT
+      #      NAME THE BASE escapes this step entirely, because the pull request
+      #      carrying it is itself skipped. It takes no craft and no malice to
+      #      write - `branches: [main]` copied out of a GitHub template, or a
+      #      tidy-up to `[master]`, a branch that NO pull request in this
+      #      repository's history has ever targeted - and it arrives as a
+      #      skipped, laundered, untested merge into release/1.0.
+      #
+      #      What makes it categorically worse is what happens the moment after.
+      #      Once that file is ON release/1.0, every subsequent pull request is
+      #      graded against it and every one of them is skipped too. This is not
+      #      the stacked case leaking through a crack; it is the gate off
+      #      completely, for everything, silently, with every badge green. The
+      #      only thing standing between the repository and that state today is
+      #      a human reading this file - which is precisely the kind of defence
+      #      this step exists because it has already failed once (9c1a23328a).
+      #
+      # It is deliberately a FAILURE and not a warning: a warning would leave
+      # the required context green, which is the precise defect CI-9 is about.
+      - name: guard the trigger - refuse a checks.yml that has regained an event filter
+        run: |
+          set -eu
+          f="$WS/goodwe-addon/.gitea/workflows/checks.yml"
+          test -f "$f" || { echo "checks.yml is missing from the merged tree."; exit 1; }
+          # Walk the top-level `on:` block of the MERGED file. Full-line comments
+          # at column 0 are skipped outright - this file's own prose quotes
+          # `paths:` and `branches:` many times and must not trip its own guard -
+          # and an inline `#` is trimmed from any line that is kept.
+          bad=$(awk '
+            function scan(t) {
+              sub(/#.*/, "", t)
+              if (t ~ /(^|[^A-Za-z0-9_-])(branches|branches-ignore|paths|paths-ignore|tags|tags-ignore|types)[[:space:]]*:/)
+                return 1
+              return 0
+            }
+            /^[[:space:]]*#/ { next }
+            /^("on"|'"'"'on'"'"'|on)[[:space:]]*:/ {
+              inon = 1
+              rest = $0; sub(/^[^:]*:/, "", rest)
+              if (scan(rest)) print NR ": " $0
+              next
+            }
+            inon == 1 {
+              if ($0 ~ /^[[:space:]]*$/) next
+              if ($0 ~ /^[[:space:]]/) { if (scan($0)) print NR ": " $0; next }
+              inon = 0
+            }
+          ' "$f")
+          if [ -n "$bad" ]; then
+            echo "REFUSED: checks.yml has regained an event filter in its \`on:\` block."
+            echo "$bad"
+            echo
+            echo "  A filter means some pull request stops matching this workflow. Gitea does"
+            echo "  not stay silent about a workflow it sits out - it posts the required context"
+            echo "  \`checks / unit (pull_request)\` itself with state \`skipped\`, the combined"
+            echo "  status rolls that up as \`success\`, and the merge gate ACCEPTS it. That is"
+            echo "  CI-9: a pull request merged on a workflow that never ran a step. It was"
+            echo "  reproduced by merging PR #96 for real through a protected branch."
+            echo
+            echo "  Branch protection cannot save you here - it can require that a context is"
+            echo "  PRESENT, never that it is SUCCESS - so the filter is the whole defence."
+            echo "  If you genuinely need to narrow what runs, condition a STEP, never the"
+            echo "  workflow. See the \`on:\` block's comments for the measurements."
+            exit 1
+          fi
+          echo "OK: the \`on:\` block of the merged checks.yml carries no event filter."
+
       - name: build the test image (shipped deps, from apk - see .gitea/ci/Dockerfile)
         run: |
           set -eu

README.md

@@ -33,6 +33,8 @@ estop/rs485_log.py           optional RS485 e-stop / bus witness
 docs/GoodWe-RS485-Field-Guide.pdf  the guide techs carry (10pp, A4)
 docs/build_guide.py          its single source - rebuilds the HTML and PDF
 FIELD-GUIDE.md             how to edit and rebuild the guide
+docs/RELEASE.md            how a change reaches the battery - `master` is
+                           protected, releases go via PR from `release/1.0`
 ```
 
 **Picking this up after a break? Read `HANDOVER.md` first** — current state,

docs/RELEASE.md

@@ -0,0 +1,116 @@
+# Releasing — how a change reaches the battery
+
+`master` is the **default branch**, and the default branch is what the Home
+Assistant Supervisor clones when it installs or updates this add-on. Whatever
+sits on `master` is what runs on a real 5 kW inverter. Treat a push to `master`
+as a deployment, because that is what it is.
+
+---
+
+## 1. `master` is protected — releases go through a pull request
+
+Until 2026-09-23 `master` had **no protection of any kind**. Every gate this
+repo built (CI-01, CI-9) sat on `release/1.0`, the branch that does *not* ship.
+On 2026-09-22 version 0.10.1 went straight onto `master` — no pull request, no
+CI run, no reviewer — and it succeeded (commit `0f14c2a`, the only commit on
+`master` that carries no `(#NN)` merge suffix). SEC-2 closed that.
+
+**The release path is now:**
+
+1. Merge the work into `release/1.0` as usual, via a pull request that goes
+   green. Bump `version:` in `goodwe_controller/config.yaml` on that branch —
+   the Supervisor keys the built image by `version:`, so without a bump nothing
+   is offered and nothing changes.
+2. Open a pull request **`release/1.0` → `master`**. Do not push to `master`;
+   it will be refused by the pre-receive hook:
+
+   ```
+   remote: error: Not allowed to push to protected branch master
+   ! [remote rejected] ... (pre-receive hook declined)
+   ```
+
+3. Wait for `checks / unit (pull_request)` to go **green** on that pull request.
+   The workflow in `.gitea/workflows/checks.yml` carries **no `branches:`
+   filter**, so a `master` base matches and a real run happens — verified on
+   throwaway PR #107 (base `master`), which queued a genuine run.
+
+   ⚠️ Green means green. A `skipped` status is laundered into a `success`
+   rollup by this Gitea and the merge gate accepts it — see the long note at
+   the top of `.gitea/workflows/checks.yml`. Never add an event filter there.
+
+4. Merge the pull request. `required_approvals` is **0**, so a green check is
+   the whole gate; there is no second pair of eyes unless someone asks for one.
+
+5. **Reload the store.** Merging to `master` does not, by itself, offer the
+   update. The Supervisor only sees the new version after:
+
+   ```bash
+   ssh root@192.168.2.158 "ha store reload && ha addons update local_goodwe_controller"
+   ```
+
+   Until `ha store reload` runs, the add-on page still shows the old version
+   and the release looks like it did nothing.
+
+Note that `release/1.0` is normally an *ancestor* of `master` between releases,
+so a `release/1.0 → master` pull request is empty until new commits land on
+`release/1.0`. That is expected; it means there is nothing to release yet.
+
+---
+
+## 2. Branch protection — before and after SEC-2
+
+Forge is Gitea at `192.168.2.147:3000`, repo `admin/goodwe-addon`. Read it back
+with `GET /api/v1/repos/admin/goodwe-addon/branch_protections`.
+
+**Before (2026-09-23):**
+
+| branch | protected | status check required | context | approvals |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| `master` (default) | **no rule at all** | — | — | — |
+| `release/1.0` | yes | yes | `checks / unit (pull_request)` | 0 |
+
+**After:**
+
+| branch | protected | status check required | context | approvals |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| `master` (default) | yes | yes | `checks / unit (pull_request)` | 0 |
+| `release/1.0` | yes (unchanged) | yes | `checks / unit (pull_request)` | 0 |
+
+Both rules are otherwise identical: `enable_push: false`,
+`enable_force_push: false`, `block_admin_merge_override: true`, no whitelists,
+no file patterns. `required_approvals` stays at **0** on purpose — raising it
+would block the review agent from merging, and nobody asked for it.
+
+The default branch was **not** changed. Changing it would change what the
+Supervisor clones, which is a different decision from this one.
+
+### How the gate was proven to actually bite
+
+A protection rule on this forge can *appear* satisfied while having checked
+nothing, so the rule was tested rather than trusted. The discriminator is a
+merge `POST` carrying a deliberately wrong `head_commit_id`: Gitea evaluates
+branch protection *before* it checks the head, so
+
+* `409 head out of date` → the request **cleared** protection;
+* `405 Not all required status checks successful` → protection **refused** it.
+
+Read the *message*, not just the code: `405` is also returned as
+`Please try again later` for a pull request with **no commits**, which has
+nothing to do with protection. An empty pull request on an unprotected base
+gives that same `405` (verified, throwaway PR #110), so an empty
+`release/1.0 → master` reports it too.
+
+Validated against a control on an unprotected base (PR #106), which answered
+`409` while its check was still pending — i.e. protection was no obstacle
+there. On `master` (PR #107) the same probe answered `405` while pending, and
+`409` once the check was genuinely green. A direct `git push` to `master` was
+rejected by the pre-receive hook with `master`'s SHA unmoved.
+
+---
+
+## 3. Rolling back
+
+There is no force-push escape hatch: `enable_force_push` is `false` on both
+branches. To undo a bad release, land a revert on `release/1.0`, bump the
+version again, and take it through §1. The `/addons/` rollback for the
+reference install is in `HANDOVER.md`.

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/FCST-04-the-day-that-is-carried.md

@@ -75,8 +75,9 @@ Every point still carries `provisional=True`, so the **flag never lies** — wha
 decays is the number, behind a flag that is telling the truth.
 
 ⚠️ **No value-level check can catch that**, and claiming one would be worse than
-claiming none. A carried point and a published-provisional point (`eneco_eddy`'s
-current quarter, §9.2) are the same three fields carrying the same flag. The
+claiming none. A carried point and a published-provisional point (a real-time
+product's current interval, §9.2) are the same three fields carrying the same
+flag. The
 difference is provenance, and provenance is not in the value.
 
 The defence is therefore an **ordering**, not a validation:
@@ -139,8 +140,16 @@ file constructs and still holds a reference to.
 
 ## 4. A sub-hourly feed passes through whole; the fill only decides which hours are missing.
 
-`eneco_eddy` is the Belgian imbalance product and settles **per quarter**, and
-`price.py`'s `_validate_raw()` accepts any strictly-increasing spacing — so a
+⚠️ **This section originally said `eneco_eddy` is "the Belgian imbalance
+product". That was false and [[TARIFF-07]] withdrew the plugin: Eneco's dynamic
+product is "Zon & Wind Dynamisch" and is indexed to Belpex/EPEX **day-ahead**,
+not to imbalance, and `api.eneco.be/eddy/prices` never existed. The mechanism
+below is unaffected, because the real quarter-hourly feed is the one still
+shipped.**
+
+Belgian **day-ahead** settles per **quarter** — the 15-minute MTU took effect
+on 2025-10-01, so `generic_dayahead` reads 96 points a day rather than 24 — and
+`price.py`'s `_validate_raw()` accepts any strictly-increasing spacing, so a
 published hour may legitimately hold four points.
 
 FCST-04's first caller keyed the published set as `{_utc_hour(p.start): p for p

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/FCST-06-cannot-persist-is-one-question.md

@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
+# FCST-06 — "cannot persist" is one question, and it is asked about the outcome
+
+Two decisions. The first is the one the ticket put up for judgement; the second
+is the one that decides what a store answers *after* it has failed to write.
+
+---
+
+## 1. One derived predicate, not two places testing two symptoms — yes
+
+`price_history.py`'s module docstring states, unconditionally:
+
+> ⚠️ AND THAT RULE IS CARRIED OUT IN `_remember()`, NOT ONLY IN `_save()`. …
+> A store that cannot persist now records nothing, and both of its answers say
+> the same thing.
+
+It was enforced against `not self.ok`, and `ok` is **about the directory**: it
+says `/data` was there when the store opened. A read-only remount and a full
+volume both leave it `True`. So the second way to be a store that cannot
+persist — `ok=True`, the directory present, `_save()` failing — was outside the
+one condition the rule named, and in that state `words` printed two full days
+beside the write error while `yesterday()` answered 24 real points, from memory,
+until a restart dropped them without a word.
+
+**The ticket's question was whether "cannot persist" should be one derived
+predicate rather than two places each testing a different symptom. It should,
+and the reason is not tidiness — it is that the enumeration cannot be
+completed.** FCST-04's M4 enforced the rule on the symptom that was in front of
+it. FCST-05's HIGH was the same shape — an `except` clause naming the one
+content-failure member somebody had met (`json.JSONDecodeError`) instead of the
+`ValueError` family — and its fix was to name the family. This is the third instance in
+one module, and it is the last place in this file where the rule can be spelt
+twice. A fourth cause — an `OSError` subclass, a filesystem that accepts the
+`mkstemp` and refuses the `os.replace`, a container whose volume is unmounted
+mid-refresh — needs no fourth branch now, because none of them is asked about.
+
+### Where the one question can be asked, which is the whole design
+
+**"Can this store persist?" cannot be answered before the attempt.** A
+directory that exists and was writable a moment ago is not a write that
+completed; there is no pre-check that is not itself a guess, and adding one
+(`os.access`, a probe write) would be a *third* symptom test — precisely what
+the ticket rules out. So the predicate is an **outcome**:
+
+    _save() -> bool      # True only if the file now holds what memory holds
+
+Both ways of not persisting are the same answer from the same call: no durable
+volume returns `False` without touching the disk, an `OSError` out of the write
+returns `False` after recording why. `_remember()` reads that one answer and
+keeps only what it says was kept. **The `not self.ok` test in `_remember()` is
+gone** — not moved, gone — because there is nothing left for a second test to
+add, and a check in `test_price_history.py` 5d asserts its absence from the
+source.
+
+⚠️ **That last check is deliberately a source check, and habit 4 is why it is
+allowed to be.** The claim "there are not two places testing two symptoms" is a
+claim about the *shape of the code*, not about a behaviour — the behaviour is
+identical whether the rule is enforced once or twice. Every other check in 5d
+is driven.
+
+### What was NOT done, and why
+
+- **Not a `can_persist()` helper.** It would have to answer before the attempt,
+  which is the thing that cannot be done honestly, and it would be a second
+  place to keep in step with the first.
+- **Not a probe write at `_open()`.** It would make `ok` mean something new, it
+  would write to `/data` on every start, and a volume that is writable at 08:00
+  and full at 14:00 would still defeat it. A predicate that can go stale is a
+  symptom test wearing a predicate's name.
+- **Not making a failed write fatal.** §6, and this module's own opening: a
+  broken cache must not be a broken controller. An add-on that will not start
+  because `/data` filled up is a worse defect than the one being fixed. The
+  store degrades; it does not raise. `_save()` reports and returns.
+
+---
+
+## 2. The MERGE is undone, not the store
+
+When `_save()` answers no, `_remember()` restores the state the read started
+from — **not** an empty one.
+
+The alternative considered was to clear `self._days` outright, on the argument
+that a store which cannot write is a store that should stop answering. It is
+wrong, and measurably so: the state being restored is the last one that **is on
+disk**, so answering it is not a promise the store cannot keep. A site whose
+volume fills at 14:00 goes on answering the yesterday it wrote at 13:30 —
+through the restart, because that record is in the file. What it stops doing is
+*adding* to it.
+
+Clearing would throw away a good yesterday that survives a restart in order to
+punish a write that failed, and it would make the morning fill worse on exactly
+the day the operator is already dealing with a full disk.
+
+That gives the file the invariant its rule was always describing, stated once
+in the class docstring:
+
+> `self._days` **never holds a point the file does not.**
+
+⚠️ Not *"mirrors the file"* — `_usable_days()` drops records the file still
+holds, and that asymmetry is deliberate. The only direction that can **invent a
+yesterday** is the one named.
+
+⚠️ **And the snapshot is `copy.deepcopy`, not `dict(self._days)`.** A one-level
+copy shares the day *records*, and the merge rebinds `points` on the ones it
+touches — so the "restored" store would answer the merge that never reached the
+file. Measured: with a shallow copy, a store holding 12 persisted points
+answered **24** after a failed merge. It would also be correct only for as long
+as nobody makes the merge mutate a `points` list or a row in place, which is the
+same "correct for the conditions someone thought of" this ticket is about. The
+store holds at most `KEEP_DAYS + 2` records and writes 48 times a day; a copy
+that is right by construction is worth more than the allocations.
+
+---
+
+## What this does not change
+
+- **No shipped path reaches the defect.** `/data` is the Supervisor's durable
+  volume and this module is its only writer, so on a real install `_save()`
+  succeeds and nothing above is on the hot path. The fix is that a guarantee the
+  module states about itself now holds in the condition it did not.
+- **The failure was already visible and still is** — `_LOG.error("could not
+  persist price history: %s")` and `last_error`, reported by both `words` and
+  `yesterday()`'s reason. What changed is that it is now *acted on*.
+- **Nothing about the prices.** The series served is the feed's own, every
+  carried point is still flagged provisional, and a broken cache is still a
+  short horizon rather than a §11.4 degradation.

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/SAFETY-10-shadow-mode.md

@@ -0,0 +1,406 @@
+# SAFETY-10 — shadow mode, and why "default-on" is not `true`
+
+**Status:** decided and implemented on branch `SAFETY-10`.
+⚠️ **AMENDED BY SAFETY-47, and three of the claims below were false when this
+was merged.** §5's "the strategies are unaffected" exemption, §4's peak-guard
+row and §6's evidence table are corrected in place and each correction is
+marked. The amendments are marked rather than rewritten silently, because what
+this card believed is part of why the defect shipped. See
+`DECISIONS/SAFETY-47-what-a-shadow-run-can-show.md`.
+**Card:** SAFETY-10 — *"Shadow mode (default-on, log-only decisions)"*.
+**Nothing here reached the inverter.** No deployment, no `ha addons update`, no
+contact with 192.168.2.158 or 192.168.2.221. Everything below was measured in
+the CI image and on TEST-23 stage 3's closed-loop rig.
+
+---
+
+## 0. The four things a reader should take away
+
+1. **"Default-on" is delivered as `auto`, not as `true`, and the difference is
+   an install that is regulating a real battery today.** The Supervisor
+   composes an add-on's options as *its defaults, overlaid with the stored user
+   options*, so a new key with a new default reaches **every existing install**
+   on the next update. A boolean `shadow_mode: true` would silently stop the
+   reference site. §1.
+2. **Shadow mode WRITES. It writes 0 W, on the ordinary heartbeat, through the
+   ordinary single writer.** "Commands nothing" implemented as "stops writing"
+   would leave the inverter latched on whatever was standing — it has no meter
+   timeout — and would put the ESP32 into a tripped stale-input watchdog for
+   the whole run. §2.
+3. **The sign watchdogs are inert, and that was the decision that had to be got
+   right.** Fed the shadow decision they would trip within `sign_disagree_s`
+   and **latch a trip that survives into live operation and a restart**. §4.
+4. **The loop leg's shadow decision is one slew step, not a trajectory, and
+   that is a real limitation of this feature.** §5.
+5. ⚠️ **SAFETY-47: and neither is anything else that depends on the plant
+   answering back. A shadow run cannot surface a closed-loop defect at all**,
+   by the same construction that makes it safe — the battery is held at 0 W, so
+   every measured input describes a plant that did not respond. Of the three
+   defects §"WHAT DEFECT THIS PREVENTS" was written for, exactly one —
+   TARIFF-14's wrong quarter-hour — is visible from a shadow run. §5, §6.
+
+---
+
+## 1. The default
+
+### The literal reading, and what it costs
+
+`config.yaml`'s `options:` block **is** the default. There is exactly one of it,
+and HA's Supervisor resolves an add-on's effective options as
+
+```
+{**config.yaml options, **the stored user options}
+```
+
+A key that has never been stored therefore takes the file's value — on a fresh
+install and on an install that has been running for months, identically. There
+is **no mechanism in the add-on options system** by which one key can default
+differently for the two. So the card's title, taken at face value, is:
+
+> the next `ha addons update` stops the battery at the reference site, and the
+> only symptom is a battery that has stopped doing anything.
+
+That is strictly worse than every defect shadow mode exists to catch. It is
+refused.
+
+### What was shipped instead
+
+`shadow_mode` is a three-valued `list(auto|on|off)` defaulting to `"auto"`:
+
+| value | resolves to |
+|---|---|
+| `off` | live |
+| `on` | shadow, always |
+| `auto` | shadow **while control is stopped**; live once it is started |
+
+`auto` reads `Controller.auto` — the persisted start/stop state, which a fresh
+install takes from `auto_start` and which the *Start / stop control* button
+moves. No new persisted state, no migration, no guess:
+
+* a **fresh** install ships `auto_start: false`, has no stored `auto` key, and
+  therefore comes up **in shadow mode**. It observes a day of decisions before
+  it is ever allowed to command anything. That is the card's intent, delivered
+  where it is safe;
+* an install that is **controlling** is started, so `auto` resolves to live and
+  **not one watt changes**;
+* an install that is **stopped** keeps its actuator at 0 W exactly as before —
+  the same number, from the same writer, on the same heartbeat. What changes is
+  what the status page and the action log **say**, and that the decision path
+  now runs and is recorded.
+
+⚠️ **Under `auto`, pressing Start leaves shadow mode.** That is the point of
+`auto`: the button means "control the battery". An operator who wants the
+decisions recorded *while the loop runs* — the configuration this card exists
+to make possible — sets `on` explicitly, and cannot reach it by accident.
+
+⚠️ **An unrecognised value resolves to SHADOW, and is REFUSED at startup.**
+`shadow.mode()` fails toward inaction; `validate.py` rule 11 refuses the value
+by name so the reinterpretation is never silent. A typo is not a decision, and
+an install silently left in shadow mode commands nothing indefinitely while its
+status page calmly explains that this is intentional.
+
+---
+
+## 2. "Commands nothing" is a number, not a silence
+
+The inverter holds its last command **forever** — `HANDOVER.md` §6 says so, and
+`firmware/goodwe-master.yaml`'s header records what it cost when a controller
+stopped refreshing: *"Illusmart went silent mid-command and the inverter held
++5000 W for 113 s"*. `firmware/goodwe-master.yaml` states the contract that follows — *"HA
+must now REWRITE the setpoint every ~10 s even when the value has not
+changed"* — because without a refresh, **"stale" and "steady" are the same
+thing on the wire**.
+
+So shadow mode holds the actuator at `shadow.WIRE_W` = **0.0 W**, refreshed on
+the ordinary heartbeat. Two consequences were weighed and are recorded:
+
+* **it is not silence.** A shadow mode that stopped writing would leave the
+  standing command up until the ESP32's 30 s watchdog noticed — and at a site
+  with no such board, forever;
+* **it does not use an alarm as a mode.** Letting that watchdog trip for the
+  duration of a shadow run teaches the operator that `wd_tripped` is normal,
+  which is exactly the training that makes it useless when the add-on has
+  actually died.
+
+### It is not a second writer
+
+SAFETY-28's rule is one actuator, one writer. Shadow mode files **no claim**,
+owns **no transport**, and calls nothing in `hass.py`. It is a **substitution**
+inside `Controller._write_unit()` — the single choke point every write in this
+add-on already reaches, including the heartbeat, the stop button, `shutdown()`
+and `maint_abort()` — in exactly the form of the three substitutions above it
+(non-finite → 0 W, unauthorised → 0 W, clamped → the rating).
+
+It is the **last** of them. Below SAFETY-28's gate and below SAFETY-03's clamp,
+so both still grade the number the decision path actually produced, and a
+shadow run can report *"it would have hit the rating here"*.
+
+---
+
+## 3. What the run records
+
+| surface | what it carries |
+|---|---|
+| status banner | `SHADOW MODE - the battery is NOT being controlled...`, **first in the cascade**, amber — red, with the latch named, if one is standing |
+| status row `Shadow mode` | which rung decided, the watts it **would have commanded on this cycle**, where the inverter actually is, and `Resolution.explain()` — plus, when a measured billed quarter sized those watts, SAFETY-47's caveat saying so (`shadow.SIZED_FROM_METER`) |
+| status row `Commanded` | `0 W` — the truth, which the row above reconciles with the `Why` row below it |
+| action log | one line when shadow mode comes on; one line per **change of decision** (winner, rounded watts, or SAFETY-47's caveat state), carrying the arbiter's own sentence and the same caveat the row carries — `shadow.log_line()` is the one sentence both read |
+| MQTT | `status: shadow`, its own value, below `failsafe` |
+
+The action log is **edge**-logged, not level-logged: the log holds 40 rows, and
+a line per cycle would flush the context of the run's own findings inside four
+minutes at the 15 s cycle floor.
+
+---
+
+## 4. The failsafes, one by one
+
+| failsafe | in shadow mode | why |
+|---|---|---|
+| SAFETY-02/30 sign watchdogs | **INERT** | They grade `Inverter.standing_w()` — what this controller has standing on the wire — and shadow mode holds that at 0 W, so they cannot arm. ⚠️ Fed the shadow decision instead they would disagree with a meter that never saw it and **latch a trip that survives into live operation and a restart**: shadow mode would manufacture the failsafe it exists to help debug. ⚠️ **Two rungs hold it there** — `last_write` (the wire gate) and `inv.target` (the re-seed) — which is MUTATION.md's masking shape, so the mutation that reproduces the hazard defeats both as a pair (M6). Driven singly, dropping the re-seed does not reproduce it at all — measured |
+| SAFETY-03 clamp | **OBSERVES** | Runs on the decision, sets `clamp_last`, logs every engagement. Changes no command |
+| SAFETY-28 write gate | **OBSERVES** | Same placement, same reason: the question is who chose the number |
+| SAFETY-18 meter freeze | **OBSERVES**, unchanged | It takes no action live either; both halves of its conjunction are as true in shadow |
+| SAFETY-07/24/25 peak guard | **OBSERVES, AND SEES ONLY THE HOUSE** | Level-triggered, unlatched, files its claim as usual, so the recorded decision is the real one *for this meter*. ⚠️ **AMENDED BY SAFETY-47.** This row used to end "SAFETY-45's limit cycle is visible from a shadow run, which is the point". It is not: every term of `wanted = batt_w + excess` is measured, and in shadow mode the battery contributes nothing to either. Measured on the rig, same hour, same unsized code — **410 of 720 cycles engaged live, 0 of 720 in shadow** |
+| SAFETY-31 circulation | **OBSERVES AND MAY LATCH** | Its evidence is *measured* power. Packs pushing against each other while all are told 0 W is a real fault |
+| SAFETY-42 delivery | **OBSERVES AND MAY LATCH** | Same, against a share that is 0 W |
+| operator stop | **SUPPRESSED AS A CLAIM, ENFORCED AT THE WIRE** | The one deliberate change. Its `P_SAFETY` 0 W claim out-ranks everything, so leaving it in makes the recorded decision `"stopped"` on every cycle and the run answers the wrong question. The actuator ends at the same number either way, and the wire substitution is **strictly stronger**: a claim can be out-ranked, and it cannot |
+| inputs missing, non-finite, allocator refusal, arbiter contradiction | **UNCHANGED** | All resolve to 0 W, which is what the wire gets anyway |
+
+⚠️ **A latch that is already up stays up.** Nothing here clears one. The shadow
+banner **names** any standing latch and goes red for it, because a latch that is
+up while the controller is inert is up the moment it stops being inert.
+
+⚠️ **Maintenance is not in that table because shadow mode does not touch it.**
+The state machines are ticked on every cycle whether control is started or not,
+so a stopped install already runs them against a battery that does not move.
+Shadow mode inherits that, unchanged and unimproved. Recorded here rather than
+quietly fixed under another card's name.
+
+---
+
+## 5. The limitation, stated rather than discovered later
+
+`Controller._shadow_settle()` re-seeds the carried command (`self.target` and
+each `inv.target`) to `WIRE_W` at the **end** of every shadow cycle — after
+every in-cycle guard has read the decision. Three machines read that value as a
+statement about the **hardware**: the loop's `prev_w` and integrator,
+`standing_w()`, and SAFETY-42's share comparison. Re-seeded, they track reality,
+and **the exit is safe by construction** — the carried command already equals
+the standing one, so the first live cycle slews from 0 W like any other.
+
+⚠️ **The cost is real.** The loop's `prev_w` is therefore 0 W on every shadow
+cycle, so the loop leg's recorded decision is **one slew step from the standing
+command** and stays there. A shadow run answers *"what would this controller
+command NOW, from where the plant really is"* — a true statement about the
+present — and **not** *"what trajectory would it have followed"*. The trajectory
+is a closed-loop property, it did not happen, and reporting it would be a
+simulation of a plant that does not exist; three cycles in, such a number
+describes nothing.
+
+⚠️ **AMENDED BY SAFETY-47 — THE PARAGRAPH THAT STOOD HERE WAS THE DEFECT.**
+It read:
+
+> The strategies are unaffected: arbitrage, the peak guard and maintenance all
+> file `SET` claims at a fixed power from level-triggered inputs. That is why
+> the three defects this card was written for — SAFETY-45's 28 onsets an hour,
+> TARIFF-14's wrong quarter-hour, SAFETY-46's ceiling churn — are all visible
+> from a shadow run, and the loop's ramp is not.
+
+It was true until **SAFETY-45 merged, one commit before this card**. That
+change makes the buy leg `min(asked, headroom)` with
+
+```
+headroom = (900 / remaining) x (ceiling - projected)
+```
+
+and `projected` reads the **open quarter's accumulator** — the meter — which is
+a function of what the battery did earlier in that same quarter. The strategy
+is closed-loop, and the loop's one-slew-step limitation above is not a special
+case of anything: **it is the general case**, and the limitation is the whole
+feature's, not the loop leg's.
+
+**The correct statement, and it is now graded rather than asserted:**
+
+> A shadow run cannot surface a **closed-loop** defect — one whose stimulus is
+> the plant's response to the controller — because the battery is held at 0 W
+> and there is no response to be the stimulus. **Which** hour a strategy picks
+> and **why** are unaffected, because the clock and the price series are not
+> functions of the battery. **How hard** it trades is not.
+
+Of the three defects this card was written for:
+
+| | visible from a shadow run? | measured |
+|---|---|---|
+| SAFETY-45's limit cycle | **no** | 28 charge onsets live, **1** in shadow; grid −455.5 … +3200.0 W live, **flat at the 1200 W house** in shadow; guard engaged 410/720 live, **0/720** in shadow |
+| SAFETY-46's SoC churn | **no** | the SoC moves **0.000000000 pp** in a shadow run. No SoC limit can be *reached* in one |
+| TARIFF-14's wrong quarter-hour | **yes**, and it is the one | which hour, at what price, clearing what spread: identical live and shadow on **720 of 720** charging cycles, at a binding cap |
+
+Graded in `test_arbitrage.py` part **3d** — the same closed loop part 3c uses,
+run once live and once in shadow — and the loop leg's own limitation stays
+named in `test_watchdog.py` part 10 as `RECORDED LIMITATION`.
+
+---
+
+## 6. How "nothing reaches the inverter" is graded
+
+**Not on a flag.** A check that asserted `Controller.shadow` would pass on a
+build in which the flag is set and the substitution is deleted — which is
+exactly mutation **M1**.
+
+`test_clamp.py` part 8 drives the **shipped** `Controller.cycle()` and the
+shipped heartbeat against a recording Home Assistant stub, and asserts on what
+reached `set_number()`:
+
+* **the precondition first** — the same stimulus with `shadow_mode: off` puts
+  30 non-zero writes on the wire, the largest 5000 W. MUTATION.md habit 4: a
+  check whose data cannot reach the failure it names is decoration;
+* then `set(writes) == {0.0}`, **and** that there were 26 of them — a check
+  that only said "no non-zero write" would pass on the silent build too;
+* entry and exit are measured on `inv.last_write` — what the inverter is
+  latched on, updated only on an **accepted** write — either side of the
+  boundary, against the same run that never entered shadow mode.
+
+The closed-loop half is `/home/homelab/s10-mut/shadowloop.py` on TEST-23 stage
+3's rig: the same hour, twice, against `plantsim.Plant` through the firmware's
+own frame encoder.
+
+⚠️ **SUPERSEDED BY SAFETY-47 — THE TABLE THAT STOOD HERE COULD NEVER HAVE GONE
+RED, FOR TWO INDEPENDENT REASONS.** It read `arb_power_w` −2000 W *"identical"*,
+`arb_reason` *"identical, verbatim"*, arbiter winner *"identical"*, and
+concluded *"the decision happened, at the same instant, for the same reason, at
+the same signed power — and the battery did not move."* The battery half is
+true and is unchanged. The **decision** half was decoration:
+
+1. **the fixture is `peak_cap_w: 15000` against a 350 W house**, so the
+   capacity guard never engages and SAFETY-45's sizing is in the run and inert.
+   The harness's own comment says so — *"at this scenario's `peak_cap_w: 15000`
+   it is not binding anyway"* — which is MUTATION.md habit 4 written down
+   beside the check it disables;
+2. **every identity row reads the FIRST charging sample.** At `elapsed = 0`
+   the projection *is* the held level, so the two runs agree to the float there
+   **even at a cap that does bind**. Measured: closing reason (1) alone leaves
+   that comparison passing.
+
+Both had to be closed. Re-taken below at **`peak_cap_w` 1500 / house 1200 /
+`max_w` 2000**, one hour at a 5 s cycle, **across the whole run** — harness
+`/home/homelab/s47-mut/shadowloop47.py`, same rig, same three transcribed
+lines.
+
+| | live | shadow |
+|---|---|---|
+| grid | 1224.1 … 1506.0 W — **held up at the ceiling** | **1200.0 W flat = the house, exactly** |
+| SoC | 50.000019 → **51.856789 %** | 50.000000 → **50.000000 %** |
+| `ARBITRAGE_CHARGE` cycles | 720 / 720 | **720 / 720** |
+| first charging cycle, `arb_power_w` | −300.0000 W | **identical — and this is why the old table passed** |
+| `arb_power_w`, **whole run** | −307.799 … −299.930 W | **−2000.000 … −300.000 W** |
+| …cycles where the two differ | — | **716 of 720** |
+| `arb_reason`, whole run | the strategy's own sentence | **differs on 719 of 720** |
+| measured charging headroom | 299.93 … 307.80 W | **300.0 … 54 000.0 W** |
+| final recorded command | **−302.4 W** | **−2000.0 W — 6.61× the live figure** |
+| price / spread / which hour | | **identical on 720 of 720** |
+| arbiter winner | `arbitrage` | **identical** |
+
+**What the re-taken table says.** The decision still *happens*, at the same
+instant, on the same hour, at the same price, for the same *kind* of reason,
+and the battery still does not move — those were the card's real claims and
+they hold. What does **not** hold is that the decision is the *same decision*:
+its **size** is a function of a meter the battery never moved, and at this cap
+the recorded figure is 6.61× what a live controller commands. 54 000 W of
+"headroom" under a 1500 W ceiling is `900/remaining` multiplying a gap the
+battery never closed.
+
+⚠️ **And the SoC row is the second half of it.** 0.000000000 pp of movement is
+not a curiosity: it is the proof that **no SoC-limit behaviour is reachable
+from a shadow run at all**, which §5 used to promise.
+
+SAFETY-47 puts the caveat on both surfaces that carry the number and narrows
+the three documents' claims; `test_arbitrage.py` part 3d is the CI-side grader
+so this class cannot recur.
+
+⚠️ **Three lines of each harness are a TRANSCRIPTION and are marked as one.**
+`priceloop.Rig` has no `_write_unit()`, no clamp and no failsafe machine
+(divergence 2 of its README), so the substitution's **placement** is
+transcribed there. The shipped placement is graded by `test_clamp.py` part 8,
+which drives the real `Controller`. ⚠️ **And the rig's transcribed cycle
+predates SAFETY-45**: `arbitrage.decide()` gained a required
+`charge_headroom_w` after `478ba93`, and the harness supplies it from the
+**shipped** `peakguard.charge_headroom_w()` reading the **shipped** peak
+decision rather than from a constant, so SAFETY-45 stays in the run.
+
+---
+
+## 7. The mutation battery — 22 mutations, no survivors
+
+Harness: `/home/homelab/s10-mut/run.py`, backups beside it. Each run restores
+from backup, purges `__pycache__` **on the host**, and grades through the CI
+image with the tree bind-mounted `:ro`, so the interpreter cannot write a cache
+into the tree under test (TEST-15). The full table is in the branch report;
+one per new behaviour, including **M1** (the substitution deleted — a write
+escapes), **M2** (it returns instead of substituting — the inverter is left
+latched), **M3** (it moves above SAFETY-28 and SAFETY-03 — the observers go
+blind), **M8** (`auto` resolves to shadow unconditionally — the literal
+default-on that stops the live install), **M12** (the stop claim is filed in
+shadow — every recorded decision reads `stopped`), **M21** (the substitution
+and the re-seed together) and **M22** (the re-seed moved one line earlier —
+SAFETY-18 grades a 0 W no decision produced and goes permanently blind).
+
+⚠️ **Two findings from driving it, both of the kind MUTATION.md says to expect.**
+
+* **M2 first came back a SURVIVOR and was not one.** The "stop writing
+  altogether" build left `inv.last_write` as `None`, the check did `float()` on
+  it, and the section died with a `TypeError` — grading none of the checks
+  after it and reporting **zero reds**, which reads exactly like a survivor.
+  That is FCST-06's shape. The fixture now hands `None` back and names it as
+  its own check; M2 is red on three.
+* **M6 had to become a PAIR, and only the battery said so.** `standing_w()`
+  prefers `last_write` — the 0.0 W the wire gate accepted — and falls back to
+  `inv.target`, which the re-seed also holds at 0.0. Either rung alone keeps
+  the detector inert, so dropping the re-seed **singly** came back red on the
+  limitation check and on **nothing about the latch**: the hazard it names was
+  not reproduced. TEST-16's rule with a new name on it.
+* **M7/M8/M9/M19 had to MOVE SUITES.** They defeat `shadow.engaged()`, and a
+  defeated default stops `test_clamp.py` part 3's wired run reaching the wire
+  at all — aborting the file with an `IndexError` before part 8 is graded. The
+  red count there was a lower bound naming the saturation freeze. The mode
+  table now lives in `test_validate.py`, which drives no Controller.
+* **`shadow_would_w = float(self.target)` is an EQUIVALENT mutation and was
+  measured as one.** `_shadow_settle()` runs before the re-seed, so at that
+  line `self.target` **is** `resolution.target_w`. It is recorded as equivalent
+  rather than reported as a survivor, and the non-equivalent form of the same
+  defect — the record becoming the **wire** — is driven instead.
+
+### The table
+
+Each row: the mutation, the file, the byte delta, the suite it was graded in,
+and how many **named** checks went red. `⚠️` marks a row whose run did not
+reach the end of its file, so its count is a **lower bound** (MUTATION.md).
+
+| # | mutation | file | Δ | suite | reds |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| M1 | **a write escapes** — the substitution deleted | `main.py` | −6 B | clamp | 5 |
+| M2 | **silence instead of 0 W** — it returns rather than substituting | `main.py` | −15 B | clamp | 3 |
+| M3 | **the observers go blind** — it moves above SAFETY-28 and SAFETY-03 | `main.py` | +58 B | clamp | 1 |
+| M4 | the site re-seed dropped — the exit resumes from a fiction | `main.py` | −36 B | clamp | 3 |
+| M5 | the per-unit re-seed dropped | `main.py` | −22 B | clamp | 1 |
+| M6 | **PAIRED**: `standing_w()` reads the target **and** the re-seed dropped — the sign latch that survives into live operation | `inverter.py` + `main.py` | −170 B | watchdog | 3 |
+| M7 | `auto` inverted — shadow while started, live while stopped | `shadow.py` | +2 B | validate | 4 |
+| M8 | **default-on for everyone** — `auto` always shadow; the literal reading that stops the live install | `shadow.py` | −15 B | validate | 2 |
+| M9 | an unreadable value resolves to LIVE instead of shadow | `shadow.py` | +1 B | validate | 1 |
+| M10 | `validate.py` stops refusing an unknown value | `shadow.py` | −9 B | validate | 9 |
+| M11 | the loop leg gated on `auto` alone again — the decision path stops running | `main.py` | −17 B | clamp | 1 |
+| M12 | the stop claim filed in shadow — every decision reads `stopped` | `main.py` | −20 B | clamp | 1 |
+| M13 | the banner goes green while nothing is commanded | `shadow.py` | −2 B | clamp | 1 |
+| M14 | the banner loses the standing latch | `shadow.py` | −2 B | clamp | 1 |
+| M15 | the row renders the standing command instead of the decision | `shadow.py` | −8 B | clamp | 1 |
+| M16 ⚠️ | the row disappears when live | `main.py` | +43 B | clamp | 1 |
+| M17 | the record becomes the wire | `main.py` | −6 B | clamp | 7 |
+| M18 | level-logged — the 40-row action log floods | `main.py` | −23 B | clamp | 1 |
+| M19 | the two rungs render identically (masking) | `shadow.py` | +22 B | validate | 1 |
+| M20 | the shipped default moves to `off` in `config.yaml` alone | `config.yaml` | −1 B | defaults_pin | 1 |
+| M21 | **PAIRED**: the substitution **and** the re-seed deleted together | `main.py` | −103 B | clamp | 10 |
+| M22 | the re-seed moved one line earlier — SAFETY-18 grades a 0 W no decision produced and goes permanently blind | `main.py` | +40 B | clamp | 1 |
+
+**Survivors: none.** ⚠️ **M17's `+0 B`-adjacent sibling** —
+`shadow_would_w = float(self.target)` — is recorded in §7 as **equivalent**
+rather than counted here.

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/SAFETY-39-slew-against-the-rail.md

@@ -187,6 +187,23 @@ over-absorption. So the rig does not choose the number — **the constraint
 chooses it, and the rig says what the constraint does and does not buy.** That
 is the same relationship the 2026-08-22 table had to its own three columns.
 
+⚠️ **FORWARD REFERENCE, ADDED BY SAFETY-48 — THIS TABLE AND THIS SENTENCE ARE
+TRUE OF release/1.0's LAW AND FALSE OF THE ONE THAT REPLACED IT.** Nothing above
+is retracted: re-run on release/1.0 today the same rig prints the same column
+(958 / 1107 / 1133 / 1058 / 987 / 1029 / 1150 / 1143 / 1081 W), flat,
+non-monotone, 800 better than 556. Under SAFETY-48's lead cap the **same script
+on the same plant** prints 777 / 734 / 663 / 563 / 553 / 507 / 435 / 358 / 321 W
+— falling monotonically, so a slower slew is now *better* and the sentence above
+inverts. The mechanism SAFETY-39 identified is exactly why: `slew_w` bounds the
+OUTPUT while the integrator goes on accumulating `gain · error`, so slowing the
+slew used to buy nothing; bound the integrator's lead and it starts to.
+`tools/slew_sim.py --slew` now names which of the two laws it is running under
+before it narrates the column, and
+`DECISIONS/SAFETY-48-bounding-the-integrator-lead.md` §6 carries both tables and
+the independent confirmation from `test_control.py`'s own plant model. ⚠️ **This
+does NOT re-open the choice of 556**: the constraint picks the number, the rig
+does not, and that is unchanged in both laws.
+
 ⚠️ **A single step is not evidence here.** The deadband, the 10 W quantisation
 and the phase of the step against the tick move the result by hundreds of watts,
 non-monotonically. The first cut of this derivation was a single step and ranked

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/SAFETY-45-sizing-the-trade.md

@@ -0,0 +1,221 @@
+# SAFETY-45 — the trade is SIZED by the capacity guard, not switched by it
+
+**Status: closed.** `peakguard.charge_headroom_w()` publishes the watts the open
+billed quarter can still afford; `arbitrage.decide()` takes it as a required
+keyword-only argument and sizes the BUY leg to it; `main.py` passes the measured
+guard's own number at its one call site. `peakguard.decide()` is **not changed** —
+byte-identical to `release/1.0` at `478ba93`, `sha256(decide) = 200090d0835a3a55`,
+7252 B on both trees.
+
+⚠️ **THE HOUSE LOAD IN EVERY FIGURE BELOW IS SYNTHETIC.** TEST-23 stage 3's
+`priceloop.py` drives a flat modelled house against a modelled pack
+(`plantsim.Plant`, 800 W/s ramp into a 10 s lag, 15 360 Wh). The PRICES are real,
+the decision code is the shipped code, the billed-quarter accumulator is
+`app/p1.py`'s own — the load is not. Nothing here is a measurement of the live
+site at 192.168.2.158, which this work did not touch.
+
+## 0. The defect, measured
+
+TEST-23 stage 3 found a sustained limit cycle with arbitrage armed and a charge
+decision active. Re-measured here on the same rig against the same checkout,
+metrics recomputed rather than copied — a **charge onset** is a cycle at which
+`arbitrage.decide()` transitions into `ARBITRAGE_CHARGE`, which is the edge the
+rig already logs:
+
+| `peak_cap_w` | house | onsets/h | mean period | grid swing | billed quarters (W) |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 1500 | 1200 W | **28** | 131.1 s | **−455.5 … +3200.0 W** | 1490.1 / 1496.5 / **1508.8** |
+| 3500 *(shipped)* | 1800 W | 8 | 509.3 s | +127.5 … +3800.0 W | **3511.3 / 3536.0 / 3559.1** |
+| 3500 *(shipped)* | 3000 W | 32 | 114.8 s | +1202.0 … +5000.0 W | **3518.9 / 3542.2 / 3556.7** |
+| 5000 | 1200 W | 1 | — | +1240.6 … +3200.0 W | 3169.5 / 3200.0 / 3200.0 |
+
+The last row is the **negative control**: `load + max_w = 3200 W` never reaches
+the cap, so there is no cycle to remove. The bite rule is `load + max_w >
+peak_cap_w`, which at the shipped `peak_cap_w: 3500` / `max_w: 2000` is any house
+drawing over 1500 W in the cheapest quarter.
+
+§10.1's ordering did win on the money — the guard kept the quarters within tens
+of watts of the cap — but **every billed quarter in the three biting rows
+finished OVER it**, which is the thing §9.1 bills. §10.2: *"an EMS that
+oscillates is worse than no EMS, both for hardware wear and — per §9.1 — for the
+peak it is trying to avoid."*
+
+## 1. ⚠️ The mechanism is NOT mainly the quarter boundary, and the card says it is
+
+The card, and `.cache/s45.md` before it, describe the loop as *"at each quarter
+boundary the projection resets to 0, the guard disengages, and arbitrage re-arms
+at full power."* **That is not what the 28 onsets are.** Their timestamps, off
+the run above:
+
+    1, 231, 351, 471, 581, 696, 806, 896, 1136, 1256, 1371, 1486, 1596,
+    1711, 1811, 2061, 2176, 2296, 2411, 2521, 2626, 2716, 2971, 3091,
+    3206, 3321, 3431, 3541      (s, quarter boundaries at 900/1800/2700)
+
+**23 of the 27 gaps are 90–120 s, mean 111.5 s, entirely inside one quarter.**
+The four long gaps — 230, 240, 250, 255 s — are precisely the four that SPAN a
+boundary, so the boundary **lengthens** the interval rather than causing an
+onset. Only three onsets land within 15 s of a boundary and one of those is
+`t = 1`, the start of the run.
+
+The real cycle, read off the recorded fields at t = 1000…1180 s:
+
+1. the trade charges at `−2000 W`; the meter sits at 3200 W against a 1500 W
+   ceiling; `wanted = batt_w + excess` is **negative** (−132 → −8 W), so
+   `decide()` files **nothing** and arbitrage is not constrained at all;
+2. `wanted` drifts up as the quarter's own history worsens and the `900 /
+   remaining` gain grows, and crosses zero at t = 1055 with **`floor_w = 5.3 W`**;
+3. that 5 W floor flips `arbitrage.guard_state()` to `True`, which refuses the
+   **whole trade** — so the setpoint goes from −2000 W to +5 W and the
+   grid-following loop, which targets grid = 0 and not grid = ceiling, takes the
+   actuator and discharges to **+1870 W**, exporting 420 W;
+4. the projection collapses, `wanted` goes negative, the guard releases, and
+   arbitrage re-arms at **`max_w`**. 115 s later, again.
+
+So the defect is **a binary interlock keyed on a continuous quantity**, and the
+quarter boundary is one of the ways it is crossed rather than the cause. The
+card's other claim — *"projection 3092 W against a 1509 W ceiling, `engaged=False`,
+for 170 consecutive seconds"* — reproduces, but it is the **first** such window
+(`first_engaged_t_s = 151.0`); the steady-state silent window is ~40–65 s.
+
+None of this changes what the fix has to do. It is recorded because a card that
+says "the boundary is the trigger" invites a fix in the boundary handling, and
+such a fix would have removed four of twenty-eight onsets.
+
+## 2. What was rejected, and why
+
+### 2a. Reverting `decide()`'s `wanted <= 0.0` rung — rejected, and it is a trap
+That rung is 2026-08-20's anti-bang-bang. Its own comment records the cost of not
+having it: 17 engage/release cycles in 900 s and a quarter finishing 49 W over
+the limit it had spent a quarter of an hour holding. It is untouched, pinned on
+the AST in `test_peakguard.py` 13g, and `tools/replay_ac3.py` reproduces the same
+190/190, 110 engaged cycles, 5 blind, 878 Wh on this branch as on `478ba93`.
+
+### 2b. Filing the affordable charge as a NEGATIVE `lo` — rejected
+Arithmetically this is the prettiest answer: `lo = wanted` with no sign gate is
+continuous, is exactly the control law `decide()` already computes, and would
+have put the constraint on the arbiter where it binds every claimant rather than
+only arbitrage. It was rejected on two grounds, in this order:
+
+1. ⚠️ **IT CREATES A NEW `lo > hi` CONTRADICTION CLASS AGAINST THE MAINTENANCE
+   SHAPING.** `main.py`'s cheap-window maintenance charge files
+   `Claim.limit("maintenance", P_MAINT_SHAPE, hi=-floor)` — a NEGATIVE `hi`.
+   `arbiter.py` clause 2 applies every limit at or above the winner's priority
+   and takes the most restrictive, with **no notion of one limit out-ranking
+   another**; a peak `lo = −300 W` against a shaping `hi = −1000 W` is `lo > hi`,
+   which resolves to **0 W — the battery parked, in the one quarter of the month
+   that sets the bill**. That is the exact failure `peakguard.shaping_suspended()`
+   exists to prevent, and the only way to close it would be to key that
+   suppression on "a claim exists" — which, on every site this card is about,
+   means the maintenance charge-only shaping is suspended **permanently**. A
+   silent, large change to a different subsystem is not a price this card should
+   pay.
+2. It changes the meaning of `PeakDecision.engaged` at five call sites outside
+   this module — `arbitrage.guard_state()`, `shaping_suspended()`,
+   `claim()`, `main.py`'s edge-logged action line and `main.py`'s status row —
+   each of which today means "the guard is HOLDING" and would silently start
+   meaning "a claim exists".
+
+`test_peakguard.py` part 5's sweep asserts **no negative floor, ever**, and the
+reason it gives ("a `lo` limit is incapable of capping discharge or export only
+while it is non-negative") is, strictly, not the true reason — a `lo` of any sign
+caps neither. The invariant is still right and is still worth holding; §2b above
+is the argument that actually supports it, and it is recorded here rather than
+left for the next person to re-derive.
+
+### 2c. A backoff, cooldown or hysteresis constant in `arbitrage.py` — rejected
+The card asks whether the second half of the fix belongs in arbitrage: *"a trade
+refused at 14:59 and re-armed at 15:00 has learned nothing from the refusal."*
+It does belong there, but as a **size**, not as a memory. `arbitrage.py`'s
+hysteresis note is explicit that the switching decision is "which hour is it" and
+that **no timer is needed and none is invented**; `peakguard.py`'s design note
+spends a paragraph on why it carries no hysteresis constant. A cooldown would be
+a second control loop compensating for a limit the first one declined to file,
+and its constant would outlive whatever it was tuned against. The trade now
+re-arms at `ceiling − load` instead of at `max_w`, which is what "learning from
+the refusal" means when the refusal is a measurement.
+
+## 3. What was done, and the precedent it follows
+
+`control.maintenance_charge_floor()` has capped MAINTENANCE charging at *"the
+headroom left under the site's cap"* since the loop was written, and its
+docstring says why:
+
+> "A maintenance charge is the only thing this system does that is big enough and
+> long enough to set that peak, so it is capped by the headroom left under the
+> site's cap."
+
+⚠️ **THAT SENTENCE STOPPED BEING TRUE WHEN OPT-04 LANDED.** Price arbitrage is a
+second thing that is big enough and long enough — it commands `max_w` for a whole
+tariff interval, deliberately, against the meter — and it was given no such cap.
+This card gives it the same shape, with one difference that matters:
+`maintenance_charge_floor()` sizes itself from `peak_forecast_entity`, which is
+OPTIONAL and empty on a default install — the exact hole SAFETY-25 had to close
+in `shaping_suspended()`. `charge_headroom_w()` comes off `decide()`, which runs
+wherever P1 does.
+
+**The number is `wanted_w` read in the other direction.** `decide()` already
+computes `wanted = batt_w + excess` as the DISCHARGE that lands the quarter on the
+ceiling; a negative `wanted` is a permitted CHARGE of `−wanted`. No new
+arithmetic, no new constant.
+
+Two properties make it safe to hand a strategy, and both are swept rather than
+argued (`test_peakguard.py` part 13):
+
+* ⚠️ **IT IS INVARIANT IN THE BATTERY.** Raise the charge by dW and the meter
+  rises by dW, so `excess` rises by exactly dW while `batt_w` falls by dW:
+  `wanted` does not move. Measured across `batt_w` from −5000 W to +2000 W on one
+  banked quarter — the headroom is 1350.0 W at every one of the six points while
+  the `excess` those runs see moves through six distinct values. It is a
+  **feed-forward** number, so consuming it adds no feedback path around the plant.
+  The fixed point is `charge = ceiling − load`, with the meter ON the ceiling and
+  `wanted` parked a whole `ceiling − load` clear of the engagement boundary.
+* **HOLDING IMPLIES ZERO OR UNKNOWN.** Across 1080 swept combinations, not one
+  ENGAGED decision answers a positive headroom, so the function can never hand a
+  caller permission the guard's own `lo` is at that instant refusing.
+
+## 4. After, on the same rig, same command, same checkout
+
+| `peak_cap_w` | house | onsets/h | grid swing | energy bought | billed quarters (W) |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| 1500 | 1200 W | 28 → **1** | 3655.5 → **282.0 W** | 180.0 → **285.2 Wh** | **1500.0 / 1500.0 / 1500.0** |
+| 3500 | 1800 W | 8 → **1** | 3672.5 → 1687.6 W | 1652.9 → 1616.1 Wh | **3500.0 / 3500.0 / 3500.0** |
+| 3500 | 3000 W | 32 → **1** | 3798.0 → **474.7 W** | 482.9 → 475.3 Wh | **3500.0 / 3500.0 / 3500.0** |
+| 5000 | 1200 W | 1 → 1 | **identical** | **identical** | **identical** |
+
+* **One onset** means the trade starts once and runs for the whole window. The
+  battery is trading 100 % of the hour where it used to trade 43 %, 92 % and 54 %.
+* **Every billed quarter lands exactly on the cap and none over it**, where every
+  quarter in the three biting rows used to finish over.
+* **The money.** At 1500/1200 the site buys **58 % MORE** energy, because a
+  continuous 300 W trade beats a 2000 W trade that is cancelled for 57 % of the
+  hour. At the two shipped-default rows it buys **2.2 % and 1.6 % less** — and in
+  exchange the worst quarter drops from 59 W over the cap to 0 W over it. The
+  capacity tariff bills the month's single worst quarter with no averaging and no
+  forgiveness (specs.md:583), so that is not a trade-off, it is the ordering
+  §10.1 asks for.
+* The remaining 1687.6 W at 3500/1800 is the opening **ramp**, not a cycle: the
+  pack goes from 0 to 1700 W of charge in about ten seconds and the meter with
+  it. One onset, no export, no reversal.
+* The last row is bit-identical before and after. **This card costs nothing on
+  the installs it is not about.**
+
+## 5. What this does NOT fix, with sizes
+
+* **TEST-23 finding 1 — the export overshoot at the END of a trade** (356–938 W,
+  ≈0.37 × `max_w`) is untouched and is a different card. It happens when the
+  cheap interval ends and the grid-following loop takes back an actuator that was
+  holding a charge; nothing here changes the handover.
+* **A house whose load ALONE exceeds the cap** (`load > peak_cap_w`) still puts
+  `wanted > 0`, still engages the guard, and still refuses the trade outright
+  through the interlock — correctly, since you cannot buy in a quarter you are
+  already over on. The loop then drives to grid = 0 rather than to grid =
+  ceiling, which is more discharge than the guard asked for. Not swept here: all
+  four (cap, load) pairs on the record have `load < cap`.
+* **`arbitrage.claim()` still files the SIZED number, but the ARBITER can clamp
+  it further** and the strategy is not told. The reason line names the guard's
+  headroom, not the arbiter's `bound_by`. Pre-existing; not widened.
+* **The container leg was not re-run.** `hadrive.py` needs `test23s3-addon`
+  started, and that container is deliberately stopped because it is a second
+  writer on the setpoint entity under measurement. The in-process rig's twelve
+  transcribed lines are pinned by `test_arbitrage.py` 3b's AST check on
+  `main.py`'s call site, which is the line this card adds to them.

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/SAFETY-47-what-a-shadow-run-can-show.md

@@ -0,0 +1,319 @@
+# SAFETY-47 — what a shadow run can show, and what it cannot
+
+**Status:** decided and implemented on branch `SAFETY-47`.
+**Card:** SAFETY-47 — *"shadow mode's claims, and the number on the status
+row"*.
+**Nothing here reached the inverter.** No deployment, no `ha addons update`, no
+contact with 192.168.2.158 or 192.168.2.221. Everything below was measured in
+the CI image and on TEST-23 stage 3's closed-loop rig.
+
+⚠️ **This is not a write-path defect and nothing in the write path was
+touched.** SAFETY-10's substitution, re-seed, authorisation gate and clamp are
+unchanged. What was wrong is what three merged documents **say** a shadow run
+can show you, and a number on the status row that can be **6.61×** what a live
+controller would command.
+
+---
+
+## 0. The four things a reader should take away
+
+1. **Shadow mode cannot surface a closed-loop defect. Not partially — not at
+   all**, and by the same construction that makes it safe. §1.
+2. **The "strategies are unaffected" exemption was true until SAFETY-45 merged,
+   one commit before SAFETY-10.** Sizing the buy leg to the billed-quarter
+   headroom made the strategy closed-loop. §2.
+3. **The recorded watts are the right answer to a question nobody asked, and
+   they are CAVEATED rather than re-computed.** Re-computing would mean the
+   recorded decision was no longer the decision the shipped path reached, which
+   is the one thing shadow mode has to be able to say. §3 records what was
+   rejected.
+4. **SAFETY-10 §6's committed evidence could never have failed, for two
+   independent reasons, and closing either one alone closes nothing.** §4.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Why the answer is "not at all", and not "not very well"
+
+Shadow mode holds every actuator at `shadow.WIRE_W` and re-seeds the carried
+command to it at the end of each cycle. So every **measured** input — the
+meter, the billed-quarter accumulator behind it, the battery power, the state
+of charge — describes a plant that **did not respond**.
+
+A closed-loop defect is, by definition, one whose stimulus **is** the plant's
+response to the controller. No response, no stimulus, nothing to see. This is
+not an implementation gap:
+
+* feeding the guards a **simulated** plant instead is exactly what SAFETY-10 §4
+  refuses for the sign watchdogs, and the reason generalises — a controller
+  reacting to a plant that does not exist drifts further from reality every
+  tick, and three cycles in its numbers describe nothing;
+* and SAFETY-10 §5 already conceded the same fact for the grid-following loop
+  ("one slew step, not a trajectory"). That was never a property of the loop.
+  **It is the general case**, and the loop leg was simply where it had already
+  been noticed.
+
+**So the closed-loop answer comes from a closed-loop rig (TEST-23 stage 3) or
+from a live run. There is no third place, and saying that plainly is worth more
+than the three sentences it replaces.**
+
+### Measured, on the rig, at a cap that binds
+
+`peak_cap_w` 1500 / house 1200 / `max_w` 2000, one hour at a 5 s cycle. Of the
+three defects SAFETY-10 was written for:
+
+| | visible? | measured |
+|---|---|---|
+| SAFETY-45's limit cycle | **no** | 28 charge onsets live, **1** in shadow. Grid −455.5 … +3200.0 W live, **flat at the 1200 W house** in shadow. Guard engaged 410/720 cycles live, **0/720** in shadow. (Taken with SAFETY-45 reverted — that is the defect being looked for.) |
+| SAFETY-46's SoC churn | **no** | the SoC moves **0.000000000 pp** in a shadow run. The SoC is the pack's integral of what the pack was commanded, and it was commanded 0 W. No SoC limit can be *reached* in a shadow run at all |
+| TARIFF-14's wrong quarter-hour | **yes**, and it is the only one | the price lookup's inputs are the clock and the price series, neither a function of the battery. Which hour, at what price, clearing what spread: **identical live and shadow on 720 of 720 charging cycles, at a binding cap** |
+
+### What a shadow run genuinely is for
+
+*Which* strategy wins, on *which* hour, at *which* price, for *which* reason,
+against which limits — the wrong-quarter-hour class, a trade armed on a day it
+should not be, a refusal whose sentence names the wrong subsystem, a clamp that
+would have engaged, a standing failsafe latch. That is a real and useful set,
+and it is the set the documents now claim.
+
+---
+
+## 2. The exemption, and exactly how much of it survives
+
+All three documents carried a version of:
+
+> The **strategies** are unaffected — price arbitrage, the capacity guard and
+> maintenance all ask for a fixed power **from inputs that do not depend on
+> what the battery did**.
+
+**True before SAFETY-45, false after it.** SAFETY-45 makes the buy leg
+`min(asked, headroom)`, and
+
+```
+headroom = (900 / remaining) x (ceiling - projected)
+```
+
+where `projected` reads the **open quarter's accumulator** — the meter — which
+is a function of what the battery did earlier in that same quarter. SAFETY-45
+merged one commit before SAFETY-10, so the exemption was stale on the day it
+was written.
+
+**What survives, and it is now graded rather than asserted:**
+
+> **Which** hour a strategy picks, and **why**, are unaffected — the clock and
+> the price series are not functions of the battery.
+> **How hard** it trades is not.
+
+⚠️ **The peak guard is not in the surviving half either.** Every term of
+`wanted = batt_w + excess` is measured, so in a shadow run the guard engages
+only if the *house alone* would put the quarter over the ceiling. Its
+**ceiling** and its **reasons** are worth reading from a shadow run; its
+**engagements** are not evidence of anything.
+
+---
+
+## 3. The number on the status row — decided, and what was rejected
+
+At `peak_cap_w` 1500 under a 1200 W house the status row read **"WOULD HAVE
+COMMANDED −2 000 W"**. A live controller commands **−302.4 W**. Measured on the
+shipped build:
+
+| cap / house | live commanded | shadow recorded | over by |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| 1500 / 1200 | −302.4 W | **−2000.0 W** | **6.61×** |
+| 3500 / 3000 | −502.6 W | −2000.0 W | 3.98× |
+| 3500 / 2000 *(shipped cap)* | −1502.6 W | −2000.0 W | 1.33× |
+| 3500 / 1800 | −1702.6 W | −2000.0 W | 1.17× |
+| 15000 / 350 | −2000.0 W | −2000.0 W | 1.00× |
+
+⚠️ **The arithmetic is not wrong.** `900/remaining` is correct for a meter that
+is genuinely under the ceiling, and in a shadow run the meter genuinely *is*
+under it, because the battery is not charging. **The recorded number is the
+right answer to a question nobody asked** — and the last row of that table is
+the fixture SAFETY-10's own evidence was taken on, which is why nothing
+reported it.
+
+### What shipped
+
+1. **Unconditionally**, the row and the log line stop forecasting: the watts
+   are introduced as what would have been commanded **ON THIS CYCLE**. No
+   number a shadow run records is a prediction of a live run, so no state
+   should read like one.
+2. **Conditionally**, whenever a **measured** billed quarter sized the number
+   being recorded, both surfaces carry `shadow.SIZED_FROM_METER`:
+
+   > ⚠️ AND ITS SIZE CAME FROM THE BILLED-QUARTER METER, WHICH HAS ONLY THE
+   > HOUSE IN IT WHILE THE BATTERY IS HELD AT 0 W. A live run sizes the same
+   > trade against a meter the battery is moving, so this is an UPPER BOUND and
+   > not a prediction; how far under it a live run lands is a closed-loop
+   > question and a shadow run cannot answer it.
+
+⚠️ **"Upper bound", and not "smaller", and the difference was measured.**
+Charging only *adds* offtake, so a live `projected` is never below a shadow one
+and the headroom never above it — with **equality at the start of every
+quarter**, where `900/remaining` is 1.0 and neither plant has moved. Measured
+pairwise over 3600 charging cycles in five configurations: **0 cycles below,
+730 exactly equal.** A sentence reading "smaller" would have been false on
+every one of those 730, and the first draft of this card said "smaller".
+
+⚠️ **And it names no factor.** How far under the bound a live run lands is a
+property of the site. A number invented for the row would be a second helping
+of the defect the sentence exists to disclose.
+
+⚠️ **The predicate is NOT keyed on whether the trade was capped, and that is
+the trap this card nearly walked into.** `arbitrage`'s own sentence says *"SIZED
+BY THE CAPACITY-TARIFF GUARD"* only when the headroom came out **below** the
+ask — which in a shadow run is the **start** of the quarter, where the two runs
+still agree to the float. By the end, `900/remaining` has multiplied the
+headroom **past** the ask, the trade is **not** capped, the sentence is silent,
+and the recorded number is at its **most** wrong. A caveat keyed on it would be
+quietest exactly where it is needed loudest. `arbitrage.sized_from_meter()` is
+keyed on the headroom having been **measured**, so it fires on both.
+`test_arbitrage.py` part 3d-8 drives the inversion.
+
+### Rejected, and why
+
+* **Re-compute the number so it does not amplify** — e.g. record
+  `ceiling − projected` (gain 1.0) instead of the sized figure. It matches the
+  live answer almost exactly at this cap, and it is the **worst** of the
+  options. It would be a **shadow-only sizing**: the recorded decision would no
+  longer be the decision the shipped path reached, while the arbiter, the
+  clamp, SAFETY-28's gate, the action log and MQTT all ran on the real one. A
+  second copy of the sizing arithmetic living in the display layer is
+  MUTATION.md's transcribed-predicate defect on an operator-facing surface, and
+  it generalises to no other strategy. SAFETY-10's whole safety argument is
+  that shadow mode is a **substitution at the wire**, not a second controller;
+  this would have made it a second controller everywhere except the wire.
+* **Record nothing where the sizing depends on measured state.** Tempting —
+  "no number beats a number 6.61× out". Rejected on three counts: it blanks the
+  row exactly when arbitrage is trading, which is when a commissioning engineer
+  most wants it; the action log's edge key is the rounded watts, so blanking
+  them either floods or silences the log; and a surface that flickers between a
+  number and a dash is harder to read than a number with a standing caveat.
+  The narrow version of this — dropping the watts only — was the closest
+  runner-up.
+* **Record the unsized ask alongside the sized one.** It adds a number without
+  adding a warning. The unsized ask is `max_w`, a constant the operator
+  configured; on the shipped 3500/2000 row both figures are 2000 W, so the pair
+  is exactly as misleading as the single figure was.
+* **A caveat on every cycle in every state.** Rejected as the *whole* answer,
+  accepted as half of it: the unconditional part is a two-word narrowing of the
+  verb ("on this cycle"), not a warning, and the warning proper is conditional
+  so that it still means something when it appears.
+
+---
+
+## 4. SAFETY-10 §6's evidence, and why it could not fail
+
+§6 tabulated `arb_power_w` −2000 W *"identical"*, `arb_reason` *"identical,
+verbatim"*, arbiter winner *"identical"*. Two independent reasons it could
+never have gone red:
+
+1. **the fixture is `peak_cap_w: 15000` against a 350 W house**, so the guard
+   never engages and SAFETY-45's sizing is in the run and inert. ⚠️ **The
+   harness's own comment says so** — *"at this scenario's `peak_cap_w: 15000`
+   it is not binding anyway"* — which is MUTATION.md habit 4 written down
+   beside the check it disables;
+2. **every identity row reads the FIRST charging sample.** At `elapsed = 0` the
+   projection *is* the held level, so the two runs agree to the float there
+   **even at a cap that does bind**.
+
+⚠️ **AND THAT SECOND REASON IS THE ONE A REVIEWER CANNOT SEE FROM A DIFF.**
+Widening the fixture alone — the obvious fix — leaves the `[0]` comparison
+passing. Measured, not reasoned: at 1500/1200 the first charging cycle is
+−300.0000 W in **both** runs while 716 of the 720 cycles differ. Part 3d-2
+grades that agreement **as an expectation**, so nobody rebuilds a check on
+`[0]` believing it covers something.
+
+This is habit 4's **twelfth** instance in this repository, its **second**
+inside a committed evidence artifact, and — like the seventh and the eleventh —
+it was in a **measuring instrument** rather than in a check.
+
+§6 is re-taken at `peak_cap_w` 1500 / house 1200 / `max_w` 2000, across the
+whole run. Harness `/home/homelab/s47-mut/shadowloop47.py`.
+
+---
+
+## 5. The grader, so this class cannot recur
+
+`test_arbitrage.py` part **3d** — placed beside part 3c, which is SAFETY-45's
+own closed-loop regression, and built on the **same** `s45_loop()` harness so
+the two runs share every line of shipped code and differ in **one argument**:
+
+```
+s45_loop(sized=True)                  the live hour
+s45_loop(sized=True,  shadow=True)    the same hour, battery held at WIRE_W
+s45_loop(sized=False, shadow=True)    SAFETY-45's own defect, watched from
+                                      inside shadow mode
+```
+
+Three lines of `s45_loop()` stand in for `Controller._write_unit()`'s
+substitution and `_shadow_settle()`'s record and re-seed. They are marked as a
+**transcription**; `test_clamp.py` part 8 is the check on the shipped
+placement, and it drives the real `Controller`. Everything that produces a
+number — the averager, the projection, the guard, the headroom, the strategy,
+the arbiter, the row and the log sentence — is the shipped one.
+
+What 3d grades, in order: that the cap **binds** (the precondition the old
+evidence lacked); that the first charging cycle agrees **anyway**; that the
+whole run diverges, and by how much; that the record is an **upper bound**, and
+the two-point arithmetic that makes it one; what survives of the exemption;
+that SAFETY-45's limit cycle and the guard's engagements are **not** visible;
+the four rungs of `sized_from_meter()`, each reached with the other three clear
+(TEST-16); both operator surfaces; the `capped`-keying trap; and main.py's
+three call sites, pinned on the AST.
+
+⚠️ **The section carries its own precondition into every check.** A mutation
+that stops either run trading left the lists empty, the first `min()` raised,
+the file died before part 4 and the run reported **zero reds — which reads
+exactly like a survivor**. That is FCST-06's shape and it was **driven**, not
+imagined. `s47check()` now fails every check in the section when the stimulus
+was not produced, and the one division in it answers `nan` rather than raising.
+
+---
+
+## 6. The mutation battery — 14 mutations, no survivors
+
+Harness `/home/homelab/s47-mut/run.py`, backups inside it. Each run restores
+from backup, purges `__pycache__` **on the host**, and grades through the CI
+image with the tree bind-mounted `:ro`, so the interpreter cannot write a cache
+into the tree under test (TEST-15). Fingerprints are printed before the first
+run and re-checked after the last restore.
+
+| # | mutation | file | Δ | reds |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| M1 | the row drops the caveat branch | `shadow.py` | −63 B | 2 |
+| M2 | **the trap**: `sized_from_meter()` keyed on the trade being CAPPED — silent where the record is multiples out | `arbitrage.py` | +33 B | 5 |
+| M3 | the CHARGE rung dropped — a sell carries a caveat §9.1 makes false | `arbitrage.py` | −30 B | 1 |
+| M4 | the measured-headroom rung dropped | `arbitrage.py` | −18 B | 1 |
+| M5 | the arbiter-winner rung dropped — a caveat on somebody else's number | `arbitrage.py` | −33 B | 1 |
+| M6 | `main.py` renders the row with `sized_from_meter=False` | `main.py` | −23 B | 1 |
+| M7 | `main.py` drops `winner=` — the rung exists and is never reached | `main.py` | −1 B | 1 |
+| M8 | `main.py` sizes the trade from a literal — SAFETY-45 out of the shipped path, which the hoist put at risk | `main.py` | −41 B | 2 |
+| M9 | the headroom assignment moves out of `cycle()` | `main.py` | −39 B | 1 |
+| M10 | `sized_from_meter` gains a `False` default (TEST-14) | `shadow.py` | +8 B | 1 |
+| M11 | `ON THIS CYCLE` deleted — the row forecasts again | `shadow.py` | −14 B | 1 |
+| M12 | `log_line()` drops the caveat — the page discloses, the record does not | `shadow.py` | −63 B | 2 |
+| M13 ⚠️ | `main.py` re-assembles the log sentence at the call site | `main.py` | **+0 B** | 1 |
+| M14 ⚠️ | `wanted = batt_w − excess` — the headroom stops being monotone in the battery and the row's UPPER BOUND sentence becomes false | `peakguard.py` | **+0 B** | 38 |
+
+**Survivors: none.**
+
+⚠️ **M13 and M14 are `+0 B`, which MUTATION.md names as the risky delta.** Both
+were confirmed on disk by `sha256` before the run started — the harness prints
+the fingerprint of every graded file and the hash moved for each — and every
+run is purged, so neither is at risk of the stale-`.pyc` failure.
+
+⚠️ **Two findings from driving it, both reported rather than tidied away.**
+
+* **M14's first form was aimed at the wrong direction and correctly survived.**
+  `min` → `max` in the buy leg's sizing makes the shadow record *larger*, which
+  is still an upper bound, so 3d-3b was right not to fail. The mutation that
+  actually inverts the bound is the sign of the excess term in `wanted`. A
+  survivor that is right is worth more than a red aimed at the wrong claim.
+* **M12 was a survivor before the fix it forced.** Deleting the caveat from the
+  action-log line left **all 29 files green**: the only check that could see
+  that line drives a fixture with `meter_source: off`, where no arbitrage
+  decision — and therefore no caveat — is reachable. The sentence was an
+  f-string inside `Controller._shadow_settle()`, i.e. a surface no check could
+  grade. It is `shadow.log_line()` now, for the reason `words()` is a function,
+  and M13 is the mutation that puts it back at the call site.

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/SAFETY-48-bounding-the-integrator-lead.md

@@ -0,0 +1,551 @@
+# SAFETY-48 — the slew step ceiling reaches the integrator, and what it bounds is the LEAD
+
+**Status:** decided and implemented on branch `SAFETY-48`, on top of `TEL-10`.
+**Card:** SAFETY-48 — *"the integrator goes on winding while the command is
+slew-limited"*.
+**Nothing here reached the inverter.** The live install still runs `slew_w: 400`
+applied by hand on 2026-09-05 12:00 and `release/1.0`'s control law. This branch
+does not deploy and does not bump the version.
+
+---
+
+## 0. The four things a reader should take away
+
+1. **It is a missing case, not a wrong constant, and the arithmetic says so.**
+   The integrator moves `gain * error` a cycle and the command moves at most
+   `slew_w`, so the integrator outruns the command whenever
+   `|error| > slew_w / gain` — 667 W at the live shape. SAFETY-39's retune made
+   `slew_w` **smaller**, which makes that threshold **lower**. §1.
+2. ⚠️ **THE FORM THE CARD ASKED FOR RAISES THE BILLED QUANTITY, AND THAT IS WHY
+   IT IS NOT WHAT SHIPPED.** Reusing the asymmetric freeze on a carried slew
+   flag cuts export 13 % and moves the worst quarter-hour average **offtake**
+   from 3739 W to **3935 W**, with the mean quarter +2.7 W — and on the billed
+   quarter it is worse at **every plant lag where release/1.0 produces a peak
+   at all** (a tie at lag 0, worse at 2.5 / 5.0 / 7.5 / 10.0 s) and at **every
+   top-N cut of the quarters**, which makes this the least lag-sensitive result
+   in the card. The harm is a tail redistribution inside quarters that already
+   net to offtake, not a weaker answer to import in aggregate. §3, §3a.
+3. **What ships bounds the LEAD at one slew step, only where the slew is what
+   stopped the command, and only in the leading direction.** The robust result
+   is the **export reduction — 39.6 → 34.1 kWh, and it falls at every plant and
+   tuning tried** — with wasted throughput 4.67 → 3.19 kWh, sign reversals
+   2992 → 2770 and median recovery 232 → 199 s. ⚠️ **The billed quarter is not
+   something this card can claim.** It reads 3739 → **3434 W** at the fitted
+   plant lag of 7.5 s; at every lag ≤ 5.0 s — including the one that best
+   reproduces the recorded export — release/1.0 is *already* at 3434 W and this
+   card moves it by exactly zero. The lag is not identified by the data. §4,
+   §3a.
+4. **Two committed numbers moved and neither is a silent edit.** SAFETY-13's
+   released command settles lower, because there is less wound integrator to
+   settle onto; and SAFETY-39's *"the slew does not own the over-absorption"* is
+   now **false — inverted, on its own independent plant model.** §5, §6.
+
+---
+
+## 1. The defect, in the terms the code uses
+
+`compute()` freezes the integrator with an asymmetric rule, and the comment
+beside it states the requirement outright:
+
+> the requirement is that the INTEGRATOR stop accumulating, not only the command
+
+But `frozen` is computed from **one** signal:
+
+```python
+saturated_now = abs(prev_w - actual_w) > tuning.saturation_w   # not tracking
+```
+
+Slew-limiting never enters it. When the command hits the step ceiling the
+integrator keeps winding at `gain * error` until it reaches `integrator_max_w`,
+and the unwind afterwards is `integrator_max_w / slew_w` cycles — 12.5 at the
+live shape, about a minute at the meter's measured tick.
+
+⚠️ **AND THE RETUNE MADE IT MORE FREQUENT, NOT LESS.** `|error| > slew_w / gain`
+is 1667 W at `slew_w: 1000` and **667 W** at `slew_w: 400`. The measured median
+grid error at the onset of a recorded episode is 1114 W — above the second
+threshold and below the first. This is why SAFETY-39 did not fix it, and the
+mechanism is the same one §6 shows inverting.
+
+## 2. How it was measured, and what the measurement cannot say
+
+`tools/replay_recorded_loop.py`, over **16.00 days / 256 252 meter instants** of
+the live install's own recorder, exported read-only.
+
+**Real:** the disturbance (`D = grid + batt` at every recorded meter instant —
+the house with this loop's own battery taken back out, which is exogenous and
+therefore valid to drive a counterfactual with); the tick (the meter's own
+recorded instants, median **5.01 s**); and the control law, imported out of the
+checkout. The "before" law is the **same file** with the SAFETY-48 block removed
+by a named substitution and exec'd into a fresh namespace — never a
+transcription — and a missing or duplicated anchor is a **refusal** with
+`NOTHING HAS BEEN MEASURED` on it, because an instrument that quietly compared
+the shipped law with itself would report the card as changing nothing.
+
+**Modelled:** the inverter (pure delay 7.5 s + first-order lag 2.0 s +
+`batt = 0.973 × cmd − 22.4 W`, fitted on this same recording above the SoC
+floor, residual **375 W RMS**); the pack (SoC integrated, discharge refused at
+or below the floor); and **everything else the arbiter does** — the recorded
+setpoint is the arbiter's output after the peak guard, the SoC clamps,
+maintenance and arbitrage, while the replay runs `compute()` alone.
+
+⚠️ **THE ABSOLUTE FIGURES ARE PESSIMISTIC BY ABOUT A THIRD AND THE TOOL PRINTS
+IT ON EVERY RUN.** Replaying the before-law reproduces 39.6 kWh of export where
+the install actually exported **29.4 kWh** over the same window. The delta is
+what this instrument is for: both laws run on the same ticks, the same
+disturbance, the same plant and the same seed.
+
+⚠️ **THE SoC FILTER ON THE PLANT FIT IS THE WHOLE FIT, AND IT IS A FINDING IN
+ITS OWN RIGHT.** This install spends **36 % of its ticks at or below a 10 % SoC
+with the command standing near 2 kW and the battery delivering nothing.** Fitted
+over all ticks the recording says `batt = 0.50 × cmd − 396 W, r = 0.70` — a
+plant that follows half the command, which no inverter does. Above the floor the
+same data says `batt = 1.00 × cmd − 28 W, r = 0.977`. The floor is the PACK and
+is modelled separately.
+
+## 3. The form the card asked for, and the number that refused it
+
+The card asked for the asymmetric rule already in service for saturation, on a
+flag carried across cycles the way `sat_count` is. It was built — from
+release/1.0's own source, one substitution per change — and measured on the same
+16 days through the same pipeline:
+
+| | release/1.0 | **form A** — carried slew flag + the asymmetric freeze | **SAFETY-48** — the lead cap |
+|---|---:|---:|---:|
+| export kWh | 39.61 | 34.43 | **34.07** |
+| import kWh | 116.07 | 110.62 | 111.20 |
+| battery sign reversals | 2992 | **2656** | 2770 |
+| wasted throughput kWh | 4.67 | **2.99** | 3.19 |
+| **worst 15-min offtake W** | 3739 | ⚠️ **3935** | **3434** |
+| mean quarter-hour offtake delta | — | ⚠️ **+2.73 W** | **−2.39 W** |
+| worst quarter-hour delta | — | +992 W | +532 W |
+| recovery median s | 232 | **184** | 199 |
+| recovery p99 s | 849 | **781** | 850 |
+| recovery max s | 901 | 890 | 898 |
+| unrecovered (> 900 s) | 53 | **26** | 31 |
+| \|i_w − prev_w\| p99 W | 3361 | 1534 | **800** |
+| \|i_w − prev_w\| max W | 9200 | 6912 | **800** |
+
+**Form A wins on four rows and loses on the one that is billed.** The capacity
+tariff (*capaciteitstarief*) bills the month's worst quarter-hour average
+offtake, and form A raises it by **196 W** — and raises the MEAN quarter by
+2.7 W, so this is systematic and not one unlucky quarter. It does so in **five
+of the six** plant and tuning variants in `--sensitivity`; the sixth is a tie.
+
+The per-cycle mechanism is that a frozen integrator stops at
+`prev + gain·error(first cycle)`, which is `(1 − gain)` short of what the site
+needs — 40 % short at `gain: 0.6`.
+
+⚠️ **AND THE SENTENCE THAT USED TO FOLLOW THAT ONE WAS TOO BIG FOR THE DATA.**
+It read *"for an IMPORT it is offtake, so a large import is answered too weakly
+for as long as the ramp lasts"*. The aggregate does not show a weaker answer to
+import: form A cuts total import by **5.45 kWh** and export by **5.18 kWh**
+against release/1.0, and paired tick by tick it delivers **8.56 kWh LESS**
+offtake energy on the ticks release/1.0 spent importing (lower on 38 229 such
+ticks, higher on 19 669). What form A moves is the **TAIL, within quarters that
+already net to offtake** — the worst quarter goes 3739 → 3935 W, the top five
+3260 → 3300 W, the top fifty 1880.0 → 1882.7 W. The capacity tariff bills the
+worst quarter and nothing else, so a redistribution that leaves the mean alone
+and lifts the maximum is exactly the trade that is refused here. The conclusion
+is unchanged; the causal sentence is now the one the data supports.
+
+⚠️ **THE CARD SAID "do not invent a second rule", AND THE MEASUREMENT SAYS TO.**
+That instruction is recorded here rather than quietly dropped. What ships is a
+different rule; the paragraph above is why.
+
+## 3a. ⚠️ The plant lag is NOT identified by this recording, and the billed quarter is the claim that depends on it
+
+`fit_plant()` picks `lag 7.5 s` because it minimises **battery-power RMS**. That
+objective barely distinguishes the candidates — 375.3 W at 7.5 s against 376.4 W
+at 2.5 s, **0.3 %** — while the tool's *own* printed fidelity measure, replayed
+export against the **29.43 kWh this install actually exported**, prefers 2.5 s by
+the whole of the 35 % gap the header warns about. Two measures on the same data
+disagree, and nothing here breaks the tie.
+
+So the sweep has to be read as a sensitivity, not as a confirmation:
+
+| plant lag | fit RMS W | replayed export kWh (release/1.0) | **worst 15-min offtake W:** release/1.0 | form A | SAFETY-48 | mean quarter ΔW |
+|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
+| 0.0 | 392.3 | 23.5 | **3434** | 3434 | **3434** | +0.53 |
+| 2.5 | **376.4** | **28.9** ← nearest 29.43 | **3434** | ⚠️ 3732 | **3434** | −0.59 |
+| 5.0 | 378.0 | 32.1 | **3434** | ⚠️ 3711 | **3434** | −1.02 |
+| 7.5 | **375.3** ← chosen | 39.6 | 3739 | ⚠️ 3935 | **3434** | −2.39 |
+| 10.0 | 384.2 | 75.4 | 3954 | ⚠️ 4326 | **3434** | −4.65 |
+
+(The RMS column is `fit_plant()`'s own inner sweep pinned to one lag — best `tau`
+and a re-fitted gain/offset at that lag. The export and quarter columns follow
+`--sensitivity`'s convention instead: only the lag is substituted into the
+global fit, everything else held. That is why the lag 5.0 and 10.0 export
+figures are the ones already printed in §7b.)
+
+⚠️ **AT EVERY LAG ≤ 5.0 s THE IMPROVEMENT IS NOT AN IMPROVEMENT — IT IS AN
+ABSENCE.** release/1.0's worst quarter is *already* 3434 W there and SAFETY-48
+changes it by **exactly zero**. §7b's paragraph used to read the `3434 → 3434`
+rows as "the direction does not move"; that is the wrong reading. The direction
+has nothing to move: at those plants release/1.0 never produces a quarter worse
+than 3434 W in the first place, and the 3739 → 3434 W headline exists only at
+the single longest lag `fit_plant()` happens to select. **The peak claim is a
+property of the plant model, not of the card.** What the card can claim on the
+billed quantity is that it does not make it worse, at any lag.
+
+⚠️ **AND THE ONE RESULT HERE THAT IS NOT LAG-SENSITIVE IS THE FORM-A
+REJECTION.** Form A's worst quarter is the worst of the three at **every lag
+where release/1.0 produces a peak at all** — 3732, 3711, 3935, 4326 against
+release/1.0's 3434, 3434, 3739, 3954 at lags 2.5 / 5.0 / 7.5 / 10.0, and a tie
+at lag 0.0 where both sit at 3434. It is worse at every top-N cut of the
+quarters at the fitted plant (top-1 3934.6 against 3738.7, top-5 3299.7 against
+3260.5, top-10 2890.6 against 2871.0, top-50 1882.7 against 1880.0, top-100
+1481.7 against 1479.0), and it raises the mean quarter. §3 understated this: the rejection does not rest on one unlucky
+quarter at one plant, which is exactly the objection a lag-sensitive result
+invites.
+
+⚠️ **WHAT WOULD SETTLE IT IS NOT IN THIS RECORDING.** Both objectives above are
+computed from the same four recorded entities, and they disagree; nothing else
+in the capture breaks the tie, and this card did not go looking for a third
+objective after seeing which lag each of the first two preferred. A driven step
+response — the command timestamped where it is written rather than where Home
+Assistant recorded it — is what identifies a lag. That is a rig measurement and
+it is not this card. Until it exists, the export reduction is what this card
+delivers and the peak figure is a plant-model artefact.
+
+## 4. What ships
+
+```python
+    slew = slew_limit_w(tuning)
+    slewed = max(prev_w - slew, min(prev_w + slew, target))
+    if slewed != target:
+        reason = "slew-limited"
+        _lead_cap = SLEW_LEAD_STEPS * slew
+        if target > slewed:
+            i_w = min(i_w, slewed + _lead_cap)
+        elif target < slewed:
+            i_w = max(i_w, slewed - _lead_cap)
+    target = slewed
+```
+
+Four properties, and each of them is a decision:
+
+* **It is inside the branch**, and ⚠️ **that placement was a SURVIVOR of all
+  thirty files until a check was written for it.** Applying it to every cycle
+  instead — `i_w = max(target - cap, min(target + cap, i_w))` after
+  `target = slewed`, −92 B — is **bit-identical on the shipped configuration**:
+  0 of 256 246 ticks differ over the 16-day recording. The two separate **only**
+  where `integrator_max_w` is set ABOVE `max_w` — the configuration `control.py`
+  says is the only way its `clamped` reason is reachable. There the integrator
+  is *deliberately* allowed above the rail, and an unconditional cap would drag
+  it back to the command every cycle and make the option inert.
+  `test_telemetry.py` part 4 drives that configuration, and the unconditional
+  form is red on it.
+
+  ⚠️ **THE COUNT OF SEPARABLE STATES IS DECORATION AND THREE SWEEPS DISAGREE
+  ABOUT IT.** This card's grid gave **2050 of 257 400**; an independent review
+  measured **1220 of 246 064**; a third, smaller grid (four tunings × 7 `prev_w`
+  × 9 `grid_w` × 5 `actual_w` × 8 `i_w` including `None` × 4 `sat_count`) gives
+  **776 of 40 320** — and that third one is spelled out here precisely because
+  the first two are not, which is the whole reason they cannot be reconciled.
+  No count here should be read as exact without the grid beside it. All three
+  agree on the load-bearing part, which is **where**: every separable state sits
+  in the `integrator_max_w > max_w` tuning and nowhere else.
+
+  ⚠️ **AND AN EARLIER DRAFT OF THIS BULLET GAVE THE WRONG REASON AND THE WRONG
+  NUMBER.** It said the two forms differ on 118 ticks because an unconditional
+  cap would pull the integrator toward a command the SATURATION freeze is
+  pinning. That 118 was measured against a *different* pair — a band applied
+  after quantisation, at the very end of `compute()` — and the saturation story
+  does not apply to the placement actually being compared, which sits before
+  the freeze. The figures above are the ones that were measured on the pair the
+  sentence names.
+
+  ⚠️ **AND THE SATURATION STORY IS NOT MERELY INAPPLICABLE — IT IS BACKWARDS.
+  THE NARROW CAP THAT SHIPPED *DOES* MOVE A SATURATION-FROZEN INTEGRATOR.** It
+  sits before the freeze block and is not gated on `frozen`. Measured on the
+  same 16 days at the live shape: of **79 160** frozen ticks the cap changed
+  `i_w` on **1095**, and on **679** of those it moved it further out on the side
+  it was already on — putting back magnitude the freeze had just let fall, which
+  is the one direction the freeze's rule ("may fall, never rise") exists to
+  forbid. 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**, the slew binds, and the cap drags it to
+  **−2600 W**. It never overrides a *same-cycle* refusal — the freeze clipped
+  `moved` on 75 512 ticks and the slew bound on none of them — but the claim
+  that this placement leaves the frozen path alone is false, and §5 is where
+  that shows up in a committed number.
+* **It is written one-sided, and that is a CLARITY choice, not a correctness
+  one.** ⚠️ **An earlier draft of this file and of the comment in `control.py`
+  said the two-sided band `max(slewed - cap, min(slewed + cap, i_w))` was a bug
+  that would drag a TRAILING integrator up toward the command. That was
+  invented, and the sweep said so: the two spellings agree on 205 920 of
+  205 920 cases** across four tunings, every sign of `prev_w`, `grid_w`,
+  `actual_w` and `i_w`, and the `i_w=None` path. `target` is monotone in `i_w`,
+  so when the slew binds `i_w` lies on the same side of `slewed` as `target`
+  does and the other clamp cannot reach. The one-sided form stays because it
+  NAMES the side the lead is on; the equivalence is recorded so the next reader
+  finds a measurement instead of an argument.
+* **It moves `i_w` and not `target`.** This cycle's command is already decided;
+  what is bounded is what gets CARRIED. That is also why the exhaustive
+  `i_w=None` equivalence sweep in `test_control.py` is untouched — it compares
+  `(target_w, sat_count, frozen, reason)`, none of which this moves.
+* **The cap is in STEPS, not watts**, for SAFETY-39's reason: a watt figure is a
+  constant that outlives the `slew_w` it was derived against. `SLEW_LEAD_STEPS`
+  moves with `slew_limit_w()` and therefore with the rail.
+
+⚠️ **ONE STEP, AND NOT ZERO.** `i_w = slewed` is full back-calculation, and
+`control.py`'s own docstring says what that costs: passing `i_w=None` *"reduces
+this function to the exact velocity form it replaced"*. A zero cap makes `i_w`
+identically the command on every cycle, which is that collapse written from the
+other end. Measured, it is **better** — export 32.02 kWh against 34.07, mean
+quarter −3.69 W against −2.39 — and it is still refused, because it throws away
+the reason the accumulator was split out at all. That 2 kWh is the price of
+keeping the bounded form, and it is stated rather than hidden.
+
+⚠️ **TWO LEADS, AND CONFUSING THEM IS HOW A CHECK GETS WRITTEN WRONG.** The cap
+bounds `i_w − target`, the command this cycle EMITS, at one step — which is what
+makes the unwind one cycle. `Decision.i_w − prev_w`, which is what TEL-10's
+`loop_lead` publishes, is measured against the command the PREVIOUS cycle left
+standing, and the emitted command is itself one step further on: the published
+figure is bounded by **two** steps. Both bounds are asserted, each against its
+own number.
+
+### The two recorded deadlocks, driven rather than argued
+
+`control.py` names two encodings that produce a permanently stuck loop, and a
+gate written on the integrator is exactly the edit that brings them back.
+Neither is reachable here and both are test cases in `test_telemetry.py` part 4:
+
+* **the shrink-only encoding** — *"only corrections that shrink |i_w|"* is
+  unsatisfiable for both signs whenever the correction is larger than twice the
+  integrator, and the loop then sits at its last value forever (measured before
+  the fix: 0 W held indefinitely into a 2 kW import). SAFETY-48 is not a shrink
+  rule; it caps the lead beyond one slew step and only while the slew binds.
+* **`i_w == 0.0`** — `main.py` resets the integrator to exactly 0.0 on every
+  stop and every reseed, and *"may not wind further in the direction it is
+  already pushing"* has no referent there. SAFETY-48 does not touch that gate;
+  the first push from zero is driven and asserted to move.
+
+And a third, specific to this card: **the cap cannot latch.** The flag is not
+carried, and after the cap `|i_w − slewed| = cap`, so the next cycle's command
+covers it in one step and the slew stops binding — after which the integrator
+accumulates freely again. The driven check asserts the command still walks all
+the way to the rail on a railed export.
+
+## 5. What this card COSTS, stated rather than smoothed
+
+**SAFETY-13's release buys back less.** That card's own scenario — a second
+writer holding the pack at +700 W, the command pinned, then released — settles
+at **−800 W** where release/1.0 settled at −1190 W against an integrator of
+−1194 W; and its sibling run settles at **−1200 W** where release/1.0 settled at
+−2390 W. The property AC 4 asserts is unchanged: the released command stops at
+the frozen integrator and not at the rail.
+
+⚠️ **AND THE TWO MOVED FOR TWO DIFFERENT REASONS, WHICH THE ONE-LINE EXPLANATION
+"how far that integrator had been allowed to wind" COVERS ONLY HALF OF.** Gating
+the cap on `not frozen` — one line, `if frozen: _lead_cap = float("inf")`, so
+the cap becomes a no-op while frozen — puts **part 5 back at release/1.0's
+−1190 W exactly**. That run moved because the cap **fires on frozen cycles**
+(§4). **Part 4(b) does not come back**: it is −1200 W gated and −1200 W shipped,
+against release/1.0's −2390 W, because *that* one moved for the winding reason.
+Both literals in `test_control.py` were re-baselined **with the reason beside
+them**, and the second is now asserted against `i_w` rather than against a
+number.
+
+**The alternative that avoids it was measured and rejected.** Gating the cap on
+`not frozen` as above gives export **34.71 kWh** (against 34.07), worst quarter
+**3434 W** (the same as shipped), wasted **3.49 kWh** (against 3.19) — and a
+worst observed lead of **4961 W**, i.e. no bound at all on the quantity this
+card exists to bound. A bound with an exception large enough to drive a truck
+through is not a bound. ⚠️ These four figures replace an earlier set (34.9,
+3461 W, 3.5 kWh, 4966 W) that does not reproduce on this tree with the gate
+spelled as above; the gate spelling is written out here so the next reader can
+re-run it rather than re-derive it.
+
+**One quarter-hour in 1534 is 532 W worse.** The billed figure is a MAXIMUM, and
+at the fitted plant lag the maximum improves (3739 → 3434 W); no quarter under
+SAFETY-48 reaches release/1.0's own worst. The mean moves the right way. The
+tail is reported because a maximum over 1534 quarters is decided by one of them
+— and §3a is the reason that improvement is not claimed as a benefit of the
+card: at every shorter plant lag release/1.0's own maximum is already 3434 W.
+
+## 6. The independent confirmation, which arrived as a failing check
+
+`test_control.py`'s SAFETY-39 section drives a family of 51 synthetic export
+steps through a **first-order plant this file writes itself** — no relation to
+the replay, no recorded data in it at all. It carried this assertion:
+
+> ⚠️ THE SLEW DOES NOT OWN THE OVER-ABSORPTION … Quartering the slew from 1000
+> to 250 does not reduce the over-absorption at all
+
+and it was right about the mechanism and therefore wrong about the conclusion:
+`slew_w` bounds the OUTPUT while the integrator accumulates `gain · error`, so a
+slower slew left the integrator winding for longer. Worst case over the family:
+
+| `slew_w` | release/1.0 | this branch |
+|---|---:|---:|
+| 1000 | 1005 W | **729 W** |
+| 0 (the rail, 556) | 1109 W | **550 W** |
+| 400 (the live interim) | 1285 W | **424 W** |
+| 250 | 1330 W | **326 W** |
+
+**The ranking inverts.** Before: slower is worse, monotonically. After: slower is
+better, monotonically. Two plant models that share nothing agree on the sign,
+which is worth more than either alone — and it means SAFETY-39's *"gain is the
+next constant to re-derive"* is now only half true: with the lead bounded, the
+slew owns a share of the over-absorption it did not own before. `gain` is still
+not touched here, for SAFETY-39's own reason: two live control-law constants
+moving in one release makes the next measurement uninterpretable.
+
+⚠️ **AND THE RIG SAYS THE SAME THING, WHICH MEANS TWO COMMITTED TRANSCRIPTS
+CHANGED MEANING UNDER THIS CARD.** `tools/slew_sim.py --slew` runs the same
+derivation on admin/goodwe's `plantsim.Plant`, a third model again. Worst-case
+over-absorption over its 51-step family, `slew_w` from 1000 down to 250:
+
+| `slew_w` | 1000 | 800 | 700 | 600 | 556 | 500 | 400 | 300 | 250 |
+|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
+| release/1.0 | 958 | 1107 | 1133 | 1058 | 987 | 1029 | 1150 | 1143 | 1081 |
+| **this branch** | 777 | 734 | 663 | 563 | 553 | 507 | 435 | 358 | 321 |
+
+release/1.0's row is flat and non-monotone and **800 really is better than 556**
+on that column — SAFETY-39 measured it correctly and its §3 sentence is true of
+the law it was written against. This branch's row falls monotonically. So
+SAFETY-39's record is not retracted; it is given a **forward reference**, and
+`slew_sim.py`'s own narration now reads `SLEW_LEAD_STEPS` out of the control law
+it imported and says which of the two tables it is printing. MUTATION.md habit 8
+— a committed transcript is a check, and a transcript whose prose contradicts
+its own table is a failing one.
+
+## 7. Verified by breaking it
+
+**The law.** `test_telemetry.py` part 4 and `test_control.py`'s SAFETY-39
+section. The mutation table is in `test_telemetry.py`'s header.
+
+**The instrument** (MUTATION.md habit 8 — anything under `tools/` that a
+document quotes is subject to the battery):
+
+| # | mutation to `app/control.py` | what the instrument did |
+|---|---|---|
+| I2 | the whole SAFETY-48 block deleted | **REFUSED**, exit 1, `NOTHING HAS BEEN MEASURED` — not a zero delta |
+| I3 | the anchor line itself edited | **REFUSED**, same message |
+| I3b | `SLEW_LEAD_STEPS = 1000` — the cap present but inert | **every row +0.00**, which is the honest report that the block is doing nothing |
+| I4 | `SLEW_LEAD_STEPS = 0` — full back-calculation | every row moves further; this is the rejected form's number in §4 |
+
+I3b is the one that matters: it proves the delta in §3 is caused by the block
+and not by the two runs differing for some other reason.
+
+**The law**, driven in the CI image on a purged tree, fingerprinted before,
+after and after the revert:
+
+| # | mutation to `app/control.py` | bytes | reds |
+|---|---|---:|---|
+| L1 | the whole SAFETY-48 block deleted | −195 B | 5 in `test_telemetry.py`, 4 in `test_control.py` |
+| L2 | `SLEW_LEAD_STEPS = 0` — the velocity form | +0 B | 4 + 3 |
+| L3 | `SLEW_LEAD_STEPS = 12` — a cap above the rail | +1 B | 4 + 3 |
+| L4 | the cap applied unconditionally, outside the slew branch | −92 B | 1 + 0 — **and it was a SURVIVOR of all thirty files before that check existed** |
+| L5a | the `min`/`max` FUNCTION names exchanged | +0 B | 5 + 5, one of them `test_control.py`'s own "frozen integrator never deadlocks" over 13 041 states |
+| L5b | the two BRANCH BODIES exchanged — the other reading of "the cap on the wrong side" | +0 B | 5 + 4, and it does **not** reach the deadlock sweep |
+| L6 | the lead measured against `prev_w` rather than the command emitted | +0 B | 6 + 3 |
+
+⚠️ **L5 AND L6 ARE BOTH ZERO BYTES** — `min`/`max` and `slewed`/`prev_w` are
+each the same length — so no fingerprint and no byte delta can see either, and
+one of L5a's reds is `test_control.py`'s own *"frozen integrator never
+deadlocks"* sweep over 13 041 states, written by SAFETY-13 for a different
+reason.
+
+⚠️ **THREE OF THESE COUNTS WERE WRONG AND ARE RE-MEASURED ABOVE, WHICH IS
+MUTATION.md's REPORTING RULE 3 APPLIED TO THIS CARD'S OWN TABLE.** The earlier
+row gave L5 as 2 + 5 and L6 as 4 + 3; driven again in the CI image on a `cp -a`
+of this tree, purged, `:ro`, one file at a time, they are **5 + 5** and
+**6 + 3**. ⚠️ **AND "L5" NAMED TWO DIFFERENT MUTATIONS.** "`min`/`max` swapped"
+can mean the function names exchanged or the branch bodies exchanged; they are
+both red, they are both the cap on the wrong side, and they give different
+counts (5 + 5 against 5 + 4) and reach different checks. A row that writes one
+number for a mutation a reader cannot re-derive from its own description is a
+row that cannot be re-run, so both spellings are listed. The directions in the
+original table were all correct; the counts were decoration, and decoration in
+a mutation table reads as evidence.
+
+## 7b. The transcript, quoted rather than summarised
+
+`python3 tools/replay_recorded_loop.py --sensitivity`, on this branch, 58 s:
+
+```
+THE RECORDING: 256252 meter instants over 16.00 days, loop-2026-09-02_2026-09-17
+    tick   p5 4.77 s   median 5.01 s   p95 7.86 s   (control.LOOP_TICK_S says 2.0)
+    the recorded command: extremes -5000 / +5000 W  ->  max_w 5000;  most common step above 100 W is 400 W, 9924 times  ->  slew_w 400
+    the fitted inverter: lag 7.5 s, tau 2.0 s, batt = 0.9731 x cmd -22.4 W, residual 375 W RMS above the SoC floor
+
+FIDELITY - the BEFORE law replayed against the recording it came from
+    setpoint  r=0.887  mean     +601 W simulated vs     +739 W recorded
+    grid      r=0.682  mean     +195 W simulated vs     +239 W recorded
+    export       39.61 kWh simulated vs    29.43 kWh recorded  ->  the model is +35 % PESSIMISTIC about the loop's tracking
+
+THE A/B, same ticks, same disturbance, same plant, same seed
+                                 release/1.0     SAFETY-48       delta
+    export kWh                         39.61         34.07       -5.54   the cost
+    import kWh                        116.07        111.20       -4.86
+    battery sign reversals           2992.00       2770.00     -222.00
+    wasted throughput kWh               4.67          3.19       -1.48
+    worst 15-min offtake W           3738.67       3433.94     -304.74   ⚠️ THE BILLED ONE
+    recovery events                   549.00        612.00      +63.00
+    recovery median s                 232.06        199.04      -33.01
+    recovery p99 s                    849.00        849.94       +0.94
+    recovery max s                    901.06        898.40       -2.66
+    unrecovered (>900 s)               53.00         31.00      -22.00
+    |i_w - prev_w| p99 W             3361.12        800.00    -2561.12
+    |i_w - prev_w| max W             9200.00        800.00    -8400.00
+    slew-limited ticks              16392.00      11654.00    -4738.00
+    mean quarter delta W                                         -2.39   over 1534 quarters
+    worst quarter delta W                                      +532.27
+
+SENSITIVITY - the ranking, not the watts
+      variant                               export kWh           worst quarter W   mean quarter dW
+      plant lag 5.0 s                32.1 ->     27.2         3434 ->     3434             -1.02
+      plant lag 10.0 s               75.4 ->     68.3         3954 ->     3434             -4.65
+      plant tau 8 s                  56.5 ->     49.8         3995 ->     3605             -3.30
+      gain 1.0135, offset -26        46.8 ->     39.3         3713 ->     3434             -3.27
+      slew_w 555.6 (the rail)        36.5 ->     34.4         3434 ->     3434             -0.17
+      gain 0.3                       28.1 ->     27.0         3434 ->     3434             +0.16
+
+    (58 s)
+```
+
+⚠️ **`--sensitivity` IS THE RANKING AND NOT THE WATTS.** The export figure moves
+by a factor of two across these plants; what does not move is the direction —
+**on export**. ⚠️ **THE `worst quarter W` COLUMN IS NOT THE SAME KIND OF
+EVIDENCE AND THIS PARAGRAPH USED TO TREAT IT AS IF IT WERE.** Three of its six
+rows read `3434 -> 3434`, and that is not "the direction holds": it is
+release/1.0 *already sitting at 3434 W* on those plants, with nothing for the
+card to improve. §3a sweeps the lag properly and finds the same thing at every
+lag ≤ 5.0 s. The billed-quarter improvement in the A/B table above exists at one
+plant, the one `fit_plant()` selects by an objective that separates it from its
+neighbour by 0.3 %.
+
+Two rows deserve naming rather than rounding: at `slew_w: 555.6` (the rail) and
+at `gain: 0.3` the mean quarter-hour delta is −0.17 W and **+0.16 W** — ties,
+not improvements. Both are regimes where `|error| > slew_w / gain` is rarely
+satisfied (1333 W at `gain: 0.3`, 926 W at the rail against a measured median
+onset error of 1114 W), so there is little for the card to bite on. That is the
+mechanism agreeing with itself, and it is also the honest answer to "would this
+still be worth shipping if the tuning moved": at `gain: 0.3` it would not be.
+
+## 8. What this card does NOT establish
+
+* **Nothing here drives an inverter.** The replay is a model with a 375 W
+  residual and no arbiter in it. The closed-loop answer comes from the rig or
+  from a live run — SAFETY-47 records why a shadow run cannot give it.
+* **The live tick is 5.0 s, not `LOOP_TICK_S`'s 2.0 s**, measured off 9924
+  recorded 400 W steps and off the meter's own cadence. It is wrong in the SAFE
+  direction (a slower meter makes `validate.py` rule 10 conservative) and is NOT
+  changed here — re-deriving `SLEW_RAIL_FRAC` is a refusal boundary on a live
+  install and belongs to its own card. It is recorded in the tool's header and
+  printed on every run.
+* **The brief's plant figure was close but not exact.** It quoted
+  `delivered = 1.0135 × command − 26 W, r = 0.992` at a 4–6 s publish lag. On
+  this 16-day window, above the SoC floor, the same relation measures
+  `1.00 × command − 28 W, r = 0.977` at a best-fit pure delay of **7.5 s**. The
+  conclusion — the inverter is a pure follower and the plant is not the problem
+  — survives; the coefficients are the ones in §2.
+* **The brief's cost figure is larger than this measurement.** It quoted ~14 kWh
+  of avoidable export and 65 % of site export inside 7.9 % of the time. Measured
+  here: **5.5 kWh** avoidable of 39.6 kWh modelled (29.4 kWh recorded), with
+  42 % of export inside the 6.3 % of ticks that are slew-limited and 69 % within
+  ±60 s of one, over 15.3 % of the time. The concentration claim holds; the
+  avoidable-kWh figure does not, and the difference is not reconcilable from
+  here because the reconstruction it came from was discarded.

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/SAFETY-56-what-the-gate-cannot-tell-apart.md

@@ -0,0 +1,181 @@
+# SAFETY-56 — what the gate cannot tell apart, said in the sentence
+
+**Text only. No behaviour changes in this card**, and §5 is the measurement that
+says so: the same stimuli through the tree before and after produce a
+**byte-identical** trace of every verdict, every `reading()`, every `inputs_ok`
+and every readiness row's `(ok, warn)`.
+
+---
+
+## 1. The defect
+
+0.10.1 is regulating a real GW5000S-BP. Two messages tell the operator that
+healthy hardware has failed.
+
+**The log line**, as emitted on the reference site on 2026-09-21:
+
+> SAFETY-37: inverter-a battery-power register **is not following its own
+> command** - STALE_READING: -3 unchanged for 36 s while the standing command
+> moved 800 W to +1600 W - **the reading is not following**, so it is reported
+> as MISSING rather than as a measurement … Treating it as MISSING, which
+> commands 0 W.
+
+**The readiness row**, at the same moment:
+
+> NOT READY — battery power: `sensor.kelder_goodwe_master_stage1_goodwe_inverter_ac_power`
+> **is missing or not numeric**
+
+That entity was present, numeric and updating.
+
+**SAFETY-37's conjunction is correct and is not touched by this card** —
+`unchanged > 35 s AND |command| > 250 W AND |travel| > 250 W`. A register
+genuinely stuck against a real command is exactly what it should catch, and a
+pack that cannot comply is a state the site must stop in too. What was wrong is
+what the sentences **concluded** from it.
+
+## 2. Two worlds satisfy the conjunction
+
+| | the register | the pack |
+|---|---|---|
+| **DEAD** | has stopped reporting reality | is doing what it was told |
+| **REFUSED** | is reporting reality correctly | cannot comply — the BMS is refusing at its floor |
+
+A refused pack holds still under any setpoint, so an honest register publishes
+the same unchanged number a dead one does. **Nothing `freshness.py` is handed
+separates them.** All three sentences asserted DEAD.
+
+## 3. The live episode was REFUSED, and it is measured, not argued
+
+Off the committed capture `scenarios/safety57-2026-09-21/bus-a-2026-09-21-1030-1110.log.gz`,
+whose bytes and decoder are already graded by `test_freshness.py` part 10a:
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| the register | answered **-3 W for 850 s**, 10:51:24 → 11:05:34 |
+| the commands during that hold | **+260, +660, +1060 W** — discharge only, never a charge |
+| pack SoC throughout | **11 %** |
+| first **charge** command after the restart | 11:05:31 at **-400 W** |
+| the register moves | **11:05:34** — **3 s**, inside one 17.0 s obligation window |
+
+**A register that answers a reversed command inside one obligation window had
+not stopped reporting.** What would not move was the pack. The sentence the
+operator read named the one thing in the loop that was telling the truth.
+
+⚠️ What this does **not** establish: that no register is ever intermittently
+wrong. It excludes a register that had simply stopped; it cannot exclude one
+that was wrong and then right. That is the point — the new sentence claims
+neither.
+
+## 4. The fix, and why it is three sentences and not one helper
+
+Each message states **what was observed** and names **both** explanations.
+
+| where | before | after |
+|---|---|---|
+| `app/freshness.py` `_grade()` | *"…+1600 W - the reading is not following, so it is reported as MISSING…"* | *"…+1600 W. **TWO THINGS LOOK LIKE THIS AND THIS GATE CANNOT TELL THEM APART**: the register may have stopped reporting reality, or the source may be unable to comply with the command - a pack the BMS is refusing holds still under any setpoint, and an honest register then reads exactly like a frozen one. Either way the number cannot be read as this command's effect, so it is reported as MISSING…"* |
+| `app/main.py` `_read_unit()` | *"SAFETY-37: %s battery-power **register is not following its own command** - %s."* | *"SAFETY-37: %s battery-power reading **did not move under a command that did, WHICH IS NOT BY ITSELF A VERDICT ON THE REGISTER** - %s."* |
+| `app/main.py` `checks()` | *"{label}: {entity} **is missing or not numeric**"* | *"{label}: **no usable value this cycle from** {entity} - **and this row cannot tell which of two things that is**: the entity is missing or not numeric, or it is publishing a number that this controller is withholding (a freshness gate does exactly that, and names itself in a row of its own). Confirm the entity in Developer Tools before replacing it"* |
+
+**Three sentences, three wordings, no shared helper.** The first two are a log
+line about a **behaviour**; the third is a banner about a named **entity**, and
+the two answer different questions ("what did the register do" against "can I
+trust this entity"). A helper serving both would have to drop whichever half
+the other caller does not need, and the half it dropped would be the
+operator's next step. The log line names the pair **once**, inside the `%s` it
+already interpolates, rather than in both of its own halves.
+
+**No new input, and SoC is not wired.** `BOUNDS["soc"]` stays *STATED, NOT
+WIRED*; telling the two worlds apart needs the pack floor (SAFETY-32's number)
+and SoC (TEL-08's wiring), and a message honest about its own ambiguity needs
+neither. Part 11b drives the two worlds at **50 %** and **11 %** SoC and
+asserts the sentence does not move one byte.
+
+**The readiness row does not branch.** `inv.batt_fresh.stale` is on the same
+object at the same moment, and the row deliberately does not ask it: the same
+loop renders the grid and SoC rows, which have no gate, and a branch per row
+would be a second place where "why is this None" is decided. The gate already
+has a surface — `stale_note()` rides `liveness_notes()` a few rows below with
+the whole STALE_READING sentence in it — so the operator's discriminator is
+*"is that row there?"*, and part 11d asserts that row is **present in REFUSED
+and absent in ABSENT**.
+
+## 5. Behaviour is byte-identical, measured
+
+`tools/safety56_behaviour_trace.py` prints two documents from one stimulus set.
+The `behaviour` half contains **no sentence**: only `stale`, `reading()`,
+`releases`, `held`, the window bookkeeping, `inputs_ok`, and every readiness
+row's `(ok, warn)`. Run in the CI image, purged, `:ro`, against
+`origin/release/1.0` **archived out of git** and against this branch:
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| the committed live capture | **2390 reads**, 7 verdict edges |
+| a swept grid of command × register schedules | **66 cells × 120 reads** — 1060 stale reads, 1309 `MISSING` readings, 6 releases |
+| six driven controller worlds through the shipped read path | DEAD, REFUSED, ABSENT, HEALTHY, RELEASE, RETRIP — every read's `(batt, inputs_ok, stale)` and every `checks()` row's `(ok, warn)` |
+| **result** | `6030175ed2ab9a4143e86e89a71d45c8ab041ac1c00121a3e3e023cd2b08996c` **on both trees** |
+
+⚠️ **AND THE CONTROL IS INSIDE THE TOOL, BECAUSE AN IDENTITY BETWEEN TWO TREES
+THAT ARE THE SAME TREE IS HABIT 4.** `--compare` refuses to report "behaviour
+unchanged" unless the `sentences` halves **differ**. This card's first
+invariance run was exactly that mistake — it archived a branch whose edits were
+not committed yet, so `before` and `after` were the same code and the identity
+was perfect and worthless.
+
+Both of the tool's refusals are **driven**, not asserted:
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| the same file compared with itself | `REFUSED: the sentences halves are IDENTICAL…`, exit **2** |
+| `MOVE_W` 250.0 → 240.0 in the after tree | `BEHAVIOUR MOVED at 'sweep_stale_reads' / 'sweep_missing_reads' / 'sweep_trace'`, exit **1** |
+| this card | `OK: sentences differ, behaviour is byte-identical.`, exit **0** |
+
+## 6. The mutation battery
+
+Each in its own `mktemp`'d copy (habit 18), purged on the host, mounted `:ro`,
+graded by `tools/mutation_run.sh` in the CI image.
+
+| | mutation | Δ bytes | named reds |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| M1 | `_grade()` reverted to *"the reading is not following"* | -402 | **3** |
+| M2 | the log line reverted to *"register is not following its own command"* | -80 | **2** |
+| M3 | the row reverted to *"{entity} is missing or not numeric"* | -619 | **2** |
+| M4 | *register* and *source* transposed between the two explanations | **0** | **1** |
+| M5 | the second explanation deleted, the first kept | -216 | **1** |
+| M6 | *"CANNOT TELL THEM APART"* replaced by *"IN ORDER OF LIKELIHOOD"* | -13 | **1** |
+| M7 | the REFUSED world's ground truth set to the DEAD world's | 0 | **2** |
+| M8 | the row's second cause deleted | -309 | **1** |
+| M9 | `label` and `entity` transposed in the row | **0** | **3** |
+| M10 | M1 + M2 + M3 together, i.e. exactly what 0.10.1 ships | -1101 | **5** |
+| M11 | the accusation literals replaced by one that matches nothing | 0 | **1** |
+
+⚠️ **M9's first run was a defect in this card's own check, and it is the one
+worth reading.** The row was fetched with `[...][0]`. Transposing `label` and
+`entity` makes the row unfindable, so the run died on an `IndexError` — a red
+with **no name attached**, with every check after that line **ungraded**. That
+is FCST-06's shape exactly. `_s56_row()` now returns a named absence instead of
+raising, and a precondition grades it: **0 named reds before, 3 after.**
+
+⚠️ **M11 is the other one aimed inward.** `not any(...)` over an empty list is
+True, and so is one over three mistyped literals. The positive control runs the
+same predicate against the three sentences **as 0.10.1 shipped them** and
+requires it to find an accusation in every one, and every literal to match at
+least one of them (habit 7: vary one thing from an accepted baseline).
+
+## 7. What part 11 does not grade
+
+* It does not show the live episode was a BMS refusal beyond doubt — see §3.
+* It does not grade English. A sentence that named both explanations and then
+  said something useless about them would pass.
+* The `no entity configured` branch beside the rewritten row is untouched and
+  ungraded: a blank entity really is the only thing it can be.
+* The **grid-power and battery-SoC rows** go through the same rewritten line and
+  have no freshness gate today, so for them the second cause is a hypothesis
+  about this controller rather than a live possibility. That is weaker than the
+  battery-power case and is the price of not branching per row. A gate on either
+  signal — TEL-08 would be one — makes it exact.
+* **SAFETY-58 is not touched** (the first read after a long rest trips before a
+  healthy register could answer), and neither is the 710/790 disagreement
+  between `test_freshness.py` and the changelog. Both are separate cards; the
+  second has a **fourth site** at
+  `DECISIONS/SAFETY-57-the-exit-from-a-stale-verdict.md:274` that a fix written
+  off the PR table alone would miss.

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/SAFETY-57-the-exit-from-a-stale-verdict.md

@@ -0,0 +1,388 @@
+# SAFETY-57 — the stale-reading verdict gets an exit, because its own consequence is what stopped it being tested
+
+**Status:** decided and implemented on branch `SAFETY-57`, off `origin/master` @ `6f5e8e3`
+(content-identical to `release/1.0` @ `8a57361`).
+**Card:** SAFETY-57 — *"the freshness gate has no exit reachable from inside the state it creates"*.
+**Nothing here reached the inverter.** No contact was made with 192.168.2.158 or
+192.168.2.221. The one live system touched is `sniffer@192.168.2.167`, a
+**passive** RS-485 listener with no address on the bus, and it was read only.
+
+---
+
+## 0. The five things a reader should take away
+
+1. **The live episode is reproduced from the wire, not modelled.** The capture
+   is committed, the decoder is committed, and the box that produced it was
+   running the defect — so the `0 W` in the trace *is* the add-on's own
+   `inputs missing → command 0 W`. §2.
+2. **Option 2 from the card — "do not arm the gate when the command is 0 W" —
+   already holds, and it is not the bug.** `_grade()` has required
+   `|standing| >= MOVE_W` since SAFETY-37. The trip happened at **+1060 W** and
+   the stuck state is at **0 W**; they are different moments. §3.
+3. **The decision is not "how long", it is "when".** The verdict is withdrawn
+   when the **obligation that produced it is no longer standing** — SAFETY-13's
+   shape one module over. The 17.0 s is the obligation window that was already
+   derived in the file, taken at the **floor** of its band, and which half is
+   safe is the **opposite** of SAFETY-13's. §4.
+4. **It costs 52 % exposure on a permanently dead register, and that number is
+   in the suite so it cannot be forgotten.** It is payable only because one
+   re-grading window (35 s) is shorter than both consumer holds (75 s, 85 s).
+   **No detection SAFETY-37 had is given back.** §5.
+5. **The battery had been rescuing this code by accident.** 93 trips in the
+   committed 16-day capture; median wait for the BMS keep-alive pulse that
+   cleared them **143 s**, worst **5 h 57 m**. §6.
+
+---
+
+## 1. What was there, in the terms the code uses
+
+`freshness.py`, `Freshness.submit()` and `_grade()`:
+
+```python
+if self.changed_mono is None or value != self.held:
+    ...
+    self.stale = False          # the only place the latch is cleared
+def _grade(self, standing_w, now_mono):
+    if self.stale or self.changed_mono is None:
+        return                  # sets the latch; never clears it
+```
+
+and `main.py:1777`, `inv.batt = inv.batt_fresh.reading()`, where `reading()`
+answers `None` while `stale`. `inputs_ok` sees the `None`, the site holds for
+`stale_input_s`, then files `Claim.set("safety", P_SAFETY, 0.0, "inputs
+missing")` and keeps filing it.
+
+The reason the latch exists is written in the class docstring and it is a good
+one: without it the verdict oscillates at about 1 Hz, because declaring the
+reading stale drops the command below `MOVE_W`, which un-arms the conjunction,
+which hands the held number straight back.
+
+**The defect is that the only thing that ends it is an arrival carrying a
+different number — and the state's own output is what stops the register being
+asked for one.** The log line promised the opposite, in the same sentence that
+announced the 0 W:
+
+> *Treating it as MISSING, which commands 0 W. It clears itself the moment the
+> register reports a different value.*
+
+---
+
+## 2. Reproducing it, from the wire
+
+`scenarios/safety57-2026-09-21/bus-a-2026-09-21-1030-1110.log.gz` is 3840
+verbatim frames off the RS-485 pair, 10:30–11:10 Europe/Brussels, decoded by
+`tools/decode_bus_capture.py`. The decoder reports **0 unparsed, 0 bad CRC,
+0 unknown shapes**, and its mode→sign convention is **graded off the capture**
+rather than trusted: 298 commands at or under −1000 W are each answered one
+obligation window later by a negative register reading, and not one positive.
+
+| capture time | on the wire |
+|---|---|
+| 10:51:14 | `0x0518` = **−447 W**; the loop is charging |
+| 10:51:19 | the command reverses: EMS **mode 3**, 260 W of discharge |
+| 10:51:24.7 | `0x0518` = **−3 W**. The pack is at **11 %**, the BMS refuses the discharge, the inverter idles. **The register is healthy and truthful.** |
+| 10:51:29.7 | the command reaches **+1060 W**. 800 W of travel |
+| 10:52:21.7 | the setpoint is written **0 W** — this is the add-on's own §11.1 rule 1, recorded on the wire |
+| …850.0 s | `0x0518` does not change value |
+| …790.0 s | the setpoint does not change value |
+| ~11:04 | **a person restarts the add-on** — not visible in this file, and the only thing that ends the episode |
+| 11:05:31.7 | the restarted loop commands **−400 W of charge**, which the pack accepts at 11 % |
+| 11:05:34.7 | `0x0518` = **−137 W** |
+
+⚠️ **THE CAPTURE IS CLOSED-LOOP FOR THE WHOLE PARKED INTERVAL**, which is why
+this is a reproduction and not a simulation: the box was running 0.10.0, so
+every command in the trace is the shipped code's own. The only event inside the
+window the file cannot account for is the human restart.
+
+Replaying the shipped `_read_unit` loop at 1 Hz against those two series
+(`test_freshness.py` part 10b):
+
+| | stale at | clear at | parked |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| **before** (`release_s = inf`) | 10:52:00 | 11:05:35 | **815 s**, and `reading()` is `None` on all **812** reads from the trip to the first command a human put on the wire, with the register at −3.0 W in every one of them |
+| **after** | 10:52:00 | **10:52:39** | **39 s**, with `0x0518` still answering the same **−3 W** |
+
+⚠️ **THE COUNTERFACTUAL IS `release_s = inf`, AND IT IS GRADED RATHER THAN
+CLAIMED.** With an infinite bound `_release()` never fires, `_open_window()` is
+only ever called where the register moves, and the window pair is the
+change-stamp pair — byte-for-byte the pre-SAFETY-57 conjunction. Part 10b
+asserts that by driving part 1's own fresh/stale pair through both bounds and
+comparing the verdict streams.
+
+The replay also found a **one-read trip at 10:48:14** that clears one second
+later. That is a pre-existing false positive and it is now recorded as
+survivor 5 — §7.
+
+---
+
+## 3. What the card's option 2 actually buys, which is nothing here
+
+The card offered *"do not arm the gate when the command being graded is 0 W"*
+and warned that it might hold already. **It does, and it has since SAFETY-37**:
+`_grade()` returns at `abs(standing_w) < self.bound.move_w`, and
+`test_freshness.py` part 4 has a named check on that term, added because a
+mutation removing it survived.
+
+The warning in the card is the right one and it is worth writing down: **the
+trip and the stuck state are different moments.** The gate armed at **+1060 W**,
+where the conjunction is entirely correct — a command travelled 800 W and the
+register did not move for 35 s. The site then went to **0 W** *because of the
+verdict*. An entry-side rule cannot reach a state that is entered legitimately
+and then persists. **The defect is the exit, and nothing else in the conjunction
+is touched by this card.**
+
+Option 3 — probing with a small non-zero command — was not taken and does not
+need to be. It writes to a real actuator to test an assumption, and §4's rule
+does not need a probe: the site's *normal* control resuming is the test, and it
+is gated behind the same `inputs_ok` everything else is.
+
+---
+
+## 4. The decision: which verdicts get an exit, and what the bound is
+
+> The stale verdict holds as before, **unless** the obligation that produced it
+> is no longer standing — `|standing| < MOVE_W` — **and** it has been gone
+> longer than the register would have needed to answer it. On a release the
+> latch clears and a **new grading window** opens at that instant.
+
+This is [[SAFETY-13]]'s §4 in a different module, and deliberately so: that card
+established the house answer to "a latch with no exit" and its answer was *not*
+a plain time bound but a **predicate plus a time bound**, where the predicate
+says whether the state can end on its own. Here the predicate is that **the
+question is no longer being asked.** A register under a 0 W command is obliged
+to be nowhere, so a verdict about whether it is following cannot be tested, and
+a verdict that cannot be tested may not stand for ever.
+
+### 4.1 Why the window has to re-open, and what happens if it does not
+
+`_grade()` compares the register's unchanged time against `unchanged_s` and the
+command's travel against the command standing when the window opened. If a
+release cleared the latch **without** re-opening the window, the first read at
+which the resumed command travels 250 W would re-trip immediately — the
+register would never get the 17 s in which it could answer, and the live
+episode's recovery (a charge the pack **accepts**) would be killed inside two
+seconds. Mutating exactly that (`graded_from` re-anchored to `changed_mono`,
++82 B) takes four named checks red.
+
+The new window is `BATT_UNCHANGED_S` = **35 s**, the same bound as entry,
+because it is the same question — *does this register follow the commands issued
+from now on?* — and there is no principled shorter answer to it. It is also the
+number the exposure argument in §5 rests on, so it is not free to move.
+
+### 4.2 `RELEASE_S` = `BATT_OBLIGED_S` = 17.0 s, and which half is safe
+
+The quantity needed is *has the register had its chance to answer the command
+standing now?*, and `freshness.py` already derives it as the floor of
+`BATT_UNCHANGED_S`'s band:
+
+```
+6.0 s   plant          goodwe/NOTES.md §5.9, measured 2026-08-22
+10.0 s  publisher      firmware/goodwe-master.yaml:181, update_interval: 10s
+1.0 s   this add-on    run_control()'s await asyncio.sleep(1)
+```
+
+⚠️ **IT IS THE FLOOR OF ITS BAND, NOT A SENSITIVITY PREFERENCE** — the mirror of
+`MOVE_W` taking the **ceiling** of its own for the mirrored reason.
+
+| | the question | the safe half | why |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| SAFETY-13's `SETTLE_CYCLES` | may the plant still be the **explanation**? | the **longer** half | a shorter bound stops believing the plant too early, and then it accuses |
+| this one | may the verdict still be **tested**? | the **shorter** half | being wrong *long* is the failure being fixed; being wrong *short* costs one re-grading window, and §5 bounds that |
+
+Below 17.0 s the release pre-empts the **cheaper exit** — the register answering
+the new 0 W command by itself, which clears the latch on evidence rather than on
+a timer. That is graded behaviourally rather than asserted: a register that
+answers at +16 s clears by **movement** at `release_s = 17.0` with `releases`
+still 0, and by **timer** at `release_s = 5.0`.
+
+The family is computed and printed (habit 10): `5, 16, 17, 18, 35, inf` give
+six distinct release instants, so no check in the file can confuse two of them.
+
+### 4.3 Two clocks, and the operator reads the register's
+
+`changed_mono` / `unchanged_s()` remain facts about the **register**: after a
+release they go on reporting that it has not moved for 850 s, because it has
+not. `graded_from` / `graded_s()` are the **verdict's** window. They coincide
+until the first release. Collapsing them either lies to the operator or defeats
+the re-grading, and both directions are mutated red.
+
+The stale sentence's `unchanged for N s` slot carries the **register's** number;
+a re-trip appends a clause naming the window and the grade count, so the two
+durations cannot be read as one number that moved (habit 14).
+
+---
+
+## 5. What it costs, measured
+
+Driven against a register frozen for good, 1201 reads, shipped defaults
+(`test_freshness.py` part 10c):
+
+| | parked | the held number reaches a consumer | releases |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| before | 1166 s | **35 reads (2.9 %)** | 0 |
+| after | 571 s | **630 reads (52.5 %)** | 17 |
+
+⚠️ **52 % IS PAID EVERY CYCLE, NOT OCCASIONALLY.** The period is
+`stale_input_s` (15 s) + `RELEASE_S` (17 s) parked, then one 35 s window.
+
+It is payable because of one inequality, and it is the inequality
+`test_freshness.py` part 6 has graded against the shipped `config.yaml` since
+SAFETY-37:
+
+```
+35 s  (the re-grading window)  <  75 s  (circulation_hold_s)  <  85 s  (unit_sign_disagree_s)
+```
+
+Every unbroken run of exposure is **exactly one window**, so neither consumer
+can reach a verdict inside one, and the re-trip that ends each run hands them a
+`None`, which **clears** their windows rather than accumulating into them.
+
+**And nothing SAFETY-37 detects is given back**, which is the half that makes
+this a trade rather than a regression: a permanent `None` clears those same two
+windows for ever as well, so on the shipped-before module those detectors are
+*equally* unable to speak about the unit. What the held number does reach for
+35 s is `site_batt_w`, the anti-windup input of `control.compute()` — which
+answers a large unexplained divergence by **freezing the output**, the
+conservative direction and SAFETY-13's business — and the command itself is
+derived from the **P1 meter**, never from `batt`.
+
+### 5.1 The narrowing this does NOT take, named so the next card can
+
+The live episode's register refused a **discharge** into an 11 % pack and then
+followed a **charge** three seconds later. A refusal in one direction is not
+evidence about the other, and a gate that knew the pack's floor could re-grade
+on the first command that crosses it instead of on a timer — which would shrink
+the 52 % above. That needs SoC, which this module deliberately does not take
+(see the `soc` row and TEL-08), and the pack floor, which is SAFETY-32's number.
+It is **not needed to give the state an exit**, and folding it in here would
+make the exit depend on a second measurement being right.
+
+---
+
+## 6. The measurement that says the old exit was luck
+
+`scenarios/loop-2026-09-02_2026-09-17/` replayed at 1 Hz through the shipped
+conjunction (`test_freshness.py` part 8b): **93 trips in 16 days.** The only
+thing that could clear any of them was the register carrying a different number,
+and that took:
+
+| | |
+|---|---|
+| minimum | 0.6 s |
+| **median** | **143.4 s** |
+| maximum | **21440.1 s** (5 h 57 m) |
+| at or over the live episode's 710 s | **17 of 93** |
+
+The short waits are the BMS keep-alive pulse — SAFETY-50 measured its ceiling at
+508 W — twitching `0x0518` and satisfying the clearing rule **by accident**.
+Over a fifth of the trips are cleared in under 20 s by something nothing in this
+add-on asked for.
+
+⚠️ **WHAT THAT REPLAY IS AND IS NOT.** The capture runs 2026-09-02…17 and
+0.10.0 — the first version carrying this gate — was cut on 2026-09-16, so the
+setpoint column is an **ungated** controller's. That makes each trip an honest
+register-versus-command divergence off the real bus, and it makes the post-trip
+command column something a gated box would **not** have written. The figure
+taken from it is therefore the only one that does not depend on the command at
+all — how long this register goes without changing value — and it **under**-states
+the wait, because a site parked at 0 W gives the register even less reason to
+move than the one recorded here.
+
+---
+
+## 7. Survivors, and the two things the battery found
+
+The battery is 22 mutations over `app/freshness.py`, `app/main.py` and
+`tools/decode_bus_capture.py`, plus one over the committed capture itself. All
+run through `ci_run.sh`, a mirror of `checks.yml`'s own step: a purged copy of
+the tree, bind-mounted `:ro`, one file at a time, `PYTHONDONTWRITEBYTECODE=1`.
+Per MUTATION.md habit 18 the harness's scratch file is `mktemp`ed per
+invocation and the tree is fingerprinted **after the revert** as well as before;
+every revert restored the recorded sha256 and byte count.
+
+**21 red, 1 argued equivalent, 0 unexplained survivors.** The table is in the
+PR body. Two of them are worth keeping here.
+
+### 7.1 The equivalent mutant, argued rather than rounded off
+
+Swapping `_release()` and `_grade()` in `submit()` is a **zero-byte** edit and
+survived the whole battery. **It is not a missing fixture and no fixture can
+close it**: `_grade()` acts only when `|standing| >= move_w` and `_release()`
+only when `|standing| < move_w`, so at most one of them can do anything on any
+read, whichever runs first.
+
+⚠️ **THE FIRST VERSION OF THE CODE CLAIMED THE ORDER WAS LOAD-BEARING**, in a
+`⚠️` comment, with a reason that sounded right. It was false, and the battery is
+what said so — **MUTATION.md habit 22 exactly, one card later: an explanation in
+a comment is a claim, and this one had not been run.** The comment now states
+the disjointness, and part 10 pins **that** — at 0, 100, 249, 250, 251 and
+1300 W — instead of pinning an order that is not observable.
+
+### 7.2 The sibling that survived, which is habit 11 earning its place
+
+`_release()`'s obligation test is `abs(standing_w) >= self.bound.move_w`.
+Swapping `move_w` for `unchanged_s` — comparing **watts against 35** — survived
+the file at **+5 B**, because **every fixture rested at exactly 0 W**, and 0 is
+below both 35 and 250. They separate only in the band between them, and a site
+can sit there: a peak-guard floor, a shadow substitution, any claim that wins
+with a small non-zero number. Closed by a three-point fixture at 0 / 100 / 300 W
+that asserts the 100 W case releases and the 300 W case does not.
+
+### 7.3 ⚠️ And the instrument lied once, which is habit 16's second half
+
+The first form of the `graded_from` mutation was
+`float(self.changed_mono or now_mono)`. It reported a **survivor at +21 B**, and
+the tree fingerprint showed the edit really was on disk and really did run.
+`changed_mono` is **0.0** in the dead-register fixture, and `0.0 or x` is `x` —
+so the mutant was a *no-op on the fixture*, for a Python truthiness reason that
+has nothing to do with the property under test. Rewritten as an explicit
+`is None` test (+82 B) it is red on four named checks.
+
+**A mutation is subject to every habit in MUTATION.md, including habit 4.** A
+purge, a fingerprint and a byte delta all say the edit is present; none of them
+says the edit *changed the answer on this stimulus*. MUTATION.md gains habit 19
+for it.
+
+---
+
+## 8. What this does NOT fix, said plainly
+
+**It does not tell a BMS refusal apart from a dead register**, and it does not
+try to. Both are re-graded on the same timer. §5.1 names what telling them apart
+would need.
+
+**It does not make the diagnosis right.** The line the operator reads still says
+*"battery-power register is not following its own command"*, which is wrong in a
+different way when the pack is simply empty. That wording is **SAFETY-56's**,
+together with `main.py`'s NOT READY row, and it is deliberately untouched here —
+two cards editing one sentence is how one of them silently loses. Only the
+**escape clause** was rewritten, because this card is what made the old one
+false, and part 10h has a named check asserting the diagnosis half is still
+there so that rewrite has to be a deliberate act.
+
+> ⚠️ **SINCE SUPERSEDED, WHICH IS WHAT THAT CHECK WAS FOR.** [[SAFETY-56]] is
+> the deliberate act: all three sentences now name **both** explanations and
+> accuse neither, and part 10h's check is inverted — it requires the accusation
+> to be **gone**. Nothing else in this section moved; the escape clause above is
+> still this card's and is untouched by it. See
+> `DECISIONS/SAFETY-56-what-the-gate-cannot-tell-apart.md`, and
+> `test_freshness.py` part 11 for the graded pair of worlds.
+
+**Survivor 5 is older than this card and is not closed by it.** After a long
+rest the unchanged clock is already past 35 s, so the **first** read carrying a
+travelled command trips the gate — before the 17.0 s in which a healthy register
+could have answered it. The live capture contains one (10:48:14, cleared one
+second later). Its size is one `stale_input_s` hold, during which `cycle()`
+returns at `inputs missing {n}s` and commands nothing differently. Fixing it
+means measuring the unchanged clock from when the **obligation** appeared rather
+than from the register's last move, which re-derives the 35.0 s bound and is a
+different card.
+
+**Nothing was measured on two inverters.** Inverter B does not physically exist
+(`goodwe/NOTES.md` §1.1b). Every two-unit figure in `test_freshness.py` is two
+copies of A's behaviour with different numbers passed in.
+
+**No deploy is proposed.** 0.10.0 is on the reference install and this branch's
+CHANGELOG row is filed under it only because `test_version_gate.py` part 11b
+requires the newest heading to be a version. Moving it, and deciding whether a
+version is cut, is a PKG card's.

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/TARIFF-07-withdrawing-three-plugins.md

@@ -0,0 +1,230 @@
+# TARIFF-07 — three plugins that never fetched a price, and the one mechanism they leave behind
+
+**Status: DECIDED 2026-09-13 — withdraw `engie_dynamic`,
+`totalenergies_dynamic` and `eneco_eddy`. Keep `PriceProduct.REALTIME` and the
+widening machinery. Refuse a retired id by name rather than aliasing it.**
+
+Filed with TARIFF-07. Follows [[TARIFF-08]], which found the same class of
+defect one layer down — a parser graded against its own guess — and left the
+question of these three open.
+
+---
+
+## 1. The endpoints, verified rather than taken on report
+
+The card said the three endpoints were dead. They were re-checked by hand on
+**2026-09-13** before anything was deleted, because "the endpoint is dead" is
+exactly the kind of claim this repository keeps finding to be second-hand:
+
+| id | endpoint | observed |
+|---|---|---|
+| `engie_dynamic` | `https://api.engie.be/dynamic/be` | **HTTP 404**, body `{"message":"no Route matched with those values","request_id":"..."}` — a Kong gateway with no route configured |
+| `totalenergies_dynamic` | `https://api.totalenergies.be/prices/dynamic` | **TLS failure**. The handshake completes and the server presents `CN=pge-apigee-dev.direct-energie.com`; `api.totalenergies.be` is not in the SAN list, so the connection is closed before any request is sent |
+| `eneco_eddy` | `https://api.eneco.be/eddy/prices` | **HTTP 404**, `content-length: 1`, `server: Microsoft-IIS/10.0` — an empty body from a live host that does not serve this path |
+
+All three failed. Had any one of them answered, this card would have stopped
+and asked, because an endpoint that answers changes the decision from
+"withdraw" to "fix the parser".
+
+## 2. Why this is not "unfinished", and why no replacement can be written
+
+An unfinished plugin has a right endpoint and a wrong parser. These have
+neither, and the reason is structural:
+
+* **ENGIE's dynamic price is `(B × eSpot_15) − A`, and `B` and `A` are
+  PER-CONTRACT.** They live behind the customer's klantenzone login. No
+  unauthenticated public URL can return *a given customer's* price, so the
+  endpoint this plugin wanted cannot exist for anybody to build.
+* **There is no regulator index to read the coefficients from.** CREG's
+  tariff-card pages 404; VREG was unreachable. Every coefficient found in
+  research came from a supplier's own PDF, which is a document, not a feed.
+* **"Eddy" is not an Eneco product at all.** Eneco's dynamic product is
+  **"Zon & Wind Dynamisch"**, and it is indexed to **Belpex/EPEX day-ahead** —
+  not to imbalance. The plugin was wrong about the product, the product type
+  and the URL simultaneously.
+
+So the three were not withdrawn for being broken. They were withdrawn for
+describing tariffs that no public endpoint can serve.
+
+## 3. What a site configured on one of these has actually been running
+
+⚠️ **This is the half that decides what the migration is.** §11.4 turns a
+failed fetch into a silent fall back: static profile, plan provisional, no
+arbitrage. That is the *correct* degradation, and it says nothing at all about
+the cause. Every fetch these three ever made raised `SourceUnavailable`.
+
+Therefore a site configured on one of them has been running on
+`static_profile` — **or on nothing at all, where no profile was set** — since
+the day the id was entered, and **nothing on its status page has ever differed
+from a working provider that simply never found a cheap hour**.
+
+The migration is therefore **not** "keep their prices working". There were no
+prices. It is *"tell them their prices never worked"*, which is why the answer
+is a refusal and not a fallback.
+
+### Why not a silent alias to `generic_dayahead`
+
+It is the friendlier-looking option and it is wrong. These published **retail**
+prices; `generic_dayahead` reads **wholesale**. Aliasing needs the site's own
+`B` and `A`, which §2 has just established nobody has. An alias would have to
+**invent the numbers a battery is priced against** — the same defect as a
+parser graded against its own guess, one layer further from anything that
+reports. The scalar `price_markup_eur_kwh` cannot stand in for `B` either: it
+is an addend, not a multiplier, and it is `float(0,1)` so it cannot even hold a
+negative `A`.
+
+## 4. ⚠️ The `config.yaml` schema is deliberately WIDER than the registry
+
+`price_provider` is a `list(off|…)` enum, and the Supervisor validates the
+options file against it **before the add-on starts**.
+
+So the obvious edit — delete the three ids from the enum along with the classes
+— has a consequence that runs exactly opposite to this card's purpose:
+
+```
+operator's config says  price_provider: eneco_eddy
+        |
+        +-- id NOT in the schema enum
+                |
+                +-- Supervisor rejects the options file
+                        |
+                        +-- add-on never starts
+                                |
+                                +-- validate.py never runs
+                                        |
+                                        +-- the named refusal is NEVER SEEN
+```
+
+The operator gets an opaque `expected one of ...` from a layer they did not
+configure, on **exactly the sites the withdrawal exists to inform**.
+
+**Decision: keep all three ids in the schema enum.** `PROVIDERS` shrinks to
+two; the enum stays at six. The cost is that the dropdown still offers three
+dead ids to a *new* operator — and that is the cheaper failure, because
+choosing one is refused at the next startup **by name**, with the endpoint, the
+observation and the alternative, which is strictly more than a schema
+rejection would say. Both translations label them withdrawn in the option
+description.
+
+`app/price.py`'s `RETIRED_PROVIDERS` is the list. `test_price.py` section 1
+asserts the schema offers exactly `PROVIDERS | RETIRED_PROVIDERS | {"off"}` —
+derived, not typed — and `register()` refuses to re-register a retired id, so
+the registry and the retired table cannot both claim one and the refusal cannot
+be taken away by an `@register` somebody adds back.
+
+## 5. ⚠️ `PriceProduct.REALTIME` and the widening path are KEPT with no shipped declarer
+
+`eneco_eddy` was the **sole** declarer of `PriceProduct.REALTIME`. Deleting it
+orphans:
+
+* `_WIDE = frozenset({PriceProduct.REALTIME})`
+* `Uncertainty.REALTIME_PRODUCT`
+* `WIDEN_FACTOR[Uncertainty.REALTIME_PRODUCT] = 2.5`
+
+**They stay.** The reasoning, stated here so the next reader finds intent
+rather than an apparent dead branch:
+
+1. A reviewer finding a mechanism with **zero callers** would reasonably delete
+   it. That is good instinct applied to a missing fact, and this file is the
+   fact.
+2. It is the **AC2 seam**. The whole point of `capabilities().product` is that
+   a new supplier is a new class and nothing else: declare `REALTIME`, get the
+   wide regime, edit no framework code. Deleting the enum member would mean the
+   first genuine imbalance product has to **rebuild** that seam — and rebuilding
+   it is precisely the "editing the optimiser to add a supplier" that AC2
+   forbids.
+3. It costs nothing. Two enum members and a dict entry.
+
+**⚠️ NO SHIPPED PLUGIN DECLARES `PriceProduct.REALTIME` UNTIL ONE DOES.** Both
+shipped plugins (`generic_dayahead`, `manual_csv`) are day-ahead. §9.2's row 2
+is unoccupied. That is not the same as it having no mechanism, and the
+difference is what this section exists to record.
+
+It is **pinned, not merely documented**. `test_price.py` section 5 asserts:
+
+* that **no shipped plugin** declares `REALTIME` — so if one ever does, the
+  check goes red and the right fix is to **edit this record**, not to delete
+  the seam;
+* that the widening still works **from a declaration alone** —
+  `volatility_regime`, `uncertainty_of` and `widen_factor` are graded on a
+  `ProviderCapabilities` the test file builds;
+* and section 10 registers `_NewSupplier`, a class defined **outside
+  `price.py`** that declares `REALTIME` and is asserted to land in the wide
+  regime. That class is now the only live declarer in the tree, which makes the
+  seam something this suite exercises end to end rather than a constant it
+  reads.
+
+## 6. What else went, and one thing that did not
+
+`_points_from_json()` went with the three. It read a `{"data": [{...}]}`
+row-per-point document that **no feed anybody here has ever reached
+publishes** — the shape was invented alongside these plugins, and the only
+bodies ever fed to it were fixtures written from the same guess. TARIFF-08
+found that loop on the response side for `generic_dayahead`; this is the rest
+of it. `needs_credentials` went too: the three were its only setters and
+nothing read it.
+
+The shape survives in **one** place and in one direction: `row_shape_body()` in
+`test_price.py`, feeding `generic_dayahead` so that section 9 grades a row
+document as a **failure** for it rather than a second dialect it might sniff.
+It is named for what it is.
+
+⚠️ **One check had to be rebuilt rather than deleted, and saying so matters.**
+`test_price.py` section 4b proved that `code_leaks()`'s docstring strip is
+load-bearing by finding a shipped docstring that a raw text scan would
+false-positive on. The docstring that did that was **`engie_dynamic`'s** — it
+spelled `price_markup_eur_kwh` in full. With it gone, no shipped docstring
+spells a full framework key, so the check would have **passed on a tree with
+the strip deleted**: a check that had quietly stopped being one, which is the
+third failure mode in `MUTATION.md`. The stimulus is now constructed in the
+test file (`_DocumentedPlugin`), and the shipped set is asserted clean
+separately.
+
+## 7. Mutations driven
+
+Every check added or rebuilt here was driven red. Harness:
+`/home/homelab/.cache/t07-mut/`, which rebuilds the tree from the worktree and
+purges `__pycache__` per `MUTATION.md`'s rule.
+
+| | mutation | Δ | red on |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| M1 | delete the retired branch from `_price_problems()` | −2785 B | 7 checks in `test_price.py` |
+| M2 | move the retired branch **after** the unknown-id branch | **+0 B** | the same 7 |
+| M3 | make `been_running` constant (drop the empty-`static_profile` case) | −212 B | 2 |
+| M4 | drop the "WHAT TO DO" half of the refusal | −874 B | 1 |
+| M5 | `RETIRED_PROVIDERS = {}` | −1099 B | 5, then a traceback |
+| M6 | drop the three ids from `config.yaml`'s enum — §4's trap | −47 B | 2 |
+| M7 | delete `register()`'s retired guard | −1101 B | 2, then a traceback |
+| M8 | `_WIDE = frozenset()` | −23 B | 3 + 4 across two suites |
+| M9 | `WIDEN_FACTOR[REALTIME_PRODUCT]` 2.5 → 1.5 | **+0 B** | 1 + 1 |
+
+⚠️ **M2 and M9 have a byte delta of zero**, which `MUTATION.md` names as the
+risky case. The harness rebuilds the tree from source on every run and purges
+`__pycache__`, so there is no inherited cache to read; and stale bytecode
+manufactures **survivors**, never reds, so a red from a `+0 B` mutation is not
+at risk from that defect. M2's grep confirmed the branch had moved on disk.
+
+⚠️ **M5 and M7's red counts are LOWER BOUNDS.** Both runs ended in a traceback
+with checks after it ungraded — FCST-06's rule: read the output, not the count.
+M7's traceback is itself informative: with the guard gone the re-registration
+**succeeds**, `PROVIDERS` is polluted with a class that has no fixture, and the
+suite dies downstream. That is the failure the guard prevents, arriving loudly.
+
+## 8. What this card did not do
+
+* **It did not pick a version number.** The change is backward-incompatible — a
+  config legal on the current version is refused on the next — and the
+  CHANGELOG says so prominently, in the shape PKG-07 established for `slew_w`.
+  Which number it belongs to depends on whether the current image has already
+  been built and pulled, which is a fact about the live box that this branch
+  cannot observe. Whoever deploys decides.
+* **It did not implement the formula provider.** `B × spot + A` with per-site
+  coefficients is the real answer for a Belgian dynamic customer and is a
+  separate card. `DOCS.md` references it as planned and is explicit about what
+  `generic_dayahead` can and cannot express in the meantime — in particular
+  that it cannot represent a negative offset, and that
+  `price_markup_eur_kwh: float(0,1)` could not hold one anyway.
+* **It did not rewrite released CHANGELOG history.** The two historical entries
+  that called `eneco_eddy` an imbalance product are annotated in place with a
+  correction naming this card, rather than silently edited. The record of what
+  the project believed is part of the record.

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/TARIFF-09-the-range-and-the-override.md

@@ -0,0 +1,141 @@
+# TARIFF-09 — asking the feed for the horizon, and what `price_feed_url` means
+
+Two decisions. The first had no defensible alternative once it was measured;
+the second did, and the alternative is argued below rather than dismissed.
+
+---
+
+## 0. The measurement this card exists for
+
+`generic_dayahead.fetch()` accepted `since` and `until` and requested the bare
+`https://api.energy-charts.info/price?bzn=BE`. That URL names no range, and the
+feed answers **one Brussels day**.
+
+Measured on the merged tree (`4257e38`) at 2026-09-10 09:00 CEST, 48 h horizon,
+live feed, yesterday seeded through the shipped read path:
+
+```
+60 firm points (15 whole hours) + 33 carried hours of 48 requested
+carried: 24 h on 2026-09-11, 9 h on 2026-09-12
+arbitrage(0.10): allowed, spread 0.4645, buy 11:45 and sell 19:45 -- BOTH on 2026-09-10
+firm local days = [2026-09-10]
+```
+
+Everything past today was carry-forward, flagged provisional, and §8.3 drops
+provisional hours from the trade set. **The optimiser never saw tomorrow as
+firm, at any hour.** The ceiling was structural rather than incidental: with a
+one-day window, at hour *H* of the local day a 48 h horizon is at most
+**24−H hours firm and 24+H carried** — 15/33 at 09:00, and **1/47 at 23:00**,
+where the remaining firm spread (0.0464 EUR/kWh) no longer even clears the
+default 0.10 round-trip threshold and arbitrage is refused outright.
+
+That is not what FCST-04's fill was built for. FCST-04 covers the
+pre-publication window until the ~13:00–14:00 CET auction, after which a
+healthy feed hands over tomorrow in full.
+
+**The data exists and the endpoint serves it.** Verified 2026-09-10T07:45:49Z:
+`?bzn=BE&start=2026-09-09&end=2026-09-10` returns **192 quarter-hours across
+two local days**, committed unmodified as
+`scenarios/energy-charts-be-price-2026-09-09_2026-09-10-twoday.json`. The
+plugin simply never asked.
+
+After the change, same code path, same window, a feed serving both days:
+**39 firm hours and 9 carried**, firm across **two** Brussels days, and the
+permitted cycle buys on one day and sells on the other. Graded in
+`test_price_history.py` section 1c against both feed states.
+
+---
+
+## 1. The range is derived on the **Brussels** calendar, from `since`/`until`
+
+`since` and `until` are **instants**; the API takes **dates**. Those are not
+the same question, and the conversion is where the day gets lost.
+
+`brussels_date_range()` returns two inclusive `date`s:
+
+* the first is `brussels(since).date()`. **Not `since.date()`, and not the UTC
+  date.** 22:30 UTC in summer is already tomorrow in Belgium, so a UTC-derived
+  start asks for the day the controller has just left and drops the day it is
+  standing in — for the last one or two hours of *every* day. This is
+  `price_history._bdate()`'s lesson one layer up, with a worse consequence:
+  `_bdate()` misfiles an hour, this never fetches it.
+* the last is `brussels(until).date()`, **stepped back a day when `until`
+  falls exactly on local midnight**, because `until` is exclusive and that
+  instant is the first tick of a day nobody asked for. Without it every
+  whole-hour horizon requests one extra day — harmless on this feed, but it
+  makes the request a claim the caller never made.
+* an empty or inverted window collapses to a single day rather than producing
+  a backwards range, which no feed has a defined answer for.
+
+Both ends are graded, and both are driven red by mutation — including the two
+that swap `brussels()` for the UTC date (`test_price.py` section 2c).
+
+---
+
+## 2. `price_feed_url` is the **exact URL**, used as given. The plugin appends
+   nothing.
+
+The alternative — merge our `start`/`end` into whatever query string the
+operator supplied — was considered and rejected. Three reasons, in the order
+they decided it:
+
+1. **`start`/`end` are energy-charts' spelling, and this provider declares a
+   second host.** `generic_dayahead.capabilities().egress_hosts` is
+   `("api.energy-charts.info", "web-api.tp.entsoe.eu")`. That second host's
+   day-ahead date parameters have not been verified by this card and are not
+   guessed at here — but they are not `start`/`end`. So an override to the
+   *other declared host* — a case the declaration itself anticipates — is
+   exactly where merging appends two parameters that host ignores, producing
+   the short horizon anyway, with a URL nobody typed as the receipt.
+2. **Merging means re-serialising a URL somebody else wrote.** Parsing and
+   rebuilding reorders parameters, collapses duplicates and re-escapes values.
+   "Override the feed" is what the option already says it means, and an
+   override that is silently rewritten is not one.
+3. **Blind appending is not on the table at all.** `dated_feed_url()` refuses
+   to add a query string to a base that already has one, so
+   `?bzn=BE?bzn=BE&start=…` cannot be produced by this module even by a later
+   edit that folds the parameters back into the constant.
+
+⚠️ **The cost is real and it is therefore NOT a doc footnote.** An overriding
+operator gets exactly the short horizon this card exists to fix. So the plugin
+emits a `WARNING` on the shipped `goodwe.price` logger at **fetch time**, naming
+the consequence — one Brussels day, the rest carried and flagged, §8.3 dropping
+them from the trade set — and naming the `start..end` it *would* have asked
+for. §11.4 is what makes a price defect quiet; an operator who has taken the
+short horizon has to be able to find out from the log that they did.
+
+The warning is graded, with a control that the default path stays silent, and
+a mutation that downgrades it to `debug()` takes that check red.
+
+**Fetch time rather than startup**, because that is where the URL actually in
+use is known. The trade-off is one line per refresh (the tariff task, not the
+30 s control tick). If the status page ever grows a price-source row, this is
+the sentence it should carry.
+
+---
+
+## 3. The plugin contract: `fetch(self, opts, since, until, transport)`
+
+The signature promises every plugin the range, and until this card **none of
+the four networked plugins used it**. The obvious follow-up is to enforce the
+promise. It is **not** enforced, and the reason is TARIFF-08's:
+
+Three of the five shipped plugins point at endpoints nobody has ever verified
+(TARIFF-07 is the open decision on withdrawing them). A rule obliging them to
+pass a date range would be satisfied by an **invented parameter name** — which
+is the parser-graded-against-its-own-guess defect moved from the response to
+the request, and it would ship looking like a guarantee.
+
+What exists instead is a **roster pin** in `test_price.py` section 2c: which
+plugins reference their `since`/`until` is asserted as a literal, derived from
+the registry and the AST. A sixth supplier, or a change to any of the three,
+has to edit that line and make the decision rather than inherit the silence.
+It is named as a source-shape pin, not as evidence that any feed parses;
+`generic_dayahead`'s behaviour is graded separately by the URL it really
+requests.
+
+**Recommendation for whoever picks up TARIFF-07:** enforce it at the moment
+those three endpoints are either verified or withdrawn, not before. If they are
+withdrawn, `generic_dayahead` and `manual_csv` are the whole roster and the
+rule is one line — `manual_csv` reads a whole file and is windowed downstream,
+so it would be the single documented exemption.

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/TARIFF-10-fetching-is-not-trading.md

@@ -0,0 +1,277 @@
+# TARIFF-10 — fetching a price and trading on one are two decisions
+
+**Status: DECIDED 2026-09-12 — Option A. If a price provider is configured,
+prices are fetched. Trading stays a separate switch (`arbitrage_enabled`), and
+this card moves nothing that moves energy.**
+
+Filed with TARIFF-10. Follows [[TARIFF-09]] and [[FCST-04]]; §4 settles the
+limitation FCST-04 recorded and did not decide.
+
+---
+
+## 1. The defect, and why it was invisible
+
+`app/main.py`'s `amain()` read:
+
+```
+if arbitrage.enabled(opts):
+    tasks.append(asyncio.create_task(controller.run_tariff_refresh()))
+```
+
+`run_tariff_refresh` is the **only** caller of `resolve_tariff()`, which is the
+**only** caller of `price_history.carry()`. `arbitrage_enabled` ships `false`.
+
+So on a shipped install with a provider configured:
+
+* no HTTPS request was ever made to the feed;
+* no plan was ever resolved, so `self.tariff_plan` stayed `None` forever;
+* `/data/price_history.json` was never created;
+* the *Price history* status row read `empty` for the life of the install;
+* TARIFF-09's short-horizon warning could not fire, because it is logged on a
+  fetch and there was no fetch.
+
+Measured, not inferred — a 40 h soak, two instances, one feed:
+
+| | shipped default + provider | same, arbitrage armed |
+|---|---|---|
+| feed requests | **0** | fetching |
+| `/data/price_history.json` | `present: false`, **802/802 samples** | written |
+| resolved plan | none | 132 points |
+
+⚠️ **AND FOUR SURFACES ALREADY DESCRIBED THE FIXED BEHAVIOUR.** `DOCS.md`
+§*Energy price providers*: *"With `arbitrage_enabled: false`, which is the
+shipped default, turning a provider on still fetches, validates and publishes
+prices and changes no charging decision."* `config.yaml` and both translations
+said the same, and additionally carried a claim that had gone stale in the other
+direction — *"nothing consumes the price series yet"*, untrue since OPT-04
+shipped the consumer. The code was the only surface that disagreed with all of
+them, and no check compared the two.
+
+The dating is worth being exact about, because it says this was never a
+regression. `git log -S` puts the refresh task, its `arbitrage.enabled()` guard
+**and** the DOCS sentence in the *same commit* — OPT-04, `bdd7f18`;
+`config.yaml`'s version of the claim goes back further, to TARIFF-02,
+`852fc7c`. The prose and the code disagreed from the moment both existed.
+
+## 2. Why a check on the `if` would not have caught it
+
+The `if` was exactly what somebody meant to write, and its comment argued for
+it honestly:
+
+> ⚠️ STARTED ONLY WHEN ARBITRAGE IS ARMED. Nothing else in the add-on reads the
+> resolved plan … so on a default install this task would be network traffic in
+> aid of an attribute nobody reads.
+
+That was true when OPT-04 wrote it and stopped being true when FCST-04 gave the
+plan a *store* and a *status row*. A pin on the expression would have gone red
+on the fix and green on the defect. What was wrong is the **set of
+configurations from which a fetch is reachable**, so that is what
+`test_price.py` section 13 grades:
+
+1. the guards on every `asyncio.create_task` in `amain()` are **evaluated**
+   against real option dicts — whatever the guard is spelled as;
+2. the call graph under `app/` is walked to see whether the coroutines those
+   guards start can arrive at `resolve_tariff()` — wherever it has moved to;
+3. and then the fetch is **driven**, with a counting transport, a real
+   `Controller` and a real store path, because a reachability graph is an
+   argument and a counted request is an observation.
+
+⚠️ **Step 3 grades the gate only because it starts the task the way `amain()`
+would.** The driver asks `_fetchers(opts)` — the evaluated guard — before it
+calls the coroutine. Measured: with the shipped defect restored **and** that one
+line defeated (`if False and "run_tariff_refresh" not in names:`), the four
+driven rows go **green** while only the structural rows stay red. Without it
+they are decoration, which is MUTATION.md's habit 4 in a harness.
+
+What the instrument **cannot** see is printed on every run: a coroutine started
+by anything but `create_task`; a guard that is not an enclosing `if` in
+`amain()`; anything outside `app/`; and — because the graph is keyed by **name**
+— two same-named functions as one node, which makes every *reachable* answer an
+**upper** bound and every *not reachable* answer the strong one.
+
+## 3. The gate, and why it is an `or`
+
+```
+def tariff_refresh_wanted(opts: dict) -> bool:
+    return provider_configured(opts) or arbitrage.enabled(opts)
+```
+
+The first term is what this card adds. **The second term is the old gate, kept
+verbatim, and it is not there for symmetry.**
+
+`price_provider: off` + a `static_profile` + `arbitrage_enabled: true` is a
+configuration `validate.py` explicitly **accepts** (rule 7 refuses only the
+no-prices-at-all case), and it **trades**. Measured on this branch:
+
+```
+opts: price_provider off, arbitrage_enabled true,
+      cycle_cost_threshold_eur 0.05,
+      static_profile 0.20 night / 0.284 day
+plan : static_profile from static_profile, 48 h, 48 points
+WITH  the plan -> ARBITRAGE_CHARGE -5000.0 W
+                  "cheapest firm hour at 0.2000 EUR/kWh, 0.0840 below the
+                   dearest and clear of the 0.0750 this cycle had to cover"
+WITHOUT the plan -> None  "no tariff plan has been resolved yet"
+```
+
+Gating the refresh on the provider **alone** — which is the literal reading of
+the ticket's second acceptance criterion — would leave that site's
+`tariff_plan` at `None` forever and answer *"no tariff plan has been resolved
+yet"* on every cycle. That is a strategy the UI says is running and that cannot
+fire: the exact state `validate.py`'s OPT-04 rules exist to refuse, arrived at
+from inside the code instead of from the configuration.
+
+So the gate is a **strict widening**: every configuration that started the task
+before still starts it, and `test_price.py` grades that as its own row rather
+than leaving it to prose.
+
+⚠️ **The AC's stated harm is still fully met, and it is worth being exact about
+this rather than quietly declaring victory.** The criterion reads *"with
+`price_provider: off`: no fetch task at all, whatever `arbitrage_enabled` says
+— an operator with no provider must not acquire a periodic HTTPS call."* The
+letter of it is not met in one configuration (provider off, trading armed),
+because that configuration keeps the task it already had. The harm it names is:
+
+* with `price_provider` off, `resolve_tariff()` returns `static_plan()` — pure
+  arithmetic, **no socket**. Driven and counted: **0 requests**.
+* the true shipped default — no provider, no trading — starts **no task at
+  all**.
+
+Nobody *acquires* a periodic HTTPS call from this card, and the only thing that
+decides whether a request leaves the machine is `price_provider`. **If the
+owner wants the literal reading instead, it is a one-token change** (drop the
+`or` term) **and it costs the site in the measurement above its trading.** That
+is the trade, stated rather than chosen silently.
+
+## 4. `TariffPlan.cheap_now()` — available, and deliberately NOT consumed
+
+**Decision: do not wire it in this card. `self.cheap` stays on
+`static_status()`.**
+
+FCST-04 recorded that `cheap_now()` has no production caller on the provider
+plan: `main.read_inputs()` assigns `self.cheap, self.tariff_words =
+static_status(o, now)`, which builds its **own** static plan and calls
+`cheap_now()` on that. Under Option A a provider-backed plan now exists on every
+configured site, so the limitation stops being structural and becomes a choice.
+
+**It is not cosmetic, and that is the whole reason for the decision.**
+`self.cheap` is read in `cycle()` by the maintenance cycle's cheap-window grid
+top-up — the add-on's one shiftable load, and the one place a *price* reaches
+something that **moves energy** on an install that has not armed trading.
+
+⚠️ **And the direction it would move is not "a slightly different window".**
+`static_status()` returns `(False, "no static profile")` whenever
+`static_profile` is empty, so today a provider-only site — a plausible shape
+for a dynamic-tariff install, and the shape this card makes work — has
+`self.cheap = False` on **every** cycle and never forces a paid grid top-up at
+all. Wiring `cheap_now()` would take that from *never* to *sometimes*. That is
+a strictly larger behaviour change than this card's headline, and it belongs to
+whoever owns the maintenance cycle rather than to the ticket that made it
+reachable.
+
+Three further reasons, in the order they would bite:
+
+1. **Two sources, one attribute, and the loser is silent.** `validate.py`
+   already refuses `static_profile` alongside the Home Assistant price
+   entities *because* `read_inputs()` picks one and the other disappears. A
+   provider plan would be a third writer of the same attribute with no rule
+   saying which wins.
+2. **The freshness question is not answered for this consumer.** The plan
+   retires after `TARIFF_MAX_AGE_S` and `fresh_tariff_plan()` returns `None`.
+   Arbitrage has an answer for that (refuse). The maintenance top-up has none:
+   "the plan expired" would have to mean *not cheap*, and *not cheap* on this
+   path means **wait for sun**, which is a real decision nobody has taken.
+3. **The comparison basis changes, and so does the answer on a bad feed.**
+   `cheap_now()` is strictly-below-the-mean-of-the-**firm**-hours, and it is
+   `False` when THIS hour is provisional or is not in the series at all
+   (FCST-03's rule: this hour decides, not the whole plan). So a feed that
+   published nothing, or an hour the §8.3 fill could not cover, reads *not
+   cheap* where a `static_profile` reads whatever the clock says. Defensible
+   either way — and it is a change to the shipped maintenance cycle that needs
+   its own measurement rather than a side effect of this one.
+
+**What adopting it would take**, so the next card does not start from scratch:
+
+* a rule for which source wins when both a provider plan and a
+  `static_profile` are configured, enforced in `validate.py` the way the
+  entity/profile conflict already is;
+* a decision on what an **expired** or **absent** plan means for the grid
+  top-up, stated as a default rather than left to `None`;
+* `read_inputs()` splitting `self.cheap` from `self.tariff_words`, which are
+  currently one assignment from one function;
+* a check that the maintenance top-up actually fires and does not fire on the
+  provider plan — driven through `cycle()`, not asserted on the attribute;
+* and the *Tariff* status row, which FCST-04 pinned as a **pair** with
+  `DOCS.md` in `test_price_history.py` §9: it does not report the provider
+  plan, DOCS does not claim it does, and moving one without the other is
+  already red.
+
+## 5. The *Arbitrage* status row, re-read and left alone
+
+`main.status_payload()` renders `("Arbitrage", "off (arbitrage_enabled)" if
+self.arb is None else self.arb.explain())`. `self.arb` is assigned only inside
+`if arbitrage.enabled(self.o):` and `arbitrage.decide()` never returns `None`,
+so `self.arb is None` **iff** the option is off. The string still names the
+option that is actually off, and under Option A it gains a job it did not have:
+on a site with a provider configured it is the row that tells an operator the
+prices arriving on the *Price history* row above are moving nothing. Unchanged,
+with a note at the call site saying it was checked.
+
+## 6. What this card did not do
+
+* It did not touch `run_tariff_refresh()`'s body (TARIFF-12 is there).
+* It did not change `cycle()`'s `if arbitrage.enabled(self.o):`, the sizing,
+  the thresholds, the SoC bounds or the peak interlock.
+* It did not wire the provider plan into the *Tariff* status row or into
+  `self.cheap` — §4.
+* It did not pick a version number (PKG-06).
+
+## 7. Mutation ledger
+
+Every mutation applied to a **fresh `cp -a`** of the clean worktree rather than
+reverted (habit 18: there is no revert to verify and no shared scratch path),
+`__pycache__` purged, tree mounted `:ro`, run under `python3 -B`.
+
+| id | mutation | Δ bytes | result |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| M1 | the shipped defect: gate back to `arbitrage.enabled(opts)` | **-4 B** | **RED**, 7 named checks |
+| M2 | drop the `or arbitrage.enabled(opts)` term | -27 B | **RED**, 2 named checks (strict-widening + the static-profile row) |
+| M3 | `tariff_refresh_wanted` -> always `True` | +8 B | **RED**, the AC2 reachability row |
+| M4 | `provider_configured`: `"off"` counts as configured | -6 B | **RED**, the AC2 reachability row |
+| M5 | `cycle()`'s trading gate -> `if True or arbitrage.enabled(self.o)` | +8 B | **RED**, both AC3 rows (`-5000 W` with trading off) |
+| M6 | instrument: `_reaches()` always `True` | **+0 B** | **RED**, 4 checks incl. its own calibration row |
+| M7 | instrument: `_task_sites()` returns `[]` | **+0 B** | **RED**, 10 checks incl. "it found 0 sites" |
+| M8 | fixture: 5 minutes of telegrams instead of a whole quarter | **+0 B** | **RED**, the peak-guard precondition and both armed rows |
+| M9 | M1 **plus** the harness's guard-driven start defeated | -4 B | the four DRIVEN rows go **GREEN** — see §2 |
+| M10 | `provider_id()` drops `.strip()` | -8 B | **survivor**, then CLOSED — see below |
+| M11 | `provider_configured()` -> `return True` | -32 B | **RED**, 4 checks |
+| M12 | DOCS.md's sentence reverted to the old, vaguer claim | +0 B (docs) | **RED**, the AC4 pairing row (`fetches = True, DOCS says = False`) |
+| M13 | the Dutch translation left behind while English moved | +0 B (docs) | **RED**, the both-languages row |
+
+⚠️ **M10 was a real survivor and is recorded as one.** Dropping `.strip()` left
+`test_price.py`, `test_price_history.py`, `test_static_tariff.py` and
+`test_validate.py` all green: nothing in the repository fed a `price_provider`
+with surrounding whitespace, and the `.strip()` predates this card — it was
+carried into `provider_id()` from the three call sites it replaced. The
+Supervisor's `list(off|…)` schema cannot produce `"  off  "`, but
+`validate_startup_config()` is also `sim/inject.py`'s entry point and takes any
+dict at all. Closed in the same commit by the padded-id pair in section 13;
+re-run as **M10b**, red on two named checks.
+
+⚠️ **M8 is the fixture defect this card walked into and then fenced.** The
+first draft fed five minutes of telegrams. Whether that **covers** the current
+billing quarter depends on where the wall clock sits inside it, so the peak
+guard was blind and engaged on some runs and not others — and `decide()` refuses
+outright while the guard is holding (§9.1 over §10.1). On those runs the armed
+baseline did not trade, and "trading off never trades" would have been graded
+on a fixture in which nothing could trade either way. It is now 900 s of
+telegrams, and the guard's clear state is a **check** rather than an assumption.
+
+## 8. What is still open
+
+* The literal reading of AC2 (§3). One token, and it costs a measured trading
+  configuration its plan. **Owner's call.**
+* `cheap_now()` (§4). Owner's call, with the adoption list above.
+* The *Tariff* status row still shows the static-profile sentence on a
+  provider-backed site; the provider plan's own line goes to the log. Pinned as
+  a pair with `DOCS.md` by FCST-04 and untouched here.

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/TARIFF-12-a-degradation-is-not-a-refresh.md

@@ -0,0 +1,252 @@
+# TARIFF-12 — a returned degradation is not a refresh
+
+Three decisions. The first is what the ticket put up for judgement; the second
+and third are what fall out of it and would otherwise be decided by accident.
+
+---
+
+## 0. What was actually wrong, stated once
+
+`run_tariff_refresh()`'s docstring:
+
+> ⚠️ **AND A FAILURE DOES NOT CLEAR THE PLAN.** … Zeroing the plan here would
+> replace a coarse tariff with no tariff, which is the opposite of what §11.4
+> asks for.
+
+The guarantee was real. The condition it was enforced on was not:
+
+```python
+try:
+    plan = await resolve_tariff(...)
+    self.tariff_plan, self.tariff_at = plan, now     # unconditional
+except Exception as err:
+    _LOG.warning("tariff refresh failed (%s); keeping the plan ...")
+```
+
+`load_prices()` says in its own docstring that it **"RETURNS, NEVER RAISES, for
+every failure a site can actually have"**, because a degradation arriving as a
+traceback into the planning tick would stop the controller regulating over an
+expired certificate. So a supplier outage — the case the docstring names first —
+is a **return**: the `try` succeeds, `_degrade()` hands back a §11.4 plan, and
+the good plan is overwritten. The `except` is reachable only by something
+nobody expected, and nothing in the shipped path produces it.
+
+This is the fourth card in one family: FCST-04's M4 (`not ok` only), FCST-05's
+HIGH (`(JSONDecodeError, OSError)` only), FCST-06 (`not self.ok` only), and now
+`except Exception` only, for a path that never raises. **A guarantee enforced on
+the condition someone thought of, rather than the condition that occurs.**
+
+Reproduced before the fix, driving the shipped chain with nothing stubbed but
+the socket — 48 h horizon, `static_profile` empty, one good fetch then a
+`ClientConnectorError` 1800 s later, `TARIFF_MAX_AGE_S` = 5400 s:
+
+```
+after a good fetch      origin='provider'  n_points=48  'dynamic_dayahead from generic_dayahead, 48 h'
+after the failed fetch  origin='none'      n_points=0   'no tariff - generic_dayahead: ClientConnectorError: ...'
+tariff_at moved: True
+```
+
+and after it:
+
+```
+after the failed fetch  origin='provider'  n_points=48  'dynamic_dayahead from generic_dayahead, 48 h'
+tariff_at moved: False
+```
+
+---
+
+## 1. The question is asked ONCE, after the attempt, from the evidence that exists
+
+FCST-06's answer, one module over, and for the same reason: **the enumeration
+of failure conditions cannot be completed.** There is no pre-check that a feed
+will answer which is not itself a guess, and adding one would be a second
+symptom test beside the `except`. So the predicate is an **outcome**, read off
+the object the attempt produced:
+
+```python
+standing = self.fresh_tariff_plan(now)
+keep = (not plan.from_feed
+        and standing is not None and standing.from_feed)
+```
+
+Two facts, both of which exist by the time the question is asked:
+
+* **`plan.from_feed`** — did *this* resolution observe the configured provider?
+  `TariffPlan.origin` already names the four ways a plan is obtained; this
+  collapses them to the one question a caller holding a previous plan has to
+  ask. It lives on `TariffPlan` rather than as an `origin == "provider"` at the
+  call site for `fresh_tariff_plan()`'s own stated reason — *a check has to be
+  able to assert on the shipped expression rather than on a transcription that
+  drifts* — and because `origin`'s vocabulary belongs to `static_tariff.py`.
+* **`fresh_tariff_plan(now)`** — is a standing observation still current. It
+  already existed, it is already the one place the age is judged, and it is
+  **reused, not transcribed**. `test_arbitrage.py` 8b pins that reuse on the
+  AST; a copy of the comparison behaves identically until the day the two
+  drift, which is a claim about the code's shape, so a shape check is what
+  grades it (FCST-06's precedent for the one source check among driven ones).
+
+### What was NOT done
+
+* **Not `except Exception` widened, or a second `if` beside it.** That is the
+  defect's own shape — a place where the rule is spelt twice, so a fifth cause
+  needs a fifth branch. The `except` stays, relabelled *"not the outage path"*,
+  keeps the plan on the same terms, and is now honestly the
+  something-nobody-expected branch.
+* **Not the persisted price store as a cache.** Out of scope by the product
+  owner's call, and it is the right call: FCST-03 exists precisely to stop
+  stale prices being acted on, and "recent" is not "current". Keeping the last
+  **fetched** plan until it ages out is a different promise from serving the
+  store, and that one needs its own ticket.
+* **Not a `no_data`-only guard.** `not plan.has_prices` is the tempting
+  spelling and it is wrong — see decision 2. It leaves the §11.4 fallback free
+  to replace a fresh observation, and it is a 1-byte edit from the shipped
+  line, which is why it is in the mutation table rather than in a comment.
+
+---
+
+## 2. A §11.4 static fallback does NOT replace a fresh provider plan
+
+The ticket asked this directly, because the fallback is *not* nothing: it is
+the operator's own configured profile, with real prices, for the requested
+window. The answer is still no, and the reason is not that it is worse data —
+it is that **nothing may be acted on it, and it is no more current.**
+
+* Every point `_degrade()` builds carries `provisional=True`. So
+  `firm_points()` is empty, `arbitrage()` finds fewer than two firm hours and
+  refuses, and `cheap_now()` is False. Both of the two things `TariffPlan`
+  exposes for a consumer to act on are already off.
+* A day-ahead price for a given hour **does not change once published**. A plan
+  fetched 30 minutes ago is exactly as true about 19:00 as one fetched now; at
+  most `TARIFF_MAX_AGE_S` of its horizon has elapsed. The observation is not
+  stale in any sense the fallback is fresher than.
+
+So replacing the observation with the fallback trades a plan with firm hours
+for a plan with none, and buys no currency with it. The fallback takes over
+when the observation **retires** — which is exactly the row §11.4 describes,
+arrived at when there is no longer an observation to prefer.
+
+### And the rule is deliberately NOT symmetrical
+
+`standing.from_feed` is a term in its own right. A standing plan that is itself
+a degradation **is** replaced by the next degradation, and its timestamp moves.
+Without that term:
+
+* an outage on a static-profile site would freeze the operator's profile at the
+  window it was first generated for, and the guard would be *"never overwrite"*
+  wearing a bound's name;
+* and on a `price_provider: off` install — the shipped default — the plan would
+  flip between kept and re-derived every `TARIFF_MAX_AGE_S`, for no behavioural
+  gain, changing which reason the status page prints on a two-hour cycle.
+
+Each of the three terms is the only false one in some check in 8b, which is
+MUTATION.md habit 17's test for whether a suite can tell an `AND` from an `OR`.
+
+---
+
+## 3. `tariff_at` does not move on a kept plan
+
+The docstring's other half is that a plan must not *"freeze at its last value
+and look current forever"*. `tariff_at` is what makes that work: it is the
+moment of the fetch that produced the plan standing, and `fresh_tariff_plan()`
+judges the age from it.
+
+Re-stamping it on a kept plan would be this task asserting the feed answered
+when it did not. The plan would be re-certified as current at every refresh, an
+outage of any length would never retire it, and `TARIFF_MAX_AGE_S` would be
+**exactly as dead as it was before this card** — reachable only by the refresh
+task itself dying. Leaving it alone is what makes the bound govern: the plan is
+served for the age bound after its own fetch, and no longer.
+
+It is also the whole of **"distinguishable from a freshly-fetched one"**. A
+kept plan and a fetched plan are the same object shape; what separates them is
+that one's timestamp advanced and the other's did not, and every consumer that
+asks how old the plan is already reads that number. The kept case additionally
+logs at WARNING, naming the degradation's own reason, the fetch it is keeping,
+its age, and the deadline it retires at.
+
+⚠️ **What this does not give the operator, and why it is not here.** The status
+page has no row for "the last refresh failed" — the banner/level not moving
+when the plan is lost is separately carded, and the ticket rules it out of
+scope. This card's change makes that surface *more* truthful, not less: during
+the first `TARIFF_MAX_AGE_S` of an outage there is now a real plan behind the
+Arbitrage row instead of a no-plan refusal, so the row says something true for
+longer. The no-plan state is entered later by up to 5400 s; it is not removed,
+and the 30-minute lag reported on that row is untouched by anything here.
+
+---
+
+## 4. Merged after TARIFF-10 — what the wider gate changed, and what it did not
+
+TARIFF-10 landed on `release/1.0` while this card was open. It changed **which
+installs run this task** — `if arbitrage.enabled(opts)` became
+`tariff_refresh_wanted(opts)`, i.e. `provider_configured(opts) or
+arbitrage.enabled(opts)` — while this card changed **what the task does on a
+failed fetch**. Git auto-merged the two hunks, which is exactly when the
+interaction needs reading rather than trusting.
+
+**Nothing in the decisions above changed.** Two configurations are newly
+reachable, and both are now driven in `test_arbitrage.py` 8b rather than
+reasoned about:
+
+* **A provider configured with trading DISARMED** — TARIFF-10's headline case.
+  This is precisely the configuration the guard was designed for: the plans are
+  `origin == "provider"`, and a dead feed must not delete one that is still
+  inside `TARIFF_MAX_AGE_S`. It needs no second fixture, because **nothing on
+  this path reads `arbitrage_enabled` at all**, and that is asserted rather
+  than assumed — over the AST's symbols and the non-docstring string constants,
+  because two earlier drafts of that check were **red against a correct tree**:
+  the first matched the docstring paragraph that *says* `arbitrage_enabled` is
+  not read, the second matched the log line's "arbitrage, where it is armed".
+  A substring test over a function grades its prose as much as its behaviour,
+  which is habit 4 in a third costume. A fixture that set the option and
+  asserted no difference would have been the other defect — comparing a thing
+  against itself.
+* **`price_provider: off` + a `static_profile`** — the configuration TARIFF-10's
+  `or` exists to protect, and the one where a latching guard would do real harm.
+  `resolve_tariff()` returns `static_plan(provisional=False)`, whose origin is
+  `"static"`: the CONFIGURED product, not a §11.4 row. So `standing.from_feed`
+  is false on every refresh, `keep` is false on every refresh, and the plan is
+  regenerated for the current window every 30 minutes exactly as before this
+  card. **Driven, twice in a row**, because a guard that latched here would
+  freeze a static site's plan at its first window for the life of the install —
+  and mutation M3, which drops the `standing.from_feed` term, is red on that
+  check as well as on the fallback one.
+
+Two further facts settle the rest of the interaction:
+
+* **This decision is strictly downstream of every side effect.** The §8.3 carry
+  into `price_history` happens inside `resolve_tariff()`, on the `series`
+  branch, before `keep` is computed — so which of two plans is kept can neither
+  add nor lose a recorded day, and TARIFF-10's *Price history* row is
+  unaffected either way.
+* **The kept-plan log line was reworded.** It said "arbitrage stops with it",
+  which after TARIFF-10 is false on a site that fetches without trading; it now
+  says "arbitrage, **where it is armed**, stops with it".
+
+All eleven mutations were **re-driven on the merged tree** rather than carried
+over — the surrounding code changed, so a red against the old base is not
+evidence about the new one. Eleven red, no survivors, every revert
+fingerprinted. The added member is M11: making the guard conditional on
+`arbitrage.enabled(self.o)` (+86 B), red on five named checks.
+
+⚠️ **And one process note that belongs in this file.** This card's mutation
+harness was written to a shared scratchpad path and was **overwritten mid-run
+by another agent's harness for a different card**, pointing at a different
+worktree. That is MUTATION.md habit 18's second bullet almost verbatim. It was
+caught because the harness fingerprints the tree after every revert and the
+runs are what proved this worktree was never left mutated; the harness now
+lives at a card-specific path. **A harness that edits source must not share a
+name, a directory or a backup path with another one.**
+
+---
+
+## What this does not change
+
+* **Nothing on the 30 s tick.** `cycle()` still reads two attributes and awaits
+  no fetch; the AST pin in `test_arbitrage.py` section 8 is unchanged and green.
+* **Nothing about the prices themselves.** No series is invented, extended,
+  re-stamped or carried. The only question this card answers is *which of two
+  plans the controller holds*.
+* **A `price_provider: off` install is bit-for-bit unaffected.** Its standing
+  plan is never `origin == "provider"`, so `keep` is false on every refresh it
+  will ever run, and the assignment happens exactly as it did before.

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/TARIFF-13-the-coverage-of-a-peak.md

@@ -0,0 +1,225 @@
+# TARIFF-13 — the coverage of a peak, and which quarter gets the credit
+
+Two decisions. §1 is the defect the ticket was raised on; §2 is the smaller
+question it asked to be settled deliberately rather than left as an accident.
+§3 is what this branch deliberately did **not** do, and why.
+
+---
+
+## 0. What was actually wrong, stated once
+
+`main.py`'s capacity-tariff status row prints a peak read from SQLite and a
+coverage figure read from **process memory**:
+
+```python
+_pk = self.peak.peak(when)                      # SQLite, durable
+...
++ f"; {self.peak.recorded} quarter(s) banked"   # an int on the tracker
+```
+
+`PeakTracker.recorded` was `self.recorded = 0` in `__init__`, incremented once
+per block inside `sync()`. A 40-hour soak caught what that means at a driven
+restart, on both instances independently:
+
+```
+before: 2026-09: peak 365 W, set by the quarter at 2026-09-11T18:45:00+00:00
+        - 10 % of the 3500 W soft limit; 120 quarter(s) banked
+after : 2026-09: peak 365 W, set by the quarter at 2026-09-11T18:45:00+00:00
+        - 10 % of the 3500 W soft limit;   0 quarter(s) banked
+```
+
+Reproduced here before anything was changed, through the real `Controller`, the
+real `P1Ingest`, and a **real restart** — a second `Controller` object against
+the same file on disk, never a re-read of the first:
+
+```
+before: 2026-09: peak 365 W, set by the quarter at 2026-09-10T09:00:00+00:00
+        - 10 % of the 3500 W soft limit; 12 quarter(s) banked
+after : 2026-09: peak 365 W, set by the quarter at 2026-09-10T09:00:00+00:00
+        - 10 % of the 3500 W soft limit;  0 quarter(s) banked
+
+    peak survives the restart: True
+    count survives the restart: False       (12 -> 0, store held 12 rows)
+```
+
+**TARIFF-01's argument, one column over.** That module's whole design is that
+an unreadable store must not read as a zero peak, *because a zero peak is
+disarming*. A coverage figure of zero is disarming in exactly the same way and
+about the same number: the count is what says how much of the billing month the
+watt figure actually covers, and 365 W over 120 quarters and 365 W over 0
+quarters are different claims about the same 365 W. After a restart the page
+made the weaker claim while displaying the stronger one's value. It did not
+under-report the peak — it under-reported **its own evidence**.
+
+Two further defects fell out of the same variable once it was driven, neither
+of them in the ticket:
+
+* **it was never scoped to a month.** It counted every block the *process* had
+  banked, so on 1 October the row read September's tally beside October's "no
+  completed quarter recorded yet". Measured, on the shipped tree:
+  `2026-10: no completed quarter recorded yet - 0 % of the 3500 W soft limit;
+  1 quarter(s) banked`.
+* **it missed the block `restore()` banks.** A stale block closed from the
+  checkpoint goes into `quarter_blocks` without passing through `sync()`, so
+  the counter never saw it.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Decision: the count is READ FROM THE TIER THE PEAK IS READ FROM
+
+The acceptance criterion allowed either route — make the count durable, or stop
+printing a number that silently resets. **Durable**, because the count is the
+useful half of the row and removing it would have cost the operator the one
+thing that says whether the peak means anything yet.
+
+`PeakStore.banked_count(month)` asks the database `SELECT COUNT(*) FROM
+quarter_blocks WHERE month=?`, and `PeakTracker.recorded` is a property over it
+rather than an attribute. Three consequences, and all three are the defects
+above:
+
+* a restart re-reads the same rows, so the figure survives it;
+* the count is per **month**, so it agrees with the peak it is printed beside;
+* a block banked by `restore()` is a row like any other and is counted.
+
+Three things this route deliberately does **not** do:
+
+* **it does not count `len(blocks_in(month))`.** `blocks_in()` returns `[]` on a
+  read error — safe there only because no caller reads its emptiness as a peak,
+  which its own docstring says — so taking its length would rebuild the
+  disarming zero one call further out. `banked_count()` returns **`None`** when
+  the database will not answer.
+* **it does not count `monthly_peak`.** That tier holds one row per *month* and
+  would answer `1` for every month ever measured — wrong by exactly the amount
+  that makes it look plausible. The two tables are proven equal on the **peak**
+  by `recompute_month()`; they were never equal on the **count**.
+* **it does not remove the dedupe.** `_seen` is still what stops `cycle()`'s
+  once-a-second `sync()` re-banking a block that `P1Ingest.blocks` keeps for a
+  day, and `sync()`'s return value is still the number newly banked. What moved
+  is only where the *status page* reads its figure. ⚠️ The check that graded the
+  dedupe used to assert `recorded == 1` — the dedupe and the figure reporting it
+  were the same variable. Counting rows in `quarter_blocks` cannot see a
+  re-bank at all (it is a PRIMARY KEY no-op), so that check is now graded on
+  `sync()`'s **return**, with the store's tally as the second half.
+
+### ⚠️ The unreadable case renders a WORD, not a number
+
+`banked_count()` returns `int | None`; `recorded_in()` renders the `None` as
+the module constant `COUNT_UNREADABLE = "an unreadable number of"`, so the
+sentence reads
+
+```
+... ; an unreadable number of quarter(s) banked
+```
+
+`0` was never available. `None` was rejected too: `f"{None} quarter(s) banked"`
+renders **"None quarter(s) banked"**, which an operator reads as the same zero.
+This is the `PeakReading` trade — no `peak_w_or(default)`, ever — applied to the
+coverage figure: a caller that formats it gets a true sentence in both states,
+and a caller that does arithmetic on it gets a `TypeError`, which is loud.
+
+"0 quarter(s) banked" remains a **true and reachable** sentence: it is what a
+month nothing has been written to says, and part 11 asserts that the two states
+are spelled differently.
+
+---
+
+## 2. Decision: at EQUAL wattage, the EARLIEST quarter keeps the attribution
+
+**First, not most recent.** The reasoning, in the order it matters:
+
+1. **It is not a money question.** The utility bills the wattage; the timestamp
+   is not part of the bill. So the decision is settled entirely on what the
+   status row is *for*.
+2. **The row answers "when did my monthly peak happen".** An operator reading it
+   goes and looks at one event — what was running, what the weather was. A
+   stable answer is the one that can be investigated; "most recent wins"
+   guarantees the answer moves every time the wattage recurs, and an operator
+   who looked yesterday is sent somewhere else today for no reason.
+3. **It is what one reader already did unconditionally.** `recompute_month()`
+   is `ORDER BY offtake_avg_w DESC, quarter_start ASC LIMIT 1` — earliest wins.
+   Choosing "most recent" would have meant changing both readers; choosing
+   "earliest" meant making the other one say out loud what it was already doing
+   by accident.
+
+### ⚠️ And the two readers DID diverge, which is why this is a code change
+
+The `monthly_peak` upsert was `WHERE excluded.peak_w > monthly_peak.peak_w` —
+strictly greater, so an exact tie never wrote and the row kept whichever tied
+block was **written first**. That coincides with *earliest* only while blocks
+arrive in time order. Fed four equal 365 W blocks newest-first, measured on the
+shipped tree:
+
+```
+ascending arrival    monthly_peak -> 09:00:00   recompute_month -> 09:00:00   agree=True
+DESCENDING arrival   monthly_peak -> 09:45:00   recompute_month -> 09:00:00   agree=False
+```
+
+That is a divergence in the derived record that part 8 of `test_tariff.py`
+exists to prove cannot happen — latent, because nothing in the shipped path
+banks out of order today. The upsert now carries the tie term explicitly:
+
+```sql
+WHERE excluded.peak_w > monthly_peak.peak_w
+   OR (excluded.peak_w = monthly_peak.peak_w
+       AND excluded.quarter_start < monthly_peak.quarter_start)
+```
+
+**`peak_w` is untouched.** The `>` term is exactly as it was, no tie can move
+the billed number, and SAFETY-07's guard reads the same watt figure it read
+before. The second term moves only the timestamp.
+
+### ⚠️ AND THE SOAK'S DRIFT WAS NOT A TIE AT ALL
+
+The ticket's reading — "ties at the same wattage are re-attributed to the most
+recent matching quarter" — is **false**, and driving it is what showed that.
+Six exactly-equal 365.0 W quarters on the shipped tree moved the attribution
+**zero** times, because `>` is strict.
+
+What the soak saw was a genuine new maximum **smaller than the row's own
+resolution**. The row renders `{peak_w:.0f}` — whole watts — so 365.0000001 W is
+a new peak to the database and the same `365 W` to the reader:
+
+```
+q0  fed 365.0        -> renders 365 W, attributed 09:00:00
+q1  fed 365.0000001  -> renders 365 W, attributed 09:15:00
+q2  fed 365.0000002  -> renders 365 W, attributed 09:30:00
+```
+
+**Decision: left alone, deliberately.** It is the instrument behaving correctly
+— the peak really did rise — and the alternative, printing more decimal places,
+puts noise in the one row an operator reads at the moment the guard engages, to
+explain a movement that is real. Both cases are pinned in part 12 so that
+neither can be changed by accident, and the distinction is recorded here so the
+next reader does not re-diagnose it as a tie.
+
+---
+
+## 3. What this branch did NOT do, and who owns it
+
+**`main.py`'s status row was not touched.** TARIFF-11 holds `main.py`'s status
+rows on a concurrent branch, and the standing instruction is to stop rather than
+race there. Everything above is in `app/tariff.py`, and the row picks the fix up
+without editing, because `self.peak.recorded` is an attribute access and is now
+a property.
+
+**The residual, stated with its scope.** `recorded` answers for
+`datetime.now()`. The peak beside it follows `checks(when=...)`. The shipped
+install has **exactly one** call site — `self.checks()` with no argument, at
+`main.py:4359` — where the two are the same month, so **the live page is correct
+and durable**. They part company only under the `when=` affordance TEST-17 added
+for the suite, and the mismatch there is strictly smaller than the one it
+replaces (this month's tally, rather than a process-wide total across all
+months).
+
+`PeakTracker.recorded_in(when)` is the scoped form and is shipped. Moving the
+row onto it is:
+
+```python
+- + f"; {self.peak.recorded} quarter(s) banked"
++ + f"; {self.peak.recorded_in(when)} quarter(s) banked"
+```
+
+one token, on one line, inside the block TARIFF-11 owns. `test_tariff.py`
+part 10 **pins the present behaviour** — graded against a row count taken
+straight from `quarter_blocks`, not against the property that produces it — so
+the gap goes red if it changes and cannot be quietly forgotten.

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/TARIFF-14-the-window-a-point-covers.md

@@ -0,0 +1,349 @@
+# TARIFF-14 — how long one price point covers, and what the last one does
+
+One defect and one genuinely open decision. The defect had no defensible
+alternative once it was measured; the decision — the **last** point's window —
+did, and the alternative is argued below rather than dismissed.
+
+---
+
+## 0. The measurement this card exists for
+
+`_Series.at()` asked `s <= u < s + 1 h` of every point **in list order** and
+returned the **first** match. Run against the shipped code at `5059e28` on a
+quarter-hourly series:
+
+```
+series: 02:00=0.10  02:15=0.11  02:30=0.12  02:45=0.13  03:00=0.14 ...
+
+ask + 0min -> 02:00  0.10
+ask +15min -> 02:00  0.10   <-- WRONG (wanted 02:15)
+ask +30min -> 02:00  0.10   <-- WRONG
+ask +45min -> 02:00  0.10   <-- WRONG
+ask +60min -> 02:15  0.11   <-- WRONG (wanted 03:00)
+ask +75min -> 02:30  0.12   <-- WRONG (wanted 03:15)
+```
+
+**Two failure modes, not one.** Inside the first hour the `:00` point wins
+because its hour has not run out. From the second hour on the answer is not
+even the top of the hour — the first point still inside its own hour wins — so
+**the error compounds with depth into the series**.
+
+Same code, same run, after the fix:
+
+```
+ask + 0min -> 02:00  0.10        ask +60min -> 03:00  0.14
+ask +15min -> 02:15  0.11        ask +75min -> 03:15  0.15
+ask +30min -> 02:30  0.12        ask +90min -> 03:30  0.16
+ask +45min -> 02:45  0.13        ask+120min -> 04:00  0.18
+```
+
+An hourly series is **unchanged at every instant**, before and after — which is
+the whole reason nothing caught this. Every price fixture in this repository
+before TARIFF-08 was the invented hourly row shape, `static_tariff.py` emits
+hourly points, and the DST checks count points on the 23- and 25-hour days
+without ever asking `at()` for a quarter-hour. **The suite had been exercising
+the one resolution on which the broken rule and the right one agree.**
+
+Belgium moved to a 15-minute MTU on 2025-10-01 and the live day-ahead feed
+returns **96 points at 900 s**, so this is reachable only down the dynamic path
+TARIFF-08/09 just made work. Static sites are immune.
+
+## 0.1 What it cost, which is not "a slightly wrong price"
+
+`arbitrage._act()` calls `_point_at(plan, now)` → `series.at(now)` and then
+tests `here.start == v.cheapest.start` / `== v.dearest.start` to decide whether
+this interval is the buy one or the sell one. That is an **identity test
+between the matched point and the point the verdict was built from**, and on a
+quarter-hourly series it almost never matched — so the strategy idled through
+exactly the interval it exists to trade, reporting *"this hour is neither the
+buy hour nor the sell hour"*. It also read `here.provisional` (§8.3) and §17's
+`price < 0` off that same wrong point.
+
+---
+
+## 1. The rule
+
+> **A point covers from its own start until the next point's start, and never
+> more than one hour.**
+
+* **900 s** → each point covers its own quarter.
+* **3600 s** → each point covers its own hour. Identical to what shipped.
+* **MIXED** → **each point takes its own gap.** FCST-04's carry-forward emits
+  hourly carried points beside quarter-hourly firm ones, and the soak measured
+  spacing `[900, 3600]` in **70 % of samples** — so a window derived from one
+  global spacing would be wrong in the **normal steady state**, not in an edge
+  case.
+
+### 1.1 Why the one-hour cap is not decoration
+
+FCST-04 **leaves holes on purpose**: an hour with no published price and no
+yesterday value is left *out* of the series, and `price_forecast.py`'s module
+note names `at()` raising `Absence` for it as the behaviour that sends the
+caller to the static profile (§11.4 for that hour).
+
+Uncapped, "until the next point's start" stretches the point **before** a
+three-hour hole across the whole hole and answers every instant in it with a
+stale price. Filling holes is the defect this module exists to refuse, and it
+would have been introduced **by the fix for a different one**. Graded in
+`test_price.py` 14d; the mutation that removes the cap is red there.
+
+---
+
+## 2. The decision: what the **last** point covers
+
+There is no next start, and §9.3 says nothing about how wide the final interval
+is — a `PricePoint` has **three fields** and must not learn a fourth, because
+that is the wire format every store, replay, fixture and captured body in this
+repository is written against. So the tail is a **choice**, and both candidates
+are defensible.
+
+**Chosen: the last point is given the same span as the point before it** (one
+hour when it is the only point).
+
+| | flat one hour | the span in front of it (**chosen**) |
+|---|---|---|
+| 96-point 900 s day, `at(23:50)` | answers 23:45 | answers 23:45 |
+| the same day, `at(00:30)` **tomorrow** | **answers with today's 23:45 price** | `Absence` |
+| 24-point hourly day, `at(23:50)` | answers 23:00 | answers 23:00 |
+| mixed series ending at the firm/carried seam | answers for an hour | `Absence` after 15 min |
+
+**The second row is why.** A flat one-hour tail reaches across a day boundary
+and prices tomorrow morning with yesterday's last print — which is
+"reaching for a neighbouring one", the single thing the `Absence` message has
+always refused to do. The chosen rule never extends a point past a span the
+series itself demonstrates.
+
+### 2.1 The cost of the choice, stated rather than buried
+
+On a **mixed** series whose last point is a carried **hourly** one sitting
+behind quarter-hourly firm ones, the tail is **900 s**, and the last 45 minutes
+of the horizon raise `Absence` for an hour something did carry a value for.
+
+That is accepted, not tolerated, and the direction is the safe one:
+
+* the caller falls back to the static profile (§11.4) instead of trading on a
+  span the series never demonstrated;
+* the point is **carried**, so §8.3 forbids any irreversible action resting on
+  it regardless;
+* it is at the far end of a 48 h horizon, where nothing is decided at 30 s.
+
+Under-covering costs a missed decision. Over-covering prices a real interval
+with a number that does not describe it. Those are not symmetric.
+
+### 2.2 The degenerate case
+
+A series of **one** point has no gap in front of it to copy and gets **one
+hour** — the shipped behaviour, kept deliberately. `test_price.py` 14e states
+it as its own check so it cannot decay into an accident.
+
+---
+
+## 3. Does `at()` now depend on sortedness? Yes — and it establishes it itself
+
+The old rule read one point at a time and did not care about order. The new one
+reads a point's **neighbours**, so it *would* depend on the series being
+ascending.
+
+It does not, because **the lookup index is sorted by UTC start at construction**
+(`_cover_table()`, called once from `_Series.__init__`). No caller's list order
+can reach `at()`.
+
+That matters because the three things that "guarantee" order today each
+guarantee it somewhere else:
+
+| | what it guarantees | where |
+|---|---|---|
+| `_validate_raw()` | strictly increasing starts | the `load_prices()` path only |
+| `price_history._parse_points()` | re-sorts by instant | the store read path only |
+| FCST-04's fill | emits ascending | that one producer only |
+| `PriceRead.series()` | **nothing** | every other caller, including tests |
+
+Three producers agreeing today is not an invariant; it is a coincidence with
+good references. `test_price.py` 14f drives a series handed its 96 points in
+**reverse** order and asserts `at()` answers identically at every one of them —
+red the moment the sort is removed.
+
+**Duplicated starts** (refused by `_validate_raw()`, constructible by hand) give
+the earlier list entry a zero-width window and the later one the real span. One
+of the pair becomes unreachable through `at()`; **nothing raises**, at
+construction or on the 30 s control path. Stated as a check rather than left to
+be discovered.
+
+---
+
+## 4. `covers()` shared it. `window()` did not
+
+* **`covers()`** has no window rule of its own — it calls `at()` — so it shared
+  the defect exactly and the same change fixes it. It is kept as a delegation
+  for that reason: a second copy of the rule is a second place for it to be
+  wrong.
+* **`window(since, until)`** grades a point's **start** against a half-open
+  range and never asks how long a point lasts, so it carries no resolution
+  assumption at all. It is **not** a coverage query — a point that starts before
+  `since` and runs into it is absent from its result by design. That is now
+  said in its docstring and pinned by a check, because the next reader will ask.
+  It has **no callers** in `app/`.
+
+---
+
+## 5. What this card does NOT fix, with its shape
+
+`price_forecast._walk()` — §8.3's irreversible-action gate — iterates
+`committed_hours()`, which steps in **whole hours**, and asks `series.at(u)` at
+each. On a quarter-hourly series that now reliably returns the hour's `:00`
+point (it previously returned something earlier and arbitrary), so the gate
+reads **one point per hour** and never looks at the `:15`/`:30`/`:45` flags.
+
+A partially-provisional hour would therefore be gated on its first quarter
+alone. **Two things keep it off every shipped install, and both are
+circumstantial rather than structural:** `price_permits()`/`begin_phase()` have
+**no caller in `app/main.py`** — the §12 price-justified entry point is built
+and not yet wired — and FCST-04 carries **whole** hours while
+`generic_dayahead` publishes whole days, so the four quarters of an hour are
+firm or carried together anyway. Both are facts about the *callers and
+producers*, not properties of the *gate*, so this is written down here rather
+than left for the first sub-hourly feed or the first wiring-up to find. Fixing it means teaching
+`committed_hours()` about resolution, which is a data-model question this card
+deliberately does not open.
+
+---
+
+## 6. Mutations
+
+Eight, each purged before the run (TEST-15), each reverted with the tree
+fingerprint checked afterwards (MUTATION.md habit 18), backup at a `mktemp`
+path per invocation.
+
+⚠️ **Re-driven in full on the MERGED tree** after TARIFF-10 landed on
+`release/1.0` (base `88c59a9` -> `559f0eb`). All eight give the same verdicts
+and the same red-check counts as before the merge, which is the answer that
+matters: TARIFF-10 added 650 lines of checks to `test_price.py` and none of
+them moves under any of these edits, because they grade `resolve_tariff()`'s
+*reachability from a configuration* and not the lookup. Clean `app/price.py` on
+the merged tree = **`90d8ca31f7c0109d`, 85953 B** (pre-merge it was
+`30d1a56f0117e571`, 83742 B; the difference is TARIFF-10's `provider_id()` /
+`provider_configured()`, which this card does not touch).
+
+| | mutation | Δ | red in |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| M1 | `at()` back to the shipped fixed one-hour scan over `self.points` | +68 B | **24 named checks**: `test_price.py` 14b ×4, 14c ×3, 14d, 14e ×3, 14f, 14g; `test_arbitrage.py` 10b ×6, 10c ×3, 10d ×2 |
+| M2 | drop the one-hour cap | −68 B | `test_price.py` 14d |
+| M3 | flat one-hour tail instead of the span in front | **+0 B** | `test_price.py` 14e ×3, 14g — 4 checks |
+| M4 | trust the caller's list order — drop the sort | −61 B | `test_price.py` 14f |
+| M5 | `covers()` grows its own hour-wide rule | +95 B | `test_price.py` 14e, 14g |
+| M6 | `window()` becomes a coverage query | −37 B | `test_price.py` 14g |
+| M7 | the window's end becomes inclusive | +1 B | `test_price.py` 14b ×4, 14c ×4, 14d, 14e ×4, 14f ×2, 14g — 16 checks |
+| M8 | the window's start becomes exclusive | −1 B | `test_price.py` 14b ×4, 14c ×4, 14d, 14f ×2, 14g, 14h, plus the pre-existing section 6 check — 14 checks |
+
+**M3 is the zero-byte one and it is the tail decision itself** — the case
+MUTATION.md names as the risky size, caught by the check written for it.
+
+**What the arbitrage file does NOT see, with sizes.** M2, M4, M5, M6 and M8
+leave `test_arbitrage.py` green, and that is honest rather than a gap to round
+off: they are `at()`-level properties (holes, caller order, `covers()`,
+`window()`, the start boundary) that no arbitrage fixture reaches, because the
+probes are seven minutes into a slot and the plans have no holes. The one that
+matters end to end — M1, the shipped rule — is red in **both** files, on the
+named check `THE PROPERTY THE DEFECT BROKE`.
+
+---
+
+## 7. TARIFF-10 landed on the base while this was open — what it changes here
+
+Base moved `88c59a9` → `559f0eb` mid-card. The question is not whether the
+branches merge; it is whether TARIFF-10 makes any sentence above **false**.
+
+**In `app/price.py` the two do not meet.** TARIFF-10 added `provider_id()` and
+`provider_configured()` beside `price_option()` and routed `load_prices()`
+through them. That is the option-reading layer; it touches nothing in
+`_Series`, `at()`, `covers()`, `window()` or `_cover_table()`. Git merged the
+file without a conflict, and the merged `at()` is byte-identical to the one the
+mutations above were driven against.
+
+**Behaviourally it widens who has a series at all, and that cuts one way only.**
+`run_tariff_refresh()` now runs on installs with `arbitrage_enabled` **off**, so
+a provider-configured site has a standing plan — and therefore a `_Series` —
+where before it had none. **It does not add a new `at()` consumer to the 30 s
+tick**, which is the claim worth checking rather than assuming:
+
+| caller of `at()`/`covers()` | reached by a non-trading install? |
+|---|---|
+| `arbitrage._point_at()` (`arbitrage.py:300`) | no — trading only |
+| `static_tariff.TariffPlan.price_at()` / `.words` `here` (`:750`, `:819`) | on the tick these are reached through `static_status()`, which builds a **`static_plan`** — hourly points, immune. `main.py` calls only `plan.words` on the fetched plan, which counts points and never looks one up |
+| `price_forecast._walk()` (`:562`, `:568`) | **`price_permits()` and `begin_phase()` have no caller in `app/main.py` at all** — §12's price-justified entry point is built and not yet wired |
+
+So TARIFF-10 neither creates nor closes any exposure this card is about. What it
+does do is make the defect's reach larger the moment such a site arms trading,
+because the series it would trade against now exists on every configured
+install rather than only on armed ones. That strengthens the case for the fix
+and changes nothing in its reasoning.
+
+**In `test_price.py` both cards appended a section 13.** Nothing is dropped:
+TARIFF-10's stays **13**, this card's is renumbered **14** (which is also this
+card's number), and the temp-directory teardown TARIFF-10 put at the end of the
+file stays at the end of the file. The two sections share no fixture, no option
+dict and no helper name; TARIFF-10's grades `resolve_tariff()`'s *reachability
+from a configuration* and drives real fetches with a counting transport, and
+**none of its checks moves under any of the eight mutations above** — measured,
+not assumed.
+
+---
+
+## 8. TARIFF-12 landed too — a plan may now be 90 minutes old when it is asked
+
+Base moved `559f0eb` → `a6e64fb` while this was open. TARIFF-12 stops a
+returned §11.4 degradation from overwriting a standing plan that is still
+inside `TARIFF_MAX_AGE_S`, so **a served plan can now be up to
+`3 × TARIFF_REFRESH_S = 5400 s` old** where before it was at most one refresh
+interval. `at()` is what answers *"what does it cost right now"* out of that
+older plan, so the question is fair and the answer is written out rather than
+assumed.
+
+**Per-point span: unaffected, structurally.** Every window is derived from the
+neighbouring points' **absolute `start` instants**. Those are `datetime`s inside
+a frozen dataclass inside a tuple — they cannot move, and `_cover_table()` runs
+once at construction over data that cannot change afterwards. A plan's *age* is
+a property of `fetched_at` / `tariff_at`, never of a window. **The index cannot
+go stale**, which is a small positive under TARIFF-12 rather than a risk: a kept
+plan now lives longer, and there is nothing in it that needed recomputing.
+
+**The one-hour cap: unaffected.** It bites only where a gap exceeds an hour,
+i.e. at a hole FCST-04 left. Walking further into a series crosses more windows;
+each is still resolved on its own neighbours.
+
+**The tail: reachable for the first time, and the choice made in §2 is the one
+that survives it.** This is the half worth spelling out.
+
+* At the **shipped 48 h horizon** the tail is unreachable by staleness. A plan
+  is served for at most 90 minutes, so `now` is at most 90 minutes into a
+  ~48 h series — the last point is still about 46½ hours away.
+* But `price_horizon_h` is `int(1,72)` in `config.yaml`, so an operator **can**
+  configure a **1 h** horizon. A 90-minute serve-stale window against a 1 h
+  series puts `now` genuinely past the end. That is not hypothetical; it is a
+  supported configuration meeting a supported outage.
+* Under the **chosen** rule a quarter-hourly 1 h series ends at `:45` and that
+  point's window closes at the top of the next hour: `at()` raises `Absence`,
+  `_point_at()` returns None, `_act()` idles with its "no price for this
+  instant" reason, and §11.4 sends the site to the static profile.
+* Under the **rejected** flat one-hour tail the same stale plan would have gone
+  on trading against the `:45` print for **up to 45 minutes after the interval
+  it describes had ended** — pricing an outage with a number for a quarter that
+  is over.
+
+So TARIFF-12 does not weaken the tail decision. It is the first thing that makes
+it reachable on a shipped configuration, and it independently selects the same
+answer. ⚠️ **Note which direction that runs**: the more stale a plan is allowed
+to be, the more the tail rule is doing real work, so it should be re-read if
+`TARIFF_MAX_AGE_S` is ever widened again.
+
+**`TariffPlan.from_feed` cannot produce a series this code has not seen.** It is
+a pure predicate on `origin` (`== "provider"`), and TARIFF-12's decision keeps or
+replaces a **whole plan object**. It never splices two reads into one series, so
+it cannot hand `at()` an unsorted or duplicated point list — the case §3 covers
+defensively and that nothing shipped produces.
+
+**Re-graded on this base.** All 29 files green. `app/price.py` is byte-identical
+to the TARIFF-10 merge (`90d8ca31f7c0109d`, 85953 B) because TARIFF-12 does not
+touch it. **M1** re-driven: +68 B, red on the same **24 named checks** across
+both files. **M3** re-driven: **+0 B**, red on the same 4. This branch
+contributes **zero diff** to `app/main.py` and `app/static_tariff.py`.

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/TARIFF-15-the-card-is-the-grader.md

@@ -0,0 +1,166 @@
+# TARIFF-15 — the operator's own tariff card, and why the card has to grade it
+
+**Status: DECIDED 2026-09-13 — ship `custom_formula` with FIXED coefficients and
+a REQUIRED `card` block whose printed price the add-on reproduces at startup or
+refuses to run. No expression evaluation, ever. Declare `{ENERGY, MARKUP}`,
+never `ALL_IN`.**
+
+Filed with TARIFF-15. Follows [[TARIFF-07]], which withdrew three per-supplier
+plugins and named a formula provider as the answer it could not give.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Why a formula rather than more plugins
+
+TARIFF-07 established the negative half: a per-supplier plugin has no source
+for its numbers. This card establishes the positive one.
+
+* **There is no machine-readable source of Belgian tariff coefficients
+  anywhere.** CREG's consumer tariff-card pages 404. CREG Scan is a
+  JavaScript-only wizard. The annual report carries the supplier list and no
+  per-product coefficients. VREG was unreachable. Every coefficient found in
+  research came from a supplier's **own PDF**, one of them image-only.
+* So there is nothing to scrape, and fourteen plugins would still have no
+  source for their numbers — they would be fourteen copies of the invention
+  TARIFF-07 deleted three of.
+* **The customer is the only party who can see their own coefficients**, and
+  the card they read them from **is the only artefact that can grade them**.
+  That second clause is the whole design; everything below follows from it.
+
+## 2. The shape is the market's published arithmetic
+
+Both suppliers whose 2026 cards were readable print three things on one line:
+the formula, the reference index it assumes, **and the resulting price**.
+
+| | computed | the card prints |
+|---|---|---|
+| Eneco `(0.102 × 133.9905 + 1) × 1.06` | **15.5471** | **15,55** |
+| ENGIE `(0.1 × 61.96 + 0.9) × 1.06` | **7.5218** | **7,522** |
+
+Two independent suppliers, reproduced to the last printed digit, through the
+shipped code (`test_price.py` 15a runs both, and then runs both again end to
+end through `load_prices()`).
+
+That third column is not a nicety. It is the only externally-published number
+in this whole feature, and it is what makes the design safe.
+
+## 3. The double-counting risk, and which half of it is new
+
+`price.py`'s trap 1 already mechanises that a **plugin** cannot double-count:
+`PluginOptions` refuses the framework keys, `code_leaks()` refuses a plugin
+whose *code* mentions them, `assemble()` adds the complement exactly once.
+
+`custom_formula` introduces a risk none of those can see, **because it is not
+in code**: the **operator** double-counting, by folding their network charges
+into `offset` while `price_taxes_eur_kwh` also carries them. `code_leaks()`
+scans code. This is config, typed by a person reading a PDF.
+
+It is a real reading of a real card, not a hypothetical. A Belgian card's
+`Tariefformule` line is the **energy component alone** — Eneco tabulates
+network tariffs in one table and levies in a second; ENGIE states in so many
+words that the formula excludes network, distribution, transport, grid levies
+and excise. An operator who wants "the price I actually pay" and adds ~12
+c€/kWh to `offset` has done something entirely reasonable and is now billed for
+network charges twice, on every hour, with §11.4 making the whole class of
+price defect invisible.
+
+**Decision: the card grades it.** At startup `validate.py` recomputes the
+card's own printed price from the operator's coefficients and refuses to start
+unless the two agree to within `0.01` — which is the last digit a card prints.
+An inflated `offset` cannot pass, because the printed estimate is by
+construction the energy component: 15.55 becomes 28.27 and the add-on stops and
+says why.
+
+**And the limit, stated in the same sentence as the claim**, exactly as
+`price.py` states trap 1's: *it grades the coefficients against the card, not
+the card against reality.* A consistent-but-wrong pair — both numbers off the
+wrong product, or off a card the contract has since rolled over from — agrees
+with itself perfectly and passes. Nothing here or anywhere else can catch that.
+
+### 3b. The one unit error the card check cannot see
+
+A factor applied to **both** sides — coefficients *and* printed price — cancels
+out of a comparison between them. That is a second quantity, so it is a second
+refusal: the card's own point must land inside 0.02–1.00 EUR/kWh.
+
+⚠️ **Its floor is applied to the ENERGY figure and not to the all-in one, and
+that asymmetry was found by a mutation rather than by reasoning.** The shipped
+`price_taxes_eur_kwh` was 0.06 — three times the floor — so a card read a
+hundred times too small comes out at 0.0016 EUR/kWh of energy, is carried over
+0.02 by the flat tax addend alone, and passes a band applied to the total. The
+hundredfold error is exactly what the band exists for. Graded from both
+directions in `test_price.py` 15e/15i and driven red as M10. *(Annotated
+2026-09-13: TARIFF-18 raised the default to 0.11736, nearly six times the
+floor. The asymmetry is unchanged in kind and larger in degree — the flat
+addend that carries a hundredfold-small card over 0.02 got bigger.)*
+
+## 4. Fixed coefficients. No expression evaluation of any kind
+
+**Decided: never a grammar.** Two arguments, and the second is the one that
+decides it.
+
+* **Security.** The add-on serves `POST config/save` → `POST
+  /addons/self/options` on its own ingress page, so `price_formula` is
+  **settable over HTTP**. `eval` on it is remote code execution in a root
+  container holding `SUPERVISOR_TOKEN`, with `homeassistant_api` and
+  `hassio_api`, driving an inverter over RS485. `eval(s, {"__builtins__": {}})`
+  is not a sandbox and this repository is not going to pretend otherwise.
+* **⚠️ AND THE DECIDING ARGUMENT IS NOT SECURITY: AN EXPRESSION IS
+  UNVERIFIABLE.** Two coefficients can be graded against the card's printed
+  estimate. An arbitrary expression cannot be graded against **anything** — so
+  it makes the invisible-wrong-coefficient problem *strictly worse*, which is
+  the exact failure this provider exists to prevent. An expression would buy
+  the operator freedom to be wrong in a way nothing could report.
+
+All 24 surveyed Belgian products, both injection legs and aWATTar AT fit
+`B × index + A`, so an expression buys nothing the market needs either.
+
+**Future shapes become NAMED FIELDS** — `clamp_lo`, `factor_negative`,
+`offset_bands` — each individually refusable and each individually gradeable
+against a card. `parse_price_formula()` therefore **refuses an unknown key**
+rather than ignoring it: an operator who types `"expr"` is told it does not
+exist, instead of being priced on the fields they also typed with the one they
+believed in dropped in silence.
+
+`test_price.py` 15f walks the module's AST for `eval`, `exec`, `compile`,
+`__import__` and `literal_eval`, and exercises the scanner's **red** direction
+on every run so it cannot become a scanner that scans nothing.
+
+## 5. `{ENERGY, MARKUP}`, not `ALL_IN`
+
+The contract's formula **is** the supplier's markup — that is what `B` and `A`
+are — but it is not the levies. Declaring `ALL_IN` would lie on behalf of every
+operator who typed exactly what their card says and would drop
+`price_taxes_eur_kwh` from every hour: measured at 0.2125 → 0.1555 EUR/kWh.
+`price_markup_eur_kwh` is therefore **ignored** under this provider, and logged
+as ignored, which is the framework's existing rule rather than a new one.
+
+## 6. What was reused rather than rebuilt
+
+The index path is `generic_dayahead`'s: same EPEX BE feed, same
+Brussels-calendar range, same columnar parser, same declared egress hosts. The
+override/range decision moved into one shared `dayahead_feed_url()` that both
+plugins call, because two copies of that rule would be two places for the
+short-horizon defect TARIFF-09 fixed to come back in only one of them.
+
+`resolution: hourly` averages each hour's members. ⚠️ **That is not
+`_Series.at()`'s hourly assumption returning (TARIFF-14):** it decides how many
+points are *emitted*; the window each point covers is still derived from its
+neighbours in `_cover_table()`. A feed that is already hourly averages one
+member per hour — the identity — so the option cannot silently assume the
+granularity it was handed. Graded.
+
+## 7. What this card did NOT do
+
+* **The injection leg.** Eneco uses `0,102` on consumption and `0,100` on
+  injection, and injection is VAT-exempt where consumption is at 6 % — a second
+  per-contract formula, not a second copy of this one. Separate card.
+* **The hour-varying network charge that bites Wallonia.** Separate card.
+* **Raising `price_taxes_eur_kwh` from 0.06 to ~0.12.** Separate card, and an
+  owner's decision. Note §3b: the band's floor is deliberately insensitive to
+  whatever that number becomes. *(Annotated 2026-09-13: that card is
+  **TARIFF-18** and it shipped on this branch at **0.11736** — the Eneco
+  residential card for Flanders, September 2026, incl. 6 % VAT, summed from
+  Fluvius Antwerpen distribution 5,35 + bijzondere accijns 4,876 + bijdrage
+  groene stroom en WKK 1,51 c€/kWh. §3b held: the floor is still on the energy
+  figure and nothing in this module needed a new number.)*

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/TEL-10-publishing-the-integrator.md

@@ -0,0 +1,182 @@
+# TEL-10 — the loop's integrator is published, as three site rows
+
+**Status:** decided and implemented on branch `TEL-10`.
+**Card:** TEL-10 — *"`self.i_w` is carried between cycles and published nowhere"*.
+**Nothing here reached the inverter, and nothing here can.** `app/control.py`
+is not touched by this branch; `compute()`, its returned `Decision` and every
+constant it reads are byte-identical to `release/1.0`. The diff is a controller
+recording three values it already had, and a publisher announcing three rows.
+
+---
+
+## 0. The three things a reader should take away
+
+1. **The row that matters is the one that is usually indistinguishable from
+   `Setpoint`.** With nothing binding, the command *is* the integrator rounded
+   to 10 W, so on a quiet day publishing the wrong one looks correct. §2 is
+   the fixture that separates them by kilowatts, and §4 is the mutation that
+   proves the separation is what the check reads.
+2. **`Loop reason` is a genuinely new sentence, not a second copy of one.** The
+   status page's `Why` row and `sensor.goodwe_controller_status` both carry the
+   *arbiter's* line (`loop -> -5000 W`), which prints the winning claim's NAME.
+   `compute()`'s own reason has never left the process, and `slew-limited` — the
+   value SAFETY-48 is about — appears in neither of the other two. §3.
+3. ⚠️ **Three entities are three entities.** This is an addition to a live
+   install's entity list, which TEL-07 refused to make for four per-unit rows
+   at a roster of one. The argument for making it here is in §5, and so is the
+   argument that keeps it to three rather than to one per inverter.
+
+---
+
+## 1. Why this is a card at all
+
+`self.i_w` has been a separate quantity from the command since SAFETY-04, which
+split the accumulator out of the velocity form precisely so the two could be
+bounded apart. Since then it has been:
+
+* carried between cycles by `Controller.cycle()`,
+* read by nothing outside `compute()`,
+* and written to no entity, no MQTT topic, no attribute and no log line.
+
+The consequence is not theoretical. The investigation behind SAFETY-48 needed to
+know what the integrator was doing during the export episodes and could only
+**reconstruct** it, from the grid trace plus a replay of the real `compute()`.
+The reconstruction reproduced about a third of the engagements it was checked
+against and was **discarded entirely** — so the card it was gathered for had to
+be argued from a measurement nobody could stand behind.
+
+⚠️ **And the reconstruction could not have been made to work.** `i_w` at a given
+instant depends on every cycle before it, including every one in which the
+arbiter overrode the loop and `main.py` re-seeded `self.i_w = self.target`. That
+re-seed is invisible in the grid trace. A replay can only recover the integrator
+on a run where the loop won every arbitration, which is not the run anybody is
+investigating.
+
+## 2. What is published, and against what
+
+Three rows, on the SITE device, appended after `release/1.0`'s eight sensors:
+
+| key | entity | what it is |
+|---|---|---|
+| `loop_i` | `sensor.goodwe_loop_integrator` | `Decision.i_w` — the accumulator AFTER this cycle, BEFORE the output clamp, the slew limit and quantisation, which is what its own docstring says it is |
+| `loop_lead` | `sensor.goodwe_loop_integrator_lead` | `decision.i_w - prev_w`, where `prev_w` is the command `compute()` was handed |
+| `loop_reason` | `sensor.goodwe_loop_reason` | `Decision.reason`, unmodified |
+
+⚠️ **`loop_lead` IS NOT A SUBTRACTION OF THE OTHER TWO ROWS, WHICH IS WHY IT IS
+A ROW.** `Setpoint` is the ARBITER's output, after every other strategy has had
+its say, and it is THIS cycle's; the lead is measured against the command the
+PREVIOUS cycle left standing. On any cycle where the arbiter overrode the loop,
+subtracting the two published rows gives a different number — and that is
+exactly the cycle on which `main.py` re-seeds the integrator, i.e. the cycle a
+reader most needs the real figure for.
+
+`cycle()` therefore records all three from the one `compute()` call, and names
+the command it passes (`loop_prev`) rather than re-reading `self.target` at
+publish time. `self.target` is reassigned later in the same method, so a lead
+computed at publish time would subtract a different cycle's command and call the
+answer a lead. ⚠️ **At the line as written the two expressions are the same
+value, and the mutation that swaps them is a recorded SURVIVOR** — see §4 M2.
+The name is kept for the coupling, not for a behaviour it currently buys.
+
+### The not-running branch
+
+`cycle()`'s `else` arm — stopped AND shadow mode off — already zeroes
+`self.i_w`, because no accumulation may survive the outage. The three rows are
+zeroed and `loop_reason` becomes `not-running` on the same branch. A row that
+kept repeating the last integrator there would say the loop was winding while
+nothing is being controlled.
+
+⚠️ **`auto: false` ALONE IS NOT THAT BRANCH.** The shipped `shadow_mode: auto`
+means a stopped controller still runs the whole decision path and records it
+(SAFETY-10), so the loop is live and the integrator is real. The first draft of
+the check asserted `not-running` about a loop that was running; it reads the
+shadow case as its own claim now.
+
+## 3. Why `loop_reason` is not the row that already exists
+
+`self.reason` is `Resolution.explain()`:
+
+```
+"loop -> -5000 W"                     # winner, watts
+"loop -> -5000 W, limited by soc"     # ...and which limit bit
+"CONTRADICTION between limits - commanding 0 W (loop)"
+```
+
+`Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, decision.target_w, decision.reason, ...)` does carry
+the loop's reason INTO the arbiter — and `explain()` prints the winner's
+**source name**, never the claim's reason. So the loop's own word has always
+been built, handed over, and dropped one line later.
+
+Measured on the fixture in `test_telemetry.py` part 2, same cycle:
+
+```
+the arbiter's sentence: 'loop -> -5000 W'
+the loop's own word   : 'i-clamped'
+```
+
+## 4. Verified by breaking it
+
+Nine mutations, run in the CI image on a purged tree, each fingerprinted before,
+after, and again after the revert. The table with byte deltas and red counts is
+in `test_telemetry.py`'s header; two entries are worth repeating here.
+
+**M1 — `self.loop_i_w = loop_prev` (−3 B), the card's own named mutation:
+publish the COMMAND under the integrator's name.** The first draft of the
+acceptance check was *"the published integrator reaches its bound"*, and that
+check was **GREEN** under M1 — because the command reaches the bound too, twelve
+cycles later. MUTATION.md habit 4 in the check written to close the card. It
+asserts the **lead time** now (the integrator is at the bound at least ten
+cycles before the command is), and is red on 5 named checks.
+
+**M2 — `decision.i_w - self.target` (+2 B) is a SURVIVOR, and is reported as
+one.** At that line `cycle()` has not yet executed `self.target =
+resolution.target_w`, so the two expressions denote the same value and the
+mutation changes nothing that runs. The run was purged, which is not the
+direction stale bytecode fabricates. M2b (`decision.i_w - decision.target_w`,
++8 B) is the mutation that does change the value and is red.
+
+## 5. What was rejected
+
+**Publishing as an MQTT attribute on an existing entity.** There is no
+`json_attributes_topic` anywhere in this add-on; adding one would be a second
+convention for one card, and HA's recorder keeps long-term statistics for a
+state with `state_class`, not for an attribute. The reason this card exists is
+that nobody had history to read.
+
+**A status-page row instead.** The page is not recorded. `Why` already carries
+the arbiter's sentence and stays that way; DOCS.md gains the section that says
+how to read the three entities.
+
+**One integrator row per inverter.** §6.2's architecture is ONE integrator on
+the P1 meter whose output is then SPLIT. A per-unit copy would invent N of a
+thing there is one of, and the two copies would disagree the moment the
+allocator gave the units different shares. `test_mqtt.py` part 5 grades this at
+every roster length from 1 to 6, and the mutation that moves `loop_i` into
+`UNIT_SENSORS` is red on 8 named checks.
+
+**Adding the rows at N≥2 only, the way TEL-07 gates its per-unit rows.**
+TEL-07's gate exists because at a roster of one its four rows carry information
+the site rows already carry exactly. These three carry information NOTHING
+carries, at every roster length, including one.
+
+**A `## Unreleased` block in `CHANGELOG.md`.** `test_version_gate.py` part 11b
+refuses a changelog whose newest `## ` heading is not `config.yaml`'s
+`version:` — PKG-14's rule that the bump and the closed section are one act.
+Opening a section here would mean bumping the version, which is a packaging
+decision this card does not get to take. The operator-facing account is in
+DOCS.md; the release note belongs to whichever PKG ticket cuts the next
+version, and this file is what it should be written from.
+
+## 6. What this card does NOT establish
+
+* **It says nothing about whether the integrator's behaviour is right.** That is
+  SAFETY-48. This branch adds an observable and changes no decision; the
+  15.7-day replay that grades the behaviour is in that card.
+* **The three rows do not exist on the live install until the add-on is
+  updated**, and this branch does not update it. `tools/rehearsal/announced-
+  reference.txt` (what the BUILD announces) records them; `live-entities-
+  recorded.txt` (what the INSTALL has) deliberately does not, because an id the
+  build announces and the install lacks is a new entity, not an orphan.
+* **`loop_lead` is signed and is not a distance.** Where the integrator and the
+  command have opposite signs it is the sum of two magnitudes. A reader wanting
+  "how far behind is the command" should take the magnitude and say so.

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/TEL-11-pv-production.md

@@ -0,0 +1,351 @@
+# TEL-11 — the PV production channel
+
+*What was decided, what it was decided against, and what the evidence was.*
+
+## 0. The problem, in OPT-10's numbers
+
+Over sixteen days at the reference site the pack reached 90 % SoC on **two** of
+them, and **20.5 kWh of surplus left the site while the pack still had room** —
+**12.6 kWh** of it with the battery **not charging at all**. That single
+measurement is upstream of most of what else was found that week: the nightly
+floor, SAFETY-37's misdiagnosis, the SAFETY-57 deadlock, a 2 h 47 min saturation
+freeze.
+
+It cannot be **attributed**, because **PV production is recorded nowhere in this
+system**. Three causes need three different fixes:
+
+| cause | fix |
+|---|---|
+| there was no irradiance | none — the site behaved correctly |
+| production was there, charge power was limited | a limit, somewhere |
+| production was there, the pack had room, the optimiser declined | **the only software defect** |
+
+Guessing between them is how an optimiser gets tuned to solve a cloud problem.
+**This card adds the channel and does not do the attribution.** Ship it, let it
+record a week, OPT-10 picks it up with data.
+
+## 1. It is an HA entity, not a register — and that is a product decision
+
+The RS485 bus this add-on speaks carries the **battery** inverter it drives. On
+nearly every site the PV inverter is a different box from a different vendor,
+reporting into Home Assistant through its own integration; it is **not** on this
+bus and there is no reason it would be. So the signal comes from an entity:
+`pv_entity` takes whatever `sensor.*` the site's PV integration provides, any
+brand HA can read.
+
+Reading a register would have been cheaper on one house and wrong for a fleet —
+the trade [[product-not-one-house]] names.
+
+## 2. The sign convention: **positive is production**, and there is no `pv_invert`
+
+### The convention is derived, not assumed
+
+Two sign rules already ship, and both are recorded in `DOCS.md`'s *Sources*
+table rather than inferred here:
+
+* `meter_entity` — **positive must mean importing** (`meter_invert` flips it);
+* `batt_entity` — **`+` = discharging** (`batt_invert` flips it).
+
+Both are *"positive = power arriving at the house's AC bus"*. Production arrives
+there too, so **positive = producing** is the continuation of the shipped
+convention rather than a fresh choice.
+
+### Why an invert flag would be over-building
+
+The question is not "could a sensor be reversed" — it could. It is what a flag
+would **buy**, and the answer is nothing, for two reasons that do not apply to
+the two keys it would sit beside:
+
+1. **Those two quantities are read by the control path; this one is read by
+   nothing.** `inv.batt` feeds SAFETY-30's per-unit sign check and SAFETY-31's
+   circulating-power sensor (`_read_unit()`'s own docstring says so), so a
+   reversed battery sensor hands the site a plausible number it then **acts**
+   on — a latch that trips when it should not, or does not trip when it should.
+   `pv_w` reaches no decision at all (§4), so a reversed PV sensor cannot
+   mislead one.
+2. **Production is unipolar, so the error is self-announcing.** Battery power
+   and grid power are legitimately negative half the time, which is exactly why
+   a flipped sign is invisible in them. A PV array does not consume: a reversed
+   sensor reads **−4 kW at noon**, in the first day of the very history this card
+   exists to create. An invert flag would let an installer *hide* that by
+   flipping it to something that looks right, and a second place for the sign to
+   be wrong is a second thing to get wrong.
+
+So: the convention is documented in `config.yaml`, both translations, `DOCS.md`
+and `app/pv.py`, the value is published **exactly as the sensor reports it**,
+and there is no flag. `test_pv.py` part 1 pins `-8 W` through unchanged.
+
+### And no negative-value alarm either
+
+The tempting middle path — warn when the reading is negative — needs a
+threshold, because a PV inverter's own standby draw makes a small negative
+reading at night entirely ordinary. Any threshold here would be a number nobody
+measured, in a card whose whole subject is not fabricating numbers. The
+published row is the detector.
+
+## 3. Absence is never zero, and it is not "dropped" either
+
+This is the constraint that shaped the publication, and the obvious
+implementation fails it.
+
+`MqttPublisher.publish()` **skips** a `None` value. That is right for
+`circulation` — its note in `main.py` says a missing per-unit reading should
+leave the last figure standing rather than publish a zero that reads as health —
+and it is **exactly wrong here**: a skipped row leaves Home Assistant holding
+the last number it was told, *forever*, and the recorder then draws a **flat
+line at that value through the outage**. Read back a week later that is
+indistinguishable from a real measurement, and if the last value happened to be
+small it manufactures precisely the *"there was no surplus to store"* conclusion
+the card exists to **test**.
+
+So TEL-11 publishes the absence, using Home Assistant's own mechanism:
+
+> `homeassistant/components/mqtt/const.py`: `PAYLOAD_NONE = "None"`.
+> `homeassistant/components/mqtt/sensor.py`, in the state-message handler:
+> `if payload == PAYLOAD_NONE: self._attr_native_value = None; return` — and it
+> is tested **before** the numeric branch, so it holds for a row carrying
+> `device_class: power`.
+> (github.com/home-assistant/core, branch `dev`, retrieved 2026-09-24. The
+> shipped MQTT-sensor documentation says the same thing in its `state_topic`
+> entry: *"a 'None' value will set the sensor to an unknown state"*.)
+
+The entity therefore goes to **`unknown`** and the recorder stores a **gap**.
+`mqtt.ABSENT_AS_UNKNOWN` is a one-key set and `test_pv.py` part 3 asserts both
+that the pv row gets this treatment **and that `circulation` still does not** —
+widening the rule silently would be a behaviour change to another card's row.
+
+⚠️ **What was NOT built, and why.** A per-entity `availability` block
+(`availability_mode: all`, an extra retained topic) would also produce a
+distinguishable state — `unavailable` rather than `unknown` — but it needs a
+second topic, a second retained message, a change to `_payload()`'s
+byte-order-sensitive key construction, and it survives restarts only if the
+retention is right. The payload route is one branch in `publish()` and one
+constant, and it is graded as **bytes on the topic** rather than as a claim
+about HA's availability handling.
+
+### Three states, not two
+
+| state | frame | wire | page |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| no source (`pv_entity` unset) | no `pv` key | no topic, no entity | no row |
+| no reading | `pv: None` | `goodwe_ctl/pv` = `None` | `PV —` + a caution naming the reason |
+| zero watts | `pv: 0.0` | `goodwe_ctl/pv` = `0.0` | `PV 0 W` |
+
+A failed read also **clears** the last good value (`_read_pv()` assigns on every
+call), so a reading never outlives its own sensor. `test_pv.py` part 2 drives a
+good read followed by a dead one, because a fixture that answers the same thing
+forever cannot reach that failure — MUTATION.md habit 9's shape.
+
+## 4. It must not become a control input, and that is graded twice
+
+### In the suite
+
+`test_pv.py` part 6 drives twelve cycles of the real `Controller.cycle()`
+against a 6 kW export and asserts the commands written to the inverter are
+**bit-identical** across `unset` / `no reading` / `0 W` / `8 kW` of production,
+with a precondition check that the stimulus commands something at all (habit 1).
+`inputs_ok` is asserted not to move either: a broken PV integration is **not** a
+missing input, because nothing computes with it.
+
+A computed census (habit 12 — the scope is derived from the tree, not typed)
+then reports which of the 33 modules under `app/` mention the material in any
+spelling, comments included. It is **three**: `pv.py`, `main.py`, `mqtt.py`. The
+scanner's own red direction is exercised on every run.
+
+### Across trees, by hash
+
+`tools/safety56_behaviour_trace.py` is the pattern; `tools/tel11_pv_trace.py` is
+this card's version of it, and **its control clause had to be different**, which
+is worth stating because the difference is the interesting part.
+
+SAFETY-56 changed wording and had to show behaviour did not move, so its
+`--compare` **refuses** unless the `sentences` halves **differ** — otherwise the
+two runs might be one tree twice. TEL-11's headline claim is the opposite shape:
+with the option unset, **nothing** differs. "The documents are identical" is the
+*result*, so it cannot also be the control. The two things proved instead are:
+
+* the two runs came from **different trees** (`app/*.py` sha256 + byte count,
+  compared, and an identity is **refused**);
+* **exactly one** side reacts to `pv_entity` — that side is the HEAD, the other
+  is a tree that does not have the option. Neither, or both, is refused.
+
+It drives 41 stimulus cells (5 grid worlds × 8 PV schedules, plus a run stopped
+part-way) and prints two documents per setting: `control` — every command
+written, every `self.target`, `inputs_ok`, the loop's three fields, the
+arbiter's resolution, the maintenance phase, tick by tick, **with no TEL-11
+material in it** — and `telemetry`, which is everything the card is allowed to
+move.
+
+Measured, in the CI image, on purged trees:
+
+```
+  HEAD is B; baseline is A (it does not react to `pv_entity`).
+  tree      A 73296909170ec789237d6e704cce9ab0d9f83b3df1495a14d2497285c3041a12
+  tree      B d5011b6a18e2e3803dc09cac0214b0378fa4c7388fc0ad8ad89b832a5c92af48
+  control   A unset 846a10a5b89e321086d535825925721e2f791012e8405948d4fd38d3f9d0be5f
+  control   B unset 846a10a5b89e321086d535825925721e2f791012e8405948d4fd38d3f9d0be5f
+  control   B set   846a10a5b89e321086d535825925721e2f791012e8405948d4fd38d3f9d0be5f
+  telemetry A unset a443a6ceaffe072b44bcd5f2ad946c1ed6c9e01b69e278eca631f7f4d7892164
+  telemetry B unset a443a6ceaffe072b44bcd5f2ad946c1ed6c9e01b69e278eca631f7f4d7892164
+  telemetry B set   4e6d1cb289a957223ad0205f732a6fec6110ce1f2032c98ad60694e67625274f
+OK  1/3  UNSET: control AND telemetry are byte-identical to the baseline tree.
+OK  2/3  SET: the control document is byte-identical with the channel switched on.
+OK  3/3  CONTROL OF THE CONTROL: the telemetry document DOES move when the
+         option is set (42 stimulus cells differ).
+```
+
+Note what clause 1 claims and clause 2 does not: **unset** is identical in
+`control` *and* `telemetry`, which is stronger than "the control path is
+untouched" — an install that does not set the option sees no change of any kind,
+including its announcement and its status rows. **Set** is identical in
+`control` only, which is the whole of "instrumentation, not an input".
+
+## 5. Genuinely optional — and not a second `price_now_entity`
+
+`price_now_entity` / `price_avg_entity` are legal **only** while
+`price_provider` is `off`, and the add-on **refuses to start** otherwise. That
+is the trap this card was told not to rebuild, and it is avoided structurally
+rather than by intention:
+
+* `validate.py` does not mention `pv_entity` at all. It cannot conflict with
+  anything, because nothing else reads it.
+* the MQTT row lives in `OPTIONAL_SENSORS`, not `SENSORS`, and
+  `discovery_payloads()`'s new `include` argument **defaults to empty**. So a
+  caller that has never heard of `pv_entity` — every fixture in `test_mqtt.py`,
+  `tools/rehearse_roster.py`, anything written next year — announces exactly
+  what it announced before. `p1_age` solves the same problem the other way
+  round, with `omit`, because it is announced by default and withdrawn when the
+  meter is off; getting that direction wrong here would have left most installs
+  with an entity nothing feeds, which is the hazard `omit`'s own note names.
+* the read is gated on the option, so an unset install makes **no state call at
+  all** — not a read that fails quietly.
+* there is **no status row** when it is unset. `peak_forecast_entity` nags when
+  it is unset because an unset forecast leaves a money guard without an input;
+  this is instrumentation, and a permanent caution on every install that never
+  asked for a PV channel is the warning spam the card forbids.
+* when it **is** set and the read fails, the row is `ok=False, warn=True` — a
+  **caution**. `status_payload()` builds `NOT READY` out of rows that are
+  neither `ok` nor `warn`, so a telemetry channel can never put a battery site
+  into `NOT READY`.
+
+## 6. The unit is read off the entity, and an unreadable one is refused
+
+`read_inputs()` guesses kW-or-W for `peak_forecast_entity` with
+`abs(raw) < 50`, and that is safe there: nobody's quarter-hour demand forecast
+is 50 W. It is **not** safe here — 30 W of real production at dusk is an
+ordinary reading, and that heuristic would publish it as 30 kW.
+
+So `pv.watts()` reads the entity's own `unit_of_measurement` and converts
+against Home Assistant's own `UnitOfPower` table (`mW`, `W`, `kW`, `MW`, `GW`,
+`TW`; every factor an exact power of ten). A sensor with **no** unit, or a unit
+outside that table, is **refused by name** and the status page says which. The
+refusal is loud; a guess would be silent, and a factor of 1000 in the one
+channel that exists to be believed a week later is the worse failure.
+
+⚠️ `BTU/h` is in HA's enum and is deliberately **not** in the table: its factor
+is a measured conversion rather than a decimal shift, no PV integration
+publishes in it, and a fabricated constant is what this repository's whole
+process exists to prevent. It lands in the refusal, by name, and `test_pv.py`
+part 1 pins that.
+
+## 7. The mutation battery
+
+Every check this card adds was driven by the mutation that defeats the claim it
+names. Method: `cp -a` of the tree per mutation into a **unique** directory,
+the edit applied there, `__pycache__` purged, the suites run in the CI image
+with the tree bind-mounted `:ro`, one file at a time. **The shipped tree is
+never edited**, so habit 18's revert hazard — SAFETY-37's harness killed between
+the edit and the `cp` that put the file back, and two harnesses sharing one
+backup path — is closed by construction rather than by a verified revert. Each
+row below records the byte delta, the file's sha256 before and after, and that
+the mutated line was **read back off disk** before the run started.
+
+| # | mutation | file | bytes | sha256 (first 16) before → after | red on |
+|---|---|---|---|---|---|
+| M1 | the `pv` row moved into `SENSORS`, i.e. announced on every install | `mqtt.py` | −79 B | `328d249b9d698ef6` → `532d3954c023bf3d` | 3 named in `test_mqtt.py`, 1 in `test_pv.py` |
+| M2 | `publish()` drops a `None` `pv` row again, so HA keeps the last number | `mqtt.py` | −98 B | `328d249b9d698ef6` → `dd54be458f446475` | 1 named (the acceptance criterion itself) |
+| M3 | `ABSENT_AS_UNKNOWN` widened past the one key it was written for | `mqtt.py` | +23 B | `328d249b9d698ef6` → `8fe571ebff3dacf4` | 1 named (`circulation` must still be dropped) |
+| M4 | a dead sensor reported as **0 W** instead of an absence | `pv.py` | −1 B | `55ba7471e9995436` → `9eecc34152b7ac12` | 4 named |
+| M5 | `_read_pv()` assigns only on a good read — a value outlives its sensor | `main.py` | +46 B | `c4d2cab34e50b5fd` → `189802aa69ce166d` | 2 named |
+| M6 | the unit is read and then ignored — a kW sensor published as watts | `pv.py` | −18 B | `55ba7471e9995436` → `ab19ef66c52f9379` | 2 named |
+| **M7** | **`self.grid = self.grid − self.pv_w` in `read_inputs()` — PV wired into the control path** | `main.py` | +106 B | `c4d2cab34e50b5fd` → `c38216edb7c5c8db` | **2 named, plus `tel11_pv_trace.py` clause 2/3 on 26 of the 41 stimulus cells** |
+| M8 | `optional_keys()` returns `("pv",)` unconditionally | `mqtt.py` | −52 B | `328d249b9d698ef6` → `86ff23efe3088ad8` | 3 named |
+| M9 | the PV caution made a `bad` row, i.e. a dead sensor is a `NOT READY` | `main.py` | +1 B | `c4d2cab34e50b5fd` → `45c74cab89943564` | 1 named |
+| M10 | the read gate removed — an unset option is read once a second forever | `main.py` | −10 B | `c4d2cab34e50b5fd` → `b67baa8aba3019e8` | 2 named, **plus two crashes** |
+
+`on_disk = True` for all ten: the mutated line was grepped back out of the file
+after the edit and before the run (MUTATION.md reporting rule 2), and no
+mutation is size-preserving, so rule 1's `+0 B` caveat does not arise.
+
+⚠️ **M10's two extra reds are CRASHES, not named checks, and that is recorded
+rather than tidied away.** Every `Hass` double in `test_inverter.py` and
+`test_telemetry.py` predates this read and has no `state()` method, so an
+unconditional PV read is an `AttributeError` rather than a failed assertion —
+habit 20's shape, a red with no name attached. Fixing those fixtures would be a
+change to what *their* checks report and belongs to whoever next touches them;
+this card's own fixture has `state()` and grades the property by name.
+
+⚠️ **M7's trace limb is where the two halves meet.** The mutant moves the
+control document on 26 of 41 cells — every cell whose PV schedule produces a
+READING. The five `none` cells and the five `zero` cells do **not** move, which
+is correct and is worth seeing: subtracting nothing, and subtracting zero,
+change nothing. A battery that only drove a dead sensor would have reported this
+mutation as a survivor for the third time.
+
+The clean tree those `before` hashes belong to: `app/main.py`
+`c4d2cab34e50b5fd`, `app/mqtt.py` `328d249b9d698ef6`, `app/pv.py`
+`55ba7471e9995436`.
+
+### ⚠️ M7 was a SURVIVOR on the first battery, and the fixture was the reason
+
+The card's **central** mutation — `self.grid = self.grid - self.pv_w` in
+`read_inputs()`, i.e. exactly the defect the whole card forbids — came back
+**green** on a six-file run at **+106 B**, on disk, purged, genuinely running.
+
+The property did not hold; the fixture could not reach it. `test_pv.py` part 6
+drove a **6 kW export over 12 cycles**, which puts the loop **against its
+rail**: the command moves `slew_w` every cycle and −6000 W and −14 000 W of
+apparent error produce the **same ramp, tick for tick**. MUTATION.md habit 23,
+with a saturated actuator in place of a coinciding value — and the habit's list
+of no-op-prone constructs is all *expressions*, so this is worth its own entry,
+which it now has.
+
+The fixture now drives a **600 W import the loop settles on**, with a
+responsive meter (`grid = base − batt`) so the error actually closes, asserts
+the resting target is well inside the rail, and asks habit 23's own question as
+its own check: **shift the meter by the same 8 kW and confirm the commands
+really would have moved.** On the first fixture that question answers *no*, in
+one line. Every number in the table above is from the battery re-run against
+the fixed tree.
+
+⚠️ **A red count is a property of the suite as much as of the mutation.** These
+name **this** tree at this commit; a later card that adds or re-bases a check
+moves the number with the mutation untouched. Re-measure rather than inherit.
+
+## 8. What none of this covers, with shapes
+
+* **Home Assistant itself.** That `None` renders as `unknown` and that the
+  recorder keeps a gap is read out of HA's source and quoted in §3; no HA runs
+  in this suite. What is graded here is the bytes this add-on publishes.
+* **Whether the operator's sensor tells the truth.** A sensor wired backwards,
+  or reporting DC where AC was meant, or a string instead of the array, is
+  published faithfully. §2 is the argument for why that is the right failure
+  mode; it is not a claim that it cannot happen.
+* **A roster of more than one.** The row is a **site** row — there is one PV
+  array as far as this add-on is concerned — so nothing per-unit exists to
+  separate, and every fixture is the shipped roster of one.
+* **The attribution.** This card records production. Whether the 20.5 kWh was
+  cloud, a limit or the optimiser is OPT-10's, and it needs a week of this
+  channel's history before it can be asked.
+* **`tools/`, the firmware and the ingress HTML** are outside part 6's census.
+* **The identity is only as wide as the stimulus.** `tel11_pv_trace.py` prints
+  its 41 cells with the documents for exactly that reason.
+
+## 9. No `CHANGELOG.md` entry
+
+`test_version_gate.py` 11b refuses a newest `## ` heading that is not
+`config.yaml`'s `version:`, and opening an `## Unreleased` section would mean
+taking a packaging decision this card does not get to take. The operator account
+is in `DOCS.md`; the release note belongs to the next PKG ticket, which should
+say that **0.10.1 → next** adds one optional key, announces no new entity on an
+install that does not set it, and changes no control behaviour.

goodwe_controller/DECISIONS/TEL-12-several-pv-inverters.md

@@ -0,0 +1,359 @@
+# TEL-12 — several PV inverters, and why a partial total is worse than none
+
+TEL-11 shipped `pv_entity` as a single `str?` in 0.11.0. The owner of the
+reference site reported **within minutes of it going live** that they have
+several PV inverters and could configure one.
+
+That is not a property of one house. A multi-string or multi-orientation roof
+routinely carries two or three inverters, each publishing its own power sensor
+into Home Assistant, and the add-on is sold to clients. So the channel had to
+become a roster.
+
+**OPT-10 is blocked on this and cannot start recording until it lands.** Which
+sets the bar: the number this channel publishes has to be one an attribution can
+believe, or the week of history OPT-10 is waiting for is worse than no history.
+
+---
+
+## 1. The surface: `pv_entities` beside `pv_entity`, and the measurement that
+decided it
+
+Two candidates, and they differ on exactly one question nobody in this
+repository could answer by reading: **does Supervisor accept a stored STRING for
+a key whose schema has become a LIST?** 0.11.0 shipped `pv_entity: str?`; the
+live install *has* a string persisted in it; and an upgrade that refuses that
+string leaves an add-on which will not start — CFG-04 §B's trap, in the other
+direction, with the schema needed to fix it pinned to the version that cannot be
+installed.
+
+It was measured, against the release image, by a new **§G** of
+`tools/supervisor_shape_probe.py` — the instrument CFG-04 built for exactly this
+kind of question:
+
+```
+docker run --rm -v "$PWD:/w:ro" -v "$PWD/tools:/probe:ro" --entrypoint python3 \
+  ghcr.io/home-assistant/amd64-hassio-supervisor:2026.08.0 \
+  /probe/supervisor_shape_probe.py
+```
+
+```
+== G. TEL-12: the SHAPE of a several-inverter PV option ==
+  PASS  the shipped defaults with a 0.11.0 `pv_entity` STRING on top are ACCEPTED - the baseline every refusal below is varied from
+        pv_entity='sensor.pv_power' pv_entities=[]
+  PASS  ⭐ THE MEASUREMENT THAT DECIDED THE SURFACE: with `pv_entity` declared as a LIST, the string an 0.11.0 install has persisted is REFUSED, and the refusal names the key - so that shape would leave the live add-on unable to start on upgrade
+        Invalid list for option 'pv_entity' in GoodWe RS485 Controller (local_goodwe_controller)
+  PASS  ...and a shipped `pv_entity: []` DEFAULT does not rescue it: deepmerge's list strategy is `override`, so the operator's string survives the merge and is refused anyway
+        Invalid list for option 'pv_entity' in GoodWe RS485 Controller (local_goodwe_controller)
+  PASS  ...(the list shape itself is fine - it is only the STORED STRING it refuses, which is what makes this a migration and not a schema question)
+        a list value validates
+  PASS  ⚠️ ONE SPELLING DOES ACCEPT BOTH - `match(.*)?` - AND IT IS REJECTED FOR A DIFFERENT REASON, MEASURED HERE: it validates NOTHING. A string passes, a list passes, and so does the integer 417; and the Configuration tab renders it as a plain text box rather than a repeatable field, so an operator cannot enter a second inverter in the UI at all
+        string=True list=True integer-417=True ui=[{"name": "pv_entity", "optional": true, "type": "string"}]
+  PASS  ⭐ THE SHIPPED SHAPE: an 0.11.0 blob - `pv_entity` a string, no `pv_entities` key at all, because it did not exist when that blob was written - validates against THIS manifest, with the new key defaulted to the empty list. The live install upgrades without touching its options
+  PASS  ...and a three-entity roster validates, per-entry, with both keys set - which the add-on resolves by REPLACEMENT and says so on its status page
+        ["sensor.pv_east", "sensor.pv_west", "sensor.pv_garage"]
+  PASS  ⭐ ...and the shipped `options:` block with ONLY `pv_entities` removed is REFUSED, BY NAME - `Missing option 'pv_entities' in root`. That is why the `pv_entities: []` default is load-bearing, exactly as `inverters: []` is: Supervisor treats a nested list as required unless its element is an OPTIONAL scalar, and `- str` is not one
+        Missing option 'pv_entities' in root in GoodWe RS485 Controller (local_goodwe_controller)
+  PASS  ...and the Configuration tab renders it as a REPEATABLE string field (`multiple: true`), so an operator adds their second and third inverter in the UI rather than in YAML
+        [{"name": "pv_entity", "optional": true, "type": "string"}, {"name": "pv_entities", "multiple": true, "required": true, "type": "string"}]
+  PASS  a DOWNGRADE to a schema without `pv_entities` drops the key with a warning rather than refusing, and leaves `pv_entity` standing - so rolling back to 0.11.0 returns the install to its single entity rather than bricking it
+
+== all cases passed ==
+```
+
+| Claim | Evidence |
+|---|---|
+| **Option 1 — `pv_entity` becomes a list — cannot ship** | §G: `Invalid list for option 'pv_entity'` on the string an 0.11.0 install has stored |
+| …and a `[]` default does not rescue it | §G: `_OPTIONS_MERGER`'s list strategy is `override`, so the operator's string survives the merge and is refused anyway |
+| …and it is not a *schema* problem | §G: a list **value** validates fine against a list schema. It is a **migration**, and a migration is a bigger ticket than this |
+| **One key CAN carry both shapes** — `match(.*)?` | §G, and reported even though it *passes*, because "no spelling accepts both" would have been a **false reason** to reject option 1 |
+| …and it loses anyway, for a measured reason | §G: it validates nothing at all — a string, a list, and the integer `417` all pass — and the Configuration tab renders it as a plain text box, so an operator cannot add a second inverter in the UI |
+| **Option 2 — `pv_entities` beside `pv_entity` — ships** | §G: the 0.11.0 blob validates untouched, the new key defaults to `[]`, three entities validate, the UI renders `multiple: true` |
+| `pv_entities: []` in `options:` is load-bearing | §G: the shipped defaults **minus only that key** are refused with `Missing option 'pv_entities' in root` — CFG-04 §B's isolated counterfactual, for this key |
+| A downgrade is not the trap in reverse | §G: a schema without the key **drops** it and leaves `pv_entity` standing |
+
+`p1_phase_import_entities` (`options: []` + `schema: - str`) is the shipped
+precedent for the pair; nothing new was invented.
+
+**So the surface is uglier than option 1 and that is the correct trade.** The
+cleanest surface that breaks the one install this card exists to fix is not the
+cleanest surface.
+
+### And `pv_entities` REPLACES `pv_entity` rather than extending it
+
+CFG-04's rule for `inverters:` ("declared, it REPLACES those six keys"), applied
+to the only upgrade path that matters. The install being upgraded **has**
+`pv_entity` set, to inverter A. Opening the Configuration tab, the natural action
+is to put *all* the inverters in the new repeatable field — and under a union
+rule that **double-counts A** unless the operator also remembers to clear the old
+key. A doubled total is the same defect as a partial one pointing the other way,
+in the one channel that exists to be believed a week later.
+
+Under replacement the effective roster is exactly what one key says, and no
+arithmetic depends on a de-duplication rule the operator has to know about. It
+de-duplicates *within* the list (a site cannot have two sensors with one
+entity_id, so a repeated id is a typo that would double that inverter), and
+`Controller.checks()` prints a **caution** whenever both keys are set saying
+which one won — a replacement nobody is told about is the "one of which silently
+wins" `config.yaml` refuses elsewhere.
+
+⚠️ It is a **caution and never a refusal to start**. `validate.py` still does not
+mention either key. A telemetry channel that could stop a battery site from
+starting would be observability with a foot in the control path.
+
+---
+
+## 2. ⚠️⚠️ The decision the card turns on: absence of ONE is absence of the TOTAL
+
+Three inverters configured, one `unavailable`. The sum of the other two is **a
+smaller number indistinguishable from a real one.** Fed into OPT-10's
+attribution it reads as *"there was less PV than there was"* — which is the "no
+irradiance" conclusion the channel exists to **test** rather than to manufacture.
+
+Two designs were genuinely available:
+
+**(a) publish the total as absent** — `pv.total()` answers `None`, the topic
+carries HA's own `None`, the entity goes to `unknown`, the recorder stores a gap.
+
+**(b) publish the partial sum alongside a count of how many contributed.**
+
+**(a) shipped.** It wins on the one question that matters, which is *who reads
+the number and when*:
+
+* The **MQTT row** is read back **cold**, a week later, by OPT-10 and by anything
+  that plots `sensor.goodwe_pv_power` over that week. A partial sum there is a
+  smaller number indistinguishable from a real one, and the count that would
+  have qualified it lives in a **second entity with its own history** — so
+  believing the total requires joining two recorder series by timestamp to find
+  out which samples to distrust. Nobody re-derives that. And it is worse than a
+  gap in exactly the direction that matters: **a gap makes the attribution say
+  "I do not know"; a partial makes it say something false.**
+* The **status page** is read **live**, by a human who wants the diagnostic. So
+  the partial information is *not* thrown away — the row names every entity that
+  did report, with its watts, and every one that did not, with its reason, and
+  states plainly that there is no site total. Different reader, different
+  instant, different rule.
+
+A count published beside the total would also carry **no information** in the
+state (a) admits: the total is published *only* when every entity contributed, so
+the count would be the constant `len(roster)`.
+
+And this **extends** TEL-11's rule rather than weakening it. `mqtt.py`'s
+`ABSENT_AS_UNKNOWN` is still exactly one key and `publish()`'s `None` handling is
+untouched: the line that turns an absence into HA's `unknown` did not have to
+change, because "absence is never zero" already covered this one layer up.
+
+### The mirror, which matters just as much
+
+A member honestly reporting **0 W** is **summed**, not treated as absent. The
+test is `watts is None`, never falsiness. Shading, a tripped string and
+nightfall are all real zeros, and a roster that blanked the site whenever one
+member read zero would report an absence **on every clear evening** and defeat
+the channel from the other end.
+
+### ⚠️ And the answer is NOT "document a template sensor that adds them up"
+
+An operator may legitimately prefer one, and `pv_entity` will happily point at
+it. Shipping it as *the* answer pushes the absence problem onto them unseen: a
+template sensor summing an `unavailable` source silently yields the partial
+total — the same defect one layer down, in a place this add-on cannot see or
+report. DOCS.md says so in those terms.
+
+### The three published states, side by side
+
+| what happened | frame | `goodwe_ctl/pv` | status page |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| no roster at all | no `pv` key | no topic, no entity | no row |
+| 1200 / 2100 / 450 W, all three | `pv: 3750.0` | `3750.0` | `PV  3 750 W` + one ok row naming all three |
+| all three answer, one of them `0 W` | `pv: 1650.0` | `1650.0` | `PV  1 650 W` |
+| one of the three `unavailable` | `pv: None` | `None` → `unknown`, recorder **gap** | `PV  —` + a caution naming the missing entity, its reason, and what the others reported |
+| all three gone | `pv: None` | as above | as above |
+
+---
+
+## 3. Still not a control input
+
+Unchanged, and re-proved at the new roster size.
+`tools/tel11_pv_trace.py` was **extended rather than replaced** — the file name
+still says TEL-11 because `DECISIONS/TEL-11-pv-production.md` §5 and
+`test_pv.py`'s mutation table quote it, and a renamed instrument makes both
+references dangle for no gain.
+
+It now produces **three** document sets per tree — `unset`, `one`, `multi` — and
+grades five claims. The roster cells live in their own document precisely so
+`unset` and `one` keep the `control` hashes TEL-11 recorded; appending cells to
+an existing document would have moved a hash whose stability is itself the
+evidence.
+
+```
+$ python3 tools/tel11_pv_trace.py --compare base.json head.json
+  HEAD is B; baseline is A - its roster cells ARE its unset cells, which is what a tree that has never heard of `pv_entities` does with them.
+  supports_roster   A False / B True   (self-reported; the verdict above is MEASURED)
+  tree      A fa92ba6a6fc6d49c0f87a494e03b530a8575212a0b2c3046629cb400ef2ae0d4
+  tree      B 0b39198015b6a5a3f7538d4157d77ecadc89311daef18fce883762d94d8351eb
+  control   A unset 846a10a5b89e321086d535825925721e2f791012e8405948d4fd38d3f9d0be5f
+  control   B unset 846a10a5b89e321086d535825925721e2f791012e8405948d4fd38d3f9d0be5f
+  control   A one   846a10a5b89e321086d535825925721e2f791012e8405948d4fd38d3f9d0be5f
+  control   B one   846a10a5b89e321086d535825925721e2f791012e8405948d4fd38d3f9d0be5f
+  control   A multi 2aafbfedfb9cc939082b36eeb7493289808fb21cd41113322d4817de0e414a30
+  control   B multi 2aafbfedfb9cc939082b36eeb7493289808fb21cd41113322d4817de0e414a30
+  telemetry A unset a443a6ceaffe072b44bcd5f2ad946c1ed6c9e01b69e278eca631f7f4d7892164
+  telemetry B unset a443a6ceaffe072b44bcd5f2ad946c1ed6c9e01b69e278eca631f7f4d7892164
+  telemetry A one   4e6d1cb289a957223ad0205f732a6fec6110ce1f2032c98ad60694e67625274f
+  telemetry B one   4e6d1cb289a957223ad0205f732a6fec6110ce1f2032c98ad60694e67625274f
+  telemetry A multi d269168ffece375027c2c18ea33631a961ff92775781884a0592d6a37d78845c
+  telemetry B multi 550a49a73f39267ba28b1e78cd12b8f5c71ef7269bbbd2e12112696be0fef1ff
+OK  1/5  UNSET: control AND telemetry are byte-identical to the baseline tree. …
+OK  2/5  ONE ENTITY: control AND telemetry are byte-identical to 0.11.0's single-entity path - the same commands, the same payloads, the same status rows, the same announcement.
+OK  3/5  CONTROL, ONE ENTITY: the control document is byte-identical with the channel switched on - PV reaches no decision.
+OK  4/5  CONTROL, THREE ENTITIES: every roster cell's control document equals its grid world's `unset` one - 30 cells over 5 grid worlds, covering three healthy entities, one dead at EVERY position, all three dead and one honestly reporting 0 W. Neither the total nor any PARTIAL total reaches a decision, and the document is byte-identical to the BASELINE tree's for the same cells.
+OK  5/5  CONTROL OF THE CONTROL: the telemetry document DOES move under a roster (30 stimulus cells differ from their grid world's unset telemetry), so 1/5-4/5 are identities this instrument could have broken. AND in no cell with a dead member does the PV row carry the partial sum of the survivors, while every cell whose members all ANSWER publishes its total - including the one where a member honestly reports 0 W.
+$ echo $?
+0
+```
+
+**The control hash is unmoved: `846a10a5b89e…` on `unset` and on `one`, on both
+trees.** The roster control document `2aafbfedfb9c…` is byte-identical between
+the two trees, which is the strongest available form of the claim — the baseline
+runs those cells with a key it has never heard of, so its control document for
+them *is* 0.11.0's.
+
+⚠️ **2/5 is a claim TEL-11 could not make.** TEL-11's baseline had no channel at
+all to be identical to; TEL-12's baseline is 0.11.0, so "one entity behaves
+exactly as 0.11.0 does" is a real cross-tree identity over **both** documents.
+`pv.total()` passes a single entity's `(watts, why)` through verbatim for exactly
+this reason, and `Controller.checks()` keeps 0.11.0's two f-strings in a
+`len(...) == 1` branch rather than generalising them.
+
+### ⚠️ TEL-11's `--compare` refusal had to change, and that is a finding
+
+TEL-11's rule was *"exactly ONE side's `set` document may differ from its own
+`unset` — that side is the HEAD"*. It was correct evidence when written, because
+`release/1.0` predated `pv_entity` entirely. `release/1.0` is 0.11.0 now, **both**
+sides react to `pv_entity`, and that refusal fires on **every honest run**. The
+discriminator is the roster instead: only the HEAD has heard of `pv_entities`, so
+only the HEAD's `multi` document fails to reduce to its own `unset` one.
+
+It is asserted from the **documents**, not from `tree.supports_roster` — a
+self-report is the tree describing itself, whereas "this side's behaviour did not
+move when `pv_entities` was set" is the tree being measured. `supports_roster` is
+printed beside the verdict so a disagreement between the two is visible.
+
+See MUTATION.md habit 24.
+
+---
+
+## 4. Mutation battery
+
+Twelve mutations, each on a **fresh `cp -a`** of the clean worktree (never
+reverted — habit 18 / TARIFF-09's method), `__pycache__` purged before the run
+and the tree checked for one afterwards, byte delta from `stat` and the edit
+confirmed on disk with `cmp`, suites run in the CI image with `checks.yml`'s own
+command one file at a time under a `:ro` mount.
+
+| mutation | bytes | reds |
+|---|---|---|
+| N1 `total()` returns the partial sum, not an absence | +42 B | 6 named in `test_pv.py` + 1 crash |
+| **N1b ⭐ THE REJECTED DESIGN: the partial sum with a contributor count** | −282 B | **10 named + the trace `REFUSED 5/5`** |
+| N2 absence tested by falsiness (`not w`) | −4 B | 2 named |
+| N3 `pv_entities` UNIONS with `pv_entity` | −27 B | 3 named |
+| N4 the de-duplication dropped | −15 B | 1 named |
+| N5 `sum` → `max` over the roster | **+0 B** | 6 named |
+| N6 the roster-of-one stops passing `why` through | +13 B | 8 named |
+| N7 `optional_keys()` back to reading `pv_entity` | −6 B | 1 named + 1 crash |
+| N8 `self.grid -= self.pv_w` in `read_inputs()` | +106 B | 3 named + the trace (52 cells on 2/5, 26 on 3/5, 10 on 4/5) |
+| N9 the roster caution made a `bad` row (NOT READY) | +1 B | 1 named |
+| N10 `entity_is_ignored()` always False | +10 B | 2 named |
+| N11 `pv_entities: []` deleted from `options:` | −18 B | 2 named in `test_translations.py` + `11 CASE(S) FAILED` in the probe |
+
+**No survivors.**
+
+⚠️ **N5 is `+0 B` — the risky delta.** `sum` and `max` are the same three
+characters, so neither the file size nor its mtime moved, and TEST-15's
+stale-bytecode defect is exactly what manufactures a survivor there. The run was
+on a fresh purged copy and `cmp` confirmed the edit on disk before it started.
+
+⚠️ **N1b is the row that matters, and it is not a defect.** It is the *other*
+defensible design, implemented and run. The point is that the checks and the
+instrument can **tell the two apart** — an unexamined partial sum is what the
+card forbids, so a check that could not see one would be decoration:
+
+```
+REFUSED 5/5: THE PARTIAL SUM IS ON THE WIRE at [('EXPORT-6K/EAST-DEAD', '2550.0'),
+('EXPORT-6K/GARAGE-DEAD', '3300.0'), ('EXPORT-6K/WEST-DEAD', '1650.0'),
+('IMPORT-3K/EAST-DEAD', '2550.0'), ('IMPORT-3K/GARAGE-DEAD', '3300.0'),
+('IMPORT-3K/WEST-DEAD', '1650.0')] … - a smaller number indistinguishable from a
+real one, which is the defect this card exists to prevent.
+```
+
+⚠️ **N8's 1/5 stays GREEN and that is correct rather than a miss.** With no PV
+entity configured `pv_w` is `None` and the leak cannot fire — which is what makes
+1/5 a claim about the **default** and 2/5–4/5 the claims about the channel.
+
+### The fixture values are the design (habit 10 and habit 23)
+
+`test_pv.py` carries **two** rosters over the same three entities, because the
+two claims need different magnitudes and one fixture cannot serve both.
+
+* **Parts 8–10: 1200 W + 2.1 kW + 450 W = 3750 W.** The sum is separable from
+  max (2100), min (450), first (1200), last (450), mean (1250), count (3) and
+  every partial of itself (2550 / 1650 / 3300) — the family is computed, printed
+  and asserted non-colliding as its own precondition. One member is in **kW** so
+  "correct against their own units" is exercised. **Not one member is zero**: a
+  member contributing 0 W could go absent without moving the sum of the rest, and
+  a fixture like that cannot tell "published the absence" from "published the
+  partial sum" — habit 23 with a coinciding value in the *fixture* rather than in
+  the plant, which is precisely the trap the brief named. Absence is driven at
+  **every position** of the roster, not at one (habit 10's fixture-as-a-SET), and
+  each position's partial is **derived from the fixture** rather than typed
+  beside it.
+* **Part 6: 1500 W + 4.5 kW + 2000 W = 8000 W.** Sized so every *partial*
+  (6500 / 3500 / 6000) would still **move** a loop settling on a 600 W import.
+  Habit 23's own question is asked twice — shift the meter by 8000 W, and again
+  by 3500 W, the smallest partial any single dead member could produce — because
+  a leak of the partial is a different mutation leaking a smaller number.
+
+### Two false results this card produced, and what they were
+
+Both were in the **instrument**, and both are recorded rather than tidied away.
+
+1. `partial_w`/`partial_wire` were first written **inside** each telemetry cell.
+   They are a fact about the *stimulus*, produced by the tool and identical on
+   both trees — so every roster cell differed from its unset reference for a
+   reason that was not behaviour, and the HEAD/baseline discriminator fired on
+   *both* sides. They live in a separate top-level `partials` map now.
+2. The `WEST-ZERO` cell (all three answer, one honestly reporting 0 W) had its
+   **true total** labelled as its "partial". 5/5 then refused the *shipped* tree
+   for publishing 1650 W, which it is required to publish. A cell with no dead
+   member has no partial to leak, and `never` is `None` there.
+
+---
+
+## 5. What none of this can see
+
+* **Home Assistant itself.** That `None` on the state topic renders as state
+  `unknown` and that the recorder keeps a gap is read out of HA's source and
+  quoted in `app/mqtt.py`; whether the long-term statistics table then
+  interpolates across the gap is HA's behaviour, and OPT-10 will be reading it.
+* **Whether the operator's sensors are telling the truth.** A sensor wired
+  backwards reads −4 kW at noon and is summed as −4 kW. There is deliberately no
+  `pv_invert` — §2 of the TEL-11 record is the argument, and it holds at a roster.
+* **A roster larger than three.** Three is the smallest size at which the sum
+  separates from the reduction family *and* absence can be driven at every
+  position. Nothing here says what twenty entities do to a cycle's latency — the
+  read is `asyncio.gather`ed across the roster for exactly that reason, so a slow
+  sensor costs what one costs, but that is an argument rather than a measurement.
+* **A PV roster combined with a two-inverter battery roster.** No fixture
+  crosses CFG-04's `inverters:` with `pv_entities`.
+* **The real MQTT transport, and wall-clock behaviour.** As TEL-11.
+
+---
+
+## 6. Not deployable as merged
+
+`config.yaml` stays at `0.11.0`, so `tools/predeploy_check.py` reports a NO-OP
+until PKG cuts a version. A CHANGELOG entry is **wanted** and was deliberately
+not written: `test_version_gate.py` 11b forbids an `## Unreleased` heading and
+the bump is PKG's call. The material an entry needs is this file.
+
+The option surface moves **76 keys → 77**, one new optional key, `pv_entities`,
+empty on every install that does not set it.

goodwe_controller/MUTATION.md

@@ -127,6 +127,43 @@ Two rules come out of it, and both are cheap:
    function, that pair is the first thing to try — TEST-16's two survivors were
    adjacent lines in one function and neither was individually live.
 
+⚠️ **AND FCST-05 WALKED INTO IT AGAIN, IN ITS OWN NEW CHECK, WHICH IS WHY THE
+RULE IS “mutate every check you add”.** `price_history.py` reports a malformed
+point row from **two** places into **one** field: `_usable_days()` records what
+it FOUND when the file was opened, and `_remember()` records what it DROPPED on
+the next refresh. Both land in `last_error`, and `words` prints `last_error`.
+The first draft of the new check asked `"malformed point row" in words` — which
+whichever rung is still standing satisfies — so deleting `_remember()`'s note
+entirely was a **−1 B SURVIVOR of the whole suite**, on the half of the fix that
+tells an operator the cache **self-healed**. It is graded on the TENSE now
+(`… in <day>` at open, `… dropped from <day>` after the refresh), the two are
+asserted to DIFFER, and the paired mutation — both notes deleted, −91 B — is
+red on 15 named checks. Same shape as TEST-16 and the same fix: **grade the
+reason, not the verdict**, and when two rungs answer one stimulus, mutate them
+together.
+
+⚠️ **AND FCST-06 FOUND THE COUNT ITSELF LYING — LOW, NOT SILENT.** A mutation
+whose red is a **traceback** does not report one red; it reports however many
+checks ran before the traceback, and grades **none** of the ones after it. The
+new section drove M4 (`self._days = before` → `self._days = {}`) and the run
+printed **1 FAIL**. The true figure is **3**: an f-string in the next check read
+`len(read.points)`, and `.points` on a `no_data` **raises `Absence` by design**,
+so the harness died mid-section with the remaining checks ungraded. That is
+`why()`'s and `derived()`'s rule — *"it answered nothing" and "it broke on the
+way to answering" must not grade the same* — arriving in the **printed operand**
+of a check rather than in its condition, which is the half that is easy to miss
+because it looks like formatting. Two things follow:
+
+* **a mutation report's red COUNT is only a lower bound until the run is seen to
+  have reached the end of its section.** Read the output, not the count;
+* **the total accessor has to cover what a check PRINTS, not only what it
+  asserts.** `test_price_history.py` 5d added `npts()` beside `why()` for
+  exactly this, and re-driving M4 against it moved 1 FAIL to 3.
+
+Worse, had the traceback landed one check earlier the mutation would have
+produced **no named red at all** — a result that reads like a broken harness and
+gets retried rather than read.
+
 ## The third way a check lies: its DATA cannot reach the failure it names
 
 Stale bytecode manufactures survivors from a mutation that never ran. Masking
@@ -135,7 +172,7 @@ manufactures them from a **fixture**: the check runs, the assertion is
 evaluated, the sentence above it is true — and the numbers it compares are
 arranged so that the failure it describes could not have changed the answer.
 
-It is not hypothetical and it is not rare. ELEVEN instances in two weeks; four
+It is not hypothetical and it is not rare. TWELVE instances in two weeks; four
 were found by review, two - CFG-04's fixture pair - by an author's own mutation
 battery, which is the cheaper place, one by review again, in the one
 place nobody had thought to point the rule at: not a check in the suite, but a
@@ -377,6 +414,44 @@ same place twice, the check is decoration.
 
   The general habits are **14** and **15** below.
 
+* ⚠️ **SAFETY-47 IS THE TWELFTH, AND IT IS THE SECOND INSIDE A COMMITTED
+  EVIDENCE ARTIFACT.** `DECISIONS/SAFETY-10-shadow-mode.md` §6 tabulated a live
+  run and a shadow run agreeing on `arb_power_w`, on the reason **verbatim**
+  and on the arbiter's winner, and concluded that shadow mode reaches the same
+  decision. **Two independent reasons it could not have gone red, and closing
+  either one alone closes nothing:**
+  * its fixture is `peak_cap_w: 15000` against a 350 W house, so the capacity
+    guard never engages and the thing whose invariance is being claimed —
+    SAFETY-45's sizing of the buy leg from the billed-quarter meter — is in the
+    run and **inert**. ⚠️ **The harness's own comment says so**: *"at this
+    scenario's `peak_cap_w: 15000` it is not binding anyway"*. The rule was
+    written down beside the check it disabled and nobody read it as a
+    disclosure;
+  * and every identity row reads `_sa[0]`/`_la[0]` — **the first charging
+    sample**. At `elapsed = 0` the projection **is** the held level, so the two
+    runs agree **to the float even at a cap that does bind**. Measured:
+    widening the fixture alone — the obvious fix — leaves that comparison
+    passing.
+
+  ⚠️ **THE SECOND REASON IS A NEW SHAPE FOR THIS LIST: AN INDEX, NOT A
+  FIXTURE.** Ask of every identity claim not only *"could this data differ"*
+  but *"**at the point I sampled it**, could it differ yet"*. A comparison
+  taken at `t = 0` between two runs that diverge **because one of them acts**
+  is a comparison of a plant with itself, and no amount of widening the fixture
+  changes that. The replacement, `test_arbitrage.py` part 3d, grades the whole
+  run — 716 of 720 charging cycles differ — and grades the `[0]` agreement **as
+  an expectation**, so nobody rebuilds a check on it believing it covers
+  something.
+
+  ⚠️ **AND THE FIX'S OWN FIRST DRAFT CARRIED A THIRTEENTH.** The new part's
+  action-log check could not reach the log line at all: the sentence was an
+  f-string inside `Controller._shadow_settle()`, and the only suite that drives
+  that method uses a `meter_source: off` fixture where no arbitrage decision —
+  and therefore no caveat — exists. Deleting the caveat from it left **all 29
+  files green**. It is `shadow.log_line()` now. *A sentence assembled at a call
+  site is a sentence no check can grade*, which is CFG-04's substring lesson
+  arriving from the other direction.
+
 Note what these have in common with a masked rung: the mutation *runs*, and the
 suite is *honestly* green. Nothing in a purge, a fingerprint or a disassembly
 can see it, because the code under test really did behave identically on the
@@ -658,6 +733,255 @@ Cheap habits fall out of it, and all of them are now used in this repository:
       that two of it cannot silently overwrite each other's work. A fixed path
       in a tool that edits source is a shared mutable global with a filename.
 
+19. ⚠️ **A FIXTURE IN A SHAPE NOBODY PUBLISHES GRADES THE PARSER AGAINST THE
+    PARSER — FOURTEENTH INSTANCE OF HABIT 4, AND THE FIRST WHERE THE FIXTURE
+    AND THE CODE UNDER TEST SHARED A *SHAPE* RATHER THAN A NUMBER.** TARIFF-08.
+    `price.py`'s `_points_from_json()` read `doc["data"]` as a list of
+    `{start, price_eur_mwh}` objects. `api.energy-charts.info` publishes
+    parallel `unix_seconds` / `price` arrays and has no `data` key at all, so
+    `generic_dayahead` raised `SourceUnavailable` on **every live fetch it ever
+    made** — and the suite was green, because all three price suites built
+    their bodies with `json.dumps({"data": [...]})`. The fixture was derived
+    from the parser's guess, so no mutation of the parser and no amount of
+    coverage inside that loop could ever have reached the failure. §11.4 then
+    turned it into a *correct* silent degradation: parse error -> `no_data` ->
+    static profile -> arbitrage off, with nothing naming the cause.
+
+    Habit 2 with a network on the end of it: **the reference has to be data the
+    code under test did not shape.** For a parser that means BYTES, captured
+    from the source and committed unmodified, with the URL, the retrieval time
+    and a checksum beside them - `scenarios/energy-charts-be-price-*.json` and
+    its `-captures.json` provenance, re-derived by the replay so an edited
+    fixture stops being a capture. Two granularities, because the same endpoint
+    answers hourly before 2025-10-01 and quarter-hourly after it and a fixture
+    at one spacing cannot grade an assumption about the other.
+
+    ⚠️ **AND THE SURVIVING SYNTHETIC FIXTURES ARE NAMED FOR WHAT THEY ARE.**
+    Three shipped plugins point at endpoints nobody has verified (TARIFF-07),
+    so no capture exists for them; their fixture builder is called
+    `synthetic_row_feed` at every call site, because the next reader's default
+    assumption will otherwise be that a green check means the feed parses.
+
+    ⚠️ **ONE OF THIS CARD'S OWN NEW LINES WAS DECORATION AND THE BATTERY SAID
+    SO.** The columnar parser first rendered its instants with `brussels()`
+    before returning them. `assemble()` already renders every plugin's points,
+    so removing the parser's call changed nothing observable - **M4 came back a
+    survivor on a `:ro`, purged tree**, which is not the direction stale
+    bytecode fabricates. The line was removed rather than fenced with a check:
+    a second copy of a rule that already has an owner is indistinguishable from
+    a no-op, and the mutation that proves the rendering is real belongs on
+    `assemble()`, where it is now aimed.
+
+20. ⚠️ **A FIXTURE GRADES THE RESPONSE. NOTHING ABOUT THE REQUEST IS REACHABLE
+    FROM ONE, AND THE TRANSPORT HAD BEEN RECORDING IT ALL ALONG.** TARIFF-09,
+    and it is habit 19's closed loop with the other half still shut.
+    `generic_dayahead.fetch()` took `since` and `until` and asked for the bare
+    `?bzn=BE`, which answers ONE Brussels day - so §8.3 dropped every hour past
+    today from the trade set as provisional and the optimiser never saw
+    tomorrow as firm, at any hour of any day. Measured at 09:00: **15 firm
+    hours and 33 carried of 48**, both ends of the permitted cycle inside one
+    calendar day; at 23:00, **1 and 47**, with the firm spread no longer
+    clearing the round-trip cost.
+
+    TARIFF-08 had just fixed the RESPONSE side of this same plugin by
+    committing real bytes. It could not have caught this: a captured body is
+    the answer to a URL, and **no property of any body says which URL was
+    asked for**. `canned()` in `test_price.py` had recorded `(url, timeout_s)`
+    on every call since TARIFF-02 and not one check had ever asserted on the
+    first element - so the harness *knew* the plugin was ignoring its arguments
+    and nothing asked it. The fix is one line of habit: **where a plugin takes
+    arguments that shape a request, assert on the REQUEST off the injected
+    transport, not only on what comes back.** Section 2c does, and the
+    shipped-defect mutation (restore the bare URL, `-173 B`) is red on six
+    named checks in `test_price.py` and two in `test_price_history.py`.
+
+    ⚠️ **AND A MUTATION THAT TURNS A READ INTO `no_data` CRASHES A SUITE
+    INSTEAD OF NAMING A CHECK, UNLESS THE CHECK EXPECTS IT.** `_NoData.points`
+    raises `Absence` by design, so `derived(...) < derived(...)` over two
+    absent reads is a `TypeError` and `[p for p in plan.read.points]` is a
+    traceback - habit 5's shape with an exception in place of a hang. The
+    mutation that matters here is the "defensive" one somebody writes after
+    reading this card: *refuse when the feed returned fewer days than we asked
+    for*. It is exactly what a healthy feed does every morning before the
+    ~13:00-14:00 CET auction, and switching arbitrage off for it would be a
+    worse defect than the one being fixed. It is red BY NAME in
+    `test_price.py` (33 checks, the AC's own line among them) and takes
+    `test_price_history.py` down at **FCST-04's section 1**, whose `_before`
+    read is unguarded - a red, but an unnamed one. That is recorded rather than
+    retrofitted: guarding another card's section is a change to what its
+    checks report, and it belongs to whoever next touches it.
+
+21. ⚠️ **A CHECK CAN BE GREEN UNDER ITS OWN CARD'S NAMED MUTATION, AND TWICE
+    IN ONE FILE THE REASON WAS THAT THE WRONG QUANTITY EVENTUALLY REACHES THE
+    RIGHT VALUE.** TEL-10's acceptance was *"a run that winds the integrator
+    into the bound must show the published number reaching the bound"*, and its
+    named mutation was *"publish `prev_w` instead of `i_w`"*. The check was
+    **GREEN** on the mutant: the command reaches the same bound too, twelve
+    cycles later, and a check that only reads the VALUE cannot tell the two
+    apart. The same file's *"a stopped controller publishes `not-running`"* was
+    green under deleting that branch's assignments outright (−45 B and −67 B),
+    because the fixture STARTED stopped and `__init__` writes the same values.
+    Both are habit 4 - the data could not reach the failure - and both were
+    found by the card's own battery. The fixes are the shape to copy:
+    * where two quantities CONVERGE, grade the **order or the interval**, not
+      the value: "the integrator reaches the bound BEFORE the command does",
+      and a PLATEAU (the lead sits at exactly −800 W for eight consecutive
+      cycles) rather than a maximum, because a maximum is one tick and a
+      plateau is the shape;
+    * where a branch WRITES a value the constructor also writes, the fixture
+      has to pass THROUGH the other state first. Stop the controller part-way
+      through a run that has already wound the integrator to −5000 W, so a row
+      left standing is a WRONG row and not merely an unset one.
+
+22. ⚠️ **AN EXPLANATION IN A COMMENT IS A CLAIM, AND SAFETY-48 SHIPPED TWO THAT
+    WERE INVENTED.** A gate was written one-sided (`if target > slewed: min(...)
+    elif target < slewed: max(...)`) under a comment saying the two-sided band
+    `max(lo, min(hi, i_w))` was a BUG that would drag a trailing integrator
+    toward the command, with a worked example. It is not a bug and the example
+    was wrong: `target` is monotone in `i_w`, so the other clamp cannot reach,
+    and the two spellings agree on **205 920 of 205 920** swept states. A second
+    bullet said two placements of the same cap *"differ on 118 of 256 252
+    ticks"*; that 118 had been measured against a **different pair** and the
+    placement actually being compared is bit-identical on the shipped
+    configuration - 0 of 256 246 ticks. Both sentences were plausible, both were
+    load-bearing for a design choice, and neither had been run.
+    **The rule: a comment that says "X would be wrong" is subject to the same
+    battery as a check - BUILD X AND MEASURE IT.** Where the answer is
+    "equivalent", say so with the sweep size and keep the spelling for what it
+    NAMES; where the answer is a number, quote the run it came from. An
+    invented justification for a correct decision is still a defect, and it is
+    the kind a reviewer cannot see because the code is right.
+
+23. ⚠️ **THE MUTATION IS SUBJECT TO EVERY HABIT ABOVE, HABIT 4 INCLUDED - AND
+    THE PURGE, THE FINGERPRINT AND THE BYTE DELTA ALL SAY IT TOOK.** SAFETY-57's
+    battery reported a **survivor at +21 B** for a mutation of
+    `Freshness._open_window()`: `self.graded_from = float(now_mono)` rewritten
+    as `float(self.changed_mono or now_mono)`, which is meant to re-anchor the
+    verdict's window to the register's own history and so delete the card's
+    whole exit. The harness purged, the tree fingerprint showed the edit on
+    disk, the delta was non-zero, and the mutant really did run. It was still a
+    survivor for a reason that has nothing to do with the property: in the
+    fixture the register never moves after `t = 0`, so `changed_mono` is
+    **`0.0`** - and `0.0 or x` is `x`. **The mutant was a no-op on that
+    stimulus.** Rewritten with an explicit `is None` test (+82 B) it is red on
+    four named checks.
+
+    Stale bytecode is a mutation that never *ran*. This is a mutation that ran
+    and could not *change the answer* on the data it was given, which is habit 4
+    exactly, one level up - and none of the three things a mutation report is
+    required to state (MUTATION.md's own list) can see it, because all three are
+    about the file rather than about the stimulus. Two rules:
+    * **Ask of every survivor what it would have had to change, and check that
+      the fixture reaches that value.** Here: "does any fixture have a non-zero
+      `changed_mono` at the moment `_open_window()` is called?" The answer was
+      no, and it is one line to ask.
+    * **Prefer a mutation that CANNOT be a no-op.** `or`, `and`, truthiness on
+      a numeric, a default argument and a `getattr` fallback all have a value at
+      which the mutant and the shipped tree coincide. An explicit comparison,
+      a constant swap or a deleted statement does not.
+
+    ⚠️ Note where this one was found: in the battery of a card whose whole
+    subject is a check that cannot reach the failure it names. **Second
+    instance in an instrument rather than in a check since habit 16, and the
+    third overall.**
+
+    ⚠️ **AND THE SAME CARD'S BATTERY CAUGHT A HABIT-22 COMMENT IN THE FIX
+    ITSELF, WHICH IS WHY THESE TWO BELONG NEXT TO EACH OTHER.**
+    `freshness.py` shipped `⚠️ RELEASE BEFORE GRADE, AND THE ORDER IS
+    LOAD-BEARING` with a worked reason. Swapping the two calls is **zero bytes**
+    and survived the battery: `_grade()` acts only when `|standing| >= move_w`
+    and `_release()` only when `|standing| < move_w`, so at most one can act on
+    any read and the order is **not observable**. Habit 22 says build X and
+    measure it; the battery is what builds X. The comment now states the
+    disjointness and the suite pins **that** - at 0, 100, 249, 250, 251 and
+    1300 W - rather than an order nothing depends on.
+
+    ⚠️ **SECOND INSTANCE, TEL-11, AND THE NO-OP WAS A SATURATED RAIL RATHER
+    THAN A VALUE.** The card's whole subject is that a PV reading must never
+    reach the control law, so its central mutation is
+    `self.grid = self.grid - self.pv_w` in `read_inputs()` - **+106 B**, on
+    disk, purged, genuinely running - and it came back a **SURVIVOR** of a
+    six-file battery. The property held in no sense: the fixture drove a 6 kW
+    export over 12 cycles, which puts the loop **against its rail**, and a
+    command moving `slew_w` every cycle produces the SAME ramp for -6000 W and
+    for -14000 W of apparent error. The mutant ran and could not change the
+    answer.
+    Two things generalise past PV:
+    * **A SATURATED ACTUATOR IS A VALUE AT WHICH EVERY INPUT COINCIDES.** The
+      habit-23 list above names `or`, `and`, truthiness, default arguments and
+      `getattr` fallbacks - all *expressions* with a coinciding value. A rail,
+      a clamp, a slew limit, a deadband and a latched alarm are the same hazard
+      in the **plant**: they are where a controller's output stops being a
+      function of its input. A fixture that parks there cannot separate any two
+      inputs, and this repository's control fixtures park there by default,
+      because the dramatic stimulus is the saturating one.
+    * **SO THE PRECONDITION IS NOT "DOES IT COMMAND SOMETHING", IT IS "DOES IT
+      REST SOMEWHERE THE MUTATION COULD MOVE IT FROM".** `test_pv.py` part 6
+      now drives a 600 W import the loop SETTLES on, asserts the resting target
+      is well inside the rail, and asks habit 23's own question as a check:
+      shift the METER by the same 8 kW and confirm the commands really would
+      have moved. On the first fixture that question answers NO, in one line,
+      and it is the line that turns the identity into evidence.
+
+24. **A REFUSAL DEFINED RELATIVE TO "THE BASELINE LACKS THIS FEATURE" DIES ON
+    THE RELEASE THAT SHIPS THE FEATURE — AND IT DIES AS A FALSE REFUSAL, WHICH
+    IS THE LOUD DIRECTION.** TEL-11 built `tools/tel11_pv_trace.py` to grade a
+    cross-tree identity, and because "the documents are identical" was its
+    *result* rather than its warning sign, it had to prove instead that the two
+    runs came from different trees and that **exactly one side reacts to
+    `pv_entity`**. That was correct evidence: `release/1.0` predated the option
+    entirely, so a side that reacted to it was the HEAD by construction.
+
+    TEL-11 then **merged**, `release/1.0` became 0.11.0, and the baseline for
+    the next card reacts to `pv_entity` too. `--compare` now answers
+    `REFUSED: set differs from unset on ['A', 'B']` on every honest run — the
+    instrument refuses its own shipped tree. TEL-12 found it on the first
+    comparison it ran.
+
+    * **A discriminator is a fact about a MOMENT, not about a card.** "The
+      baseline does not have X" is true until X ships and then false forever.
+      Write the discriminator against something the NEXT baseline still will not
+      have — TEL-12's is the roster key, not the channel — and say in the tool
+      which fact it rests on, so the next card can see what it has to replace.
+    * **Prefer a discriminator that is MEASURED over one the tree REPORTS.**
+      `tree.supports_roster` is the tree describing itself and would have been
+      one line; the shipped test is "this side's roster cells ARE its unset
+      cells", which is the tree being measured. Both are printed, side by side,
+      so a disagreement between the self-report and the measurement is visible
+      rather than silently trusted.
+    * ⚠️ **And this is the SAFE direction of the same defect, which is why it
+      was found in ten minutes rather than in a review.** A stale refusal is a
+      developer chasing a failure they cannot explain (the false-red case at the
+      top of this file). A stale *identity* — an instrument that goes on printing
+      OK because its reference drifted into agreement — is the survivor-
+      manufacturing direction, and nothing announces it. Ask of every cross-tree
+      instrument: *what does this print when the feature it is about has been in
+      the baseline for a year?*
+
+    TEL-12's own battery produced two more instrument defects of the ordinary
+    kind, both recorded in `DECISIONS/TEL-12-several-pv-inverters.md` §4: a
+    stimulus annotation written into the document being compared (so every cell
+    differed for a reason that was not behaviour, and the discriminator fired on
+    both sides), and a fixture cell whose TRUE total was labelled as its
+    "partial" (so the check refused the shipped tree for publishing a number it
+    is required to publish). ⚠️ **Both were caught by running the instrument
+    against the shipped tree BEFORE running it against a mutant** — which is the
+    one ordering rule that separates "the instrument is wrong" from "the tree is
+    wrong", and `test_mqtt.py` part 8's first line ("the shipped module satisfies
+    every property this instrument grades") is the same rule as a check.
+
+    ⚠️ **AND TEL-12's SUBJECT WAS HABIT 23 IN THE FIXTURE ITSELF.** The card adds
+    a SUM over a roster, and the defect it exists to prevent is publishing the
+    partial sum when a member is absent. A fixture whose absent member
+    contributes **0 W** cannot see that defect at all: the partial and the full
+    total are **the same number**, so "published the absence" and "published the
+    partial" produce identical output. That is a rail in the *arithmetic* rather
+    than in the plant — the same hazard as TEL-11's saturated actuator, one
+    domain over. `test_pv.py`'s roster is three distinct non-zero contributions
+    in two different units, absence is driven at **every position** rather than
+    at one (habit 10), and each position's partial is **computed from the
+    fixture** and asserted to differ from the true total as its own precondition.
+
 And the mutation-table consequence: **a variant is not covered because a
 near-miss of it is.** DEV-02's table listed the *actuator* variant of the
 per-unit claim defect (`device`/`supervised` filed without `inv`), which the
@@ -665,6 +989,92 @@ static routing pin catches. The *bound* variant — right actuator, wrong
 numbers — is a different defect with a different fix, and it was absent. Both
 are in the table now.
 
+## TARIFF-15 — the card-graded formula, mutation by mutation
+
+Twenty-two mutations, one per check the card added, **run** rather than
+reasoned about. Harness: `/home/homelab/.cache/t15-mut/run.py`, backups beside
+it rather than in a shared scratchpad — two agents' harnesses collided in one
+this week. Each run restores from backup, purges `__pycache__` **on the host**
+first, and grades through the CI image with the tree bind-mounted `:ro`, so the
+interpreter cannot write a cache into the tree under test at all (TEST-15's
+structural immunity, borrowed).
+
+**No survivors.** Two entries are `+0 B` and are called out as such, per the
+reporting rule.
+
+| | mutation | file | Δ | red |
+|---|---|---|---|---|
+| M1 | `CARD_TOLERANCE` widened to 100 — the self-check stops checking | `custom_formula.py` | +1 B | **8** |
+| M2 | `CARD_TOLERANCE` tightened to 0 — the other direction, so the tolerance is a number and not a shape | `custom_formula.py` | −1 B | **16** |
+| M3 | `units` becomes optional | `custom_formula.py` | +10 B | 1 |
+| M4 | the `factor == 0` rung removed | `custom_formula.py` | −8 B | 1 |
+| M5 | the `factor < 0` rung removed | `custom_formula.py` | −7 B | 1 |
+| M6 | the `vat_pct` band widened to ±1000 | `custom_formula.py` | +6 B | 2 |
+| M7 | the non-finite rung removed from `_finite()` | `custom_formula.py` | −26 B | 2 |
+| M8 | the non-numeric rung removed from `_finite()` | `custom_formula.py` | −16 B | 4 |
+| M9 | an unknown top-level field ignored instead of refused | `custom_formula.py` | −2 B | 1 |
+| M10 | the plausibility **floor** applied to the all-in figure instead of the energy one | `custom_formula.py` | **+0 B** | 2 |
+| M11 | `hourly` stops averaging and emits the feed's own points | `custom_formula.py` | +12 B | 3 |
+| M12 | the hourly bucket takes the FIRST quarter instead of the mean | `custom_formula.py` | −11 B | 1 |
+| M13 | the preview drops the index column from each row | `custom_formula.py` | −13 B | 1 |
+| M14 | the preview is emitted on every refresh rather than once | `price.py` | −8 B | 1 |
+| M15 | `custom_formula` declares `ALL_IN` — the double-counting lie | `price.py` | −41 B | **10** |
+| M16 | a stale card never warns | `custom_formula.py` | −8 B | 1 |
+| M17 | a stale card REFUSES instead of warning | `validate.py` | −3 B | 1 |
+| M18 | the empty-formula refusal removed from the startup gate | `validate.py` | −38 B | 1 |
+| M19 | the index scaled to EUR/kWh before the formula — the factor-1000 | `price.py` | +2 B | **7** |
+| M20 | an `eval` call planted in `app/custom_formula.py` | `custom_formula.py` | +14 B | 1 |
+| M21 | `custom_formula` stops passing the caller's range to the feed | `price.py` | **+0 B** | 1 |
+| M22 | **PAIRED**: M1 *and* the plausibility band removed, together | `custom_formula.py` | −60 B | **12** |
+
+### The four that are worth reading rather than counting
+
+**M13 was a SURVIVOR of the whole suite on the first attempt, at −13 B.** The
+check read `"index EUR/MWh -> all-in EUR/kWh" in log` — which is the preview's
+**heading**. Deleting the index column from every **row** left the heading
+saying it prints something it no longer printed, and nothing went red. That is
+this file's third failure mode arriving in the check written to close it: the
+assertion ran, the sentence was true, and the data could not reach the failure
+it named. It is graded on a rendered ROW now, built here from the captured
+document (`'  216.080 ->   0.30123'`), and M13 is red.
+
+**M10 is `+0 B` and it is a real defect, not a synthetic one.** It came out of
+writing the mutation rather than out of review: `implausible_all_in()`'s floor
+was applied to the all-in figure, and `price_taxes_eur_kwh` shipped at 0.06 —
+**three times the 0.02 floor** — so a card read a hundred times too small
+(0.0016 EUR/kWh of energy) is carried over the floor by the flat tax addend
+alone and passes. The hundredfold error is exactly what that band exists for.
+The floor is applied to the **energy** figure now and the ceiling to the all-in
+one, both directions are graded, and the trap is stated as a check in its own
+right so the asymmetry cannot be "tidied up" later. *(Annotated 2026-09-13:
+TARIFF-18 raised that default to 0.11736, **nearly six times** the floor. The
+addend that does the carrying got BIGGER, so the trap is wider than when M10
+was measured and the asymmetry is more load-bearing rather than less.)*
+
+**M15 is the one the framework CANNOT catch, and the reds say which half does.**
+Declaring `ALL_IN` makes `assemble()` add nothing, and section 3's all-in check
+is *derived from the declaration* — so it passes on the lie, exactly as
+`price.py`'s trap 1 says no code can catch a misdeclaration. What goes red is
+the **docstring/declaration agreement** check, the card reproductions, and the
+`sources` pin: ten reds, none of them from the arithmetic. That is the
+guarantee at its true size — the two claims are held to agree, and whether
+either is true about somebody else's tariff remains human.
+
+**M22 is the paired run (TEST-16).** The card self-check and the plausibility
+band both answer a unit error, so each could be masking the other. Weakened
+**together** they produce twelve reds rather than the eight M1 alone produces,
+and the band's own checks stay red — so neither rung is doing the other's work.
+
+### What this battery does NOT establish
+
+It does not establish that a card is the right card. Every mutation above moves
+the relationship between the coefficients and the printed price; **none of them
+can move the relationship between the printed price and the operator's actual
+contract**, because nothing in this repository observes that. A
+consistent-but-wrong pair passes every one of these checks, by construction,
+and `DECISIONS/TARIFF-15-the-card-is-the-grader.md` §3 says so in the same
+sentence as the claim.
+
 ## Where each surface stands
 
 * **Local and dev-harness runs — the exposed one.** This is where FCST-03 hit
@@ -715,6 +1125,7 @@ commit and PR bodies.
 | **SAFETY-03** reviewer survivor: `abs()` dropped from `clamp_to_rating`'s limit (6aabb83) | **re-verified — still a survivor** | re-run the same way, all 15 green. Also as recorded: unreachable under the `int(100, 5000)` schema. |
 | **MAINT-05 round 3**, `migrate_maint_keys()` marker gate `if rep.ok:` → `if rep.ok or rep.kept:` (`+12 B`) | **was a survivor — now CLOSED** | measured against head `65cddf3` under the purge, tree mounted `:ro`, `19/19 PASS`. It stamps the schema marker on a migration that LOST state, defeating the older `lost` guard as well as the new `misdirected` one, because every check that reached the marker did so on a store whose `kept` list was empty. Closed by `test_maintenance.py` **9d**; the mutation is now red on three named checks. |
 | **MAINT-05 round 3**, `migrate_unit_keys()` marker gate `if rep.ok:` → `if rep.ok or rep.kept:` (`+12 B`) | **found here — SAFETY-02's half, now CLOSED** | the SAME mutation one function up, on the LATCH migration rather than the history one. Measured a survivor against this branch under the purge, `:ro`, `19/19 PASS`, then closed by `test_inverter.py` part 10's new fixture — a store with `unit/inverter-a/sign_reason` already present (so `kept` is non-empty) whose `sign_tripped: true` write is dropped. Shipped: marker withheld. Mutant: marker stamped on a **disarmed latch**, and the next start skips the migration that would have re-armed it. |
+| **TARIFF-09** 11 mutations over `app/price.py` and the two-day capture, all red, no survivors | **not at risk** | direction, and method: every mutation was applied to a FRESH `cp -a` of the clean worktree rather than reverted, so there is no revert to verify (habit 18) and no shared scratch path two runs could collide on. Each ran through `tools/mutation_run.sh`, which purges and fingerprints. Byte deltas recorded on the PR; one is **+0 B** - a single price digit edited inside the committed capture, the risky delta - and the re-derived sha256 catches it. |
 | **TARIFF-01**'s other three survivors, **SAFETY-03**'s `describe()` survivor, **TARIFF-02**'s M3/M5/M7, **SAFETY-18**'s three | **still unverified** | recorded before the purge discipline, with no byte delta on the record, so a `+0 B` same-second revert cannot be excluded. All are survivors, which is the direction this defect fabricates. TARIFF-02's and SAFETY-18's were **closed by later commits whose claims are reds**, so what is unverified is the *diagnosis*, not the current state of the code. |
 
 **Nothing here says a past result is wrong.** The two survivors re-run above

goodwe_controller/app/arbitrage.py

@@ -184,6 +184,17 @@ IDLE_OFF_PEAK_HOUR = "this hour is neither the buy hour nor the sell hour"
 IDLE_NO_SIZE = (
     "no pack's state of charge permits this side of the trade, so it is sized "
     "at 0 W - and a 0 W arbitrage claim is a park order, not a trade")
+# SAFETY-45. THE BUY LEG'S SIZE, AND ONLY THE BUY LEG'S - §9.1: "Discharge and
+# export are never capped by the peak guard; only charging and import are."
+IDLE_NO_HEADROOM = (
+    "the capacity-tariff guard has measured this billed quarter and it can "
+    "afford no charging at all, so a trade of any size would push it over the "
+    "ceiling - and a 0 W arbitrage claim is a park order, not a trade")
+IDLE_HEADROOM_UNMEASURED = (
+    "the capacity-tariff guard did not size this quarter's charging headroom "
+    "this cycle, and an UNMEASURED headroom is not an unlimited one - charging "
+    "creates the billed quantity (§9.1) and nothing is measuring the quarter "
+    "this one would land in")
 NEGATIVE_PRICE = (
     "§17: the sell hour is priced BELOW ZERO, so discharging into it would give "
     "energy away and pay for the privilege. Arbitrage must not export at a "
@@ -303,7 +314,7 @@ def _point_at(plan, when: datetime):
         return None
 
 
-def decide(plan, now: datetime, *, peak_guard_active, soc,
+def decide(plan, now: datetime, *, peak_guard_active, charge_headroom_w, soc,
            min_spread_eur_kwh, uncertainty, charge_w, discharge_w,
            soc_floor_pct, soc_ceiling_pct) -> ArbitrageDecision:
     """Should the battery trade this cycle, and how hard.
@@ -314,6 +325,18 @@ def decide(plan, now: datetime, *, peak_guard_active, soc,
     None refuses, because the alternative is a strategy that creates the billed
     quantity while the thing that would have limited it is switched off.
 
+    ⚠️ `charge_headroom_w` IS SAFETY-45's SECOND, CONTINUOUS ANSWER FROM THE
+    SAME GUARD, AND IT IS NOT A DUPLICATE OF THE FIRST. `peak_guard_active` is a
+    SWITCH - it says whether the guard is holding - and a switch keyed on a
+    continuous quantity is what made the loop oscillate: the guard engaged at a
+    5 W floor, this module refused the whole trade, the loop took the actuator,
+    the meter fell, the guard released and the trade re-armed AT FULL POWER
+    130 s later. 28 times an hour, measured. `peakguard.charge_headroom_w()` is
+    the watts the billed quarter can still afford; sizing the buy leg to it means
+    the trade is CLAMPED rather than switched, which is the same shape
+    `control.maintenance_charge_floor()` has always given a maintenance charge.
+    ⚠️ None IS NOT UNLIMITED here either - see IDLE_HEADROOM_UNMEASURED.
+
     ⚠️ EVERY OTHER ARGUMENT IS KEYWORD-ONLY AND HAS NO DEFAULT, for
     `TariffPlan.arbitrage()`'s reason. A defaulted `soc_floor_pct` is a reserve
     floor this module asserted rather than one the operator configured, and the
@@ -330,10 +353,12 @@ def decide(plan, now: datetime, *, peak_guard_active, soc,
     return verdict.match(
         refused=lambda v: _idle(v.reason),
         allowed=lambda v: _act(plan, now, v, soc, charge_w, discharge_w,
-                               soc_floor_pct, soc_ceiling_pct))
+                               soc_floor_pct, soc_ceiling_pct,
+                               charge_headroom_w))
 
 
-def _act(plan, now, v, soc, charge_w, discharge_w, floor_pct, ceiling_pct):
+def _act(plan, now, v, soc, charge_w, discharge_w, floor_pct, ceiling_pct,
+         headroom_w):
     """The permitted case: which hour is this, and may the pack do it."""
     here = _point_at(plan, now)
     if here is None:
@@ -403,18 +428,110 @@ def _act(plan, now, v, soc, charge_w, discharge_w, floor_pct, ceiling_pct):
             f"nowhere to put the cheap energy", **common)
     if not abs(float(charge_w)) > 0.0:
         return _idle(IDLE_NO_SIZE, **common)
+    # SAFETY-45. THE BILLED QUARTER IS ASKED LAST, AND THE PLACEMENT IS
+    # DELIBERATE: every refusal that existed before this card keeps the
+    # precedence it had, so no sentence an operator already reads changes when
+    # it fires, and the two added here are placed where they cannot displace
+    # one. The pack's reasons come first because they are properties of the
+    # hardware in the cupboard; this one is a property of the fifteen minutes
+    # the trade would land in.
+    if headroom_w is None:
+        # ⚠️ NOT "the guard is clear". This is `guard_state()`'s None argument
+        # one layer down: a headroom nothing measured is not an unlimited one,
+        # and charging at max_w creates the billed quantity (§9.1).
+        return _idle(IDLE_HEADROOM_UNMEASURED, **common)
+    asked_w = abs(float(charge_w))
+    size_w = min(asked_w, max(0.0, float(headroom_w)))
+    if not size_w > 0.0:
+        # ⚠️ NOT IDLE_NO_SIZE, WHICH IS THE LINE ABOVE AND BLAMES THE PACKS.
+        # `asked_w > 0` is already established here, so the pack may be empty
+        # and willing and it is the billed quarter that has run out. A refusal
+        # naming the wrong subsystem sends an operator to the wrong page
+        # (§10.2), and these two are a whole quarter-hour apart in what they
+        # ask a human to do about them.
+        return _idle(IDLE_NO_HEADROOM, **common)
+    # ⚠️ THE SENTENCE CARRIES BOTH NUMBERS IN THEIR OWN SLOTS, not one figure
+    # twice. MUTATION.md habit 14: two values in one sentence can be transposed
+    # by a ZERO-BYTE edit that no byte delta and no shape pin can see, so the
+    # trade's own size and the guard's headroom are each named by the literal
+    # text around them.
+    capped = size_w < asked_w
     return ArbitrageDecision(
-        action=CHARGE, power_w=-abs(float(charge_w)),
+        action=CHARGE, power_w=-size_w,
         reason=(f"{CHARGE}: this is the cheapest firm hour at "
                 f"{price:.4f} EUR/kWh, {v.spread_eur_kwh:.4f} below the dearest "
                 f"and clear of the {v.required_spread_eur_kwh:.4f} this cycle "
-                f"had to cover; charging {abs(float(charge_w)):.0f} W from "
-                f"{soc:g} %"),
+                f"had to cover; charging {size_w:.0f} W from {soc:g} %"
+                + (f" - SIZED BY THE CAPACITY-TARIFF GUARD: the trade asked for "
+                   f"{asked_w:.0f} W and this billed quarter can afford "
+                   f"{float(headroom_w):.0f} W (§9.1, §10.1 priority 2)"
+                   if capped else "")),
         spread_eur_kwh=v.spread_eur_kwh,
         required_eur_kwh=v.required_spread_eur_kwh,
         price_now_eur_kwh=price)
 
 
+def sized_from_meter(decision: ArbitrageDecision, headroom_w, *,
+                     winner: str | None) -> bool:
+    """SAFETY-47. Was the number a shadow run just recorded SIZED FROM THE
+    BILLED QUARTER - i.e. from a measurement of what the battery itself did?
+
+    THE ONE PLACE THIS QUESTION IS ANSWERED, and it is public for the reason
+    `peakguard.charge_headroom_w()`, `discharge_permitted()` and
+    `freeze.looks_frozen()` are: the check that grades it has to assert on THE
+    SHIPPED EXPRESSION. A predicate transcribed into its own test is one copy
+    plus a future disagreement about what the check means.
+
+    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
+    THE DEFECT IT PREVENTS
+
+    `shadow.words()` and the action log carry "would have commanded N W". In
+    SHADOW MODE the battery is held at `shadow.WIRE_W`, so the billed quarter
+    the buy leg was sized against contains THE HOUSE AND NOTHING ELSE - while
+    a live run's meter rises as the trade charges. The same code, the same
+    hour, `peak_cap_w` 1500 under a 1200 W house: live commands -302.4 W and a
+    shadow run records -2000.0 W. 6.61x, on the status row, with no caveat.
+    This is the flag that puts the caveat there.
+
+    ⚠️ IT IS TRUE WHENEVER A MEASURED HEADROOM ENTERED THE ARITHMETIC, NOT
+    ONLY WHEN IT BOUND. `_act()` sizes the buy leg as `min(asked, headroom)`,
+    and "the headroom did not bind" is ITSELF a measured fact about a quarter
+    the battery never entered. Keying this on `capped` - on whether the
+    shipped sentence says "SIZED BY THE CAPACITY-TARIFF GUARD" - would answer
+    True at the START of the quarter, where a shadow run and a live run still
+    agree to the watt, and False at the END, where `(900/remaining)` has
+    multiplied the headroom past the ask and the recorded number is at its
+    most wrong. The quietest caveat exactly where it is needed loudest.
+
+    ⚠️ THE BUY LEG ONLY. §9.1: "Discharge and export are never capped by the
+    peak guard; only charging and import are." A sell is sized from
+    `discharge_w`, which is the roster's own rating and not a measurement of
+    the quarter, so a sell's recorded watts are NOT subject to this and must
+    not carry a caveat that would then be false.
+
+    ⚠️ AND THE ARBITER'S WINNER IS THE THIRD RUNG, NOT AN AFTERTHOUGHT. A trade
+    that was sized from the meter and then OUT-RANKED is not the number being
+    recorded - `Resolution.target_w` belongs to somebody else - and a caveat
+    filed against somebody else's number is a false sentence on the status row,
+    which is the defect class this whole card is about. It is in HERE and not
+    in `main.py` for the reason the two rungs above are: all three answer one
+    question, a check has to be able to reach each of them with the other two
+    clear (TEST-16), and a rung that lives at a call site is a rung no check
+    can drive.
+
+    `headroom_w` is whatever `peakguard.charge_headroom_w()` answered for the
+    cycle this decision was taken on. ⚠️ None IS "NOTHING MEASURED IT", and
+    `decide()` REFUSES the trade there (IDLE_HEADROOM_UNMEASURED), so a None
+    can only ever arrive here beside a non-trading decision - but it is tested
+    rather than assumed, because the caller is `main.py` and not this module.
+
+    `winner` is `Resolution.winner`: the source that actually set the watts.
+    """
+    return (winner == SOURCE
+            and decision is not None and decision.action == CHARGE
+            and headroom_w is not None)
+
+
 def claim(decision: ArbitrageDecision) -> Claim | None:
     """The decision as one arbiter claim, or None when nothing is to be traded.
 

goodwe_controller/app/config_page.py

@@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ since the status page shipped; this file has five more chances to get it wrong.
 
 ⚠️ AND IT IS BUILT FOR A PHONE FIRST. This is the screen someone stands in
 front of the inverter with: one column, big touch targets, sections that start
-collapsed so 71 options do not arrive as one wall, and the refusal block pinned
+collapsed so 72 options do not arrive as one wall, and the refusal block pinned
 where it cannot be scrolled past.
 """
 

goodwe_controller/app/control.py

@@ -191,6 +191,80 @@ SETTLE_CYCLES = math.ceil(PLANT_SETTLE_DOWN_S / LOOP_TICK_S)  # 12
 # edge rather than in prose, because it is a property of two files agreeing.
 _SAT_COUNT_CAP = SETTLE_CYCLES + 1                           # 13
 
+# ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
+# SAFETY-48. HOW FAR THE INTEGRATOR MAY STAND AHEAD OF THE COMMAND.
+#
+# ⚠️ THE MISSING CASE, AND IT IS A CASE AND NOT A CONSTANT. The freeze below
+# stops the integrator accumulating, and the comment beside it says what the
+# requirement is: "the INTEGRATOR stop accumulating, not only the command". But
+# `frozen` is computed from ONE signal - `abs(prev_w - actual_w) >
+# saturation_w`, the inverter not tracking - and SLEW-LIMITING NEVER ENTERS IT.
+# When the command hits the step ceiling, the integrator goes on winding at
+# `gain * error` until it reaches `integrator_max_w`.
+#
+# The arithmetic, and it is the whole card:
+#
+#     the integrator moves   gain * error   per cycle
+#     the command moves at most      slew   per cycle
+#     so the integrator outruns the command whenever
+#
+#         |error|  >  slew / gain
+#
+# At the live install's shape (gain 0.6, slew_w 400) that is 667 W. The median
+# grid error at the onset of a recorded episode is 1114 W. This is why
+# SAFETY-39's `slew_w` retune did not fix it: a smaller step makes the
+# threshold LOWER, so the case fires more often, not less.
+#
+# ⚠️ WHAT IS BOUNDED IS THE LEAD, NOT THE INTEGRATOR. Two forms were measured
+# over 16.0 days of the live install's own recorded disturbances
+# (`tools/replay_recorded_loop.py`, and DECISIONS/SAFETY-48 has the table):
+#
+#   (a) reuse the asymmetric freeze on a carried slew flag - "may not wind
+#       further in the direction it is already pushing", exactly as saturation
+#       does. It cuts export 13 % AND RAISES THE BILLED QUANTITY: the worst
+#       quarter-hour average OFFTAKE goes 3739 -> 3935 W and the mean quarter
+#       moves +2.7 W, in five of six plant and tuning variants, and on the
+#       billed quarter it is worse at every plant lag where release/1.0
+#       produces a peak at all (a tie at lag 0, worse at 2.5/5/7.5/10 s)
+#       and at every top-N cut of the quarters.
+#
+#       ⚠️ AND THE MECHANISM IS A REDISTRIBUTION, NOT A WEAKER ANSWER. An
+#       earlier draft of this line said a frozen integrator undershoots by
+#       (1 - gain) "so a large import is answered too weakly". The aggregate
+#       does not show that: form A cuts total import by 5.45 kWh, and paired
+#       tick by tick against release/1.0 it delivers 8.56 kWh LESS offtake
+#       energy on the ticks release/1.0 was importing. What it moves is the
+#       TAIL - within quarters that already net to offtake, the worst of them
+#       gets worse - and the capacity tariff bills the worst quarter and
+#       nothing else. That is the wrong trade here and the reason this is not
+#       the fix that ships.
+#
+#   (b) cap how far the integrator may LEAD the command, one slew step. Export
+#       39.6 -> 34.1 kWh, wasted throughput 4.7 -> 3.2 kWh, sign reversals
+#       2992 -> 2770, worst quarter-hour offtake 3739 -> 3434 W at the fitted
+#       plant lag (⚠️ AND AT NO SHORTER ONE: at every lag <= 5.0 s release/1.0
+#       is already at 3434 W and this changes it by zero - DECISIONS/SAFETY-48
+#       §3a), median recovery 232 -> 199 s. It is what ships.
+#
+# ⚠️ AND THE CAP IS NOT ZERO. `i_w = slewed` is full back-calculation, and this
+# module's own docstring says what that costs: passing `i_w=None` "reduces this
+# function to the exact velocity form it replaced". A zero cap makes `i_w`
+# identically the command on every cycle, which is that same collapse written
+# from the other end - it measures 32.0 kWh, better than (b) by 2 kWh, and it
+# throws away the reason the accumulator was split out at all. One step is the
+# smallest cap that is not that.
+#
+# WHAT THE NUMBER MEANS: the command can cover a one-step lead in ONE cycle, so
+# the worst-case unwind after a reversal is one cycle instead of
+# `integrator_max_w / slew_w` - 12.5 cycles at the live shape, ~60 s at the
+# meter's measured 5.0 s tick.
+#
+# ⚠️ IT IS IN STEPS RATHER THAN IN WATTS FOR SAFETY-39's REASON, WHICH IS THE
+# REASON THIS FILE KEEPS RE-LEARNING. A watt figure is a constant that outlives
+# the `slew_w` it was derived against; expressed in steps it moves with
+# `slew_limit_w()` and therefore with the rail.
+SLEW_LEAD_STEPS = 1
+
 
 @dataclass(frozen=True)
 class Tuning:
@@ -507,6 +581,83 @@ def compute(
     slewed = max(prev_w - slew, min(prev_w + slew, target))
     if slewed != target:
         reason = "slew-limited"
+        # --- SAFETY-48: the step ceiling reaches the integrator too ---------
+        # ⚠️ INSIDE THIS BRANCH AND NOWHERE ELSE - AND THE REASON IS NOT THE
+        # SATURATION FREEZE. An earlier draft of this comment said that applied
+        # unconditionally the cap "would also pull the integrator toward a
+        # command the SATURATION freeze is pinning", and priced that at 118 of
+        # 256 250 ticks. Both halves were invented, and MUTATION.md habit 22 is
+        # what fell out of it. The 118 had been measured against a DIFFERENT
+        # pair - a band applied after quantisation, at the very end of
+        # `compute()`. On the pair the sentence actually names - this same cap
+        # moved out of this branch to just after `target = slewed` - the two
+        # forms are BIT-IDENTICAL on the shipped configuration: 0 of 256 246
+        # ticks differ over the 16-day recording. They separate only where
+        # `integrator_max_w` is deliberately set ABOVE `max_w`, the one
+        # configuration this file says can reach its `clamped` reason; there
+        # the integrator is meant to run above the rail and an unconditional
+        # cap would drag it back to the command every cycle and make the option
+        # inert. THAT is why the cap stays in the branch, and
+        # `test_telemetry.py` part 4 drives it. (The separable-state COUNT is a
+        # property of whatever grid was swept - 2050 of 257 400 on this card's,
+        # 1220 of 246 064 on the review's, 776 of 40 320 on a third - so the
+        # claim to carry forward is WHERE they separate, not how many.)
+        #
+        # ⚠️ AND THE HALF A READER WILL OTHERWISE ASSUME AWAY: THIS CAP DOES
+        # MOVE A SATURATION-FROZEN INTEGRATOR. It runs BEFORE the freeze block
+        # below and is not gated on `frozen`. Measured over the same recording
+        # at the live shape: of 79 160 frozen ticks the cap changed `i_w` on
+        # 1095 of them, and on 679 of those it moved it FURTHER OUT on the side
+        # it was already on - putting back magnitude the freeze had just let
+        # fall, which is the one direction the freeze's own rule ("may fall,
+        # never rise") exists to forbid. Worst case 2424 W, and the worked tick
+        # is `prev_w -3400 W, grid +4697 W, actual -4144 W, sat_count 2 -> 3`:
+        # the freeze leaves the integrator at -176 W, the slew binds, and the
+        # cap drags it to -2600 W. It never overrides a SAME-CYCLE refusal -
+        # the freeze clipped `moved` on 75 512 ticks and the slew bound on none
+        # of them - but it does not leave the frozen path alone either.
+        #
+        # ⚠️ AND THAT IS WHERE SAFETY-13's SETTLE VALUES WENT. Gating this cap
+        # on `not frozen` puts `test_control.py` part 5 back at release/1.0's
+        # -1190 W exactly; part 4(b)'s -2390 -> -1200 W does NOT come back,
+        # because that one moved for the other reason - the winding BEFORE the
+        # freeze is bounded now. The gate is refused anyway: measured the same
+        # way it leaves a worst observed lead of 4961 W, i.e. no bound at all
+        # on the quantity this card exists to bound. DECISIONS/SAFETY-48 §5
+        # carries the rest of the price.
+        #
+        # ⚠️ WRITTEN ONE-SIDED, AND IT IS **EQUIVALENT** TO THE TWO-SIDED BAND
+        # `max(slewed - cap, min(slewed + cap, i_w))` - MEASURED, NOT REASONED.
+        # An earlier draft of this comment claimed the two-sided spelling was a
+        # bug that would drag a TRAILING integrator up toward the command. That
+        # is false and the sweep said so: `target` is monotone in `i_w`
+        # (`target = clamp(clamp(i_w, +-limit), +-max_w)`) and `slewed` is
+        # `target` pulled toward `prev_w`, so whenever the slew binds, `i_w`
+        # lies on the same side of `slewed` as `target` does and the other
+        # clamp cannot reach. The two spellings agree on **205 920 of 205 920**
+        # cases across four tunings, every sign of `prev_w`, `grid_w`,
+        # `actual_w` and `i_w`, and the `i_w=None` path.
+        #
+        # It stays one-sided because it SAYS which side the lead is on - the
+        # side the command wanted to move and could not - and because a reader
+        # reaching for the band spelling should find the sweep rather than an
+        # argument. ⚠️ The "descending" case is NOT an exception to the rule: a
+        # command falling from +2400 W toward an integrator at +100 W has an
+        # integrator 2300 W ahead of it IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL, and it is
+        # pulled back to one step beyond the emitted command exactly as a
+        # rising one is.
+        #
+        # ⚠️ `i_w` IS CHANGED AND `target` IS NOT. This cycle's command is
+        # already decided; what is bounded is what gets CARRIED. That is also
+        # why the exhaustive `i_w=None` equivalence sweep in test_control.py is
+        # untouched by this card: it compares `(target_w, sat_count, frozen,
+        # reason)`, none of which this moves, and the seeded path re-seeds from
+        # `prev_w` next cycle anyway.
+        _lead_cap = SLEW_LEAD_STEPS * slew
+        if target > slewed:
+            i_w = min(i_w, slewed + _lead_cap)
+        elif target < slewed:
+            i_w = max(i_w, slewed - _lead_cap)
     target = slewed
 
     if frozen:

goodwe_controller/app/freshness.py

@@ -175,6 +175,124 @@ only one of them is WIRED - see `BOUNDS` below and the note on SoC.
   integrator, and K. It does NOT owe a second freshness mechanism - `Freshness`
   below takes its obligation term from the caller precisely so that an energy
   integral can be handed in where command travel is handed in here.
+
+
+THE EXIT, AND WHY THE FIRST VERSION OF THIS MODULE DID NOT HAVE ONE (SAFETY-57)
+==============================================================================
+⚠️ THE VERDICT ABOVE IS ABOUT AN OBLIGATION, AND ITS OWN CONSEQUENCE REMOVES
+THE OBLIGATION. Declaring the reading stale makes `Controller.inputs_ok` False,
+which commands 0 W (§11.1 rule 1). At 0 W nothing is asking the register to be
+anywhere - `|standing| >= MOVE_W` is false, so the conjunction cannot arm - and
+the class docstring's clearing rule, "an arrival carrying a DIFFERENT number",
+asks the register for evidence that only a command could have produced. A pack
+sitting at its BMS floor answers the same integer watt for hours. **The state
+had no exit reachable from inside it**, and the operator-facing line said the
+opposite: *"It clears itself the moment the register reports a different
+value."*
+
+MEASURED ON THE LIVE SITE, 2026-09-21, and committed as
+`scenarios/safety57-2026-09-21/` - a passive RS-485 capture, decoded by
+`tools/decode_bus_capture.py`:
+
+    10:51:24.7   0x0518 reaches -3 W. The pack is at 11 % and the loop has just
+                 reversed from -447 W of charge into discharge; the BMS refuses
+                 and the inverter idles. The register is HEALTHY and TRUTHFUL.
+    10:51:29.7   the standing command reaches +1060 W. 800 W of travel, and the
+                 register is obliged to follow it.
+    10:52:00     the conjunction arms. `Inverter.batt` becomes None.
+    10:52:21.7   the site commands 0 W - on the wire, in the capture.
+    ...          0x0518 does not change value for 850.0 s. The setpoint does not
+                 change value for 790.0 s. Nothing in this add-on can end it.
+    11:04        a human restarts the add-on.
+    11:05:31.7   the restarted loop commands -400 W of charge, which the pack
+                 ACCEPTS at 11 %, and the register moves 3 s later.
+
+⚠️ AND IT HAD BEEN ESCAPING BY LUCK. This BMS emits a keep-alive pulse of a few
+hundred watts, which twitches 0x0518 and satisfies the clearing rule by
+accident. Replaying the committed 16-day loop capture
+(`scenarios/loop-2026-09-02_2026-09-17/`) through the shipped conjunction at
+1 Hz gives **93 trips**, and the time from each trip to the register's next
+change - which was the ONLY exit - has a median of 143 s, 17 episodes at or
+over the live one's 710 s, and a worst case of 21440 s. That distribution is a
+property of this battery's firmware. It is not a property of this code, and the
+add-on must not depend on it.
+
+THE RULE, and it is SAFETY-13's shape one module over - "which latches get an
+exit, not how long the block lasts":
+
+    RELEASE  <=>  the verdict is standing
+                  AND |standing command| < MOVE_W has held continuously for
+                      >= RELEASE_S
+
+On a release the latch clears and a NEW grading window opens at that instant:
+the register is re-graded, from scratch, against the commands issued AFTER it.
+Nothing about the register's own history is rewritten - `changed_mono`,
+`held` and `unchanged_s()` go on reporting that the register has not moved for
+850 s, because it has not.
+
+⚠️ `RELEASE_S` IS `BATT_OBLIGED_S`, 17.0 s, AND IT IS THE FLOOR OF ITS BAND
+RATHER THAN A PREFERENCE - the mirror of `MOVE_W` taking the ceiling of its
+own. The question the bound answers is *has the register had its chance to
+answer the command that is now standing?*, and that is exactly the 17.0 s
+already derived above: 6.0 s of plant, one 10 s publish, one 1 s read. Below it
+the release happens before the cheaper exit - the register moving by itself -
+could have occurred. Which half is safe is the opposite of SAFETY-13's, and for
+the reason that card states in its §4.2 table: being wrong LONG here is the
+failure being fixed (a site parked while it exports), and being wrong SHORT
+costs one re-grading window, which is bounded below.
+
+WHAT A RELEASE COSTS, MEASURED AND NOT ABSORBED - AND IT IS NOT SMALL. For the
+duration of the new window the consumers get the held number again, which is
+the exposure this module was written to close. Driven at the live install's
+shape against a register frozen for good (`test_freshness.py` part 10c), over
+1200 s:
+
+    shipped     parked 1166 s, the held number reaches a consumer  35 s   2.9 %
+    SAFETY-57   parked  571 s, the held number reaches a consumer 630 s  52.5 %
+
+⚠️ **52 % IS THE PRICE OF THE EXIT AND IT IS PAID EVERY CYCLE**, not an
+occasional slip. The period is the whole of `stale_input_s` (15 s) + `RELEASE_S`
+(17 s) parked, then one `BATT_UNCHANGED_S` (35 s) window of re-grading. It is
+bounded by construction, and that bound is the one thing that makes it payable:
+
+    the new window is AT MOST BATT_UNCHANGED_S = 35 s, and 35 < 75 < 85 - the
+    circulation hold and the per-unit sign hold. NEITHER CONSUMER CAN REACH A
+    VERDICT INSIDE ONE WINDOW, and a re-trip returns them a None, which CLEARS
+    both windows rather than accumulating into them.
+
+That inequality is the same one part 6 already grades, and it is why the window
+is `BATT_UNCHANGED_S` rather than a number chosen to make the table above look
+better. Neither detector can be made to say anything by a held number under
+this scheme - which is exactly the state the shipped code leaves them in as
+well, since a permanent None clears both windows for ever. **So nothing that
+SAFETY-37 detects is given back.** What the held number does reach for those
+35 s is `site_batt_w`, the anti-windup input of `control.compute()`, which
+responds to a large unexplained divergence by FREEZING the output - the
+conservative direction, and SAFETY-13's business. And the command itself is
+derived from the P1 meter, never from `batt`, so a site regulating through a
+re-grading window is regulating on the signal it always regulates on.
+
+**A register frozen under a command that never travels 250 W is still not
+detected at all** (survivor 2, unchanged), and a dead publisher whose value
+alternates is still invisible (survivor 3).
+
+⚠️ AND THE NARROWING THIS DOES NOT TAKE, named so the next card can. The live
+episode's register refused a DISCHARGE into an 11 % pack and then followed a
+CHARGE immediately; a refusal in one direction is not evidence about the other,
+and a gate that knew the pack's floor could re-grade on the first command that
+crosses it instead of on a timer. That needs SoC, which this module deliberately
+does not take (see the `soc` row), and the pack floor, which is SAFETY-32's
+number. It would shrink the 52 % above; it is not needed to give the state an
+exit, and mixing it in here would make the exit depend on a second measurement
+being right.
+
+⚠️ WHAT THIS DOES NOT DO, because the temptation is to call it a fix for the
+whole episode: it does not tell a BMS refusal apart from a dead register. The
+site above was parked for 790 s by a register that was working perfectly, and
+after this change it is parked for `stale_input_s + RELEASE_S` instead - about
+32 s on the shipped default - and then regrades. Telling the two apart needs
+the pack's own floor, which is SAFETY-32's number and not this module's input;
+the wording the operator reads about it is SAFETY-56's.
 """
 
 import time
@@ -211,6 +329,19 @@ BATT_UNCHANGED_S = 35.0
 # and goes red if the two drift.
 MOVE_W = 250.0
 
+# SAFETY-57. How long the obligation must have been ABSENT before a standing
+# verdict is withdrawn and the register re-graded. See the module docstring's
+# last section for the live episode this exists for and for which half of the
+# band is the safe one.
+#
+# ⚠️ IT IS `BATT_OBLIGED_S` AND NOT A NEW NUMBER, and that identity is the
+# derivation rather than a convenience. The question is "has the register had
+# its chance to answer the command standing NOW?", which is the same physical
+# quantity the floor of `BATT_UNCHANGED_S`'s band is: 6.0 s of plant, one 10 s
+# ESPHome publish, one 1 s add-on read. Releasing sooner would throw away the
+# cheaper exit - the register moving by itself - before it could have happened.
+RELEASE_S = BATT_OBLIGED_S   # 17.0
+
 
 @dataclass(frozen=True)
 class Bound:
@@ -219,6 +350,7 @@ class Bound:
     signal: str
     unchanged_s: float
     move_w: float
+    release_s: float
     wired: bool
     derivation: str
 
@@ -233,13 +365,19 @@ BOUNDS = {
         signal="batt (0x0518, AC power, S16, 1 W, 10 s publish)",
         unchanged_s=BATT_UNCHANGED_S,
         move_w=MOVE_W,
+        release_s=RELEASE_S,
         wired=True,
         derivation="settle 6.0 + publish 10.0 + read 1.0 = 17.0 s floor; "
-                   "circulation_hold_s 75 s ceiling; band [34.0, 37.5]"),
+                   "circulation_hold_s 75 s ceiling; band [34.0, 37.5]. "
+                   "SAFETY-57: the verdict is withdrawn after 17.0 s of the "
+                   "standing command below 250 W, because at 0 W the register "
+                   "is obliged to nothing and the verdict cannot be tested "
+                   "again from inside the state it creates"),
     "soc": Bound(
         signal="soc (0x050E, pack SoC, U16, 1 %, 10 s publish)",
         unchanged_s=float("inf"),
         move_w=float("inf"),
+        release_s=float("inf"),
         wired=False,
         derivation="TEL-08. Command travel is the WRONG obligation term for "
                    "SoC - a rested pack holds a percent for hours under a 0 W "
@@ -263,10 +401,33 @@ class Freshness:
     Declaring the reading stale makes `Controller.inputs_ok` False, which
     commands 0 W (§11.1 rule 1), which drops the standing command below
     `MOVE_W`, which un-arms the conjunction, which would return the held number
-    to the consumers - and round again every read. So the ONLY thing that clears
-    the latch is an arrival carrying a DIFFERENT number, which is exactly the
-    evidence the verdict was about. A register that is working clears it on its
-    next 10 s publish; a register that is not, does not.
+    to the consumers - and round again every read. So an arrival carrying a
+    DIFFERENT number clears the latch, which is exactly the evidence the verdict
+    was about. A register that is working clears it on its next 10 s publish; a
+    register that is not, does not.
+
+    ⚠️ AND IT IS NOT THE ONLY THING THAT CLEARS IT ANY MORE (SAFETY-57), BECAUSE
+    THAT MADE THE STATE INESCAPABLE FROM INSIDE. The command the verdict itself
+    produces is 0 W, and at 0 W the register is obliged to be nowhere - so
+    "report a different value" is evidence a parked site cannot ask for. The
+    live site sat at 0 W for 790 s on 2026-09-21 with a register that was
+    working correctly, and was freed by a human. `_release()` below withdraws a
+    verdict whose obligation has been gone for `bound.release_s`, and opens a
+    new grading window at that instant. The 1 Hz oscillation the latch exists to
+    prevent is still prevented: the new window is `bound.unchanged_s` wide, so
+    no re-trip can land sooner than 35 s after a release, rather than on the
+    next read. ⚠️ MEASURED FROM THE RELEASE, NOT FROM THE COMMAND RESUMING - if
+    the site rests for longer than the window before it asks for anything, the
+    window is already old and the re-trip lands on the first read at which the
+    command travels 250 W again. That is survivor 5's shape, it predates this
+    card, and its cost is one `stale_input_s` hold.
+
+    ⚠️ TWO CLOCKS, AND THE DISTINCTION IS THE WHOLE OF SAFETY-57'S HONESTY.
+    `changed_mono` / `held` are facts about the REGISTER: when it last carried a
+    different number. `graded_from` / `standing_at_grade` are the window the
+    VERDICT is computed over, which a release re-opens. They are the same thing
+    until the first release and diverge afterwards, and `unchanged_s()` - the
+    number an operator reads - is always the register's.
     """
 
     def __init__(self, bound: Bound):
@@ -281,10 +442,20 @@ class Freshness:
         # ability to fetch it.
         self.held = None
         self.changed_mono = None
-        # The standing command at that same instant. The conjunction compares
-        # against THIS, not against the previous cycle's command: what matters
-        # is whether the register has followed anything since it last moved.
-        self.standing_at_change = None
+        # SAFETY-57. The window the VERDICT is graded over, as opposed to the
+        # register's own history above, and the standing command at the instant
+        # it opened. The conjunction compares against THIS, not against the
+        # previous cycle's command: what matters is whether the register has
+        # followed anything since the current question was put to it. A register
+        # that moves opens a window, so until the first release these two are
+        # the change-stamps; `_release()` is where they diverge.
+        self.graded_from = None
+        self.standing_at_grade = None
+        # The instant the standing command last FELL below `move_w`, or None
+        # while an obligation is standing. The release timer runs off this.
+        self.rested_since = None
+        self.released_at = None
+        self.releases = 0
         self.stale = False
         self.reason = ""
         self.arrivals = 0
@@ -311,20 +482,67 @@ class Freshness:
         if self.changed_mono is None or value != self.held:
             self.held = value
             self.changed_mono = float(now_mono)
-            self.standing_at_change = (None if standing_w is None
-                                       else float(standing_w))
-            # Movement is the ONLY thing that clears the latch. See the class
-            # docstring on the 1 Hz oscillation this prevents.
+            self._open_window(standing_w, now_mono)
+            # Movement clears the latch, because it is exactly the evidence the
+            # verdict was about. See the class docstring on the 1 Hz oscillation
+            # the latch prevents, and `_release()` for the other way out.
             self.stale = False
             self.reason = ""
         self.last = value
+        # ⚠️ THE ORDER OF THESE TWO IS NOT OBSERVABLE, AND THIS COMMENT SAYS SO
+        # BECAUSE THE FIRST VERSION OF IT CLAIMED THE OPPOSITE. Swapping them is
+        # a ZERO-BYTE edit and it SURVIVED the battery; the reason is structural
+        # rather than a missing fixture, so no fixture could have closed it:
+        # `_grade()` acts only when `|standing| >= move_w` and `_release()` only
+        # when `|standing| < move_w`, so at most one of them can do anything on
+        # any given read, whichever runs first. Release is written first because
+        # it reads in the order the state machine moves - withdraw, then
+        # re-grade - not because the code depends on it.
+        self._release(standing_w, now_mono)
         self._grade(standing_w, now_mono)
 
+    def _open_window(self, standing_w, now_mono) -> None:
+        """Start grading the register again, from this instant (SAFETY-57).
+
+        Called when the register moves - the window and the register's history
+        coincide there - and when a verdict is withdrawn, where they do not.
+        """
+        self.graded_from = float(now_mono)
+        self.standing_at_grade = (None if standing_w is None
+                                  else float(standing_w))
+
+    def _release(self, standing_w, now_mono) -> None:
+        """SAFETY-57. Withdraw a verdict whose obligation is no longer standing.
+
+        ⚠️ THE TIMER RUNS ON THE COMMAND, NOT ON THE VERDICT. `rested_since` is
+        maintained on every arrival, latched or not, so the elapsed rest is the
+        real one and not "time since we last looked". An obligation reappearing
+        resets it to None, which is the whole point: a site that goes back to
+        asking the register for 250 W of movement has put the question back, and
+        the verdict stands until the question is withdrawn again.
+        """
+        obliged = (standing_w is not None
+                   and abs(float(standing_w)) >= self.bound.move_w)
+        if obliged:
+            self.rested_since = None
+            return
+        if self.rested_since is None:
+            self.rested_since = float(now_mono)
+        if not self.stale:
+            return
+        if float(now_mono) - self.rested_since < self.bound.release_s:
+            return
+        self.released_at = float(now_mono)
+        self.releases += 1
+        self.stale = False
+        self.reason = ""
+        self._open_window(standing_w, now_mono)
+
     def _grade(self, standing_w, now_mono) -> None:
         """The conjunction. Sets the latch; never clears it."""
-        if self.stale or self.changed_mono is None:
+        if self.stale or self.graded_from is None:
             return
-        held_s = self.unchanged_s(now_mono)
+        held_s = self.graded_s(now_mono)
         if held_s < self.bound.unchanged_s:
             return
         # ⚠️ BOTH None GUARDS ARE FOR A CALLER THAT DOES NOT KNOW ITS OWN
@@ -333,30 +551,98 @@ class Freshness:
         # consumer today. They are here for TEL-08, whose obligation term is an
         # energy integral that has nothing to say until it has a window - and
         # "nothing to say" must withhold the verdict, not manufacture one.
-        if standing_w is None or self.standing_at_change is None:
+        if standing_w is None or self.standing_at_grade is None:
             return
         standing_w = float(standing_w)
         if abs(standing_w) < self.bound.move_w:
             return
-        moved_w = abs(standing_w - self.standing_at_change)
+        moved_w = abs(standing_w - self.standing_at_grade)
         if moved_w < self.bound.move_w:
             return
         self.stale = True
+        # ⚠️ THE SENTENCE SAYS "unchanged", SO IT GETS THE REGISTER'S OWN
+        # NUMBER, NOT THE WINDOW'S. They are the same until the first release
+        # and different afterwards, and an operator comparing this line against
+        # a history graph is reading the register.
+        shown_s = self.unchanged_s(now_mono)
+        # ⚠️ SAFETY-56. THE OBSERVATION IS A FACT, THE DIAGNOSIS WAS NOT, AND
+        # THE SENTENCE NOW STOPS WHERE THE EVIDENCE DOES. The conjunction above
+        # is satisfied by TWO disjoint worlds, and nothing this object is handed
+        # separates them:
+        #   (1) the register has stopped reporting reality - what the gate was
+        #       built for - or
+        #   (2) reality is not moving, because the SOURCE cannot comply with
+        #       the command. A pack the BMS is refusing at its floor holds
+        #       still under any setpoint, and a register reporting that
+        #       truthfully publishes the same unchanged number a dead one does.
+        # The live 2026-09-21 episode was (2) - the pack read 11 % for the
+        # whole 850 s hold, the commands were discharge-only, and the register
+        # answered the first CHARGE command within one obligation window
+        # (test_freshness.py 11a measures all three off the committed capture)
+        # - and this sentence asserted (1), which sent the operator to look at
+        # healthy hardware.
+        # Naming both is what the module can honestly say. Naming WHICH would
+        # need SoC and the pack floor - deliberately not this module's inputs
+        # (see the `soc` row in BOUNDS and the docstring's last section), and
+        # TEL-08's and SAFETY-32's numbers rather than this sentence's.
+        #
+        # ⚠️ AND IT IS NOT SHARED WITH `main.py`'s NOT READY ROW, WHICH SAYS
+        # THE SAME AMBIGUITY IN DIFFERENT WORDS ON PURPOSE. This sentence is a
+        # LOG LINE about a behaviour, quoted verbatim by `note()` onto the
+        # status page and by `_read_unit()` into the action log; that one is a
+        # BANNER about a named ENTITY, and the two answer different questions
+        # ("what did the register do" against "can I trust this entity"). One
+        # helper serving both would have to drop whichever half the other does
+        # not need, and the half it dropped would be the operator's next step.
         self.reason = (
-            f"STALE_READING: {self.held:+.0f} unchanged for {held_s:.0f} s "
+            f"STALE_READING: {self.held:+.0f} unchanged for {shown_s:.0f} s "
             f"while the standing command moved {moved_w:.0f} W to "
-            f"{standing_w:+.0f} W - the reading is not following, so it is "
+            f"{standing_w:+.0f} W. TWO THINGS LOOK LIKE THIS AND THIS GATE "
+            f"CANNOT TELL THEM APART: the register may have stopped reporting "
+            f"reality, or the source may be unable to comply with the command "
+            f"- a pack the BMS is refusing holds still under any setpoint, and "
+            f"an honest register then reads exactly like a frozen one. Either "
+            f"way the number cannot be read as this command's effect, so it is "
             f"reported as MISSING rather than as a measurement (limits: "
             f"unchanged over {self.bound.unchanged_s:.0f} s, command over "
             f"{self.bound.move_w:.0f} W and moved by over "
             f"{self.bound.move_w:.0f} W)")
+        # ⚠️ SAFETY-57, AND THE THREE DURATIONS ARE THREE DIFFERENT FACTS, each
+        # in its own slot: the register's unchanged time is in the sentence
+        # above, the WINDOW this verdict actually rests on is here, and so is
+        # how many times this unit has been round the loop. Without the second
+        # one the sentence reads as though 92 s of unchanged register were what
+        # was compared against the 35 s limit, and it was not.
+        if self.releases:
+            self.reason += (
+                f" [re-graded: the {held_s:.0f} s window this verdict rests on "
+                f"opened when the previous one was withdrawn, not when the "
+                f"register last moved - this unit has now been graded "
+                f"{self.releases + 1} times]")
 
     def unchanged_s(self, now_mono) -> float | None:
-        """Seconds since an arrival carried a different number. Status page."""
+        """Seconds since an arrival carried a different number. Status page.
+
+        ⚠️ THE REGISTER'S CLOCK, NEVER THE VERDICT'S (SAFETY-57). A release
+        re-opens the grading window; it does not make the register younger, and
+        an operator reading "unchanged for 12 s" off a register that has held
+        one value for 850 s would be reading this module's bookkeeping back as a
+        measurement. `graded_s()` is the other one and is named differently for
+        that reason.
+        """
         if self.changed_mono is None:
             return None
         return max(0.0, float(now_mono) - self.changed_mono)
 
+    def graded_s(self, now_mono) -> float | None:
+        """Seconds the CURRENT verdict window has been open (SAFETY-57).
+
+        Equal to `unchanged_s()` until the first release, and shorter after one.
+        """
+        if self.graded_from is None:
+            return None
+        return max(0.0, float(now_mono) - self.graded_from)
+
     def reading(self):
         """What the consumers get: the value, or None when it cannot be trusted.
 
@@ -366,6 +652,13 @@ class Freshness:
         rather than accumulating it, and `circulation.circulating_w` returns None
         for a roster with a missing term, which clears the circulation window
         too. This module is the thing that was missing between them.
+
+        ⚠️ AND IT CAN GO BACK TO BEING A NUMBER WITHOUT THE REGISTER MOVING
+        (SAFETY-57). That is the exit, and it is bounded rather than free: the
+        window a release opens is `bound.unchanged_s` = 35 s, shorter than both
+        consumer holds (75 s and 85 s), so neither can reach a verdict inside
+        one - and a re-trip hands them a None, which CLEARS their windows. See
+        the module docstring's last section.
         """
         return None if self.stale else self.last
 
@@ -373,6 +666,26 @@ class Freshness:
         """One line for the status page. Empty when there is nothing to say."""
         return f"{unit_name}: {self.reason}" if self.stale else ""
 
+    def release_note(self, unit_name: str) -> str:
+        """SAFETY-57's release, for the log. Empty when nothing was withdrawn.
+
+        ⚠️ IT NAMES WHAT IS AND IS NOT BEING CLAIMED, because a line reading
+        "recovered" would be a lie: nothing has been learned about the register.
+        The verdict was withdrawn because it can no longer be tested, and the
+        next 35 s are the test.
+        """
+        if self.released_at is None:
+            return ""
+        return (f"{unit_name}: STALE_WITHDRAWN after the standing command sat "
+                f"below {self.bound.move_w:.0f} W for "
+                f"{self.bound.release_s:.0f} s. NOTHING HAS BEEN LEARNED ABOUT "
+                f"THE REGISTER - it is still holding {self.held:+.0f} - but a "
+                f"verdict about a command that is no longer standing cannot be "
+                f"tested, and the 0 W this one produces is what stopped it "
+                f"being tested. The register is now re-graded over a fresh "
+                f"{self.bound.unchanged_s:.0f} s window; if it still does not "
+                f"follow, this returns")
+
 
 def monotonic() -> float:
     """The clock this module's callers use, in one place so tests can find it.

goodwe_controller/app/mqtt.py

@@ -85,8 +85,114 @@ SENSORS = [
     # sensor's VALUE rather than its arrival, so a dead publisher freezes the
     # number and reads permanently fresh. Filed as TEL-06.
     ("p1_age", "p1_sample_age_s", "P1 sample age", "s", "duration", "measurement", None),
+    # --- TEL-10: the loop's integrator, published for the first time ---------
+    #
+    # ⚠️ APPENDED, AND THE POSITION IS THE POINT. `discovery_payloads()` walks
+    # this list in order and `_announce()` publishes what it returns, so a row
+    # inserted ABOVE would move every later entity's place in the announcement.
+    # Nothing existing is renamed, re-typed or re-ordered by these three; they
+    # are three NEW retained topics after the nine that are already there, and
+    # test_mqtt.py part 1 grades exactly that claim.
+    #
+    # ⚠️ AND THEY ARE SITE ROWS, NOT PER-UNIT ONES. There is one integrator -
+    # §6.2's architecture is ONE integrator on the P1 meter whose output is then
+    # SPLIT - so a per-unit copy would invent N of a thing there is one of, the
+    # same argument `grid` and `p1_age` are site rows for.
+    #
+    # `state_class: measurement` on the two numbers is what puts them in the
+    # recorder's statistics, which is the whole point: the reason this card
+    # exists is that the last investigation had no history to read.
+    ("loop_i", "goodwe_loop_integrator", "Loop integrator", "W", "power", "measurement", None),
+    # ⚠️ NOT DERIVABLE FROM THE TWO ROWS EITHER SIDE OF IT, which is why it is
+    # its own row rather than a subtraction a dashboard could do. `setpoint` is
+    # the ARBITER's output after every other strategy has had its say, and it is
+    # also THIS cycle's; the lead is measured against the command `compute()`
+    # was handed, which is the PREVIOUS one. Subtracting the published rows
+    # gives a different number on every cycle the arbiter overrode the loop.
+    ("loop_lead", "goodwe_loop_integrator_lead", "Loop integrator lead", "W", "power", "measurement", None),
+    # ⚠️ NOT `sensor.goodwe_controller_status` AND NOT THE "Why" ROW. Both of
+    # those carry the ARBITER's sentence; this is `compute()`'s own word for
+    # what the control law did with this cycle - `slew-limited` is the value
+    # SAFETY-48 is about and it appears in neither of the other two.
+    ("loop_reason", "goodwe_loop_reason", "Loop reason", None, None, None, "mdi:sigma"),
 ]
 
+# --- TEL-11: rows that exist ONLY when the operator configured a source ------
+#
+# ⚠️ A SECOND LIST RATHER THAN A TENTH ENTRY IN `SENSORS`, AND THE DEFAULT IS
+# WHAT MAKES IT ONE. `SENSORS` is announced by every caller of
+# `discovery_payloads()`; `OPTIONAL_SENSORS` is announced only by a caller that
+# ASKS, so a caller that has not been taught about `pv_entity` - `test_mqtt.py`'s
+# fixtures, `tools/rehearse_roster.py`, anything written next year - announces
+# exactly what it announced before. `p1_age` solves the same problem the other
+# way round, with `omit`, because `p1_age` is announced by DEFAULT and withdrawn
+# when the meter is off; this one does not exist by default and appears when a
+# source for it does. Getting that direction wrong is the hazard `omit`'s own
+# note names: an entity that exists and is never fed is a worse signal than one
+# that does not exist at all, and MOST installs will never set `pv_entity`.
+#
+# ⚠️ `state_class: measurement` IS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ROW. It is what puts
+# the number into the recorder's long-term statistics, and a week of statistics
+# is what OPT-10 needs to say whether the surplus that left this site was cloud,
+# a charge-power limit, or the optimiser declining to charge.
+OPTIONAL_SENSORS = [
+    ("pv", "goodwe_pv_power", "PV power", "W", "power", "measurement", None),
+]
+
+# ⚠️ HA's OWN "this sensor has no value" PAYLOAD, and the one place this add-on
+# spells it. `homeassistant/components/mqtt/const.py` declares
+# `PAYLOAD_NONE = "None"` and `mqtt/sensor.py` tests it BEFORE the numeric
+# branch - `if payload == PAYLOAD_NONE: self._attr_native_value = None` - so the
+# entity's state becomes `unknown` rather than a number. (Read out of
+# github.com/home-assistant/core `dev` on 2026-09-24; the shipped MQTT-sensor
+# documentation says the same thing in its `state_topic` entry: "a 'None' value
+# will set the sensor to an unknown state".)
+PAYLOAD_NONE = "None"
+
+# The keys whose ABSENCE MUST BE PUBLISHED rather than skipped. ⚠️ THIS IS THE
+# DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "no PV reported" AND "PV reported 0 W" IN A WEEK OF
+# HISTORY, AND WITHOUT IT THE CHANNEL LIES IN THE WORSE DIRECTION. `publish()`
+# below drops a `None` - which is right for `circulation`, where the last figure
+# standing is better than a zero that reads as health - but a DROPPED pv row
+# leaves Home Assistant holding the last number it was told, forever, and the
+# recorder then draws a flat line at that value through an outage. Someone
+# reading it back would conclude the sun was not shining, which is precisely the
+# conclusion this card exists to TEST rather than to manufacture.
+ABSENT_AS_UNKNOWN = frozenset({"pv"})
+
+
+def optional_keys(opts: dict) -> tuple:
+    """Which `OPTIONAL_SENSORS` rows this configuration has a source for.
+
+    ⚠️ ONE ANSWER TO "IS THE PV ROW LIVE", read by the ANNOUNCEMENT (through
+    `MqttPublisher`) and by `Controller.publish()`. `announced_units()` above
+    exists for exactly this reason and says it in full: two spellings of one
+    predicate is how an entity gets announced that nothing feeds, or fed on a
+    topic nothing announced.
+
+    ⚠️ AND SINCE TEL-12 IT IS `pv.entities()` RATHER THAN A SECOND READING OF
+    THE OPTION - `Controller.pv_roster` is the SAME call. TEL-11 got away with
+    two spellings because both were `bool()` of one string; with `pv_entities`
+    beside `pv_entity`, and `pv_entities` REPLACING it, a second spelling is how
+    the row gets announced off one key and summed off the other. ⚠️ THE ROW IS
+    ONE SITE TOTAL AT EVERY ROSTER SIZE: there is deliberately no per-entity
+    topic, because the recorder statistic OPT-10 reads back is the site figure
+    and a per-inverter breakdown is a dashboard question the operator's own PV
+    integration already answers.
+    """
+    # ⚠️ THE IMPORT IS FUNCTION-LOCAL AND THAT IS NOT A STYLE CHOICE. This
+    # module is EXEC'D STANDALONE, outside its package, by `test_mqtt.py`
+    # part 8's mutation harness - which says so in its own comment, and whose
+    # honesty depends on it ("`app/mqtt.py` imports nothing from this package,
+    # which is what makes exec'ing it standalone honest rather than a stub").
+    # A module-scope `from . import pv` turns that whole instrument into an
+    # `ImportError` before it grades anything. `tools/tel11_pv_trace.py`'s
+    # `_load()` is the same decision for the same kind of reason. Measured, not
+    # assumed: move this line to module scope and test_mqtt.py part 8 dies.
+    from . import pv as _pv
+    return ("pv",) if _pv.entities(opts) else ()
+
+
 BASE = "goodwe_ctl"
 AVAILABILITY = f"{BASE}/availability"
 
@@ -269,15 +375,23 @@ def _payload(name, object_id, unique_id, state_topic, device,
     return cfg
 
 
-def discovery_payloads(units=(), omit=()) -> list:
+def discovery_payloads(units=(), omit=(), include=()) -> list:
     """Every `(topic, payload)` this add-on announces, in announcement order.
 
     Split out of `_announce()` so that the acceptance criterion can be graded as
     a DIFF OF THE ANNOUNCED PAYLOADS against `release/1.0`, rather than as a
     reading of the code. `_announce()` publishes exactly this list and nothing
     else, which is itself checked.
+
+    `include` names `OPTIONAL_SENSORS` keys to announce. ⚠️ IT DEFAULTS TO
+    NOTHING AND THE ROWS GO LAST, so no existing row's POSITION moves under any
+    configuration - not the site rows, not the per-unit ones. Order is part of
+    the output here (`_payload()`'s note, and test_mqtt.py part 1 asserts an
+    ordered LIST precisely because a re-order is a zero-byte edit that
+    re-announces every entity on a live install).
     """
     omit = set(omit)
+    include = [k for k in include if k not in omit]
     out = []
     for key, object_id, name, unit, dev_class, state_class, icon in SENSORS:
         if key in omit:
@@ -306,12 +420,19 @@ def discovery_payloads(units=(), omit=()) -> list:
                          unique_id,
                          f"{BASE}/{unit_state_key(slug, key)}",
                          device, unit, dev_class, state_class, icon)))
+    for key, object_id, name, unit, dev_class, state_class, icon in OPTIONAL_SENSORS:
+        if key not in include:
+            continue
+        out.append((
+            f"homeassistant/sensor/{BASE}_{key}/config",
+            _payload(name, object_id, f"{BASE}_{key}", f"{BASE}/{key}",
+                     DEVICE, unit, dev_class, state_class, icon)))
     return out
 
 
 class MqttPublisher:
     def __init__(self, host, port, username=None, password=None, omit=(),
-                 units=()):
+                 units=(), include=()):
         # `omit` drops sensor keys from discovery entirely. ⚠️ Announcing a
         # sensor that nothing will ever publish to is not harmless here:
         # p1_sample_age_s is a watchdog input, and an entity that exists but is
@@ -323,6 +444,10 @@ class MqttPublisher:
         # per-unit is announced, so every caller that has not been taught about
         # the roster keeps publishing what it published before.
         self.units = [str(u) for u in units]
+        # TEL-11. `mqtt.optional_keys(opts)` - the shipped predicate, not a
+        # second reading of the option. Defaults to empty, so a caller that has
+        # not been taught about it announces exactly what it announced before.
+        self.include = [str(k) for k in include]
         self.enabled = mqtt is not None and bool(host)
         self.client = None
         if not self.enabled:
@@ -359,7 +484,8 @@ class MqttPublisher:
         # announcement, so the check that diffs it against `release/1.0` is
         # diffing what actually goes on the wire - and a payload built here
         # instead would be one this add-on publishes and no check has ever seen.
-        for topic, cfg in discovery_payloads(self.units, self.omit):
+        for topic, cfg in discovery_payloads(self.units, self.omit,
+                                             self.include):
             self.client.publish(topic, json.dumps(cfg), retain=True)
         self.client.publish(AVAILABILITY, "online", retain=True)
 
@@ -369,7 +495,16 @@ class MqttPublisher:
         try:
             for key, value in values.items():
                 if value is None:
-                    continue
+                    # ⚠️ TEL-11. A DROPPED ROW IS NOT AN ABSENT ROW. Skipping
+                    # leaves Home Assistant holding the last value it was told,
+                    # which is what `circulation` wants (its note in main.py
+                    # says why) and is exactly wrong for a measurement somebody
+                    # will read back as history: a flat line at the last number
+                    # is indistinguishable from a real one. See
+                    # `ABSENT_AS_UNKNOWN`.
+                    if key not in ABSENT_AS_UNKNOWN:
+                        continue
+                    value = PAYLOAD_NONE
                 self.client.publish(f"{BASE}/{key}", str(value))
         except OSError as err:  # pragma: no cover
             _LOG.debug("MQTT publish failed: %s", err)

goodwe_controller/app/peakguard.py

@@ -822,6 +822,145 @@ def decide(projection, *, batt_w, cap_w, reading, achievable_w, soc, soc_floor,
                f"only give {ceil_top:.0f} W" if saturated else "")))
 
 
+def charge_headroom_w(decision) -> float | None:
+    """SAFETY-45. The hardest this SITE may charge without putting the billed
+    quarter over the ceiling, in W, positive - or None when nothing measured it.
+
+    THE ONE PLACE THIS QUESTION IS ANSWERED, and it is public for the reason
+    `discharge_permitted()`, `shaping_suspended()`, `guard_state()` and
+    `looks_frozen()` are: the check that grades it has to assert on THE SHIPPED
+    EXPRESSION, and a predicate transcribed into its own test is one copy plus a
+    future disagreement about what the check means.
+
+    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
+    THE DEFECT IT PREVENTS, AND IT IS NOT A NEW IDEA IN THIS REPOSITORY
+
+    `control.maintenance_charge_floor()` already caps MAINTENANCE charging at
+    "the headroom left under the site's cap", and its docstring says why in
+    words this card only has to widen:
+
+        "A maintenance charge is the only thing this system does that is big
+        enough and long enough to set that peak, so it is capped by the
+        headroom left under the site's cap."
+
+    ⚠️ THAT SENTENCE STOPPED BEING TRUE WHEN OPT-04 LANDED. Price arbitrage is a
+    SECOND thing that is big enough and long enough - it commands `max_w` for a
+    whole tariff interval, deliberately, against the meter - and it was given no
+    such cap. Measured on TEST-23 stage 3's closed rig at the shipped
+    `peak_cap_w: 3500` / `max_w: 2000`: 28 charge onsets in one hour, mean period
+    131 s, grid swinging -456 <-> +3200 W, on any house drawing over 1500 W in
+    the cheapest quarter. §10.2: "an EMS that oscillates is worse than no EMS,
+    both for hardware wear and - per §9.1 - for the peak it is trying to avoid."
+
+    ⚠️ AND IT IS THE **MEASURED** GUARD, NOT `peak_forecast_entity`.
+    `maintenance_charge_floor()` sizes itself from the forecast sensor, which is
+    OPTIONAL and empty on a default install - the exact hole SAFETY-25 had to
+    close in `shaping_suspended()`, where a suspension gated on the forecast
+    alone could not fire on the very site that needed it. This number comes off
+    `decide()`, which runs wherever P1 does.
+
+    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
+    WHERE THE NUMBER COMES FROM: IT IS `wanted_w`, READ IN THE OTHER DIRECTION
+
+    `decide()` already computes
+
+        wanted = batt_w + excess = (the offtake there would be with the battery
+                 at zero) - (the level this quarter can still afford)
+
+    as the battery DISCHARGE that would land the quarter exactly on the ceiling.
+    A negative `wanted` is not "nothing to say" - it is a permitted CHARGE of
+    `-wanted` watts, and throwing it away is SAFETY-45's whole defect. So this
+    function invents no arithmetic; it reads the sign the guard already had.
+
+    ⚠️ AND THE QUANTITY IS INVARIANT IN THE BATTERY, WHICH IS WHY SIZING A TRADE
+    TO IT CANNOT OSCILLATE. Raise the charge by dW and the meter rises by dW, so
+    `excess` rises by exactly dW while `batt_w` falls by dW: `wanted` does not
+    move. It is a FEED-FORWARD number - a function of the house, the ceiling and
+    the seconds already banked - so consuming it adds no feedback path around the
+    plant. The fixed point is `charge = ceiling - load`, with the meter sitting
+    ON the ceiling and `wanted` parked at `load - ceiling`, a whole `ceiling -
+    load` clear of the engagement boundary rather than chattering across it.
+
+    ⚠️ AND A QUARTER BOUNDARY DOES NOT HAND IT BACK AT FULL POWER, WHICH IS THE
+    OTHER HALF OF SAFETY-45 AND IS NOT THE SAME CLAIM AS "IT DOES NOT CHANGE".
+    It DOES change - it is `(900 / remaining) * (ceiling - projected)`, so it is
+    largest in the last seconds of a block and collapses at the boundary. What
+    matters is WHAT IT COLLAPSES TO: at `elapsed = 0` the projection IS the held
+    level, so the answer is `ceiling - (load - pv)` - the house and the cap, and
+    nothing else. A trade refused at 14:59 therefore resumes at 15:00 at the rate
+    the new quarter can afford, not at `max_w`, and §10.1's answer survives the
+    boundary because the arithmetic does: no timer, no backoff constant, no state
+    carried between calls.
+
+    ⚠️ AND THE AMPLIFICATION IS BOUNDED IN ITS EFFECT, NOT MERELY LARGE. Hold a
+    charge of exactly this size for the rest of the block and the block's average
+    lands on `ceiling` EXACTLY, wherever in the block it started:
+
+        (acc + (held + headroom) * remaining) / 900
+            = projected + (900/remaining) * (ceiling - projected) * remaining/900
+            = ceiling
+
+    so 162 kW of headroom with 5 s left and 900 W of it with the whole quarter to
+    go are the same statement about the bill. `test_peakguard.py` part 13 sweeps
+    that identity across the block rather than arguing it here.
+
+    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
+    THE THREE ANSWERS
+
+    `None`  nothing measured it: the guard never ran (`meter_source: off`), or
+            it ran with no battery reading to size a floor from, or the block
+            had no seconds left to influence. ⚠️ None IS NOT UNLIMITED. A caller
+            that treats it as "charge away" is `arbitrage.guard_state()`'s
+            collapse of None into False, one layer down - a strategy creating
+            the billed quantity while nothing measures the quarter it lands in.
+    `0.0`   measured, and the answer is no charging: the guard is BLIND (its
+            claim already says so at `floor 0 W` and this agrees with it rather
+            than restating it), or it is holding and `wanted >= 0`.
+    `> 0`   the watts a charge may pull this cycle.
+
+    ⚠️ HOLDING IMPLIES ZERO, BY CONSTRUCTION AND NOT BY COINCIDENCE. Every state
+    that files a claim with `engaged=True` has `wanted > 0`, `wanted is None` or
+    `blind`, so this answers 0.0 or None there and can never hand a strategy
+    permission the guard's own `lo` is at that instant refusing.
+
+    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
+    ⚠️ WHY THIS IS A SIZING AND NOT A CLAIM, AND DO NOT "SIMPLIFY" IT INTO ONE
+
+    The obvious tidier answer is to delete `decide()`'s `wanted <= 0` gate and
+    let it file `lo = wanted` unconditionally - a NEGATIVE floor, meaning "you
+    may charge, but no harder than this". The arithmetic is identical, it is
+    continuous, and it would bind every claimant rather than only arbitrage. It
+    was measured, considered and REJECTED, and the reason is not style:
+
+      * `main.py`'s cheap-window maintenance charge files
+        `Claim.limit("maintenance", P_MAINT_SHAPE, hi=-floor)` - a NEGATIVE `hi`.
+        arbiter.py clause 2 applies EVERY limit at or above the winner's priority
+        and takes the most restrictive, with no notion of one limit out-ranking
+        another. A peak `lo = -300 W` against a shaping `hi = -1000 W` is
+        `lo > hi`: a CONTRADICTION, which resolves to 0 W - the battery PARKED,
+        in the one quarter of the month that sets the bill. That is the exact
+        failure `shaping_suspended()` exists to prevent, and the only way to
+        close it would be to key that suppression on "a claim exists", which on
+        every site this card is about suspends the maintenance charge-only
+        shaping PERMANENTLY.
+      * and it would change what `engaged` MEANS at five call sites outside this
+        module - `arbitrage.guard_state()`, `shaping_suspended()`, `claim()`,
+        main.py's edge-logged action line and main.py's status row - each of
+        which today reads it as "the guard is HOLDING".
+
+    `control.maintenance_charge_floor()` is a sizing and not a limit for the same
+    reason, which is why this is the shape that already fits.
+    DECISIONS/SAFETY-45-sizing-the-trade.md §2b carries the full argument.
+    """
+    if decision is None:
+        return None
+    if decision.blind:
+        return 0.0
+    if decision.wanted_w is None:
+        return None
+    return max(0.0, -float(decision.wanted_w))
+
+
 def shaping_suspended(decision, peak_forecast_w, cap_w) -> bool:
     """Must the maintenance charge-only shaping stand down this cycle?
 

goodwe_controller/app/price_forecast.py

@@ -55,17 +55,35 @@ So the flag is not passed through anywhere in this file:
     It is a post-condition, not a filter: it never fixes a flag, because a
     module that quietly corrects its own provenance is one whose provenance
     cannot be trusted.
+
+    ⚠️ IT GRADES THE POINTS THAT ARE EMITTED AND NOTHING ABOUT THE ONES THAT
+    ARE NOT (FCST-05). `_audit()` is a provenance check, NOT a completeness
+    check: fed FCST-04's own decimation defect - four published points in an
+    hour, only the last emitted - it ACCEPTS, and it accepts an empty output
+    too. Measured, and the FCST-03 audit it replaced was equally blind, so
+    this is a limit rather than a regression. What actually guards against a
+    decimated series is the point COUNT and the pass-through IDENTITY checks
+    in `test_price_forecast.py` (section on the quarter-hourly feed) and
+    `test_price_history.py`; see `_audit()`'s own docstring for why the
+    completeness rule is not expressible from its two arguments.
   * and test_price_forecast.py walks THIS FILE'S AST and fails if any
     `PricePoint(...)` in it passes anything but a literal for `provisional`, so
     the pass-through idiom cannot come back in a later edit and pass review by
     looking ordinary.
 
-⚠️ "PUBLISHED" DOES NOT MEAN "FIRM". `eneco_eddy` is an imbalance product whose
-current-quarter print is genuinely provisional and says so per point (§9.2,
-TARIFF-02). Such a point is published AND provisional, and the audit's rule for
-a published point is "the flag is whatever the feed said", never "False". A
-provenance check that forced published points to False would be a bug that
-looks like a guarantee.
+⚠️ "PUBLISHED" DOES NOT MEAN "FIRM". §9.3's canonical format carries
+`provisional` PER POINT, not per series, precisely because a real-time /
+imbalance product's current-interval print is settled after the fact and is
+genuinely provisional while it is published. Such a point is published AND
+provisional, and the audit's rule for a published point is "the flag is
+whatever the feed said", never "False". A provenance check that forced
+published points to False would be a bug that looks like a guarantee.
+
+⚠️ NO SHIPPED PLUGIN EMITS ONE TODAY (TARIFF-07 withdrew the only declarer of
+`PriceProduct.REALTIME`), and that is exactly why this paragraph stays. The
+rule is a property of the FORMAT, not of any supplier; weakening it to
+"published implies False" while nothing exercises it is how the first real
+imbalance feed would arrive mispriced and flagged firm.
 
 
 THE FILL, AND WHY IT KEYS ON THE WALL CLOCK
@@ -93,8 +111,9 @@ because an empty series is not constructible on purpose (price.py trap 3).
 
 ⚠️ A SUB-HOURLY FEED IS NOT DECIMATED TO ONE POINT AN HOUR, and the hourly walk
 below is about WHICH HOURS NEED FILLING - never about what a published hour is
-allowed to contain. `eneco_eddy` is the Belgian imbalance product and settles
-per QUARTER, `_validate_raw()` accepts any strictly-increasing spacing, and a
+allowed to contain. BELGIAN DAY-AHEAD ITSELF SETTLES PER QUARTER since the
+15-minute MTU took effect on 2025-10-01 - `generic_dayahead` reads 96 points a
+day, not 24 - `_validate_raw()` accepts any strictly-increasing spacing, and a
 published hour may therefore hold four points. So EVERY published point inside
 the window is passed through, in order, and a carried point is added only for a
 whole hour with NO published coverage at all.
@@ -160,7 +179,7 @@ class Provenance(Enum):
     flag" and "the others".
     """
     PUBLISHED = "published"    # the provider printed this hour. Flag: the
-                               # feed's own - an imbalance print may be
+                               # feed's own - a real-time print may be
                                # published AND provisional (§9.2).
     CARRIED = "carried"        # yesterday's same-wall-clock hour (§8.3).
                                # Flag: ALWAYS True, by construction.
@@ -225,14 +244,67 @@ def _audit(points, published) -> None:
       * CARRIED - the hour must not appear in `published` AT ALL, the flag must
         be exactly True, and that hour may hold no second point.
 
-    ⚠️ WHAT REPLACED "AT MOST ONE POINT PER HOUR", AND WHY IT IS STRICTER. This
-    audit began as a `seen` set: any repeated `_utc_hour` raised, because a
-    duplicated hour is how a DST day gets mispriced. A bare hour count cannot
-    express a quarter-hourly feed, where four distinct published points share
-    one hour legitimately - so the count was replaced by the two rules above,
-    which subsume it. A repeated CARRIED hour still raises; so does the same
-    published point emitted twice; and a carried point may no longer share an
-    hour with a published one, which the count never checked at all.
+    ⚠️ WHAT REPLACED "AT MOST ONE POINT PER HOUR", AND WHAT THAT DID AND DID
+    NOT CHANGE. This audit began as FCST-03's `seen` set: any repeated
+    `_utc_hour` raised, beside an identity rule `p is not src`. A bare hour
+    count cannot express a quarter-hourly feed, where four distinct published
+    points share one hour legitimately - so the count was replaced by the two
+    rules above, which subsume it.
+
+    ⚠️ AND IT IS NOT STRICTER. FCST-04's version of this paragraph claimed two
+    strengthenings and BOTH WERE FALSE; FCST-05 measured it. A differential
+    over the whole domain this audit can express - every published mask over 3
+    hours crossed with every output series of length 0-3 drawn from
+    {published, published-provisional, carried, carried-unflagged,
+    copy-of-published} - found ZERO divergence in EITHER direction:
+
+        OLD raised, NEW accepted (WEAKER):   0
+        OLD accepted, NEW raised (STRONGER): 0
+
+    The two specific claims, one at a time:
+
+      * "so does the same published point emitted twice" - the OLD `seen`
+        count already raised on that, because emitting one point twice is one
+        HOUR twice. Preserved by the identity/`emitted` rules, not added.
+      * "a carried point may no longer share an hour with a published one,
+        which the count never checked at all" - true of the COUNT, and the old
+        IDENTITY rule raised on it anyway: a carried point in a published hour
+        took the `else` branch and failed `p is not src`. The message was about
+        a copy rather than about a carry, which is the only thing that moved.
+
+    The one real behavioural change is the intended RELAXATION - several
+    distinct published points in one hour, which the old audit could not
+    express at all and refused. That relaxation is why this was rewritten, and
+    it stays. A right decision with a fabricated reason is still a defect here.
+
+    ⚠️ AND THE REAL LIMIT, WHICH IS NOT A REGRESSION AND IS NOT SMALL: THIS
+    AUDIT DOES NOT CHECK COMPLETENESS. It grades every point that IS emitted
+    and says nothing about the ones that are not. Fed the H1 decimation
+    directly - four published points in an hour, output emitting only the last
+    - it ACCEPTS; so does two of four, and so does an EMPTY output. So `_audit`
+    is NOT what stops H1 recurring. What stops it is the point COUNT and the
+    IDENTITY checks in `test_price_history.py` and `test_price_forecast.py`,
+    which compare the emitted series against the feed's own prints.
+
+    It is not made complete here, and the reason is structural rather than
+    effort: `published` is `_published_by_hour(read)` over the WHOLE read,
+    unwindowed, while `fill_from_yesterday()` emits only [since, until). A
+    published point outside the window is legitimately absent, so "every
+    published point appears" is not a true post-condition of these two
+    arguments - it would need the window passed in, which is a different
+    signature and a different check.
+
+    ⚠️ AND THAT IS MEASURED, NOT ASSUMED. FCST-05 built the rule - raise unless
+    every point of every `published[u]` is emitted, +162 B - and ran it. It
+    takes the 1 h, 12 h and 48 h HORIZON checks in test_price_forecast.py RED,
+    on the shipped fill and a healthy feed: at an off-the-hour instant the
+    feed's already-elapsed prints are outside [since, until) and are correctly
+    dropped, and the rule calls that a provenance failure. (The differential
+    beside those checks scores the same rule as 49 STRONGER cases, so it is a
+    real change of behaviour and not a no-op.) The rule as stated is therefore
+    not merely unimplemented, it is WRONG - and stating a false post-condition
+    is MUTATION.md habit 16's defect: an instrument that asserts a completeness
+    it does not have is worse than no instrument.
 
     ⚠️ RAISES, NEVER REPAIRS. A module that silently corrects its own
     provenance is one whose provenance means nothing; the only safe response to
@@ -350,9 +422,19 @@ def fill_from_yesterday(read: PriceRead, *, yesterday: PriceRead,
     _audit(out, published)
     carried = sum(1 for p in out if _utc_hour(p.start) not in published)
     if carried:
+        # ⚠️ THREE QUANTITIES, THREE NAMES (TARIFF-11). This line read
+        # "%d of %d hours ... ; %d published" with `carried` (a count of
+        # carried HOURS - the fill emits exactly one point per unpublished
+        # hour) over `len(out)` (a count of POINTS, four per hour wherever the
+        # feed printed) and `len(out) - carried` (POINTS again) under the same
+        # noun. On the Belgian quarter-hourly feed that reads "33 of 141
+        # hours" about a 48-hour horizon. The fill's unit is the HOUR and the
+        # feed's is the POINT; nothing derived from one answers for the other.
+        total_h = len({_utc_hour(p.start) for p in out})
         _LOG.info("§8.3: %d of %d hours carried forward from yesterday's "
-                  "profile and flagged provisional; %d published",
-                  carried, len(out), len(out) - carried)
+                  "profile and flagged provisional; the feed published %d "
+                  "points over the other %d hours",
+                  carried, total_h, len(out) - carried, total_h - carried)
 
     product = read.match(series=lambda r: r.product,
                          no_data=lambda _r: yesterday.product)

goodwe_controller/app/price_history.py

@@ -61,6 +61,38 @@ yesterday that works all day and is gone on the next restart, which is exactly
 the silently-forgetting cache this rule exists to refuse. A store that cannot
 persist now records nothing, and both of its answers say the same thing.
 
+⚠️ AND "CANNOT PERSIST" IS ONE QUESTION, ASKED ONCE, ABOUT THE OUTCOME -
+FCST-06. The paragraph above enforced that rule against `not self.ok`, which is
+one SYMPTOM of not persisting: the durable volume is missing. There is a second,
+and FCST-06 measured it. With `ok=True` and the directory present, `_save()` can
+still fail - a read-only remount (`[Errno 30] Read-only file system`), a full
+volume (`[Errno 28] No space left on device`) - and it logs, records
+`last_error` and returns. `_remember()` had already populated `self._days`, so
+`words` read `'2026-01-14 (24 points over 24 h); 2026-01-15 (24 points over
+24 h) [could not write (...)]'` while the file on disk held `{}`, and
+`yesterday()` answered 24 REAL POINTS for the rest of the process's life. Gone
+on the next restart, and nothing said it would be - the same silently-forgetting
+cache, reached by the condition the rule did not name.
+
+⚠️ SO IT IS NOT TWO RULES, AND IT IS DELIBERATELY NOT TWO TESTS. "Can this
+store persist?" CANNOT BE ANSWERED BEFORE THE ATTEMPT - a directory that existed
+and was writable a moment ago is not a write that completed - so it is answered
+AFTER it, once, by the only thing holding the evidence: `_save()` returns
+whether the file now holds what memory holds. A missing volume is one of its
+False cases and an `OSError` from the write is another, and `_remember()` KEEPS
+ONLY WHAT THAT ONE ANSWER SAYS WAS KEPT. There is no `not self.ok` test in
+`_remember()` any more, because there is nothing left for a second test to add -
+and a third symptom nobody has thought of is how this defect arrived both times.
+
+⚠️ AND WHAT IS KEPT IS THE LAST STATE THAT IS ON DISK, NOT AN EMPTY ONE. The
+MERGE is undone, not the store. A site whose volume fills at 14:00 goes on
+answering the yesterday it wrote at 13:30 - that record survives a restart, so
+answering it is not a promise the store cannot keep. What it stops doing is
+adding to it. The invariant the rule was always describing, stated once:
+`self._days` NEVER HOLDS A POINT THE FILE DOES NOT. (Not "mirrors the file" -
+`_usable_days()` drops records the file still holds. The only direction that can
+invent a yesterday is the one named.)
+
 
 THE FOUR RULES THIS FILE IS SHAPED BY
 =====================================
@@ -75,7 +107,8 @@ THE FOUR RULES THIS FILE IS SHAPED BY
 
    ⚠️ NO VALUE-LEVEL CHECK CAN CATCH THAT, and saying so is more useful than a
    guarantee that would not hold. A carried point and a published-provisional
-   point (`eneco_eddy`'s current quarter, §9.2) are the same three fields with
+   point (a real-time product's current interval, §9.2) are the same three
+   fields with
    the same flag; the difference is provenance, and provenance is not in the
    value. So the mechanism is ORDERING, not validation: `carry()` is the only
    public entry point, it remembers the argument and returns the fill, and the
@@ -148,6 +181,7 @@ and turning it on is a product decision, not a wiring one. See
 DECISIONS/FCST-04-the-day-that-is-carried.md.
 """
 
+import copy
 import json
 import logging
 import os
@@ -208,8 +242,65 @@ def _yesterday_of(instant: datetime) -> str:
     return (brussels(instant).date() - timedelta(days=1)).strftime("%Y-%m-%d")
 
 
-def _n_points(rec) -> int:
-    """How many points a day record holds. 0 for anything that is not one.
+def _point_of(row):
+    """One stored row -> a `PricePoint`, or `None` if the row is not one.
+
+    THE ONE VALIDATOR, AND THE ASYMMETRY IT CLOSES (FCST-05's MEDIUM). This
+    file used to hold TWO standards for what a stored point is. The READ path
+    (`_parse_points()`) was properly defensive - every field checked, a
+    malformed row dropped and reported. The WRITE path was
+    `{q["start"]: q for q in raw if isinstance(q, dict) and "start" in q}`
+    followed by `sorted(..., key=lambda q: q["start"])`, which trusts
+    `q["start"]` to be a hashable, sortable string it never checked. Measured,
+    with the malformed row under the day the feed is currently writing to:
+
+        start is an int   -> TypeError: '<' not supported between instances
+                             of 'str' and 'int'
+        start is a dict   -> TypeError: cannot use 'dict' as a dict key
+        start is null     -> TypeError: '<' not supported between 'str' and
+                             'NoneType'
+        start is a list   -> TypeError: cannot use 'list' as a dict key
+
+    ⚠️ AND THE BLAST RADIUS IS PERMANENT, WHICH IS WHY IT IS NOT MERELY UNTIDY.
+    `_remember()` is reached through `carry()` -> `resolve_tariff()` ->
+    `run_tariff_refresh`, which catches `Exception` - so the add-on stays UP
+    and EVERY refresh raises forever. The plan retires after
+    `TARIFF_MAX_AGE_S`, and arbitrage and the cheap window are off from then
+    on. There is no self-heal, because `_remember()` raises before it reaches
+    `_save()`. `_usable_days()` only required `rec["points"]` to be a LIST; the
+    elements were unchecked on the write path, and the existing fixture put its
+    malformed row under a day the feed was NOT writing to, so `_remember()`
+    never touched it.
+
+    So both paths call this, and neither of them has a standard of its own.
+    Returning `None` rather than raising is the contract: a caller decides
+    whether a bad row is dropped (both of them do) and how it is reported.
+    """
+    if not isinstance(row, dict):
+        return None
+    try:
+        start = datetime.fromisoformat(row["start"])
+        value = float(row["eur_per_kwh"])
+        flag = row["provisional"]
+    except (KeyError, TypeError, ValueError):
+        return None
+    if start.tzinfo is None or start.utcoffset() is None \
+            or not isinstance(flag, bool):
+        return None
+    return PricePoint(start=start, eur_per_kwh=value, provisional=flag)
+
+
+def _held(rec) -> tuple:
+    """`(points, whole hours they cover)` for a day record. `(0, 0)` otherwise.
+
+    ⚠️ POINTS AND HOURS ARE TWO NUMBERS, AND FCST-04's STATUS ROW PRINTED THE
+    FIRST UNDER THE SECOND'S NAME. The row was `f"{d} ({_n_points(rec)} h)"`,
+    which counts POINTS: on the quarter-hourly feed this add-on already
+    supports it read `'2026-01-13 (96 h)'` - 96 "h" for a 24-hour day. That is
+    the points/hours conflation H1 was raised for, on the row H1's own ticket
+    shipped. Both numbers are reported now, so an operator can see a day that
+    is 24 points over 24 h and a day that is 96 points over 24 h and tell them
+    apart, and neither number is wearing the other's unit.
 
     ⚠️ TOLERANT, AND IT IS THE SECOND LINE OF DEFENCE, NOT THE FIRST. `_load()`
     drops a malformed day record and says so, so this should never see one. It
@@ -220,11 +311,52 @@ def _n_points(rec) -> int:
     "oops"}}` gave `ok=True`, `last_error=None`, and an `AttributeError` out of
     `words`, `yesterday()` and `resolve_tariff()` alike, with no self-heal
     because `_remember()` raised before it could rewrite the file.
+
+    ⚠️ AND IT COUNTS ONLY ROWS THAT ARE POINTS. A row `_point_of()` refuses is
+    not held prices, and a row count that included it would report a store as
+    healthier than it is - which is the second half of FCST-05's MEDIUM: the
+    status row said `'2026-01-15 (1 h)'` about a record whose single row was
+    killing every tariff refresh. What is dropped is named in `last_error`, and
+    `words` prints that beside the counts.
     """
+    if not isinstance(rec, dict):
+        return (0, 0)
+    raw = rec.get("points")
+    if not isinstance(raw, (list, tuple)):
+        return (0, 0)
+    n, hours = 0, set()
+    for row in raw:
+        pt = _point_of(row)
+        if pt is None:
+            continue
+        n += 1
+        hours.add(pt.start.astimezone(timezone.utc)
+                  .replace(minute=0, second=0, microsecond=0))
+    return (n, len(hours))
+
+
+def _row_of(day: str, points: int, hours: int) -> str:
+    """One day's cell of the status row: what is held, in BOTH of its units.
+
+    ⚠️ THE UNIT IS SPELT OUT ON EACH NUMBER. FCST-04's cell was
+    `f"{day} ({points} h)"` - the point count wearing the hour's name, which on
+    a quarter-hourly feed reads `'2026-01-13 (96 h)'` for a 24-hour day. What
+    an operator needs from this row is whether tomorrow morning's fill has a
+    whole day to carry, and that is the HOUR figure; the point count says how
+    finely it is priced. Neither answers for the other.
+    """
+    return (f"{day} ({points} point{'' if points == 1 else 's'} "
+            f"over {hours} h)")
+
+
+def _bad_rows(rec) -> int:
+    """How many rows of a day record are not points. Total; never raises."""
     if not isinstance(rec, dict):
         return 0
-    pts = rec.get("points")
-    return len(pts) if isinstance(pts, (list, tuple)) else 0
+    raw = rec.get("points")
+    if not isinstance(raw, (list, tuple)):
+        return 0
+    return sum(1 for row in raw if _point_of(row) is None)
 
 
 class PriceHistory:
@@ -235,6 +367,14 @@ class PriceHistory:
     site's first day, and a different thing from a store that could not be
     opened. Both are visible: `ok`/`last_error` describe the file, and
     `yesterday()`'s reason describes the answer.
+
+    ⚠️ AND `ok` IS NOT "CAN PERSIST" (FCST-06). It says the directory was
+    there when the store opened, which a full volume and a read-only remount
+    both leave true. The one thing that answers "can this store persist" is
+    `_save()`'s return value, and `self._days` NEVER HOLDS A POINT THE FILE DOES
+    NOT, because `_remember()` undoes a merge that answer refused. That is what
+    makes `words` and `yesterday()` describe the same store in EVERY degraded
+    state rather than only in the ones somebody enumerated.
     """
 
     def __init__(self, path: str = "/data/price_history.json"):
@@ -269,11 +409,33 @@ class PriceHistory:
                       "one, and the fill has nothing to carry until the day "
                       "after that", self.path)
             return
-        except (json.JSONDecodeError, OSError) as err:
+        except (ValueError, OSError) as err:
             # A corrupt cache must not stop the controller, and must not be
             # silently re-created either: the record is discarded, the reason
             # is kept, and `yesterday()` reports it rather than answering
             # "no record", which would read as a normal first day.
+            #
+            # ⚠️ `ValueError`, NOT `json.JSONDecodeError`, AND THAT IS
+            # FCST-05's HIGH. Reading this file has two failure families: the
+            # BYTES (`OSError`) and the CONTENT - and the content family has at
+            # least two members, because `open(..., encoding="utf-8")` decodes
+            # before `json` ever sees a character. `UnicodeDecodeError` is
+            # `ValueError -> UnicodeError -> UnicodeDecodeError`; it is NOT a
+            # `json.JSONDecodeError` and it is NOT an `OSError`
+            # (`issubclass(UnicodeDecodeError, OSError)` is False). So ONE
+            # non-UTF-8 byte in /data/price_history.json escaped `_load()` ->
+            # `_open()` -> `PriceHistory.__init__`, which is unguarded at
+            # main.py's `Controller.__init__`, AND THE ADD-ON DID NOT START.
+            # Measured: `UnicodeDecodeError: 'utf-8' codec can't decode byte
+            # 0xff in position 39`. Valid-UTF-8-invalid-JSON, a UTF-8 BOM and a
+            # non-dict day record all degraded correctly - it was the one byte
+            # class left uncovered, which is the same class as the defect the
+            # `_usable_days()` rework was raised for.
+            #
+            # The tuple names the FAMILY rather than the two members known
+            # today, because "the file's content is not readable as JSON" is
+            # exactly what this handler says, and a third `ValueError` subclass
+            # nobody has thought of is how this defect arrived the first time.
             self.last_error = f"unreadable ({err})"
             _LOG.warning("price history at %s is %s - starting from empty. "
                          "§8.3 carry-forward has nothing to carry until the "
@@ -318,33 +480,71 @@ class PriceHistory:
 
         Dropped, not repaired: an unusable record has nothing in it to keep, and
         the next `_remember()` writes a fresh one under that date.
+
+        ⚠️ AND THE ROWS INSIDE A KEPT RECORD ARE COUNTED, NOT ONLY THE RECORD
+        (FCST-05). This checked that `rec["points"]` is a LIST and stopped
+        there, so a record holding one row with a `start` of `7` loaded as
+        healthy: `last_error=None`, and `words` said `'2026-01-15 (1 h)'` about
+        a store whose next `_remember()` would raise on that row and go on
+        raising forever. The rows are NOT dropped here - `_parse_points()` is
+        the read path's one filter and stays so - but they are COUNTED, so the
+        store stops reporting health it does not have from the moment it is
+        opened. `_remember()` drops them on the next refresh and `_save()`
+        rewrites the file, after which a restart clears the note.
         """
-        kept, dropped = {}, []
+        kept, dropped, malformed = {}, [], {}
         for key, rec in days.items():
             if not isinstance(key, str) or not isinstance(rec, dict) \
                     or not isinstance(rec.get("points"), list):
                 dropped.append(str(key))
                 continue
+            bad = _bad_rows(rec)
+            if bad:
+                malformed[key] = bad
             kept[key] = rec
+        notes = []
         if dropped:
+            notes.append(f"{len(dropped)} unusable day record(s) dropped "
+                         f"({', '.join(sorted(dropped))})")
+        if malformed:
+            notes.append(
+                f"{sum(malformed.values())} malformed point row(s) in "
+                + ", ".join(f"{d} ({n})" for d, n in sorted(malformed.items())))
+        if notes:
             # Recorded, not silent: `yesterday()` and `words` both report
             # `last_error`, and a cache that quietly discards half a file reads
             # to an operator exactly like a normal first day.
-            self.last_error = (f"{len(dropped)} unusable day record(s) dropped "
-                               f"({', '.join(sorted(dropped))})")
+            self.last_error = "; ".join(notes)
             _LOG.warning("price history at %s: %s - the controller starts "
                          "anyway and the horizon is as short as the feed makes "
                          "it", self.path, self.last_error)
         return kept
 
-    def _save(self) -> None:
+    def _save(self) -> bool:
+        """Write `self._days` out. True only if the file now holds it.
+
+        ⚠️ THE RETURN VALUE IS THE "CAN THIS STORE PERSIST?" PREDICATE, AND
+        IT IS THE ONLY ONE (FCST-06). Both ways of not persisting end here and
+        are the same answer: no durable volume returns False without touching
+        the disk, an `OSError` out of the write returns False after recording
+        why. `_remember()` acts on that one answer, so the second place that
+        used to test the first symptom on its own - and missed the second - has
+        nothing left to test. See the module docstring's fifth warning.
+
+        ⚠️ AND IT REPORTS, IT DOES NOT RAISE. §6 and this module's opening: a
+        broken cache must not be a broken controller. An add-on that will not
+        start because /data filled up is a worse defect than the one FCST-06
+        fixed, so a failed write is logged, kept in `last_error` - where `words`
+        and `yesterday()` both read it - and RETURNED, never thrown.
+
+        ⚠️ THE TEMP FILE IS REMOVED ON EVERY FAILING PATH. A write that dies
+        between `mkstemp` and `os.replace` used to leave its temp behind, and
+        the refresh task runs 48 times a day: a persistent write failure - a
+        full volume being the likeliest cause - leaked 48 inodes a day onto the
+        volume that was already the problem.
+        """
         if not self.ok:
-            return
-        # ⚠️ THE TEMP FILE IS REMOVED ON EVERY FAILING PATH. A write that dies
-        # between `mkstemp` and `os.replace` used to leave its temp behind, and
-        # the refresh task runs 48 times a day: a persistent write failure -
-        # a full volume being the likeliest cause - leaked 48 inodes a day onto
-        # the volume that was already the problem.
+            return False
         tmp = None
         try:
             fd, tmp = tempfile.mkstemp(dir=os.path.dirname(self.path))
@@ -357,12 +557,14 @@ class PriceHistory:
         except OSError as err:
             self.last_error = f"could not write ({err})"
             _LOG.error("could not persist price history: %s", err)
+            return False
         finally:
             if tmp is not None:
                 try:
                     os.unlink(tmp)
                 except OSError:             # nothing further to try, and a
                     pass                    # failed cleanup is not a fault
+        return True
 
     # -- the one public entry point -----------------------------------------
     def carry(self, read: PriceRead, *, since: datetime, until: datetime,
@@ -399,15 +601,6 @@ class PriceHistory:
         nothing outside this file names it, and `test_price_history.py` checks
         the tree for that rather than trusting the underscore.
         """
-        if not self.ok:
-            # ⚠️ A STORE THAT CANNOT PERSIST RECORDS NOTHING. See the module
-            # docstring's third warning: filling `self._days` here would give a
-            # site with no /data an in-memory yesterday that answers a series
-            # all day and is gone on the next restart - a cache that forgets
-            # without saying so, which is the one thing that rule refuses. The
-            # honest degraded state is `words` = "unavailable" and `yesterday()`
-            # = `no_data`, and those two must agree.
-            return
         points = read.match(series=lambda r: r.points, no_data=lambda _r: ())
         if not points:
             return
@@ -416,7 +609,27 @@ class PriceHistory:
         provider = read.match(series=lambda r: r.provider,
                               no_data=lambda _r: None)
 
+        # ⚠️ THE STATE THIS READ STARTED FROM, KEPT SO IT CAN BE PUT BACK
+        # (FCST-06). Everything below merges into `self._days` IN PLACE, and
+        # whether any of it may be KEPT is not knowable until `_save()` has
+        # tried - so the merge runs, and it is undone if the file did not take
+        # it. There is no `not self.ok` branch above any more: a store with no
+        # durable volume is one of the answers `_save()` gives, not a separate
+        # symptom with a test of its own. Module docstring, fifth warning.
+        #
+        # ⚠️ DEEP, NOT `dict(self._days)`. A one-level copy shares the day
+        # RECORDS, and the loop below rebinds keys on the ones it touches - so
+        # the "previous" state would hand back records the merge had already
+        # edited, and a store with a good yesterday on disk would go on
+        # answering the merge of it that never reached the file. It would also
+        # be right only for as long as nobody makes this loop mutate a `points`
+        # list or a row in place. A copy that is right by construction outlives
+        # that, and the store holds at most KEEP_DAYS + 2 records, 48 times a
+        # day.
+        before = copy.deepcopy(self._days)
+
         touched = set()
+        junked = {}
         for p in points:
             day = _bdate(p.start)
             rec = self._days.setdefault(
@@ -424,16 +637,71 @@ class PriceHistory:
             # Rule 4: MERGE by instant. A later read updates the hours it
             # carries and leaves the rest; a revised price for an hour already
             # held wins, because it is the newer statement about that hour.
+            #
+            # ⚠️ EVERY HELD ROW GOES THROUGH `_point_of()` (FCST-05's MEDIUM).
+            # This was `{q["start"]: q for q in raw if isinstance(q, dict) and
+            # "start" in q}` sorted by `q["start"]` - a key and a sort key that
+            # trusted a value read off disk to be a hashable, sortable string.
+            # An `int`, `null`, a `dict` or a `list` there raised `TypeError`
+            # out of `carry()` on the day the feed was writing to, and
+            # `run_tariff_refresh` caught it, so the add-on stayed up while
+            # EVERY refresh failed for good. A row that is not a point is now
+            # dropped and reported here, exactly as the read path drops it, and
+            # `_save()` below writes the record back clean - which is the
+            # self-heal the raising version could never reach.
+            #
+            # ⚠️ AND THE MERGE KEY IS THE VALIDATED INSTANT, NOT ITS SPELLING.
+            # Aware datetimes hash and compare by instant, so this is rule 4 as
+            # rule 4 is written. The old string key merged by SPELLING, and the
+            # old lexicographic sort put the second 02:00 of the 25-hour
+            # October day (`+01:00`) BEFORE the first (`+02:00`). Only the
+            # stored order was affected - `_parse_points()` re-sorts by instant
+            # on the way out - but the store now holds what it says it holds.
             raw = rec.get("points")
-            held = {q["start"]: q for q in (raw if isinstance(raw, list) else ())
-                    if isinstance(q, dict) and "start" in q}
-            held[p.start.isoformat()] = p.canonical()
-            rec["points"] = sorted(held.values(), key=lambda q: q["start"])
+            held = {}
+            for q in (raw if isinstance(raw, list) else ()):
+                kept = _point_of(q)
+                if kept is None:
+                    junked[day] = junked.get(day, 0) + 1
+                    continue
+                held[kept.start] = q
+            held[p.start] = p.canonical()
+            order = sorted(held, key=lambda t: t.astimezone(timezone.utc))
+            rec["points"] = [held[t] for t in order]
             rec["product"], rec["provider"] = product, provider
             touched.add(day)
 
+        if junked:
+            # Said, not swallowed. `words` prints `last_error`, so a store that
+            # has just discarded rows off disk stops reporting plain health -
+            # and after `_save()` below the file is clean, so a restart clears
+            # this. `_save()` overwrites it if the write itself fails, which is
+            # the more urgent fact of the two - and on that path the drop is
+            # undone with the rest of the merge, so those rows are still in the
+            # file and the next write that completes drops them again.
+            self.last_error = (
+                f"{sum(junked.values())} malformed point row(s) dropped from "
+                + ", ".join(f"{d} ({n})" for d, n in sorted(junked.items())))
+            _LOG.warning("price history at %s: %s - the record is rewritten "
+                         "without them and the refresh continues",
+                         self.path, self.last_error)
         self._prune(stamp)
-        self._save()
+        if not self._save():
+            # ⚠️ A STORE THAT CANNOT PERSIST RECORDS NOTHING - the rule, asked
+            # ONCE as a question about the outcome instead of tested twice
+            # against two symptoms of it. Keeping the merge here is exactly the
+            # cache the module docstring refuses: `yesterday()` would answer a
+            # series the file does not contain, all day, until a restart
+            # dropped it without a word - and `words` and `yesterday()` would
+            # be describing two different stores. The reason is already in
+            # `last_error` (from `_save()`, or from `_open()` when there is no
+            # volume at all), so both answers now describe what is on disk.
+            #
+            # It does NOT raise, and §6 is why: a broken cache must not be a
+            # broken controller. `carry()` still returns the fill, the horizon
+            # is as short as the feed makes it, and the add-on regulates.
+            self._days = before
+            return
         _LOG.debug("price history: %d point(s) filed under %s; %d day(s) held",
                    len(points), ", ".join(sorted(touched)), len(self._days))
 
@@ -523,15 +791,21 @@ class PriceHistory:
         an exception here is an add-on that does not start. It went out that
         way: a day record that was a string instead of a dict raised
         `AttributeError` from the `len(...)` below. `_load()` now drops such a
-        record and `_n_points()` is total, so this has two independent reasons
-        not to fail on a broken file.
+        record and `_held()` is total, so this has two independent reasons not
+        to fail on a broken file.
+
+        ⚠️ AND IT COUNTED POINTS AND CALLED THEM HOURS (FCST-05's LOW). The row
+        was `f"{d} ({_n_points(rec)} h)"`; on the quarter-hourly feed this
+        add-on already supports that reads `'2026-01-13 (96 h)'` for a 24-hour
+        day. Both numbers are printed now - see `_held()` - because they are
+        two different facts and only one of them was ever being shown.
         """
         if not self.ok:
             return f"unavailable - {self.last_error}"
         if not self._days:
             why = f" - {self.last_error}" if self.last_error else ""
             return f"empty{why} - nothing to carry forward yet"
-        held = "; ".join(f"{d} ({_n_points(self._days[d])} h)"
+        held = "; ".join(_row_of(d, *_held(self._days[d]))
                          for d in sorted(self._days, key=str))
         # A file that PARTLY loaded says so, or the dropped days read as days
         # that were simply never written.
@@ -550,21 +824,14 @@ def _parse_points(raw) -> tuple:
         return (), "the `points` field is not a list"
     out, dropped = [], 0
     for row in raw:
-        if not isinstance(row, dict):
+        # ⚠️ `_point_of()` IS THE ONE VALIDATOR, and this loop used to BE it.
+        # The write path had its own, weaker standard; see `_point_of()` for
+        # what that cost. One standard, two callers, no asymmetry to re-open.
+        pt = _point_of(row)
+        if pt is None:
             dropped += 1
             continue
-        try:
-            start = datetime.fromisoformat(row["start"])
-            value = float(row["eur_per_kwh"])
-            flag = row["provisional"]
-        except (KeyError, TypeError, ValueError):
-            dropped += 1
-            continue
-        if start.tzinfo is None or start.utcoffset() is None \
-                or not isinstance(flag, bool):
-            dropped += 1
-            continue
-        out.append(PricePoint(start=start, eur_per_kwh=value, provisional=flag))
+        out.append(pt)
     out.sort(key=lambda p: p.start.astimezone(timezone.utc))
     return tuple(out), (f"{dropped} malformed point(s)" if dropped else "")
 

goodwe_controller/app/pv.py

@@ -0,0 +1,259 @@
+"""TEL-11/TEL-12 - the site's PV production, read from Home Assistant entities.
+
+WHY THIS IS AN ENTITY AND NOT A REGISTER. This add-on's RS485 bus carries the
+BATTERY inverter it drives. A household's PV inverter is, on nearly every site,
+a different box from a different vendor that reports into Home Assistant
+through its own integration - so the only place a product can read production
+for an arbitrary install is an HA entity. `pv_entities` therefore takes whatever
+`sensor.*` the site's own PV integration provides.
+
+⚠️ AND THERE IS USUALLY MORE THAN ONE OF THEM, WHICH IS TEL-12. TEL-11 shipped
+`pv_entity` as a single string and the owner of the reference site reported
+within minutes of 0.11.0 going live that they have SEVERAL PV inverters and
+could configure one. That is not a property of one house: a multi-string or
+multi-orientation roof routinely carries two or three inverters, each
+publishing its own power sensor. `entities()` below is the roster and `total()`
+is the site figure over it.
+
+⚠️ AND A PARTIAL TOTAL IS WORSE THAN NO TOTAL, WHICH IS THE WHOLE OF TEL-12.
+Three inverters configured, one `unavailable`, and the sum of the other two is A
+SMALLER NUMBER INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM A REAL ONE. Fed into OPT-10's attribution
+that reads as "there was less PV than there was" - which is the "no irradiance"
+conclusion the card exists to TEST rather than to manufacture. So `total()`
+answers `None` the moment ANY configured entity is absent. See the note on
+`total()` for the alternative that was weighed and why it lost.
+
+WHY THE CHANNEL EXISTS AT ALL. OPT-10 measured that 20.5 kWh of surplus left the
+site in 16 days while the pack had room, 12.6 kWh of it with the battery not
+charging at all - and could not say WHY, because PV production is recorded
+NOWHERE. Three causes need three different fixes (no irradiance: nothing to fix;
+a charge-power limit; the optimiser declining to charge - the only software
+defect), and guessing between them is how an optimiser gets tuned to solve a
+cloud problem. This module is the missing measurement and NOTHING ELSE.
+
+⚠️ NOTHING HERE MAY EVER REACH A CONTROL DECISION, AND THAT IS THE CARD'S FIRST
+CONSTRAINT RATHER THAN A STYLE NOTE. The add-on regulates a real battery; adding
+production as a term of the control law would be an unrequested behaviour change
+AND it would destroy the measurement, because the loop would then be reacting to
+the quantity being measured. `tools/tel11_pv_trace.py` is what says the path is
+untouched: it grades a control document that contains none of this material on
+both trees and with `pv_entity` set and unset.
+
+⚠️ ABSENCE IS NEVER ZERO, AND THAT IS THE SECOND CONSTRAINT. Every refusal below
+returns `None` with a REASON, never `0.0`. A PV channel that reported 0 W for a
+dead sensor would manufacture exactly the "there was no surplus to store"
+conclusion the card exists to TEST - and it would do it silently, in a week of
+recorder history nobody would re-derive. `app/hass.py`'s own note on `state()`
+is the same rule one layer down. ⚠️ TEL-12 EXTENDS THAT RULE RATHER THAN
+WEAKENING IT: at a roster of three, "one of them is absent" is an absence of the
+SITE figure, and it publishes as an absence. A partial sum is a second way of
+reporting 0-where-there-was-production, one layer up, and it is refused for the
+same reason.
+
+THE SIGN CONVENTION: POSITIVE IS PRODUCTION. Derived from the two conventions
+this add-on already ships rather than assumed:
+
+    `meter_entity`   positive = IMPORTING from the grid   (DOCS.md, Sources)
+    `batt_entity`    positive = DISCHARGING the pack      (DOCS.md, Sources)
+
+Both are "positive = power arriving at the house's AC bus", and production
+arrives there too. There is deliberately NO `pv_invert` to go with
+`meter_invert` and `batt_invert`: those two quantities are BIPOLAR and are READ
+BY THE CONTROL PATH - a reversed `batt_entity` feeds SAFETY-30's per-unit sign
+check and SAFETY-31's circulating-power sensor with a plausible number the site
+then acts on - whereas production is unipolar and is read by nothing. A reversed
+PV sensor announces itself as -4 kW at noon in the very history this card
+creates, and flipping it here would only hide it. See
+`DECISIONS/TEL-11-pv-production.md` §2.
+"""
+
+from .hass import BAD_STATES
+
+# Home Assistant's OWN power units, each as the number of watts one of it is.
+# ⚠️ READ OUT OF HA, NOT LISTED FROM MEMORY: `UnitOfPower` in
+# `homeassistant/const.py` (github.com/home-assistant/core, `dev`, retrieved
+# 2026-09-24) declares mW, W, kW, MW, GW, TW and BTU/h. Every factor here is an
+# exact power of ten, so none of them is a number anybody chose.
+#
+# ⚠️ BTU/h IS IN HA's ENUM AND DELIBERATELY NOT HERE. Its factor (0.293071…)
+# is a measured conversion rather than a decimal shift, no PV integration
+# publishes in it, and a wrong constant in the one channel that exists to
+# attribute a 20.5 kWh shortfall is worse than a refusal an operator can read.
+# It lands in the "not a power unit" refusal below, BY NAME.
+WATTS_PER = {
+    "mW": 0.001,
+    "W": 1.0,
+    "kW": 1000.0,
+    "MW": 1000000.0,
+    "GW": 1000000000.0,
+    "TW": 1000000000000.0,
+}
+
+# What `watts()` answers when there is nothing to report. ⚠️ THE REASON IS PART
+# OF THE RETURN VALUE, not a log line: it is what the status page prints, and an
+# absence whose cause is invisible sends an operator to look at the wrong box.
+UNIT_KEY = "unit_of_measurement"
+
+
+def watts(state: dict | None) -> tuple:
+    """`(watts, why)` from a Home Assistant state object.
+
+    `watts` is `None` whenever there is no reading - and `why` then says which
+    of the five refusals it was, in words an operator can act on. On a good read
+    `why` is the unit the value was read in, because "1234 W" and "1234, unit
+    unknown" are different claims and the page has to be able to make the first.
+
+    ⚠️ THE UNIT IS READ OFF THE ENTITY AND NOT ASSUMED, AND THERE IS NO
+    MAGNITUDE HEURISTIC. `read_inputs()` guesses kW-or-W for
+    `peak_forecast_entity` with `abs(raw) < 50`, which is safe there because
+    nobody's quarter-hour demand forecast is 50 W. It is NOT safe here: 30 W of
+    real production at dusk is an ordinary reading, and that heuristic would
+    publish it as 30 kW - a fabricated number, in the channel whose entire
+    purpose is to be believed a week later. A sensor whose unit this cannot read
+    is REFUSED rather than guessed at.
+    """
+    if state is None:
+        # `hass.state()` answers None for a non-existent entity, a 404 and a
+        # transport failure alike. All three are "no reading", and HA does not
+        # consider a non-existent entity an error - see `hass.state()`.
+        return None, "no state (entity missing, or the read failed)"
+    raw = str(state.get("state", "")).strip()
+    if raw.lower() in BAD_STATES:
+        # ⚠️ THE SAME LIST `hass.number()` REFUSES ON, IMPORTED RATHER THAN
+        # RESPELLED. A second copy of it is how one path starts treating
+        # `unavailable` as a number the other one rejects.
+        return None, f"entity is {raw or 'empty'}"
+    try:
+        value = float(raw)
+    except ValueError:
+        return None, f"state {raw!r} is not numeric"
+    unit = str((state.get("attributes") or {}).get(UNIT_KEY) or "").strip()
+    if not unit:
+        return None, ("no unit_of_measurement on the entity - it cannot be "
+                      "read in watts")
+    if unit not in WATTS_PER:
+        return None, (f"unit {unit!r} is not one of "
+                      f"{', '.join(WATTS_PER)} - it cannot be read in watts")
+    return value * WATTS_PER[unit], unit
+
+
+# --- TEL-12: the ROSTER, and the SITE figure over it --------------------------
+
+def entities(opts: dict) -> tuple:
+    """Every PV entity this configuration names, in configured order. TEL-12.
+
+    ⚠️ ONE ANSWER TO "WHICH ENTITIES ARE THE PV CHANNEL", and it is the answer
+    BOTH sides read. `Controller.pv_roster` is this call and
+    `mqtt.optional_keys()` is `bool()` of this call, so the thing that decides
+    whether the row is ANNOUNCED, the thing that decides whether it is READ and
+    the thing that decides HOW MANY entities are summed cannot disagree. TEL-11
+    already had that discipline for one entity and spelled the predicate TWICE
+    - `str(opts.get("pv_entity") or "").strip()` in `main.py` and again in
+    `mqtt.py`. Two spellings of one predicate is how an entity gets announced
+    that nothing feeds; a roster makes it how a SUM gets taken over a different
+    list from the one that was announced. It is one function now.
+
+    ⚠️ `pv_entities` REPLACES `pv_entity` RATHER THAN EXTENDING IT, and that is
+    CFG-04's shipped precedent (`inverters:` replaces the six flat keys) applied
+    to the only upgrade path that matters. The install this card exists for HAS
+    `pv_entity` set, to inverter A. Opening the Configuration tab, the natural
+    action is to put ALL the inverters in the new repeatable field - and under a
+    UNION rule that double-counts A unless the operator also remembers to clear
+    the old key. A doubled total is the same defect as a partial one in the
+    other direction, in the one channel that exists to be believed a week later.
+    Under REPLACE the effective roster is exactly what one key says, and no
+    arithmetic depends on a de-duplication rule the operator has to know about.
+    ⚠️ `Controller.checks()` says WHICH key is in use whenever both are set, so
+    the replacement is stated on the page rather than being silent.
+
+    ⚠️ AND IT DE-DUPLICATES WITHIN THE LIST, ORDER PRESERVED. A site cannot have
+    two sensors with one entity_id, so a repeated id in the list is never a
+    second inverter - it is a typo that would DOUBLE that inverter's production
+    in the total. `dict.fromkeys` is the order-preserving spelling.
+    """
+    listed = [e for e in (str(x or "").strip()
+                          for x in (opts.get("pv_entities") or [])) if e]
+    if listed:
+        return tuple(dict.fromkeys(listed))
+    one = str(opts.get("pv_entity") or "").strip()
+    return (one,) if one else ()
+
+
+def entity_is_ignored(opts: dict) -> bool:
+    """Is a set `pv_entity` being REPLACED by a set `pv_entities`? TEL-12.
+
+    ⚠️ HERE RATHER THAN IN `Controller.checks()`, for the reason `entities()`
+    exists: the rule and the sentence that reports the rule must not be two
+    readings of the options. This is the negative half of `entities()`' first
+    branch and it is spelled once, beside it, where an edit to one is in front
+    of whoever is editing the other.
+    """
+    return bool(str(opts.get("pv_entity") or "").strip()
+                and [x for x in (opts.get("pv_entities") or [])
+                     if str(x or "").strip()])
+
+
+def total(readings) -> tuple:
+    """`(watts, why, parts)` - the SITE's production, or an ABSENCE. TEL-12.
+
+    `readings` is `[(entity_id, state), ...]` in `entities()` order, one entry
+    per configured entity, each `state` shaped as `hass.state()` returns.
+
+    `parts` is `[(entity_id, watts, why), ...]` - EVERY entity's own answer from
+    `watts()`, kept because the operator surfaces have to be able to name which
+    sensor is missing. `watts` is the sum when every entity answered, and `None`
+    otherwise; `why` always says which of those it was, in words a status page
+    can print.
+
+    ⚠️ ONE OR MORE ABSENT -> THE TOTAL IS ABSENT. NOT THE PARTIAL SUM. This is
+    the decision the card turns on and it was taken deliberately against the
+    alternative, which was to publish the partial sum ALONGSIDE a count of how
+    many entities contributed. Both are defensible; this one wins on the ONE
+    question that matters, which is who reads the number and when:
+
+      * the MQTT row is read back COLD, a week later, by OPT-10's attribution
+        and by whatever plots `sensor.goodwe_pv_power` over that week. A partial
+        sum there is a smaller number indistinguishable from a real one, and the
+        count that would have qualified it lives in a SECOND entity with its own
+        history - so believing the total requires joining two recorder series by
+        timestamp to find out which samples to distrust. Nobody re-derives that,
+        which is the same "nobody will re-derive it" TEL-11's note names. And it
+        is worse than a gap in exactly the direction that matters: a gap makes
+        the attribution say "I do not know", a partial sum makes it say "there
+        was less sun than there was".
+      * the STATUS PAGE is read LIVE, by a human, who wants the diagnostic. So
+        the partial information is not thrown away - `Controller.checks()` names
+        every entity that DID report, with its watts, and every one that did
+        not, with its reason, in a row that states plainly that there is no site
+        total. Different reader, different instant, different rule.
+
+    A count published beside the total would also carry no information in the
+    state this function actually admits: the total is published ONLY when every
+    entity contributed, so the count would be the constant `len(parts)`.
+
+    ⚠️ AND `0 W` IS STILL A READING AT EVERY ROSTER SIZE - the test is
+    `watts is None`, never falsiness. An inverter honestly reporting 0 W at dusk
+    beside two that are producing must give the SUM of the three, not blank the
+    site: shading, a tripped string and nightfall are all real 0s, and a roster
+    that went to `unknown` whenever one member read zero would report an absence
+    on every clear evening and defeat the channel from the other end.
+    """
+    parts = [(ent, *watts(st)) for ent, st in readings]
+    if not parts:
+        # No roster. `Controller` does not call this in that state - the gate is
+        # `pv_roster` - but a reader of `parts` should never have to wonder.
+        return None, "not configured", parts
+    if len(parts) == 1:
+        # ⚠️ AT ONE ENTITY THIS IS `watts()` AND NOTHING ELSE: the same value
+        # and the SAME `why` string, passed through rather than re-composed, so
+        # 0.11.0's single-entity surfaces are byte-identical rather than
+        # similar. `tools/tel11_pv_trace.py` grades that identity across trees.
+        return parts[0][1], parts[0][2], parts
+    missing = [(ent, why) for ent, w, why in parts if w is None]
+    if missing:
+        return None, (
+            f"only {len(parts) - len(missing)} of {len(parts)} entities are "
+            f"reporting and a partial sum would understate production: "
+            + "; ".join(f"{ent} - {why}" for ent, why in missing)), parts
+    return (sum(w for _e, w, _y in parts),
+            f"{len(parts)} entities", parts)

goodwe_controller/app/shadow.py

@@ -0,0 +1,518 @@
+"""SAFETY-10 - shadow mode: the whole decision path, and no command.
+
+WHAT DEFECT THIS PREVENTS
+=========================
+Not one defect - the CLASS of them. Every optimiser fault this repository has
+found was invisible from outside while it was happening, and each one was paid
+for at the meter before anybody could see it:
+
+  * SAFETY-45  arbitrage against a binding `peak_cap_w` ran 28 charge onsets an
+               hour, the grid swinging -455 .. +3200 W, and put a billed
+               quarter 59 W over the cap;
+  * TARIFF-14  the price lookup answered for the wrong quarter-hour 45 minutes
+               in every 60, and traded on it;
+  * SAFETY-46  the SoC ceiling churns 598 Wh to gain 310 Wh, no hysteresis.
+
+There was no way to WATCH what the optimiser would do without letting it do it.
+A commissioning engineer could arm arbitrage and find out, or not arm it and
+learn nothing. Shadow mode is the third option: strategies, arbiter, clamps and
+guards all run, the decision is recorded with its reason, and NOTHING THE
+CONTROLLER DECIDES REACHES THE INVERTER.
+
+⚠️ AND OF THOSE THREE, A SHADOW RUN CAN SHOW YOU EXACTLY ONE - SEE THE NEXT
+   SECTION. This header used to name SAFETY-45's limit cycle as the example
+   of what shadow mode surfaces. That was false, and SAFETY-47 measured it.
+
+⚠️ WHAT A SHADOW RUN CAN AND CANNOT SHOW  (SAFETY-47)
+=====================================================
+SHADOW MODE CANNOT SURFACE A CLOSED-LOOP DEFECT. Not badly, not partially -
+NOT AT ALL, and by the same construction that makes it safe. The actuator is
+held at WIRE_W and the carried command is re-seeded to WIRE_W, so every
+MEASURED input - the meter, the quarter accumulator behind it, the battery
+power, the state of charge - describes a plant that DID NOT RESPOND. A
+closed-loop defect is by definition one whose stimulus is the plant's response
+to the controller. No response, no stimulus, no defect to see.
+
+That is not a gap to be closed later. Feeding the guards a simulated plant
+instead is what SAFETY-10 §4 refuses for the sign watchdogs, for a reason that
+applies to all of this: a controller reacting to a plant that does not exist
+drifts further from reality every tick, and three cycles in its numbers
+describe nothing. THE CLOSED-LOOP ANSWER COMES FROM A CLOSED-LOOP RIG
+(TEST-23 stage 3) OR FROM A LIVE RUN. There is no third place.
+
+So, of the three defects above, measured on that rig at `peak_cap_w` 1500 /
+house 1200 / `max_w` 2000, one hour at a 5 s cycle:
+
+  * SAFETY-45's limit cycle    NOT VISIBLE. Live: 28 charge onsets, the grid
+                               swinging -455.5 .. +3200.0 W, the guard engaged
+                               on 410 of 720 cycles. Shadow, same hour, same
+                               code: 1 onset, the grid flat at the 1200 W
+                               house, the guard engaged on 0 of 720. Every
+                               term of `wanted = batt_w + excess` is measured.
+  * SAFETY-46's SoC churn      NOT VISIBLE. The SoC moves 0.000000000 pp in a
+                               shadow run, because it is the pack's integral of
+                               what the pack was commanded and the pack was
+                               commanded 0 W. No SoC limit can be REACHED in a
+                               shadow run; the ones already crossed when it
+                               started are reported, and that is all.
+  * TARIFF-14's wrong quarter  VISIBLE, and it is the one. The price lookup's
+                               inputs are the CLOCK and the PRICE SERIES, and
+                               neither is a function of what the battery did.
+                               Measured: which hour the strategy picked, its
+                               price and the spread it cleared are identical
+                               live and shadow on 720 of 720 charging cycles,
+                               AT A BINDING CAP.
+
+⚠️ THE EXEMPTION THAT USED TO BE HERE WAS TRUE UNTIL SAFETY-45 MERGED. This
+module, DOCS.md and DECISIONS/SAFETY-10-shadow-mode.md all said "the strategies
+are unaffected - they ask for a fixed power from inputs that do not depend on
+what the battery did". SAFETY-45 made the buy leg `min(asked, headroom)` with
+
+    headroom = (900 / remaining) x (ceiling - projected)
+
+and `projected` reads the OPEN QUARTER'S ACCUMULATOR - the meter - which is a
+function of what the battery did earlier in that same quarter. The strategy
+became closed-loop the day that landed. What survives of the exemption, and
+only this:
+
+    WHICH hour a strategy picks, and WHY, are unaffected.
+    HOW HARD it trades is not.
+
+⚠️ AND THE SIZE A SHADOW RUN RECORDS IS THE RIGHT ANSWER TO A QUESTION NOBODY
+   ASKED. `900/remaining` is correct arithmetic for a meter that is genuinely
+under the ceiling - and in shadow the meter genuinely IS under it, because the
+battery is not charging. So the number is not a bug; it is an answer computed
+for a plant that did not exist. Measured on the same rig, shipped code:
+
+    cap / house      live commanded      shadow recorded      over
+    1500 / 1200         -302.4 W            -2000.0 W         6.61x
+    3500 / 3000         -502.6 W            -2000.0 W         3.98x
+    3500 / 2000        -1502.6 W            -2000.0 W         1.33x
+    3500 / 1800        -1702.6 W            -2000.0 W         1.17x
+   15000 /  350        -2000.0 W            -2000.0 W         1.00x
+
+The last row is the fixture SAFETY-10's own evidence was taken on, which is why
+nothing reported this. `words()` carries the caveat rather than a re-computed
+number, and `DECISIONS/SAFETY-47-what-a-shadow-run-can-show.md` §3 records the
+three alternatives that were rejected and why.
+
+⚠️ "REACHES NOTHING" IS NOT "WRITES NOTHING", AND THE DIFFERENCE IS THE WHOLE
+   SAFETY ARGUMENT
+=======================================================================
+The inverter holds its last command FOREVER - it has no meter timeout
+(HANDOVER.md §6), and firmware/goodwe-master.yaml's header records what that
+cost when a controller stopped refreshing: Illusmart went silent mid-command
+and the inverter held +5000 W for 113 s. main.py's own header carries the same
+measurement. So a shadow mode that
+simply stopped writing would leave whatever was standing when it was switched
+on standing for as long as it was left on. That is the exact failure this
+repository keeps finding - LOOKS HEALTHY BUT IS INERT - with the status page
+calmly reporting that nothing is being commanded.
+
+So shadow mode does write, and it writes ONE number:
+
+    the actuator is held at WIRE_W (0.0 W), refreshed on the ordinary
+    heartbeat, by the ordinary single writer.
+
+That is a DEFINED, SAFE actuator state, it is the same state the operator's
+stop button reaches, and it honours the contract firmware/goodwe-master.yaml
+§"CONTRACT CHANGE" imposes on us - HA must rewrite the setpoint every ~10 s or
+the ESP32's 30 s stale-input watchdog cannot tell "steady" from "dead". Going
+silent would put that board into a tripped-watchdog state for the whole shadow
+run, which is an ALARM being used as a MODE: the operator who learns that
+`wd_tripped` is normal during shadow runs is the operator who ignores it when
+the add-on has actually died.
+
+⚠️ AND IT IS NOT A SECOND WRITE PATH. SAFETY-28's rule is one actuator, one
+writer. Shadow mode files no claim, owns no transport and calls nothing in
+hass.py. It is a SUBSTITUTION inside `Controller._write_unit()` - the single
+choke point every write in this add-on already goes through - in exactly the
+form the three substitutions above it take (non-finite -> 0 W, unauthorised ->
+0 W, clamped -> the rating). It is the LAST of them, so SAFETY-28's
+authorisation gate and SAFETY-03's clamp still grade the number the decision
+path actually produced, and a shadow run therefore records that the clamp WOULD
+have engaged.
+
+THE DEFAULT, AND WHY IT IS NOT A PLAIN `true`  (§ the ticket's own warning)
+==========================================================================
+The card is titled "default-on". Taken literally - `shadow_mode: true` in
+`config.yaml`'s `options:` block - it is the worst change in this repository's
+history. Home Assistant's Supervisor composes an add-on's effective options as
+`{**config.yaml defaults, **the stored user options}`, so a NEW key with a new
+default reaches EVERY install on the next update, including the one regulating
+a real battery in the author's house today. Literal default-on silently stops
+an existing install from controlling, and the only symptom is a battery that
+has stopped doing anything.
+
+There is no mechanism in the add-on options system that lets one key default
+differently for a new install and an existing one: `options:` IS the default,
+and there is exactly one of it. So "default-on for new" has to be expressed as
+a value the add-on RESOLVES, not as a constant the Supervisor merges.
+
+Hence three values rather than two, defaulting to `auto`:
+
+    off    never shadow. The controller commands the battery.
+    on     always shadow, whatever the start/stop button says.
+    auto   shadow WHILE CONTROL IS STOPPED; live once it is started.
+
+`auto` is default-on for a new install and a no-op for an existing one, and it
+is that without any persisted marker, any migration, and any guess:
+
+  * a FRESH install ships `auto_start: false` and has no stored `auto` key, so
+    it comes up stopped -> shadow. It observes a day of decisions before it is
+    ever allowed to command anything. That is the card's intent, delivered.
+  * an install that is CONTROLLING - `auto_start: true`, or the operator has
+    pressed *Start / stop control* and the store carries `auto: true` - is
+    started, so `auto` resolves to LIVE and its behaviour does not change by
+    one watt.
+  * an install that is STOPPED keeps its actuator at 0 W exactly as before -
+    the same number, from the same writer, on the same heartbeat - and gains
+    the recording. The only thing that changes for it is what the status page
+    and the action log SAY.
+
+⚠️ AND `auto` MEANS THE START BUTTON LEAVES SHADOW MODE. That is deliberate:
+under `auto` the button reads "Start / stop control" and pressing Start is the
+operator saying "control the battery". An operator who wants the decisions
+recorded WHILE the loop runs sets `shadow_mode: on` explicitly - that is the
+configuration this card exists to make possible, and it is the one that cannot
+be reached by accident.
+
+⚠️ AN UNRECOGNISED VALUE RESOLVES TO SHADOW, NOT TO LIVE. `validate.py` refuses
+it at startup so this is not meant to be reachable, but the fail-safe direction
+for "the operator's intent is unreadable" is the one that does not move energy.
+
+THE FAILSAFES, ONE BY ONE (the card asks for each to be decided and recorded)
+============================================================================
+| failsafe                       | in shadow mode                            |
+|--------------------------------|-------------------------------------------|
+| SAFETY-02/30 sign watchdogs    | INERT, and by construction rather than by |
+| (per-unit and site)            | a special case. They grade                |
+|                                | `Inverter.standing_w()` - what this       |
+|                                | controller has standing on the wire - and |
+|                                | shadow mode holds that at 0 W. A 0 W      |
+|                                | command cannot oppose a meter, so the     |
+|                                | detector never arms. ⚠️ THIS IS THE ONE   |
+|                                | THAT HAD TO BE GOT RIGHT: fed the SHADOW  |
+|                                | decision instead, every shadow run would  |
+|                                | latch a trip within `sign_disagree_s` -   |
+|                                | the decision opposes a meter that never   |
+|                                | saw it - and that latch SURVIVES INTO     |
+|                                | LIVE OPERATION and a restart. Shadow mode |
+|                                | would manufacture the failsafe it is      |
+|                                | meant to help debug.                      |
+| SAFETY-03 clamp                | OBSERVES. It runs on the number the       |
+|                                | decision path produced, `clamp_last` is   |
+|                                | set and every engagement goes to the      |
+|                                | action log, because "it would have hit    |
+|                                | the rating" is part of what a shadow run  |
+|                                | is for. It changes no command: the value  |
+|                                | it narrows is replaced by 0 W below it.   |
+| SAFETY-28 write authorisation  | OBSERVES, for the same reason and in the  |
+|                                | same place - above the substitution, so   |
+|                                | it still asks who chose the number.       |
+| SAFETY-18 meter freeze         | OBSERVES, unchanged. It takes no action   |
+|                                | in live operation either; it grades the   |
+|                                | resolved intent against a meter that has  |
+|                                | stopped moving, and both halves are as    |
+|                                | true in shadow as out of it.              |
+| SAFETY-07/24/25 peak guard     | OBSERVES, AND SEES ONLY THE HOUSE. It is  |
+|                                | level-triggered and unlatched and it files|
+|                                | its claim as usual, so the recorded       |
+|                                | decision is the real one FOR THIS METER - |
+|                                | but every term of `wanted = batt_w +      |
+|                                | excess` is measured, and in shadow mode   |
+|                                | the battery contributes nothing to either.|
+|                                | ⚠️ SAFETY-47: this row used to claim      |
+|                                | SAFETY-45's limit cycle was visible from a|
+|                                | shadow run. It is not - 410/720 engaged   |
+|                                | cycles live against 0/720 in shadow, on   |
+|                                | the same hour and the same code.          |
+| SAFETY-31 circulation          | OBSERVES AND MAY LATCH, legitimately. Its |
+| SAFETY-42 delivery             | evidence is MEASURED power, not a         |
+|                                | command: packs pushing against each other |
+|                                | while every one of them is told 0 W is a  |
+|                                | real fault and a latch is the right       |
+|                                | answer to it.                             |
+| operator stop (`auto` False)   | SUPPRESSED AS A CLAIM, ENFORCED AT THE    |
+|                                | WIRE. It is the one deliberate change.    |
+|                                | Its `P_SAFETY` 0 W claim out-ranks        |
+|                                | everything, so leaving it in would make   |
+|                                | the recorded decision "stopped" on every  |
+|                                | cycle - the shadow run would answer the   |
+|                                | wrong question. The actuator state is     |
+|                                | identical either way, and the wire        |
+|                                | substitution is STRICTLY STRONGER than    |
+|                                | the claim: a claim can be out-ranked, and |
+|                                | this cannot.                              |
+| inputs missing, non-finite,    | UNCHANGED. All of them resolve to 0 W,    |
+| allocator refusal, arbiter     | which is what the wire gets in shadow     |
+| contradiction                  | mode anyway, so they act redundantly and  |
+|                                | are recorded as they always were.         |
+
+⚠️ MAINTENANCE IS NOT IN THAT TABLE BECAUSE SHADOW MODE DOES NOT TOUCH IT. The
+state machines are ticked on every cycle today whether control is started or
+not, so a stopped install already runs them against a battery that does not
+move. Shadow mode inherits that, unchanged and unimproved; it is a pre-existing
+property of `auto_start: false` and it is recorded here rather than quietly
+fixed under another card's name.
+
+LEAVING SHADOW MODE
+===================
+`Controller.cycle()` re-seeds its carried command (`self.target` and each
+`inv.target`) to WIRE_W at the END of every shadow cycle, AFTER every in-cycle
+guard has read the decision. Two things follow, and both are safety properties:
+
+  * the loop's `prev_w` and its integrator track WHAT IS ACTUALLY STANDING ON
+    THE WIRE, so every shadow cycle answers "from where the plant really is,
+    what would this controller do NOW" - a true statement about the present,
+    rather than a simulation of a counterfactual plant that drifts further from
+    reality every tick;
+  * the exit is safe BY CONSTRUCTION. The carried command already equals the
+    standing command, so the first live cycle slews from 0 W like any other
+    cycle. Carrying the shadow decision instead would let the slew limiter
+    depart from a base that never existed - up to a full `slew_w` step onto a
+    battery sitting at zero.
+
+The entry is safe for the ordinary reason: the substitution happens on the very
+first write of the very first shadow cycle, and `last_write` was not 0 W, so
+that write is issued rather than skipped as unchanged.
+"""
+from __future__ import annotations
+
+# ⚠️ CFG-03's mirror. `test_defaults_pin.py` part 2 discovers every
+# module-level name ending in OPTION_DEFAULTS and asserts each value
+# reproduces config.yaml EXACTLY, so this table cannot drift from the shipped
+# default. Nothing in the add-on may carry a literal fallback for a key a
+# mirror answers for - part 3 scans for that - which is why `main.py` asks the
+# functions below and never reads `shadow_mode` itself.
+SHADOW_OPTION_DEFAULTS = {
+    "shadow_mode": "auto",
+}
+
+#: The three values `shadow_mode` may take, in the order config.yaml's schema
+#: lists them. `validate.py` refuses anything else by name.
+MODES = ("auto", "on", "off")
+
+#: What stands on the wire while shadow mode is engaged. ⚠️ A NUMBER, NOT A
+#: SILENCE - see this module's header. It is 0.0 W for the same reason every
+#: other refusal in this add-on is 0.0 W: fail toward inaction, and keep
+#: commanding it so the inverter cannot be left latched on anything else.
+WIRE_W = 0.0
+
+#: SAFETY-47. What the recorded watts mean when a MEASURED billed quarter sized
+#: them.
+#:
+#: ⚠️ "UPPER BOUND" AND NOT "SMALLER", AND THE DIFFERENCE WAS MEASURED RATHER
+#: THAN ARGUED. Charging only ADDS offtake, so a live meter's `projected` is
+#: never below a shadow meter's and the headroom is never above it: the shadow
+#: size is >= the live size, with EQUALITY at the start of every quarter, where
+#: `900/remaining` is 1.0 and neither plant has moved. Measured pairwise over
+#: 3600 charging cycles in five configurations - 0 cycles below, 730 exactly
+#: equal. A sentence reading "smaller" would have been false on every one of
+#: those 730.
+#:
+#: ⚠️ AND IT NAMES NO FACTOR. How far under the bound a live run lands is a
+#: property of the site - 6.61x at a 1500 W cap under a 1200 W house, 1.00x at
+#: a cap that does not bind - and a number invented for the row would be a
+#: second helping of the defect this constant exists to disclose.
+SIZED_FROM_METER = (
+    "⚠️ AND ITS SIZE CAME FROM THE BILLED-QUARTER METER, WHICH HAS ONLY THE "
+    "HOUSE IN IT WHILE THE BATTERY IS HELD AT 0 W. A live run sizes the same "
+    "trade against a meter the battery is moving, so this is an UPPER BOUND "
+    "and not a prediction; how far under it a live run lands is a closed-loop "
+    "question and a shadow run cannot answer it")
+
+
+def mode(opts: dict) -> str:
+    """The configured `shadow_mode`, normalised to one of `MODES`.
+
+    ⚠️ AN UNRECOGNISED VALUE ANSWERS `"on"`, NOT `"auto"` AND NOT `"off"`.
+    `validate.py` refuses such a value at startup, so this branch is not meant
+    to be reachable at all; it exists because the fail-safe direction for "the
+    operator's intent cannot be read" is the one that does not move energy. A
+    typo that silently resolved to `off` would put a battery under a controller
+    whose configuration nobody could parse.
+    """
+    raw = opts.get("shadow_mode", SHADOW_OPTION_DEFAULTS["shadow_mode"])
+    text = str("" if raw is None else raw).strip().lower()
+    if text in MODES:
+        return text
+    return "on"
+
+
+def engaged(opts: dict, *, control_started: bool) -> bool:
+    """Is the battery being left alone right now?
+
+    `control_started` is `Controller.auto` - the persisted start/stop state,
+    which a fresh install gets from `auto_start` and an operator moves with the
+    *Start / stop control* button. See the header on why `auto` reads it.
+    """
+    m = mode(opts)
+    if m == "off":
+        return False
+    if m == "on":
+        return True
+    return not control_started
+
+
+def why(opts: dict, *, control_started: bool) -> str:
+    """Which rung decided, in the words an operator can act on.
+
+    ⚠️ THE REASON, NOT ONLY THE VERDICT - MUTATION.md's masking rule. `on` and
+    `auto`-while-stopped produce the same boolean and want different operator
+    actions: one is turned off by editing an option, the other by pressing a
+    button. A surface that showed only "shadow" would make a mutation that
+    swapped the two rungs invisible.
+    """
+    # ⚠️ THE LIVE SENTENCES SAY "NOT IN SHADOW MODE", NOT "THE BATTERY IS
+    # BEING CONTROLLED". The second is FALSE on a stopped install with
+    # `shadow_mode: off` - nothing is regulating there either - and a row that
+    # is false in one of the four live states is a row an operator learns to
+    # discount. What is true in every live state is that what this add-on
+    # decides reaches the inverter; whether control is RUNNING is the
+    # `Stopped` banner's question and it is answered there.
+    m = mode(opts)
+    if m == "off":
+        return ("off (shadow_mode: off) - NOT in shadow mode: what this "
+                "add-on decides DOES reach the inverter")
+    if m == "on":
+        return ("on (shadow_mode: on) - decisions are recorded and nothing "
+                "is commanded")
+    if control_started:
+        return ("off (shadow_mode: auto, control is started) - NOT in shadow "
+                "mode: what this add-on decides DOES reach the inverter")
+    return ("on (shadow_mode: auto, control is stopped) - decisions are "
+            "recorded and nothing is commanded")
+
+
+def words(opts: dict, *, control_started: bool, would_w: float | None,
+          sized_from_meter: bool, reason: str = "") -> str:
+    """The status page's `Shadow mode` row.
+
+    ⚠️ THE ROW IS RENDERED IN EVERY STATE, INCLUDING `off`. A surface whose
+    ABSENCE is how you learn which mode you are in is a surface an operator
+    has to already know about; TARIFF-11's rule is that the rendered text is
+    what gets graded, so there has to be text in both states.
+
+    `would_w` is the decision the path reached this cycle - what a live
+    controller would have put on the wire GIVEN THIS METER AND A BATTERY AT
+    0 W - and `reason` is `Resolution.explain()`, the same sentence the `Why`
+    row carries. Together they are the whole of "what would it have done, and
+    why"; without them the row would say a shadow run happened and nothing
+    about what it found.
+
+    ⚠️ `sized_from_meter` HAS NO DEFAULT, AND THAT IS SAFETY-47's WHOLE POINT.
+    It is True when a MEASURED billed-quarter headroom sized the number being
+    recorded - `arbitrage.sized_from_meter()` answers it, and it is the one
+    place the question is asked. A default of False here would be a caller
+    that forgot the caveat rendering a row that reads exactly like a caller
+    that decided it did not apply, which is the shape of defect this card is
+    about. TEST-14's rule with a new name on it.
+
+    ⚠️ AND THE PHRASE IS "ON THIS CYCLE", UNCONDITIONALLY, NOT ONLY WHEN THE
+    CAVEAT FIRES. Every number a shadow run records was reached from a plant
+    that did not respond; "WOULD HAVE COMMANDED -2 000 W" reads as a forecast
+    of a live run and no number here is one. The ⚠️ below is the STRONGER,
+    conditional statement about the cycles where the answer can be multiples
+    out - see this module's header for the measured table.
+
+    ⚠️ AND IT IS NOT KEYED ON WHETHER THE TRADE WAS CAPPED. `arbitrage`'s own
+    sentence says "SIZED BY THE CAPACITY-TARIFF GUARD" only when the headroom
+    came out BELOW the ask - which in a shadow run is the START of the
+    quarter, where the two runs still agree. By the end of the quarter
+    `900/remaining` has multiplied the headroom past the ask, the trade is
+    NOT capped, the sentence is silent and the recorded number is at its most
+    wrong. A caveat keyed on that sentence would be quietest exactly where it
+    is needed loudest. `test_arbitrage.py` part 3d-8 drives that.
+    """
+    head = why(opts, control_started=control_started)
+    if not engaged(opts, control_started=control_started):
+        return head
+    if would_w is None:
+        return (f"{head}; no decision has been reached yet - the inverter is "
+                f"held at {WIRE_W:.0f} W")
+    # ⚠️ THE THOUSANDS SEPARATOR IS SWAPPED ON THE NUMBER ALONE. Applied to
+    # the whole sentence it ate the comma out of `head` - and `head` is the
+    # half that says WHICH RUNG decided, which is the claim MUTATION.md's
+    # masking rule says must survive.
+    num = f"{float(would_w):+,.0f}".replace(",", " ")
+    out = (f"{head}; ON THIS CYCLE WOULD HAVE COMMANDED {num} W, inverter "
+           f"held at {WIRE_W:.0f} W")
+    if sized_from_meter:
+        out += f" {SIZED_FROM_METER}"
+    if reason:
+        out += f" - {reason}"
+    return out
+
+
+def log_line(*, would_w: float, reason: str, sized_from_meter: bool) -> str:
+    """The action-log line for one change of shadow decision.
+
+    ⚠️ IT IS A FUNCTION FOR THE REASON `words()` IS ONE, AND SAFETY-47 LEARNED
+    IT THE EXPENSIVE WAY. This sentence used to be an f-string inside
+    `Controller._shadow_settle()`. Deleting the caveat from it there left all
+    29 files GREEN - the only check that could see the line drove a fixture
+    with `meter_source: off`, where no arbitrage decision and therefore no
+    caveat can ever be reached. A sentence assembled at a call site is a
+    sentence no check can grade, and the page would have said one thing while
+    the record a later analysis reads said another.
+
+    ⚠️ AND IT IS THE SAME `SIZED_FROM_METER` CONSTANT THE ROW CARRIES, not a
+    second wording of it. Two sentences meaning one thing is how the two
+    surfaces start disagreeing about which cycles are caveated.
+    """
+    out = (f"SHADOW: would have commanded {float(would_w):+.0f} W ON THIS "
+           f"CYCLE - {reason}")
+    if sized_from_meter:
+        out += f" {SIZED_FROM_METER}"
+    return out
+
+
+def banner(opts: dict, *, control_started: bool, latched: tuple = ()) -> tuple:
+    """`(level, text)` for the top of the status page, or `None` when live.
+
+    ⚠️ IT NAMES A STANDING LATCH AND GOES RED FOR ONE. The shadow banner sits
+    ABOVE every other branch of the cascade, because "the battery is not being
+    controlled" is the one sentence that may never be displaced - but a
+    failsafe latch that is up while the controller is inert is up when it
+    stops being inert, and an operator who turns shadow mode off without
+    clearing it gets a battery that will not move and a green page that
+    never mentioned why. So the latch is carried INTO the shadow banner
+    rather than losing its own.
+    """
+    if not engaged(opts, control_started=control_started):
+        return None
+    text = ("SHADOW MODE - the battery is NOT being controlled. Every "
+            f"inverter is held at {WIRE_W:.0f} W and nothing this add-on "
+            "decides reaches the inverter.")
+    if latched:
+        return ("bad", text + " ⚠️ A FAILSAFE LATCH IS STILL UP ("
+                + ", ".join(latched) + ") and it will still be up when shadow "
+                "mode is turned off.")
+    return ("warn", text)
+
+
+def problems(opts: dict) -> list:
+    """`validate.py`'s rule: `shadow_mode` must be one of the three values.
+
+    ⚠️ THE SENTENCE SPELLS `shadow_mode`. `configui.problems_by_field()` files
+    a refusal under the field whose key its text contains; a rule that never
+    names a key lands in the page's top-level block instead, where the operator
+    cannot see which control is wrong. UX-02's whole point is that the shipped
+    validator is the only rule surface, so the rule has to be readable there.
+
+    ⚠️ AND IT IS A REFUSAL RATHER THAN A COERCION. `mode()` resolves an
+    unreadable value to shadow, which is the safe direction but is also a
+    SILENT reinterpretation of what the operator wrote - and an install left in
+    shadow mode by a typo commands nothing at all, indefinitely.
+    """
+    raw = opts.get("shadow_mode", SHADOW_OPTION_DEFAULTS["shadow_mode"])
+    text = str("" if raw is None else raw).strip().lower()
+    if text in MODES:
+        return []
+    return [f"shadow_mode is {raw!r}, which is not one of "
+            + ", ".join(f"'{m}'" for m in MODES)
+            + ". 'auto' leaves the battery alone while control is stopped and "
+              "commands it once control is started; 'on' records every "
+              "decision and commands nothing at all; 'off' is ordinary "
+              "control."]

goodwe_controller/app/static_tariff.py

@@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ is an EMS for a minority." The §9.2 product table maps four products onto four
 EMS behaviours, and TARIFF-02 shipped the machinery for the top two only:
 
     Dynamic day-ahead    hourly EPEX BE + markup     full arbitrage
-    Real-time/imbalance  e.g. Eneco Eddy Flex        arbitrage, wider thresholds
+    Real-time/imbalance  no shipped plugin (TARIFF-07) arbitrage, wider thresh.
     Static day/night     two-period tariff           TIME-WINDOW SHIFTING   <- here
     Fully fixed          single price                SELF-CONSUMPTION ONLY  <- here
 
@@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ from datetime import datetime, timedelta, timezone
 from .price import (
     MAX_PLAUSIBLE_EUR_KWH, Absence, PricePoint, PriceProduct, PriceRead,
     Uncertainty, _Outcome, brussels, load_prices, price_option,
-    required_spread, uncertainty_of, widen_factor,
+    provider_configured, required_spread, uncertainty_of, widen_factor,
 )
 
 _LOG = logging.getLogger("goodwe.tariff.static")
@@ -222,6 +222,12 @@ _DAY_ALIASES = {
 
 MINUTES_PER_DAY = 1440
 
+# TARIFF-17. The option key whose value is a period table of the TAXES
+# component. One spelling, here, because price.py, validate.py and config.yaml
+# all name it and `provider_id()`'s note says what three spellings of one
+# decision cost.
+TAXES_PROFILE_OPTION = "price_taxes_profile"
+
 # The mean that `cheap_now()` grades against is taken over this many local days.
 # Seven, so each weekday appears exactly once - see the module docstring. It is
 # a MODULE CONSTANT and not an option on purpose: CFG-03 already tracks three
@@ -320,13 +326,37 @@ def _days(value, field: str) -> frozenset:
     return frozenset(out)
 
 
-def _price(value, field: str) -> float:
-    """The all-in EUR/kWh for a period, bounded exactly as price.py bounds a feed."""
+# What a period's `eur_per_kwh` MEANS, per option. The grammar is one grammar
+# (TARIFF-17); the quantity it carries is not, so the "you left this out"
+# sentence is the one thing the two tables do not share.
+_PERIOD_MEANS = {
+    "static_profile":
+        "an all-in eur_per_kwh (energy + supplier markup + taxes, §9.3) - the "
+        "same basis the dynamic providers are assembled onto, so the two are "
+        "comparable",
+}
+_TAXES_MEANS = (
+    "the TAXES component alone in eur_per_kwh - the non-energy part of the "
+    "bill for that band (distribution, levies, VAT), NOT an all-in price. The "
+    "framework adds it to what the feed publishes, exactly as the scalar "
+    "price_taxes_eur_kwh is added"
+)
+_PERIOD_MEANS[TAXES_PROFILE_OPTION] = _TAXES_MEANS
+
+
+def _price(value, field: str, means: str = None) -> float:
+    """One period's EUR/kWh, bounded exactly as price.py bounds a feed.
+
+    `means` names the quantity for the error sentence only. TARIFF-17: the same
+    grammar carries an ALL-IN price under `static_profile` and a TAXES-ONLY
+    component under `price_taxes_profile`, and an operator who confuses the two
+    is out by an energy price - so the refusal says which one is wanted.
+    """
+    if means is None:
+        means = _PERIOD_MEANS["static_profile"]
     if value is None:
         raise ProfileInvalid(
-            f"{field} is missing. Every period needs an all-in eur_per_kwh "
-            f"(energy + supplier markup + taxes, §9.3) - the same basis the "
-            f"dynamic providers are assembled onto, so the two are comparable.")
+            f"{field} is missing. Every period needs {means}.")
     if isinstance(value, bool) or not isinstance(value, (int, float, str)):
         raise ProfileInvalid(f"{field} is {value!r}, which is not a number")
     try:
@@ -383,14 +413,19 @@ class Period:
 class StaticProfile:
     """A validated two-or-more-period tariff. Immutable, pure, I/O-free."""
 
-    def __init__(self, periods):
+    def __init__(self, periods, *, option: str = "static_profile"):
         self.periods = tuple(periods)
+        # ⚠️ TARIFF-17: the OPTION NAME travels with the profile so that every
+        # refusal names the key the operator actually typed. It is a default
+        # argument on purpose - every pre-existing call site and every
+        # pre-existing sentence is byte-identical without it.
+        self.option = option
         if not self.periods:
             raise ProfileInvalid(
-                "static_profile has no periods. A profile with no periods is "
-                "not a fixed tariff, it is an absent one - leave the option "
-                "empty to say that on purpose (§11.4 then applies).")
-        _check_tiling(self.periods)
+                f"{option} has no periods. A profile with no periods is "
+                f"not a fixed tariff, it is an absent one - leave the option "
+                f"empty to say that on purpose (§11.4 then applies).")
+        _check_tiling(self.periods, option=option)
 
     # -- what kind of tariff this is, DERIVED --------------------------------
     @property
@@ -477,7 +512,7 @@ class StaticProfile:
             u += timedelta(hours=1)
         if not out:
             raise ProfileInvalid(
-                f"static_profile.series({since.isoformat()}, "
+                f"{self.option}.series({since.isoformat()}, "
                 f"{until.isoformat()}) spans no whole hour. An empty series is "
                 f"not constructible downstream on purpose (price.py trap 3).")
         return out
@@ -489,7 +524,7 @@ class StaticProfile:
         return f"{kind}: " + "; ".join(p.words for p in self.periods)
 
 
-def _check_tiling(periods) -> None:
+def _check_tiling(periods, *, option: str = "static_profile") -> None:
     """Every day type must be covered by EXACTLY ONE period, every minute.
 
     ⚠️ REFUSES BOTH DIRECTIONS. A gap means an hour with no price, and the only
@@ -506,22 +541,22 @@ def _check_tiling(periods) -> None:
             if n > 1 and over_from is None:
                 over_from = (minute, n)
             if n != 0 and gap_from is not None:
-                _raise_gap(weekday, gap_from, minute)
+                _raise_gap(weekday, gap_from, minute, option)
             if n <= 1 and over_from is not None:
-                _raise_overlap(weekday, over_from, minute, periods)
+                _raise_overlap(weekday, over_from, minute, periods, option)
         if gap_from is not None:
-            _raise_gap(weekday, gap_from, MINUTES_PER_DAY)
+            _raise_gap(weekday, gap_from, MINUTES_PER_DAY, option)
         if over_from is not None:
-            _raise_overlap(weekday, over_from, MINUTES_PER_DAY, periods)
+            _raise_overlap(weekday, over_from, MINUTES_PER_DAY, periods, option)
 
 
 def _hhmm(m):
     return f"{m // 60:02d}:{m % 60:02d}"
 
 
-def _raise_gap(weekday, start, end):
+def _raise_gap(weekday, start, end, option="static_profile"):
     raise ProfileInvalid(
-        f"static_profile leaves {DAY_NAMES[weekday]} "
+        f"{option} leaves {DAY_NAMES[weekday]} "
         f"{_hhmm(start)}-{_hhmm(end)} with no period, so those hours have no "
         f"price. Refused rather than defaulted: an invented price is one an "
         f"optimiser would trade on, and §11.4 already says what a missing price "
@@ -529,19 +564,28 @@ def _raise_gap(weekday, start, end):
         f"\"22:00-07:00 mon-fri\" does NOT cover Saturday morning.")
 
 
-def _raise_overlap(weekday, over, end, periods):
+def _raise_overlap(weekday, over, end, periods, option="static_profile"):
     start, n = over
     names = [p.name for p in periods if p.covers(weekday, start)]
     raise ProfileInvalid(
-        f"static_profile gives {DAY_NAMES[weekday]} {_hhmm(start)}-"
+        f"{option} gives {DAY_NAMES[weekday]} {_hhmm(start)}-"
         f"{_hhmm(end)} {n} prices at once ({', '.join(names)}). Two prices for "
         f"one hour means one of them silently wins on list order. Narrow one of "
         f"the windows or split the day selector.")
 
 
-def parse_static_profile(value):
+def parse_static_profile(value, *, option: str = "static_profile",
+                         means: str = None):
     """`static_profile` -> a `StaticProfile`, or None when unset.
 
+    ⚠️ TARIFF-17 MADE `option`/`means` PARAMETERS RATHER THAN FORKING THIS
+    FUNCTION, and that is the whole of the reuse. A second period parser would
+    be a second tiling rule, a second day-type rule and a second set of DST
+    bugs, diverging first on the 23- and 25-hour days where nobody looks. The
+    two arguments move only the OPTION NAME and the "what this number is"
+    clause through the refusals; the grammar, the tiling check and the wrapping
+    rule are one implementation with one set of checks over it.
+
     Accepts what the option can actually arrive as:
       * `None` / `""` / `"null"`      - unset. §14 ships `static_profile: null`.
       * a JSON string                 - what config.yaml's flat `str?` option
@@ -555,6 +599,8 @@ def parse_static_profile(value):
     """
     if value is None:
         return None
+    if means is None:
+        means = _PERIOD_MEANS.get(option, _PERIOD_MEANS["static_profile"])
     if isinstance(value, str):
         text = value.strip()
         if not text or text.lower() in ("null", "none", "off"):
@@ -563,7 +609,7 @@ def parse_static_profile(value):
             value = json.loads(text)
         except ValueError as e:
             raise ProfileInvalid(
-                f"static_profile is not valid JSON ({e}). It is a JSON object "
+                f"{option} is not valid JSON ({e}). It is a JSON object "
                 f"with a \"periods\" list, on one line, e.g.\n"
                 f'  {{"periods": [{{"name":"day","from":"07:00","to":"22:00",'
                 f'"days":"mon-fri","eur_per_kwh":0.34}}, ...]}}\n'
@@ -573,7 +619,7 @@ def parse_static_profile(value):
         tz = str(value.get("timezone", "") or "").strip().lower()
         if tz not in SUPPORTED_TZ:
             raise ProfileInvalid(
-                f"static_profile.timezone is {value.get('timezone')!r}. Only "
+                f"{option}.timezone is {value.get('timezone')!r}. Only "
                 f"Europe/Brussels is supported: the shipped image carries no tz "
                 f"database (see app/price.py), so any other zone could not be "
                 f"honoured and would be silently treated as Brussels - which is "
@@ -581,24 +627,24 @@ def parse_static_profile(value):
         rows = value.get("periods")
         if rows is None:
             raise ProfileInvalid(
-                "static_profile has no \"periods\" list. Even a fully-fixed "
-                "tariff is written as one period covering 00:00-24:00 all days "
-                "- one shape for both products, so nothing downstream branches "
-                "on which kind of site this is.")
+                f"{option} has no \"periods\" list. Even a fully-fixed "
+                f"tariff is written as one period covering 00:00-24:00 all days "
+                f"- one shape for both products, so nothing downstream branches "
+                f"on which kind of site this is.")
     else:
         rows = value
 
     if not isinstance(rows, (list, tuple)):
         raise ProfileInvalid(
-            f"static_profile.periods is {type(rows).__name__}, not a list")
+            f"{option}.periods is {type(rows).__name__}, not a list")
 
     periods = []
     for i, row in enumerate(rows, start=1):
         if not isinstance(row, dict):
             raise ProfileInvalid(
-                f"static_profile.periods[{i}] is {type(row).__name__}, not an "
+                f"{option}.periods[{i}] is {type(row).__name__}, not an "
                 f"object with from/to/days/eur_per_kwh")
-        where = f"static_profile.periods[{i}]"
+        where = f"{option}.periods[{i}]"
         name = str(row.get("name", "") or f"period{i}").strip() or f"period{i}"
         start = _minutes(row.get("from", row.get("start")), f"{where}.from")
         end = _minutes(row.get("to", row.get("end")), f"{where}.to")
@@ -617,8 +663,47 @@ def parse_static_profile(value):
                               end_min=end,
                               days=_days(row.get("days"), f"{where}.days"),
                               eur_per_kwh=_price(row.get("eur_per_kwh"),
-                                                 f"{where}.eur_per_kwh")))
-    return StaticProfile(periods)
+                                                 f"{where}.eur_per_kwh",
+                                                 means)))
+    return StaticProfile(periods, option=option)
+
+
+def parse_taxes_profile(value):
+    """`price_taxes_profile` -> a `StaticProfile` of TAX values, or None.
+
+    TARIFF-17. THE DEFECT THIS EXISTS TO CLOSE: `price.py` modelled the whole
+    non-energy part of a Belgian bill as ONE scalar. In Flanders that is
+    correct - Fluvius distribution is a single rate and its tariff card offers
+    only `Normaal | Uitsl. nacht`, where *exclusive night* is a separate
+    physical circuit rather than a night register. The Walloon and Brussels
+    DSOs are on the same card with four columns - `Enkelvoudig | Dag | Nacht |
+    Uitsl. nacht` - and the day/night gap is real money:
+
+        ORES          dag 13,27  nacht  7,39  ->  5,88 c EUR/kWh
+        AIESH         dag 15,17  nacht  8,21  ->  6,96
+        Tecteo RESA   dag 12,20  nacht  7,01  ->  5,19
+        Sibelga (BXL) dag  9,39  nacht  7,10  ->  2,29
+        ORES IMPACT   dag 16,578 nacht  5,090 -> 11,49   (2026)
+
+    ⚠️ AND THE BANDS ARE ANTI-CORRELATED WITH WHAT THE BATTERY WANTS TO DO.
+    The cheap network hours are the cheap spot hours, so flattening them does
+    not merely shift the curve - it SYSTEMATICALLY UNDERSTATES the true spread
+    and makes the add-on decline cycles that are genuinely profitable. See
+    DOCS.md "The three buckets" for why the flat scalar could never have done
+    this: an additive constant, identical every hour, cancels exactly in
+    `max - min` and cannot move `min(firm, key=...)` either.
+
+    ⚠️ THE VALUE IS THE TAXES COMPONENT, NOT AN ALL-IN PRICE. `static_profile`
+    uses the same grammar for an all-in figure; the two are one parser and two
+    meanings, and `_price()`'s refusal names which one it wanted.
+
+    ⚠️ NOT PARSED ON THE FETCH PATH. validate.py refuses a malformed table at
+    STARTUP, by the rule `price.py` trap 3 states for `static_profile`: a table
+    that cannot be parsed at 03:00 is a site that stops pricing at 03:00, and
+    §11.4 makes that quiet.
+    """
+    return parse_static_profile(value, option=TAXES_PROFILE_OPTION,
+                                means=_TAXES_MEANS)
 
 
 # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- #
@@ -728,6 +813,33 @@ class TariffPlan:
         self.origin = origin
 
     # -- derived facts -------------------------------------------------------
+    @property
+    def from_feed(self) -> bool:
+        """Is this series an OBSERVATION of the configured provider's feed?
+
+        TARIFF-12. `origin` names four ways a plan is obtained; this collapses
+        them to the one question a caller holding a PREVIOUS plan has to ask
+        about a new one - did this resolution see the feed, or is it standing
+        in for one that did not? Only `"provider"` saw it. `"fallback"` and
+        `"none"` are the two §11.4 rows, and `"static"` is a site with no
+        feed to observe at all, where the question does not arise.
+
+        ⚠️ IT IS NOT `has_prices`, AND THE DIFFERENCE IS THE WHOLE POINT. A
+        §11.4 fallback HAS prices - the operator's own static profile - but
+        every point `_degrade()` builds carries `provisional=True`, so
+        `firm_points()` is empty, `arbitrage()` refuses and `cheap_now()` is
+        False. It is a real tariff and it is not an observation, and a caller
+        deciding whether to REPLACE an observation with it needs the second
+        fact, not the first.
+
+        ⚠️ AND IT IS A PROPERTY HERE RATHER THAN AN `origin == "provider"` AT
+        THE CALL SITE, for `main.fresh_tariff_plan()`'s stated reason: a check
+        has to be able to assert on the shipped expression rather than on a
+        transcription that drifts, and `origin`'s vocabulary belongs to this
+        module.
+        """
+        return self.origin == "provider"
+
     @property
     def has_prices(self) -> bool:
         return self.read.match(series=lambda _r: True, no_data=lambda _r: False)
@@ -744,6 +856,63 @@ class TariffPlan:
             series=lambda r: any(p.provisional for p in r.points),
             no_data=lambda _r: True)
 
+    # -- the plan's SHAPE, in the two units it actually has (TARIFF-11) ------
+    # ⚠️ POINTS AND HOURS ARE TWO NUMBERS AND THIS PLAN HAD ONLY EVER
+    # REPORTED ONE OF THEM, UNDER THE OTHER'S NAME. `words` read
+    # `f"... {len(self.read.points)} h"`, which counts POINTS: on the
+    # quarter-hourly Belgian feed (15-minute MTU, 2025-10-01) a 33-hour plan
+    # logged `dynamic_dayahead from generic_dayahead, 132 h`. It is the same
+    # conflation TARIFF-14 removed from `at()` and FCST-04 removed from the
+    # *Price history* row, left standing in the prose. ⚠️ AND THE ERROR IS
+    # NOT A FLAT 4x: a 40 h soak measured 1.79x .. 5.33x, because §8.3's
+    # carried points are HOURLY while the firm ones are quarter-hourly, so
+    # the ratio moves with the firm/carried mix as the day goes on. Nothing
+    # derived from ONE of these numbers can answer for the other.
+
+    @property
+    def n_points(self) -> int:
+        """How many points the series carries. A `no_data` read carries none."""
+        return self.read.match(series=lambda r: len(r.points),
+                               no_data=lambda _r: 0)
+
+    @property
+    def hours(self) -> int:
+        """How many distinct WHOLE CLOCK HOURS those points touch.
+
+        Same rule as `price_history._held()`, deliberately - the *Tariff* and
+        *Price history* rows describe the same feed and an operator reading
+        `132 points over 33 h` beside `96 points over 24 h` must be able to
+        compare them. A point is attributed to the UTC hour its own start
+        falls in; hours the feed never printed are simply not in the set, so
+        this counts what is PRICED rather than what was asked for.
+        """
+        return self.read.match(series=lambda r: _whole_hours(r.points),
+                               no_data=lambda _r: 0)
+
+    @property
+    def n_firm(self) -> int:
+        """Points carrying a published price for their own interval (§8.3)."""
+        return len(self.firm_points())
+
+    @property
+    def n_carried(self) -> int:
+        """Points filled from yesterday's profile, or from §11.4's fallback."""
+        return self.n_points - self.n_firm
+
+    @property
+    def spacings_s(self) -> tuple:
+        """The distinct gaps between consecutive points, ascending, in seconds.
+
+        ⚠️ MIXED IS THE NORMAL STEADY STATE, NOT AN EDGE CASE. FCST-04's
+        carry-forward emits HOURLY carried points beside QUARTER-HOURLY firm
+        ones and the soak measured `[900, 3600]` in 70 % of samples - so a
+        surface reporting one global spacing would be wrong about the usual
+        case. `price._cover_table()` is where that rule is enforced; this
+        only reports it.
+        """
+        return self.read.match(
+            series=lambda r: _spacings(r.points), no_data=lambda _r: ())
+
     def price_at(self, instant: datetime) -> float:
         """EUR/kWh now. Raises `Absence` when there is no price - never 0.0."""
         return self.read.match(
@@ -899,20 +1068,30 @@ class TariffPlan:
         pts = self.read.points
         firm = tuple(p for p in pts if not p.provisional)
         if len(firm) < 2:
+            # ⚠️ POINTS, AND THE HOUR FIGURE BESIDE IT RATHER THAN INSTEAD OF
+            # IT (TARIFF-11). This sentence read "only 1 of 96 hours carry a
+            # published price" about 96 quarter-hourly points, which are 24
+            # hours - the point<->hour conflation TARIFF-14 removed from
+            # `at()`, still standing here, and this one reaches an OPERATOR
+            # through main.py's *Arbitrage* row and not only the log.
             return Arbitrage.refuse(
-                f"§8.3: only {len(firm)} of {len(pts)} hours carry a published "
-                f"price - the rest are provisional (origin {self.origin!r}), "
-                f"and no irreversible action may be taken on a provisional "
-                f"price. A buy hour and a sell hour must BOTH be firm before a "
-                f"cycle can be committed. Load shifting, self-consumption and "
-                f"peak shaving continue")
+                f"§8.3: only {len(firm)} of {len(pts)} points carry a "
+                f"published price - {_whole_hours(firm)} of "
+                f"{_whole_hours(pts)} hours - and the rest are provisional "
+                f"(origin {self.origin!r}), so no irreversible action may be "
+                f"taken on them. A buy interval and a sell interval must BOTH "
+                f"be firm before a cycle can be committed. Load shifting, "
+                f"self-consumption and peak shaving continue")
 
         spread = round(max(p.eur_per_kwh for p in firm)
                        - min(p.eur_per_kwh for p in firm), 6)
         if spread == 0.0:
+            # ⚠️ POINTS AND HOURS, SEPARATELY, for the §8.3 rung's reason -
+            # this sentence counted points and called them "firm hours" too.
             return Arbitrage.refuse(
-                f"the tariff is flat - every one of the {len(firm)} firm hours "
-                f"costs {firm[0].eur_per_kwh:.4f} EUR/kWh, so buying low and "
+                f"the tariff is flat - every one of the {len(firm)} firm "
+                f"points, spanning {_whole_hours(firm)} hours, costs "
+                f"{firm[0].eur_per_kwh:.4f} EUR/kWh, so buying low and "
                 f"selling high is arithmetically impossible. §9.2: a fully "
                 f"fixed product is self-consumption only")
 
@@ -942,15 +1121,77 @@ class TariffPlan:
 
     @property
     def words(self) -> str:
+        """The plan's whole shape in one sentence - LOG *AND* STATUS PAGE.
+
+        ⚠️ THIS STRING IS OPERATOR-FACING SINCE TARIFF-11, which is a reason
+        for its wording to matter MORE rather than less. It used to reach only
+        `_LOG.info("tariff refreshed: %s")`; main.py's *Tariff* row now carries
+        it, age-stamped, so every number in it is read by somebody who cannot
+        see the object.
+
+        ⚠️ EVERY QUANTITY IS NAMED IN ITS OWN UNIT. `{n} points over {h} h` is
+        FCST-04's *Price history* wording on purpose - the two rows describe
+        the same feed and have to be comparable - and the firm/carried split
+        and the spacing are here because they were the two facts the soak
+        found an operator could not learn at all: the plan was `provisional`
+        for 76 % of a 40-hour soak and mixed 900/3600 s for 70 %, and no HTTP
+        surface said either.
+        """
         if not self.has_prices:
             return f"no tariff - {self.read.reason}"
         tag = {"provider": self.read.provider, "static": "static_profile",
                "fallback": "static_profile (feed down)"}.get(self.origin,
                                                              self.origin)
-        return (f"{self.product.value} from {tag}, {len(self.read.points)} h"
+        gaps = self.spacings_s
+        return (f"{self.product.value} from {tag}, "
+                f"{self.n_points} points over {self.hours} h, "
+                f"{self.n_firm} firm / {self.n_carried} carried"
+                + (f", {'+'.join(str(g) for g in gaps)} s spacing"
+                   if gaps else "")
                 + (", provisional" if self.provisional else ""))
 
 
+def _whole_hours(points) -> int:
+    """How many distinct whole CLOCK HOURS a point list touches. Never raises.
+
+    THE DEFECT THIS PREVENTS (TARIFF-11). Three sentences in this module
+    reported `len(points)` under the name "hours": `TariffPlan.words`, §8.3's
+    firm-pair refusal and the flat-tariff refusal. On the hourly series that
+    was the only resolution any fixture carried before TARIFF-08 the two
+    numbers are identical, which is why it shipped; on the Belgian
+    quarter-hourly feed (15-minute MTU, 2025-10-01) `words` read
+    `dynamic_dayahead from generic_dayahead, 132 h` for 33 hours and the
+    refusal read `only 1 of 96 hours` for 24.
+
+    ⚠️ IT IS NOT `n / 4`, AND A CONSTANT FACTOR IS THE WRONG FIX. §8.3's
+    carry-forward emits ONE HOURLY point per unpublished hour beside the
+    feed's four-per-hour firm ones, so the measured overstatement over a
+    40-hour soak ranged 1.79x .. 5.33x as the mix moved. The hour count has
+    to be COUNTED.
+
+    ⚠️ IT COUNTS PRICED HOURS, NOT THE HORIZON. FCST-04 leaves an hour out
+    of the series when neither the feed nor yesterday can price it, so this
+    is at most the horizon and is smaller whenever the plan has holes - which
+    is the honest direction for a figure an operator reads as "how far ahead
+    do I have prices".
+    """
+    return len({p.start.astimezone(timezone.utc)
+                .replace(minute=0, second=0, microsecond=0) for p in points})
+
+
+def _spacings(points) -> tuple:
+    """Distinct gaps between consecutive points, ascending, in whole seconds.
+
+    Sorted by START, not by list order: `price._cover_table()` establishes
+    that order for `at()` rather than assuming it, and a surface that reported
+    the gaps of an unsorted list would print negative spacings about a series
+    that answers correctly.
+    """
+    starts = sorted(p.start.astimezone(timezone.utc) for p in points)
+    return tuple(sorted({int((b - a).total_seconds())
+                         for a, b in zip(starts, starts[1:])}))
+
+
 def _absent(reason):
     raise Absence(
         f"this plan observed no prices ({reason}). A number invented here is "
@@ -1055,7 +1296,8 @@ async def resolve_tariff(opts: dict, since: datetime, until: datetime,
 
     ⚠️ THE FILL IS PER WHOLE HOUR AND ITS COVERAGE IS CONDITIONAL. Every point
     the provider published inside the window passes through BY IDENTITY - four
-    of them in one hour on a quarter-hourly product like `eneco_eddy` - and a
+    of them in one hour on the quarter-hourly day-ahead feed `generic_dayahead`
+    reads (Belgium's 15-minute MTU, 2025-10-01) - and a
     carried point is added only for a whole hour the feed did not print at all
     AND yesterday did. An hour neither source can price is left out, which is
     §11.4 for that hour: `plan.price_at()` raises rather than answering, and an
@@ -1071,8 +1313,7 @@ async def resolve_tariff(opts: dict, since: datetime, until: datetime,
     missing and loses the elapsed ones it should never have had.
     """
     stamp = now or datetime.now(timezone.utc)
-    pid = str(price_option(opts, "price_provider") or "off").strip()
-    if pid in ("", "off"):
+    if not provider_configured(opts):
         return static_plan(opts, since, until, provisional=False, now=stamp)
 
     read = await load_prices(opts, since, until, transport)

goodwe_controller/app/tariff.py

@@ -132,6 +132,18 @@ OBSERVED = "observed"          # the store answered and there is a peak
 NO_RECORD = "no_record"        # the store answered and this month has none yet
 NOT_OBSERVED = "not_observed"  # the store did not answer. NOT a zero peak.
 
+# TARIFF-13. What the COVERAGE figure reads when the store cannot count.
+#
+# ⚠️ NOT 0, AND NOT `None`. This is the reading-state argument of TARIFF-01
+# applied to the number printed BESIDE the peak rather than to the peak. A
+# coverage figure of 0 says "this month has been measured over no quarters at
+# all", which is the strongest possible claim that the peak next to it means
+# nothing - and `f"{None} quarter(s) banked"` renders "None quarter(s) banked",
+# which an operator reads as that same zero. The one honest answer to "how many
+# quarters have I banked" when the table will not answer is that it is not
+# known, and it has to SAY so in the sentence the operator reads.
+COUNT_UNREADABLE = "an unreadable number of"
+
 
 # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- #
 # local time, without a hard dependency on the tz database
@@ -388,6 +400,23 @@ class PeakStore:
                     "   per_phase_json=excluded.per_phase_json"
                     " WHERE excluded.offtake_avg_w > quarter_blocks.offtake_avg_w",
                     (start, month, w, pp_json))
+                # TARIFF-13. THE TIE RULE, DECIDED RATHER THAN EMERGENT:
+                # at EQUAL wattage the EARLIEST quarter keeps the attribution.
+                # See DECISIONS/TARIFF-13-the-coverage-of-a-peak.md §2.
+                #
+                # `peak_w` itself is still only ever RAISED - the `>` term is
+                # untouched and no tie can move the billed number - so SAFETY-07
+                # reads exactly the watt figure it read before. The second term
+                # moves only the TIMESTAMP the status page attributes it to.
+                #
+                # ⚠️ WITHOUT THE SECOND TERM THE TWO READERS DISAGREE, measured:
+                # `>` alone keeps whichever tied block was WRITTEN FIRST, while
+                # `recompute_month()`'s `ORDER BY offtake_avg_w DESC,
+                # quarter_start ASC` keeps the EARLIEST. Those coincide only
+                # while blocks arrive in time order. Fed four equal 365 W blocks
+                # newest-first, `monthly_peak` answered 09:45 and the recompute
+                # answered 09:00 - a divergence in the derived record part 8 of
+                # test_tariff.py exists to prove cannot happen.
                 self._db.execute(
                     "INSERT INTO monthly_peak(month, peak_w, quarter_start, per_phase_json)"
                     " VALUES(?,?,?,?)"
@@ -395,7 +424,9 @@ class PeakStore:
                     "   peak_w=excluded.peak_w,"
                     "   quarter_start=excluded.quarter_start,"
                     "   per_phase_json=excluded.per_phase_json"
-                    " WHERE excluded.peak_w > monthly_peak.peak_w",
+                    " WHERE excluded.peak_w > monthly_peak.peak_w"
+                    "    OR (excluded.peak_w = monthly_peak.peak_w"
+                    "        AND excluded.quarter_start < monthly_peak.quarter_start)",
                     (month, w, start, pp_json))
             return True
         except sqlite3.Error as err:
@@ -449,6 +480,49 @@ class PeakStore:
                            quarter_start=datetime.fromisoformat(row[1]),
                            per_phase_w=pp)
 
+    def banked_count(self, month: str) -> int | None:
+        """How many quarters this month has banked. `None` when unknowable.
+
+        TARIFF-13. THE DEFECT THIS PREVENTS: the status page printed a coverage
+        figure held in PROCESS MEMORY - `PeakTracker.recorded`, incremented once
+        per block banked by THIS process - beside a peak read from SQLite. The
+        peak outlives a restart and the counter does not, so a driven restart
+        mid-month took a real reading of
+
+            2026-09: peak 365 W ... ; 120 quarter(s) banked
+
+        to the same peak, the same attributed quarter and `0 quarter(s) banked`,
+        on both instances independently. The count is what tells an operator how
+        much of the billing month the number beside it actually covers: 365 W
+        over 120 quarters and 365 W over 0 quarters are different claims about
+        the same watt figure, and after a restart the page made the weaker claim
+        while displaying the stronger one's value. Reading the count from the
+        same durable tier the peak comes from is what makes the two agree.
+
+        ⚠️ `None`, NOT 0, and NOT `len(blocks_in(month))`. `blocks_in()` returns
+        `[]` on a read error - safe there only because no caller reads its
+        emptiness as a peak (§ its own docstring) - so counting its length would
+        rebuild the disarming zero one call further out. This asks the database
+        for a COUNT and refuses to answer when the database refuses.
+
+        ⚠️ Counts `quarter_blocks`, the tier with one row per closed block, and
+        NOT `monthly_peak`, which has one row per MONTH and would answer 1 for
+        every month that has ever been measured. The two tables are proven equal
+        on the PEAK by `recompute_month()`; they were never equal on the COUNT
+        and are not meant to be.
+        """
+        if self._db is None:
+            return None
+        try:
+            row = self._db.execute(
+                "SELECT COUNT(*) FROM quarter_blocks WHERE month=?",
+                (month,)).fetchone()
+        except sqlite3.Error as err:
+            self.last_error = str(err)
+            _LOG.error("could not count quarters for %s (%s)", month, err)
+            return None
+        return int(row[0])
+
     def blocks_in(self, month: str) -> list:
         """(quarter_start, offtake_avg_w) for a month, oldest first. [] on error
         is safe here ONLY because no caller reads emptiness as a peak - AC 3's
@@ -539,11 +613,59 @@ class PeakTracker:
         self.cap_w = float(cap_w)
         self.policy = policy
         self.checkpoint_s = float(checkpoint_s)
-        self.recorded = 0
         self.restore_state = "not attempted"
         self._seen: set = set()
         self._last_ckpt = 0.0
 
+    # -- coverage -----------------------------------------------------------
+    #
+    # TARIFF-13. `recorded` USED TO BE AN `int` ATTRIBUTE ON THIS OBJECT,
+    # starting at 0 and incremented in `sync()`. It is a property over the store
+    # now, and the three things that changes are all defects it was carrying:
+    #
+    #   * it RESET TO 0 ON EVERY RESTART, beside a peak that did not - see
+    #     `PeakStore.banked_count()` for the driven reading;
+    #   * it was NOT SCOPED TO A MONTH. It counted every block this process had
+    #     banked, so on 1 October the row still read September's tally beside
+    #     October's "no completed quarter recorded yet";
+    #   * it MISSED the block `restore()` banks. A stale block closed from the
+    #     checkpoint goes into `quarter_blocks` and never went through `sync()`,
+    #     so the counter never saw it. Counting the table cannot miss it.
+    #
+    # ⚠️ REMOVING THE COUNTER DOES NOT REMOVE THE DEDUPE. `_seen` is still what
+    # stops `cycle()`'s once-a-second `sync()` re-banking a closed quarter that
+    # `P1Ingest.blocks` keeps for a DAY, and `sync()`'s RETURN value is still
+    # the count of blocks newly banked on that call. What changed is only where
+    # the STATUS PAGE's figure is read from. The check that grades the dedupe
+    # must therefore grade `sync()`'s return, not this property, which now
+    # answers 1 from the database however many times the block was offered.
+
+    def recorded_in(self, when: datetime | None = None):
+        """Quarters banked in `when`'s billing month - `int`, or the sentinel.
+
+        ⚠️ The return type is `int | str` on purpose, and the `str` is
+        `COUNT_UNREADABLE`. A caller that formats this into a sentence gets a
+        true sentence in both cases; a caller that wants to do arithmetic on it
+        gets a TypeError, which is loud. That is the same trade `PeakReading`
+        makes by having no `peak_w_or(default)`.
+        """
+        n = self.store.banked_count(month_key(when or datetime.now(timezone.utc)))
+        return COUNT_UNREADABLE if n is None else n
+
+    @property
+    def recorded(self):
+        """Quarters banked in the month being billed TODAY.
+
+        ⚠️ This is the live status page's reading, where the peak beside it is
+        also read for `datetime.now()`. `checks(when=X)` for an X in another
+        month is a test affordance (TEST-17); the row scoped that way gets this
+        month's count beside that month's peak, which is strictly better than
+        the process-wide counter it replaces but is still a mismatch.
+        `recorded_in(when)` is the scoped form the row should read once
+        `main.py`'s status rows are free to change - TARIFF-11 holds them.
+        """
+        return self.recorded_in()
+
     # -- startup ------------------------------------------------------------
     def restore(self, averager, now: datetime | None = None) -> str:
         """Put the open block back. Returns which of the three cases happened."""
@@ -600,7 +722,6 @@ class PeakTracker:
                 continue
             if self.store.record_block(block, self.policy):
                 self._seen.add(key)
-                self.recorded += 1
                 n += 1
         if n:
             # A block just closed, so the checkpoint's block is gone: clearing it

goodwe_controller/app/validate.py

@@ -118,8 +118,14 @@ NOT READY banner already names the problem, (b) does not apply.
      It is warned about below, not refused.
 
   7. A price configuration that cannot mean what it says.  [(a)]
-     Three cases, all in `_price_problems()`: an unknown `price_provider` id
-     (refused rather than defaulted to 'off', per the §14 warning box);
+     Four cases, all in `_price_problems()`: an unknown `price_provider` id
+     (refused rather than defaulted to 'off', per the §14 warning box); a
+     RETIRED id - one this add-on really did ship and has been accepting ever
+     since, whose plugin never once fetched a price because its endpoint does
+     not exist (TARIFF-07), which is case (a) in its purest form: §11.4's
+     silent fall back to the static profile IS the layer the operator cannot
+     see, and it has been overriding their chosen source since the day they
+     set it;
      `price_provider` set alongside `price_now_entity`/`price_avg_entity`,
      which is TWO PRICE SOURCES ON ONE SITE where the Home Assistant pair
      silently wins; and `manual_csv` with no `price_csv_path`, which turns the
@@ -318,12 +324,20 @@ import logging
 
 from .arbitrage import enabled as arbitrage_on
 from .control import SLEW_RAIL_FRAC, LOOP_TICK_S, PLANT_SETTLE_S
+from .custom_formula import (
+    EXPORT_FORMULA_OPTION, FormulaInvalid, implausible_all_in,
+    parse_export_formula, parse_price_formula, stale_card)
 from .inverter import roster_entries
 from .maintenance import MAINT_OPTION_DEFAULTS
 from .p1 import is_enabled, validate_meter_options
 from .peakguard import PEAK_OPTION_DEFAULTS
-from .price import PRICE_OPTION_DEFAULTS, PROVIDERS
-from .static_tariff import ProfileInvalid, parse_static_profile
+from .price import (
+    PRICE_OPTION_DEFAULTS, PROVIDERS, RETIRED_PROVIDERS,
+    SUPERSEDED_TAXES_DEFAULTS_EUR_KWH)
+from .shadow import problems as shadow_problems
+from .static_tariff import (
+    ProfileInvalid, TAXES_PROFILE_OPTION, parse_static_profile,
+    parse_taxes_profile)
 from .watchdog import SIGN_OPTION_DEFAULTS
 
 _LOG = logging.getLogger("goodwe.config")
@@ -827,6 +841,18 @@ def validate_startup_config(opts: dict, dev_min=None, dev_max=None) -> list[str]
     # missing rating one line up.
     problems.extend(_roster_problems(opts))
 
+    # --- 11. SAFETY-10's shadow mode, and it is a REFUSAL ---------------------
+    # `shadow_mode` decides whether this controller commands the battery at all,
+    # so an unreadable value is not a detail to log and carry on past.
+    # `shadow.mode()` resolves an unrecognised one to SHADOW - the direction
+    # that does not move energy - and an install silently reinterpreted that way
+    # commands nothing, indefinitely, while its status page calmly explains
+    # that this is intentional. UX-02 made this validator the ONE rule surface
+    # both editors read, so the refusal belongs here rather than in a coercion
+    # nobody can see. The sentence spells `shadow_mode` so
+    # `configui.problems_by_field()` can file it under the field.
+    problems.extend(shadow_problems(opts))
+
     # --- 2. the configured ceiling against the device's own rating -----------
     # ⚠️ THE FLAT `max_w`, AND ONLY THE FLAT ONE. `dev_min`/`dev_max` are ONE
     # device's range - the flat `setpoint_entity`'s - so this rule can only ever
@@ -1242,17 +1268,74 @@ def _price_problems(opts: dict) -> list[str]:
     without a price feed is an add-on that a Belgian fixed-tariff site - a large
     share of the installed base, per §9.2 - cannot run at all.
 
-    Four refusals and two log lines (TARIFF-03 added one refusal, one parse and
-    two notices), and every refusal is still case (a) from this module's
-    docstring: a source the operator SET being overridden by a layer they cannot
-    see. The additions are `static_profile` alongside the Home Assistant price
-    pair - the same silent-loser shape as provider-plus-pair, and a LIVE one -
-    and a `static_profile` that does not tile the day, which would leave hours
-    with no price at all.
+    Five refusals and two log lines (TARIFF-03 added one refusal, one parse and
+    two notices; TARIFF-07 added the retired-id one; TARIFF-15 added three -
+    a `custom_formula` with no formula, a formula that does not parse or does
+    not reproduce its own card, and one whose card lands outside the plausible
+    band - plus two notices, a formula nothing reads and a stale card), and
+    every refusal is still case (a) from this module's docstring: a source the
+    operator SET being overridden by a layer they cannot see. The additions are `static_profile`
+    alongside the Home Assistant price pair - the same silent-loser shape as
+    provider-plus-pair, and a LIVE one - and a `static_profile` that does not
+    tile the day, which would leave hours with no price at all.
+
+    ⚠️ THE RETIRED-ID BRANCH IS NOT A FRIENDLIER SPELLING OF THE UNKNOWN-ID
+    ONE, AND MUST NOT COLLAPSE INTO IT. They answer different questions. An
+    unknown id is a TYPO: the operator meant something else and the fix is to
+    spell it right. A retired id is a CHOICE THE ADD-ON ACCEPTED - it was in
+    the schema, it was in the dropdown, it resolved to a class, and every
+    startup since said nothing. What that operator needs is not "this id is
+    wrong" but "this id has never once returned a price, and here is what your
+    site has actually been running instead" - because §11.4 made the failure
+    silent and NOTHING on their status page has ever distinguished it from a
+    working provider that never finds a cheap hour. The retired branch is
+    therefore FIRST, and it names the id, the endpoint, the observation, the
+    tariff that has really been in force, and the move to make.
     """
     problems: list[str] = []
     pid = str(opts.get("price_provider", "") or "off").strip() or "off"
 
+    if pid in RETIRED_PROVIDERS:
+        # ⚠️ BEFORE the unknown-id branch, and the order is load-bearing: a
+        # retired id is ALSO not in PROVIDERS, so the generic message would
+        # win on a reordering and the operator would be told they mistyped
+        # something they chose on purpose.
+        # ⚠️ AND THE SECOND SENTENCE CHANGES WITH `static_profile`, because
+        # "you have been on the static profile" is FALSE on a site that never
+        # set one. §11.4 falls back to the static profile; with no profile to
+        # fall back to, the site has had no tariff at all - a worse state, and
+        # one this message must not paper over.
+        been_running = (
+            f"the static day/night tariff in static_profile"
+            if str(opts.get("static_profile", "") or "").strip()
+            else "NOTHING AT ALL - static_profile is empty too, so there was "
+                 "no tariff to fall back to either")
+        problems.append(
+            f"price_provider is {pid!r}, which WAS a shipped plugin and has "
+            f"been WITHDRAWN (TARIFF-07). This is not a typo and you did not "
+            f"mistype it - the add-on offered this id, accepted it, and has "
+            f"said nothing at every startup since. "
+            f"⚠️ IT HAS NEVER FETCHED A PRICE, HERE OR ANYWHERE: "
+            f"{RETIRED_PROVIDERS[pid]}. Every fetch it ever made ended in "
+            f"SourceUnavailable, and §11.4 turns that into a SILENT fall back "
+            f"- so what this site has actually been running since the day the "
+            f"id was set is {been_running}. Nothing you could see would have "
+            f"differed from a working provider that simply never found a cheap "
+            f"hour, which is why you are being told now rather than left on "
+            f"it. WHAT TO DO: set price_provider to 'generic_dayahead' for the "
+            f"wholesale EPEX BE day-ahead curve, to which the add-on adds your "
+            f"price_markup_eur_kwh and price_taxes_eur_kwh - that APPROXIMATES "
+            f"a Belgian dynamic tariff and cannot reproduce your supplier's "
+            f"B x spot + A formula, so the level will be off even when the "
+            f"shape is right; or 'manual_csv' to enter all-in prices you "
+            f"compute yourself; or 'off' to run on static_profile "
+            f"deliberately. There is deliberately NO alias to your old "
+            f"supplier: aliasing would need your contract's own two "
+            f"coefficients, which live behind your klantenzone login and are "
+            f"in no public index, so the add-on would have to invent the "
+            f"numbers it prices your battery against.")
+        return problems      # nothing below can be judged against a dead id
+
     if pid != "off" and pid not in PROVIDERS:
         problems.append(
             f"price_provider is {pid!r}, which is not a shipped plugin. The "
@@ -1355,6 +1438,274 @@ def _price_problems(opts: dict) -> list[str]:
                 "for this product. Peak shaving, reserve management and the "
                 "maintenance cycle are unaffected.", profile.prices[0])
 
+    # ⚠️ TARIFF-17: THE TAXES PERIOD TABLE, PARSED AT STARTUP RATHER THAN AT
+    # 03:00, FOR `static_profile`'s REASON ONE OPTION OVER. This table is read
+    # by `price.assemble()` on the ~30 s planning path; a table that only fails
+    # when a fetch happens is a site that stops pricing mid-afternoon, and
+    # §11.4 turns that into a quiet fallback that looks exactly like a healthy
+    # fixed-tariff day. So the parse happens here, once, where a refusal is a
+    # banner naming the key.
+    raw_taxes_profile = opts.get(TAXES_PROFILE_OPTION, "")
+    taxes_table = None
+    if str(raw_taxes_profile or "").strip() \
+            or isinstance(raw_taxes_profile, (list, dict)):
+        try:
+            taxes_table = parse_taxes_profile(raw_taxes_profile)
+        except ProfileInvalid as e:
+            problems.append(f"{TAXES_PROFILE_OPTION} cannot be used: {e}")
+
+    if taxes_table is not None:
+        # ⚠️ TWO WRITERS OF ONE QUANTITY, ONE OF WHICH SILENTLY LOSES - the
+        # exact case (a) this module exists for, and the same refusal shape as
+        # the price-entity/static_profile pair above. The table decides when it
+        # is set, so a non-default scalar left beside it is a number the
+        # operator typed that changes nothing, on the quantity §11.4 makes
+        # hardest to notice. It is compared against the SHIPPED DEFAULTS rather
+        # than against presence, because the Supervisor writes every schema key
+        # into the options file whether the operator touched it or not - so
+        # "the operator did not type this" has to be read off the VALUE.
+        #
+        # ⚠️ TARIFF-18: "UNTOUCHED" IS A SET, NOT ONE NUMBER, AND THE DEFECT
+        # THAT MAKES IT ONE IS AN UPGRADE THAT STOPS A BATTERY CONTROLLER
+        # STARTING. The Supervisor sets `App.options = deepmerge(config.yaml
+        # defaults, stored options)`, so a saved blob carries every schema key
+        # whether the operator typed it or not - the reference install's export
+        # is 70 of 71. When TARIFF-18 moved this default 0.06 -> 0.11736, every
+        # such blob went from "equal to the shipped default" to "not equal to
+        # it" without anybody editing anything, and a site that also carries a
+        # taxes table would have met `SystemExit(78)` on the upgrade. The
+        # sentence below is about a number the OPERATOR TYPED; a superseded
+        # shipped default is not one, so it still reads as untouched. The set
+        # is in price.py beside the default it supersedes, because the two only
+        # ever move together.
+        scalar = _number(opts, "price_taxes_eur_kwh",
+                         PRICE_OPTION_DEFAULTS["price_taxes_eur_kwh"])
+        shipped = PRICE_OPTION_DEFAULTS["price_taxes_eur_kwh"]
+        untouched = (shipped,) + tuple(SUPERSEDED_TAXES_DEFAULTS_EUR_KWH)
+        superseded = ", ".join(
+            str(u) for u in SUPERSEDED_TAXES_DEFAULTS_EUR_KWH)
+        if scalar is not None \
+                and not any(abs(scalar - u) <= 1e-12 for u in untouched):
+            problems.append(
+                f"{TAXES_PROFILE_OPTION} is set AND price_taxes_eur_kwh is "
+                f"{scalar} rather than its shipped {shipped}. THE TABLE WINS: "
+                f"the add-on reads the per-period figures and never looks at "
+                f"the scalar, so the number you typed there would decide "
+                f"nothing and nothing would say so. Set price_taxes_eur_kwh "
+                f"back to {shipped}, or clear {TAXES_PROFILE_OPTION} to keep "
+                f"the flat figure. (A scalar still sitting on a SUPERSEDED "
+                f"default - {superseded} - is accepted and NOT refused: "
+                f"that is a number this add-on wrote into your options "
+                f"blob, not one you typed.)")
+
+        # ⚠️ THE UNITS RUNG, AND IT IS A SECOND QUANTITY RATHER THAN A
+        # RESTATEMENT. Every Belgian DSO prints these bands in c EUR/kWh
+        # (ORES `13,27`), and the whole table is copied off one card - so the
+        # factor-100 error arrives on EVERY row at once and nothing internal to
+        # the table disagrees with itself. The parser's own +-10 EUR/kWh bound
+        # catches a 13,27 typed raw, but NOT ORES IMPACT's night band of 5,090,
+        # which would be a 5.09 EUR/kWh levy sailing through. Belgian
+        # non-energy components run roughly 0.05-0.25 EUR/kWh, so anything at
+        # or above 1.0 is the wrong unit and not a tariff.
+        steep = sorted({p.eur_per_kwh for p in taxes_table.periods
+                        if abs(p.eur_per_kwh) >= 1.0})
+        if steep:
+            problems.append(
+                f"{TAXES_PROFILE_OPTION} carries {steep} EUR/kWh. Belgian "
+                f"levies and distribution run about 0.05-0.25 EUR/kWh, so "
+                f"these are almost certainly the CENT figures off the tariff "
+                f"card (ORES prints `13,27`, which is 0.1327 EUR/kWh) typed "
+                f"without the conversion - a factor of 100 that would make "
+                f"every hour look like an emergency. Divide by 100, or clear "
+                f"the option.")
+        negative = sorted({p.eur_per_kwh for p in taxes_table.periods
+                           if p.eur_per_kwh < 0})
+        if negative:
+            # ⚠️ A WARNING, NOT A REFUSAL. A negative non-energy component is
+            # implausible rather than impossible - a prosumer rebate is
+            # expressible this way - and refusing a site over it would be this
+            # module asserting a fact about Belgian tariff design it cannot
+            # observe. §14's warning box governs CONTRADICTIONS, and this is
+            # not one.
+            _LOG.warning(
+                "%s carries negative levies %s EUR/kWh. That is accepted, but "
+                "a tax component below zero is usually a sign error: the "
+                "add-on will SUBTRACT it from the published price in those "
+                "hours.", TAXES_PROFILE_OPTION, negative)
+
+    # ⚠️ TARIFF-15: THE FORMULA, GRADED AGAINST THE OPERATOR'S OWN CARD, AT
+    # STARTUP RATHER THAN AT 03:00.
+    #
+    # THE DEFECT THIS EXISTS TO PREVENT, and it is not one `code_leaks()` can
+    # see because it is not in code: an operator folds their NETWORK CHARGES
+    # into `offset` while `price_taxes_eur_kwh` carries them as well, and the
+    # site is billed against a price ~12 c EUR/kWh high on every hour for as
+    # long as nobody re-reads the configuration. §11.4 makes every price
+    # defect quiet, so nothing on the status page would ever differ.
+    #
+    # The card is what grades it. A Belgian tariff card prints the formula,
+    # the reference index it assumed AND the resulting price, so the add-on
+    # recomputes that printed price from the numbers the operator typed and
+    # refuses to start unless the two agree to within CARD_TOLERANCE. An
+    # inflated `offset` cannot pass - the printed estimate is the energy
+    # component alone, so ~12 c EUR/kWh moves 15.55 to ~27. The same check
+    # catches VAT omitted, VAT applied twice, a transposed digit, and a unit
+    # MISMATCH between the coefficients and the printed estimate. The one unit
+    # error it cannot see is the one applied to BOTH sides at once, because
+    # that cancels out of a comparison between them - which is why
+    # `implausible_all_in()` below is a second refusal on a second quantity
+    # rather than a restatement of this one.
+    #
+    # ⚠️ AND ITS LIMIT, IN THE SAME SENTENCE AS THE CLAIM, exactly as price.py
+    # states trap 1's: IT GRADES THE COEFFICIENTS AGAINST THE CARD, NOT THE
+    # CARD AGAINST REALITY. A consistent-but-wrong pair - both numbers off the
+    # wrong product - reproduces its own printed price and passes. Nothing can
+    # catch that.
+    spec = None                 # TARIFF-16 reads this back, below
+    raw_formula = opts.get("price_formula", "")
+    has_formula = bool(str(raw_formula or "").strip()) \
+        or isinstance(raw_formula, dict)
+    if pid == "custom_formula" and not has_formula:
+        problems.append(
+            "price_provider is 'custom_formula' but price_formula is empty, "
+            "so the add-on has no coefficients to price anything with. Every "
+            "fetch would return no-price-data and §11.4 would fall back "
+            "silently - which is the shape of defect this provider exists to "
+            "remove, arrived at by leaving one field blank. Copy the "
+            "Tariefformule line off your supplier's tariff card, e.g. "
+            "{\"index\":\"epex_be\",\"resolution\":\"hourly\","
+            "\"factor\":0.102,\"offset\":1.00,"
+            "\"units\":\"c_eur_per_kwh\",\"vat_pct\":6,"
+            "\"card\":{\"month\":\"2026-09\","
+            "\"index_eur_per_mwh\":133.9905,\"expect_incl_vat\":15.55}} "
+            "- see DOCS.md. Or set price_provider to 'generic_dayahead' for "
+            "the wholesale curve with a flat markup.")
+    elif has_formula:
+        try:
+            spec = parse_price_formula(raw_formula)
+        except FormulaInvalid as e:
+            spec = None
+            problems.append(f"price_formula cannot be used: {e}")
+        if spec is not None and pid != "custom_formula":
+            # ⚠️ A WARNING AND NOT A REFUSAL. This is not two price sources
+            # fighting over one flag - it is one that is simply not wired to
+            # anything - so the §14 warning box does not apply. But an option
+            # an operator filled in and that decides nothing is exactly the
+            # silent loser this module's case (a) is about, so it is said out
+            # loud rather than left to be discovered from a bill.
+            _LOG.warning(
+                "price_formula is filled in but price_provider is %r, so the "
+                "coefficients decide NOTHING - only 'custom_formula' reads "
+                "them. Set price_provider to 'custom_formula' to use them, or "
+                "clear price_formula so the configuration says what the "
+                "add-on is doing.", pid)
+        if spec is not None and pid == "custom_formula":
+            taxes = _number(opts, "price_taxes_eur_kwh",
+                            PRICE_OPTION_DEFAULTS["price_taxes_eur_kwh"])
+            band = implausible_all_in(spec, taxes if taxes is not None else 0.0)
+            if band:
+                problems.append(band)
+            aged = stale_card(spec)
+            if aged:
+                # ⚠️ WARN, NEVER REFUSE. ENGIE freezes a contract's
+                # coefficients for its duration, so a two-year-old card can be
+                # exactly right and a site refused over one is a site that
+                # cannot start.
+                _LOG.warning("%s", aged)
+
+    # ⚠️ TARIFF-16: THE INJECTION LEG, REFUSED AT STARTUP ON THE SAME RULE.
+    #
+    # THE DEFECT THIS EXISTS TO PREVENT: `export_price_eur_kwh` models
+    # injection as ONE scalar, and the published market is a line -
+    # Eneco `0,1 x BELPEX-H - 1,188` c EUR/kWh, "het injectietarief is
+    # dynamisch en kan per uur wijzigen", identical on the January and the
+    # September 2026 cards. A scalar cannot hold its own factor (0,100 against
+    # 0,102 on the same supplier's consumption leg), cannot hold a negative
+    # offset, cannot state that injection is VAT-EXEMPT while consumption is
+    # at 6%, and cannot go below zero in the midday hours a PV household
+    # actually exports in.
+    #
+    # ⚠️ AND WHAT IT DOES NOT AFFECT TODAY, said here rather than left to be
+    # inferred: `arbitrage.py` does not read the injection price at all. Both
+    # hours it compares are all-in CONSUMPTION prices, by its own
+    # accounting-basis comment. No trade turns on this option. What it changes
+    # is what the operator is told and what a future export-aware strategy
+    # rests on - which is why it is validated here rather than trusted.
+    raw_export = opts.get(EXPORT_FORMULA_OPTION, "")
+    has_export = bool(str(raw_export or "").strip()) \
+        or isinstance(raw_export, dict)
+    if has_export:
+        try:
+            xspec = parse_export_formula(raw_export)
+        except FormulaInvalid as e:
+            xspec = None
+            problems.append(f"{EXPORT_FORMULA_OPTION} cannot be used: {e}")
+        if xspec is not None:
+            # ⚠️ THE 6% ASYMMETRY, PRINTED RATHER THAN ASSUMED. The two legs
+            # carry INDEPENDENT `vat_pct` values and a Belgian site's are 6 and
+            # 0. Printing both beside each other is the only place an operator
+            # can see that the add-on knows it - a status page shows one price
+            # and no arithmetic.
+            _LOG.info(
+                "%s is set: injection priced as (%g x index %+g) x "
+                "(1 + %g/100) %s, i.e. %.4g x the wholesale price with a "
+                "%+.5f EUR/kWh offset. ⚠️ NO STRATEGY IN THIS ADD-ON READS "
+                "IT: arbitrage.py prices the sell side as displaced IMPORT "
+                "and compares two all-in CONSUMPTION prices, so this option "
+                "changes no decision the add-on takes today. It is what you "
+                "are shown, and the shape a future export-aware strategy "
+                "would read.",
+                EXPORT_FORMULA_OPTION, xspec.factor, xspec.offset,
+                xspec.vat_pct, xspec.units, xspec.passthrough,
+                xspec.offset_eur_kwh)
+            if spec is not None:
+                # ⚠️ THE ASYMMETRY, AS AN ORDERED PAIR RATHER THAN TWO NUMBERS
+                # IN ONE SENTENCE (MUTATION.md habit 14). "6 and 0 appear
+                # somewhere" is satisfied by the two legs transposed, which is
+                # the sentence telling an operator that the add-on has their
+                # VAT treatment exactly backwards.
+                _LOG.info(
+                    "the two legs are priced independently: consumption "
+                    "factor %g at vat_pct %g, injection factor %g at vat_pct "
+                    "%g. In Belgium those differ - \"injectietarieven zijn "
+                    "vrijgesteld van btw\" while consumption is at 6%% - and "
+                    "%s is the option that makes the difference "
+                    "expressible; a single scalar could not state it.",
+                    spec.factor, spec.vat_pct, xspec.factor, xspec.vat_pct,
+                    EXPORT_FORMULA_OPTION)
+            if not xspec.card_graded:
+                # ⚠️ A WARNING AND NEVER A REFUSAL, AND THE GAP IS NAMED
+                # RATHER THAN WORKED AROUND. `price_formula`'s card block is
+                # required because a Belgian card prints the consumption
+                # formula, the reference index AND the resulting price. Eneco's
+                # INJECTION formula is printed with no price beside it, so on
+                # that card there is nothing to reproduce. Requiring a block
+                # here would make the market's own published line
+                # inexpressible; inventing the estimate would grade the
+                # coefficients against arithmetic done with the same
+                # coefficients. So the leg is accepted, the two coefficient
+                # bounds in `implausible_injection()` are applied, and the
+                # operator is told which of the two checks did NOT run.
+                _LOG.warning(
+                    "%s has no \"card\" block, so its coefficients are "
+                    "UNGRADED: nothing recomputed a printed price from them. "
+                    "That is accepted because it is the real market - Eneco "
+                    "prints its injection formula with no price beside it, so "
+                    "there is nothing to grade against on that card - and "
+                    "refusing would make the published line inexpressible. "
+                    "What IS checked is the shape of the coefficients: the "
+                    "pass-through (%.4g x the wholesale price) and the offset "
+                    "(%+.5f EUR/kWh). If YOUR card prints an injection "
+                    "estimate, add {\"month\": ..., \"index_eur_per_mwh\": "
+                    "..., \"expect_incl_vat\": ...} and the add-on will "
+                    "refuse to start unless your numbers reproduce it.",
+                    EXPORT_FORMULA_OPTION, xspec.passthrough,
+                    xspec.offset_eur_kwh)
+            else:
+                xaged = stale_card(xspec)
+                if xaged:
+                    _LOG.warning("%s", xaged)
+
     # ⚠️ A WARNING, NOT A REFUSAL, AND THE ASYMMETRY IS DELIBERATE. §11.4 says a
     # site with no price data falls back to the static profile; a dynamic site
     # with none configured has nothing to fall back to when its feed dies. That

goodwe_controller/config.yaml

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 name: GoodWe RS485 Controller
-version: "0.9.0"
+version: "0.11.0"
 slug: goodwe_controller
 description: >-
   Drives a GoodWe ES/BP battery inverter over RS485 by emulating its smart
@@ -147,6 +147,74 @@ options:
   inverters: []
   estop_fitted: false
 
+  # TEL-11 - THE SITE'S PV PRODUCTION, IN WATTS, AND IT IS READ BY NOTHING THAT
+  # DECIDES ANYTHING. Optional, empty on every install that does not set it, and
+  # when it is empty the add-on reads no entity, announces no entity, publishes
+  # no topic and shows no status row.
+  #
+  # ⚠️ AN HA ENTITY AND NOT A REGISTER, BECAUSE MOST SOLAR INVERTERS ARE NOT ON
+  # THIS BUS. The RS485 bus this add-on speaks carries the BATTERY inverter it
+  # drives; a household's PV inverter is normally a different box from a
+  # different vendor, reporting into Home Assistant through its own integration.
+  # So this takes whatever `sensor.*` the site's PV integration provides, any
+  # brand Home Assistant can read.
+  #
+  # ⚠️ POSITIVE IS PRODUCTION, and there is deliberately no `pv_invert` beside
+  # `meter_invert` and `batt_invert`. Those two quantities are bipolar AND are
+  # read by the control path, so a reversed sensor there is a plausible number
+  # the site acts on; production is unipolar and is read by nothing, so a
+  # reversed sensor announces itself as -4 kW at noon in the history this key
+  # exists to create. See DECISIONS/TEL-11-pv-production.md.
+  #
+  # ⚠️ THE ENTITY'S OWN `unit_of_measurement` IS WHAT IS BELIEVED - W, kW, MW
+  # and the rest of Home Assistant's power units. A sensor with no unit, or with
+  # a unit that is not power, is REFUSED and the status page says which: there
+  # is no magnitude heuristic that can tell 30 W of dusk from 30 kW of noon, and
+  # a factor of 1000 in the one channel that exists to be believed a week later
+  # is worse than a refusal an operator can read.
+  pv_entity: ""
+
+  # TEL-12 - THE SAME CHANNEL WHEN THE ROOF HAS SEVERAL INVERTERS, WHICH IS THE
+  # ORDINARY CASE AND NOT AN EDGE ONE. A multi-string or multi-orientation roof
+  # routinely carries two or three PV inverters, each publishing its own power
+  # sensor; 0.11.0 shipped `pv_entity` as a single string and the reference
+  # site's owner reported within minutes that they could configure one of
+  # theirs. List them all here and the row carries the SITE total.
+  #
+  # ⚠️ DECLARED, THIS REPLACES `pv_entity` - it does not extend it. Set both and
+  # ONLY this list is read, and the status page says so. That is CFG-04's rule
+  # for `inverters:` applied to the upgrade path this key exists for: the
+  # install being upgraded HAS `pv_entity` set, and an operator who adds all
+  # their inverters to this list while the old key still names one of them would
+  # DOUBLE that inverter under a union rule. Clear `pv_entity` when you fill
+  # this in.
+  #
+  # ⚠️ AND IF ANY ONE OF THEM IS NOT REPORTING, THERE IS NO SITE TOTAL - the row
+  # publishes `unknown` and the recorder records a GAP. It does NOT publish the
+  # sum of the ones that answered: two of three inverters add up to a smaller
+  # number that is indistinguishable from a real one, and a week later that
+  # reads as "there was less sun than there was" - the exact conclusion this
+  # channel exists to TEST rather than to manufacture. The status page names
+  # which entity is missing and why, and lists what the others reported, because
+  # a human reading it live wants the diagnostic; the recorded number does not,
+  # because nobody re-derives a week of history. See
+  # DECISIONS/TEL-12-several-pv-inverters.md.
+  #
+  # ⚠️ THE FIX IS NOT A TEMPLATE SENSOR THAT SUMS THEM. You may legitimately
+  # prefer one, but a template sensor summing an `unavailable` source yields the
+  # partial total silently - the same defect one layer down, in a place this
+  # add-on cannot see or report.
+  #
+  #   pv_entities:
+  #     - sensor.pv_east_power
+  #     - sensor.pv_west_power
+  #     - sensor.pv_garage_power
+  #
+  # Each entity's OWN `unit_of_measurement` is read, so a kW inverter beside a W
+  # one sums correctly. Empty is the shipped default and means "use `pv_entity`,
+  # which is also empty" - i.e. no PV channel at all, which is every install.
+  pv_entities: []
+
   # ==========================================================================
   # METER - where the grid reading comes from
   # ==========================================================================
@@ -265,9 +333,17 @@ options:
   # TARIFF - what energy costs, and whether to trade on it
   # ==========================================================================
   # `off` is the shipped default and means the §11.4 no-price-data row applies:
-  # static profile, plan provisional, NO ARBITRAGE. Nothing in 0.5.x consumes
-  # the series yet - OPT-04 is the consumer - so turning this on today fetches,
-  # validates and publishes prices and changes no energy decision.
+  # static profile, plan provisional, NO ARBITRAGE.
+  #
+  # ⚠️ SELECTING A PROVIDER IS WHAT STARTS THE FETCH, AND IT IS NOT
+  # `arbitrage_enabled` (TARIFF-10). With a provider set and trading off - the
+  # shipped default - the add-on fetches the feed every 30 minutes, validates
+  # it, records the day in /data/price_history.json and reports what it holds
+  # on the *Price history* status row. It changes NO energy decision: the cheap
+  # window the maintenance cycle reads still comes from `static_profile`, and
+  # §10.1's arbitrage is gated on `arbitrage_enabled` alone. Until TARIFF-10
+  # the fetch was gated on `arbitrage_enabled` too, so this option did nothing
+  # whatsoever on a shipped install - the store was never even created.
   #
   # ⚠️ THESE DEFAULTS ARE MIRRORED ONCE, IN app/price.py's
   # PRICE_OPTION_DEFAULTS, and test_price.py reads THIS FILE and asserts the two
@@ -276,18 +352,65 @@ options:
   #
   # markup/taxes are the §14 `tariffs.energy_price.*` figures and are added by
   # the FRAMEWORK, only for the components the chosen plugin declares its feed
-  # does not already contain. engie_dynamic, totalenergies_dynamic, eneco_eddy
-  # and manual_csv publish a figure that already carries the markup, so setting
-  # it under those is ignored - and logged as ignored, never applied twice.
+  # does not already contain. manual_csv carries an all-in figure, so setting
+  # either under it is ignored - and logged as ignored, never applied twice.
+  # `custom_formula` (TARIFF-15) carries energy AND markup - your contract's
+  # formula IS the markup - so it takes price_taxes_eur_kwh only, and your
+  # price_markup_eur_kwh is ignored under it, with a line in the log saying so.
   price_provider: "off"
   price_markup_eur_kwh: 0.03
-  price_taxes_eur_kwh: 0.06
+
+  # TARIFF-18. The all-in Flemish non-energy figure, EUR/kWh, incl. 6 % VAT.
+  # Its components are named in app/price.py's FLEMISH_TAXES_COMPONENTS_EUR_KWH
+  # and test_price.py section 1b re-adds them:
+  #
+  #   Fluvius distribution (Antwerpen)              5,35  c EUR/kWh
+  #   Bijzondere accijns, "Alle verbruik"           4,876
+  #   Bijdrage groene stroom en WKK Vlaanderen      1,51
+  #   Energiebijdrage (0 EUR/MWh since 2026-08-01)  0
+  #                                                ------
+  #                                                11,736 c EUR/kWh = 0.11736
+  #
+  # ⚠️ THIS IS PER-DSO AND YOURS IS PROBABLY DIFFERENT. Only the distribution
+  # row moves: across the eight Fluvius DSOs it runs 5,28 c EUR/kWh
+  # (Midden-Vlaanderen) to 6,70 (West), so the Flemish total runs about 0.117
+  # to 0.131. Antwerpen is near the LOW end, which is the direction this
+  # default should err in - it is inert on which hour is cheapest, but §17's
+  # negative-price guard reads the ABSOLUTE all-in price, and a figure set too
+  # high would carry a genuinely negative hour above zero.
+  #
+  # ⚠️ WALLONIA AND BRUSSELS DO NOT BELONG IN THIS SCALAR AT ALL. Their
+  # distribution tariff has a day and a night band; use price_taxes_profile.
+  price_taxes_eur_kwh: 0.11736
 
   # §9.3: injection is priced SEPARATELY, and in Belgium it is often near zero -
-  # which by itself strongly favours self-consumption over export. A scalar, not
-  # a second series: no shipped supplier publishes a dynamic injection curve.
+  # which by itself strongly favours self-consumption over export. This is the
+  # FLAT injection price, for a site paid the same for every exported kWh.
+  #
+  # ⚠️ THE REASON THIS COMMENT USED TO GIVE - "no shipped supplier publishes a
+  # dynamic injection curve" - WAS FALSE, and TARIFF-07 struck the same
+  # sentence from app/price.py and DOCS.md without reaching this file. Eneco
+  # publishes `0,1 x BELPEX-H - 1,188` c EUR/kWh on the same card as its
+  # consumption formula, ENGIE publishes `(B x eSpot_15) - A`, and Aspiravi
+  # `0,07 x Belpex - 2`. A site on one of those sets price_export_formula
+  # below; this scalar stays the fixed-product default and is what every site
+  # uses today.
   export_price_eur_kwh: 0.04
 
+  # TARIFF-16. The INJECTION leg as a formula, in price_formula's own grammar
+  # and with its OWN coefficients: Eneco uses 0,102 on consumption and 0,100 on
+  # injection, and injection is VAT-EXEMPT where consumption is at 6%, so
+  # `vat_pct` here is normally 0. A negative `offset` is expected - it is what
+  # the published lines carry - and the resulting price legitimately goes below
+  # zero in the midday hours a PV household exports in.
+  #
+  # ⚠️ NO STRATEGY IN THIS ADD-ON READS IT. arbitrage.py prices the sell side
+  # as displaced IMPORT and compares two all-in CONSUMPTION prices; it does not
+  # read the injection price at all. This option is what the operator is shown
+  # and the shape a future export-aware strategy would rest on. Empty by
+  # default, which leaves every existing site on the scalar above.
+  price_export_formula: ""
+
   # §14's `tariffs.static_profile`, and "" is its `null`. §9.2: "a large share
   # of the installed base is on [a static profile]" - this is what makes those
   # sites first-class rather than "price_provider: off, good luck".
@@ -317,7 +440,100 @@ options:
   # to fall back to and a dead feed leaves the site with no tariff at all.
   # validate.py warns about exactly that.
   static_profile: ""
+
+  # TARIFF-17. THE TAXES COMPONENT AS A DAY/NIGHT TABLE, for the sites whose
+  # network tariff actually has one. "" means the flat price_taxes_eur_kwh
+  # above decides, which is what every install has had until now and is CORRECT
+  # IN FLANDERS: Fluvius distribution is a single rate, and its row on the
+  # tariff card offers only `Normaal | Uitsl. nacht` - exclusive night being a
+  # separate physical circuit, not the night register of a dual-rate meter.
+  #
+  # The Walloon and Brussels DSOs are on the same card with FOUR columns -
+  # `Enkelvoudig | Dag | Nacht | Uitsl. nacht` - and the gap is real money
+  # (c EUR/kWh): ORES dag 13,27 / nacht 7,39; AIESH 15,17 / 8,21; Tecteo RESA
+  # 12,20 / 7,01; Sibelga 9,39 / 7,10; ORES IMPACT 2026 16,578 / 5,090.
+  #
+  # ⚠️ WHY THIS IS NOT COSMETIC. The optimiser reads the SPREAD (max - min) and
+  # which hour is cheapest. A flat number is additive and identical every hour,
+  # so it cancels out of both - it cannot distort anything, and it also cannot
+  # express this. These bands are ANTI-CORRELATED with what the battery wants
+  # to do (cheap network hours are cheap spot hours), so flattening them
+  # UNDERSTATES the true spread and declines cycles that would have paid. See
+  # DOCS.md, "The three buckets".
+  #
+  # Same JSON grammar as static_profile above - the same tiling rule, the same
+  # day selectors, the same DST handling, because it is literally the same
+  # parser. ⚠️ THE VALUE IS THE TAXES COMPONENT ALONE, NOT AN ALL-IN PRICE:
+  #
+  #   {"periods": [
+  #      {"name":"dag",  "from":"07:00","to":"22:00","days":"mon-fri","eur_per_kwh":0.1327},
+  #      {"name":"nacht","from":"22:00","to":"07:00","days":"mon-fri","eur_per_kwh":0.0739},
+  #      {"name":"nacht","from":"00:00","to":"24:00","days":"sat,sun", "eur_per_kwh":0.0739}]}
+  #
+  # ⚠️ SET THIS *OR* price_taxes_eur_kwh, NOT BOTH. Two writers of one quantity,
+  # one of which silently wins, is refused at startup: leave the scalar at its
+  # shipped default when you fill this in. A scalar still sitting on the
+  # SUPERSEDED 0.06 is accepted too (TARIFF-18 moved that default, and your
+  # stored options carry the old number whether you typed it or not) - the
+  # refusal is about a figure you chose, not about one this add-on wrote.
+  price_taxes_profile: ""
+
+  # TARIFF-15. YOUR OWN TARIFF CARD, as two fixed coefficients. Used only when
+  # `price_provider: custom_formula`; "" is unset.
+  #
+  # A Belgian dynamic contract prices energy as `B x index + A`, and the two
+  # coefficients exist in exactly ONE place - the tariff card in your
+  # klantenzone. There is no machine-readable source for them anywhere (CREG's
+  # tariff-card pages 404, CREG Scan is a JS wizard, VREG was unreachable), so
+  # no plugin and no scraper can ever know YOUR numbers. You are the only party
+  # who can see them.
+  #
+  # A JSON object, on one line. You type what your card prints, IN THE CARD'S
+  # OWN UNITS; every unit conversion and the VAT multiplication are the
+  # add-on's job, because those are exactly the two steps that silently cost a
+  # factor of 10, 100 or 1.06.
+  #
+  #   {"index":"epex_be","resolution":"hourly","factor":0.102,"offset":1.00,
+  #    "units":"c_eur_per_kwh","vat_pct":6,
+  #    "card":{"month":"2026-09","index_eur_per_mwh":133.9905,
+  #            "expect_incl_vat":15.55}}
+  #
+  # price = (factor x index_eur_per_mwh + offset) x (1 + vat_pct/100), in
+  # `units`, converted to EUR/kWh by the add-on.
+  #
+  # ⚠️ THE `card` BLOCK IS REQUIRED AND IT IS THE SAFETY MECHANISM. Your card
+  # prints the formula, the reference index it assumed AND the resulting price.
+  # At startup the add-on recomputes that printed price from the numbers you
+  # typed and REFUSES TO START unless the two agree to within 0.01 - naming the
+  # discrepancy. That catches VAT left out or applied twice, a transposed
+  # digit, a unit MISMATCH between the coefficients and the printed price
+  # (10x/100x/1000x), and the expensive one: NETWORK CHARGES FOLDED INTO
+  # `offset`. A unit error applied to BOTH sides at once cancels out of that
+  # comparison; the add-on refuses that separately, by checking the card's own
+  # point against the band a Belgian retail tariff can occupy. Your card's formula line is the ENERGY component
+  # alone; the add-on adds price_taxes_eur_kwh on top, so folding ~12 c/kWh of
+  # network charge into `offset` would bill you for it twice - and it cannot
+  # pass, because it moves the computed 15.55 to about 27.
+  #
+  # ⚠️ AND THE LIMIT OF THAT CHECK, IN THE SAME BREATH: it grades your
+  # COEFFICIENTS AGAINST YOUR CARD, not your card against reality. Two numbers
+  # copied off the wrong product agree with each other perfectly and pass.
+  #
+  # ⚠️ FIXED COEFFICIENTS ONLY - the add-on evaluates NO expression of any kind
+  # and there is no field that takes one. An unknown key is refused rather than
+  # ignored. See DOCS.md for why (it is not only security: two coefficients can
+  # be graded against your card and an arbitrary expression cannot be graded
+  # against anything).
+  price_formula: ""
   price_csv_path: "/share/goodwe_prices.csv"
+  # ⚠️ AN OVERRIDE IS THE EXACT URL (TARIFF-09). The plugin sends it verbatim
+  # and appends nothing - including the `start`/`end` date range it derives from
+  # the horizon for its own feed - so an override gets whatever range that URL
+  # answers, which for a bare day-ahead endpoint is ONE Brussels day. Every hour
+  # past it is then carried from yesterday and flagged provisional, and §8.3
+  # keeps provisional hours out of the trade set. The plugin logs a WARNING
+  # naming that consequence on every fetch that uses an override; clearing this
+  # option is what restores the full horizon.
   price_feed_url: ""
   price_horizon_h: 48
   price_timeout_s: 10
@@ -344,6 +560,12 @@ options:
   # configuration: this is the first strategy in the add-on that moves energy
   # against the meter on purpose, so it is armed deliberately or not at all.
   #
+  # ⚠️ IT IS NOT WHAT TURNS THE PRICE FEED ON (TARIFF-10). `price_provider`
+  # above decides whether prices are FETCHED; this decides whether they move
+  # energy. Leaving this off on a site with a provider configured is a
+  # supported, documented state: prices are fetched, validated and recorded,
+  # and nothing trades.
+  #
   # ⚠️ IT NEEDS A PRICE SOURCE AND A P1 METER, and validate.py refuses the
   # combinations that cannot work rather than letting them look armed. With
   # `price_provider: off` and no `static_profile` there is no series to trade
@@ -592,6 +814,38 @@ options:
   # and not 150 or 200. 37 control cycles.
   delivery_hold_s: 185
 
+  # SAFETY-10. Run the whole decision path and command NOTHING - strategies,
+  # arbiter, clamps and guards all run, the decision and its reason are
+  # recorded, and every inverter is held at 0 W. `app/shadow.py` carries the
+  # argument; the three things to know before changing this line are:
+  #
+  #   auto  shadow WHILE CONTROL IS STOPPED, live once it is started. This is
+  #         the shipped value and it is what "default-on" means here.
+  #   on    always shadow, whatever the Start / stop button says. This is the
+  #         one an operator picks to watch a day of decisions on an armed site
+  #         before letting it trade.
+  #   off   ordinary control.
+  #
+  # ⚠️ IT IS NOT A BOOLEAN DEFAULTING TO `true`, AND THAT IS THE WHOLE CARD.
+  # The Supervisor composes an add-on's options as `{**these defaults, **the
+  # stored user options}`, so a NEW key with a new default reaches every
+  # EXISTING install on the next update - including one regulating a real
+  # battery. `shadow_mode: true` would silently stop it, and the only symptom
+  # would be a battery that has stopped doing anything. There is no mechanism
+  # in this options system that lets one key default differently for a new
+  # install and an existing one, so "default-on for new" has to be a value the
+  # add-on RESOLVES. `auto` is that value: a fresh install ships
+  # `auto_start: false` and therefore comes up in shadow mode; an install that
+  # is controlling is started, so `auto` resolves to live and NOTHING about it
+  # changes.
+  #
+  # ⚠️ AND UNDER `auto` THE START BUTTON LEAVES SHADOW MODE. Pressing *Start /
+  # stop control* is the operator saying "control the battery". Somebody who
+  # wants the decisions recorded WHILE the loop runs sets `on` explicitly -
+  # which is the configuration this option exists for, and the one that cannot
+  # be reached by accident.
+  shadow_mode: "auto"
+
   # ==========================================================================
   # ADVANCED - the control law and diagnostics
   # ==========================================================================
@@ -686,6 +940,37 @@ schema:
       capacity_kwh: float(0.1,200)?
 
   estop_fitted: bool
+  # TEL-11. Optional, and OPTIONAL WITHOUT A COMPANION RULE - unlike
+  # `price_now_entity`/`price_avg_entity`, which are legal only while
+  # `price_provider` is `off` and make the add-on REFUSE TO START otherwise.
+  # Nothing in validate.py mentions this key: it cannot conflict with anything,
+  # because nothing else reads it.
+  pv_entity: str?
+
+  # TEL-12. ⚠️ A SECOND KEY RATHER THAN A LIST SHAPE ON `pv_entity`, AND THAT IS
+  # A MEASUREMENT AND NOT A PREFERENCE. `pv_entity` shipped in 0.11.0 as `str?`
+  # and the reference site has a string persisted in it. Declared as a list,
+  # Supervisor 2026.08.0 answers that stored string with
+  #
+  #   Invalid list for option 'pv_entity' in GoodWe RS485 Controller
+  #
+  # and `deepmerge`'s list strategy is `override`, so a shipped `[]` default does
+  # NOT rescue it - the operator's string stands and is refused. That is CFG-04
+  # §B's trap in the other direction: an add-on that will not start, and the
+  # schema needed to fix it pinned to the version that cannot be installed. The
+  # only single-key spelling Supervisor accepts for BOTH shapes is `match(.*)?`,
+  # which validates nothing at all (it admits a number, a dict, any list of
+  # anything) and renders as a plain text box. Measured, both of them, by
+  # `tools/supervisor_shape_probe.py` §G - the transcript is in
+  # DECISIONS/TEL-12-several-pv-inverters.md §1.
+  #
+  # ⚠️ AND `pv_entities: []` IN THE `options:` BLOCK IS LOAD-BEARING, exactly as
+  # `inverters: []` is. §G measures the same isolated counterfactual: the
+  # shipped defaults MINUS only this key are refused with `Missing option
+  # 'pv_entities' in root`, which is every options blob written before 0.12.
+  # `p1_phase_import_entities` is the shipped precedent for the pair.
+  pv_entities:
+    - str
 
   # ==========================================================================
   # METER - where the grid reading comes from
@@ -736,9 +1021,32 @@ schema:
   # Supervisor rejects a typo in the UI. validate.py ALSO refuses an unknown id
   # against app/price.py's PROVIDERS registry, because sim/inject.py and the
   # checks reach validate_startup_config() with a dict the Supervisor never saw.
-  # Adding a sixth plugin means adding it here and to PROVIDERS - and nowhere
-  # else, which is AC2.
-  price_provider: list(off|generic_dayahead|engie_dynamic|totalenergies_dynamic|eneco_eddy|manual_csv)
+  # Adding a plugin means adding it here and to PROVIDERS - and nowhere else,
+  # which is AC2.
+  #
+  # ⚠️ THREE OF THESE FIVE IDS NO LONGER RESOLVE TO A PLUGIN, AND LEAVING THEM
+  # HERE IS A DECISION (TARIFF-07). engie_dynamic, totalenergies_dynamic and
+  # eneco_eddy were withdrawn - their endpoints do not exist and never did - and
+  # the obvious edit is to delete them from this line too. DO NOT. The Supervisor
+  # validates the options file against this schema BEFORE the add-on starts, so
+  # an id that is not listed here makes an EXISTING config schema-invalid: the
+  # operator gets an opaque "expected one of ..." from the Supervisor, the add-on
+  # never runs, and validate.py's retired-id refusal - the message that tells
+  # them their prices never worked and what to do instead - IS NEVER REACHED, on
+  # exactly the sites that need it. Schema tightness would cost the only thing
+  # this withdrawal is FOR.
+  #
+  # The cost of keeping them is that the dropdown still offers three dead ids to
+  # a NEW operator. That is the cheaper failure: choosing one is refused at the
+  # next startup by name, with the endpoint, the observation and the alternative
+  # - which is strictly more than a typo-shaped schema rejection would say. Both
+  # translations label them withdrawn in the option description as well.
+  #
+  # app/price.py's RETIRED_PROVIDERS is the list, test_price.py section 1 asserts
+  # this line offers exactly PROVIDERS + RETIRED_PROVIDERS + 'off' - derived, not
+  # typed - and register() refuses to re-register a retired id, so the two
+  # cannot both claim one.
+  price_provider: list(off|generic_dayahead|custom_formula|engie_dynamic|totalenergies_dynamic|eneco_eddy|manual_csv)
   price_markup_eur_kwh: float(0,1)
   price_taxes_eur_kwh: float(0,1)
 
@@ -747,11 +1055,29 @@ schema:
   # bottoms out at 0 would make that site inexpressible.
   export_price_eur_kwh: float(-1,1)
 
+  # TARIFF-16. A JSON string in `price_formula`'s grammar, parsed by
+  # `custom_formula.parse_export_formula()` - the SAME parser with its option
+  # name as an argument, so a second unit table and a second card rule do not
+  # exist to diverge. The `card` block is OPTIONAL on this leg and required on
+  # the other: Eneco prints its injection formula with no price beside it, so
+  # on that card there is nothing to grade against, and the add-on says at
+  # startup that the leg is ungraded rather than inventing an estimate.
+  price_export_formula: str?
+
   # A JSON string rather than a nested schema, deliberately: it is ONE option
   # key (§14 has one), it survives config.yaml's flat options block, and
   # parse_static_profile() accepts an already-parsed dict too, so a future
   # nested schema is a config.yaml change and no code change at all.
   static_profile: str?
+  # TARIFF-17. A JSON string for `static_profile`'s reason, and parsed by
+  # `static_tariff.parse_taxes_profile()` - the SAME period grammar, so a
+  # second tiling rule and a second set of DST bugs do not exist to diverge.
+  price_taxes_profile: str?
+  # TARIFF-15. A JSON string for the same reason `static_profile` is one: it is
+  # ONE option key, it survives config.yaml's flat options block, and
+  # parse_price_formula() accepts an already-parsed dict too, so a future
+  # nested schema is a config.yaml change and no code change at all.
+  price_formula: str?
   price_csv_path: str?
   price_feed_url: str?
   price_horizon_h: int(1,72)
@@ -870,6 +1196,15 @@ schema:
   # running short of one unit's share must be reported well inside one.
   delivery_hold_s: int(30,900)
 
+  # SAFETY-10. ⚠️ A THREE-VALUED LIST AND NOT A `bool`, for the reason written
+  # against the default in the options block above: a boolean has one default
+  # and the Supervisor gives it to every install, new and existing alike.
+  # `app/shadow.MODES` is this tuple and `validate.py` rule 11 refuses anything
+  # else BY NAME, because `shadow.mode()` resolves an unreadable value to
+  # SHADOW - safe, but a silent reinterpretation that commands nothing for as
+  # long as nobody notices.
+  shadow_mode: list(auto|on|off)
+
   # ==========================================================================
   # ADVANCED - the control law and diagnostics
   # ==========================================================================

goodwe_controller/scenarios/energy-charts-be-price-2025-09-10-hourly.json

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+{"license_info":"CC BY 4.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) from Bundesnetzagentur | SMARD.de","unix_seconds":[1757455200,1757458800,1757462400,1757466000,1757469600,1757473200,1757476800,1757480400,1757484000,1757487600,1757491200,1757494800,1757498400,1757502000,1757505600,1757509200,1757512800,1757516400,1757520000,1757523600,1757527200,1757530800,1757534400,1757538000],"price":[73.0,61.31,64.32,62.49,67.0,64.48,94.52,149.26,132.43,91.61,84.8,79.61,69.23,66.75,68.91,69.31,80.29,66.91,105.2,161.05,116.73,84.2,64.1,42.41],"unit":"EUR / MWh","deprecated":false}

goodwe_controller/scenarios/energy-charts-be-price-2026-09-09_2026-09-10-twoday.json

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+{"license_info":"CC BY 4.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) from Bundesnetzagentur | SMARD.de","unix_seconds":[1788904800,1788905700,1788906600,1788907500,1788908400,1788909300,1788910200,1788911100,1788912000,1788912900,1788913800,1788914700,1788915600,1788916500,1788917400,1788918300,1788919200,1788920100,1788921000,1788921900,1788922800,1788923700,1788924600,1788925500,1788926400,1788927300,1788928200,1788929100,1788930000,1788930900,1788931800,1788932700,1788933600,1788934500,1788935400,1788936300,1788937200,1788938100,1788939000,1788939900,1788940800,1788941700,1788942600,1788943500,1788944400,1788945300,1788946200,1788947100,1788948000,1788948900,1788949800,1788950700,1788951600,1788952500,1788953400,1788954300,1788955200,1788956100,1788957000,1788957900,1788958800,1788959700,1788960600,1788961500,1788962400,1788963300,1788964200,1788965100,1788966000,1788966900,1788967800,1788968700,1788969600,1788970500,1788971400,1788972300,1788973200,1788974100,1788975000,1788975900,1788976800,1788977700,1788978600,1788979500,1788980400,1788981300,1788982200,1788983100,1788984000,1788984900,1788985800,1788986700,1788987600,1788988500,1788989400,1788990300,1788991200,1788992100,1788993000,1788993900,1788994800,1788995700,1788996600,1788997500,1788998400,1788999300,1789000200,1789001100,1789002000,1789002900,1789003800,1789004700,1789005600,1789006500,1789007400,1789008300,1789009200,1789010100,1789011000,1789011900,1789012800,1789013700,1789014600,1789015500,1789016400,1789017300,1789018200,1789019100,1789020000,1789020900,1789021800,1789022700,1789023600,1789024500,1789025400,1789026300,1789027200,1789028100,1789029000,1789029900,1789030800,1789031700,1789032600,1789033500,1789034400,1789035300,1789036200,1789037100,1789038000,1789038900,1789039800,1789040700,1789041600,1789042500,1789043400,1789044300,1789045200,1789046100,1789047000,1789047900,1789048800,1789049700,1789050600,1789051500,1789052400,1789053300,1789054200,1789055100,1789056000,1789056900,1789057800,1789058700,1789059600,1789060500,1789061400,1789062300,1789063200,1789064100,1789065000,1789065900,1789066800,1789067700,1789068600,1789069500,1789070400,1789071300,1789072200,1789073100,1789074000,1789074900,1789075800,1789076700],"price":[150.93,151.41,150.99,147.59,153.25,147.26,144.04,141.53,147.79,146.53,143.55,139.93,145.58,139.56,139.11,138.06,138.92,138.52,138.04,138.65,137.29,139.03,144.59,150.34,154.12,174.5,178.43,186.62,199.35,200.21,200.11,197.43,220.07,202.0,196.01,174.03,198.32,167.49,152.54,142.05,161.5,145.45,128.61,100.85,139.18,115.83,94.41,80.39,111.25,89.61,84.99,74.38,80.53,70.58,62.27,57.1,62.24,64.95,68.99,71.19,66.9,87.32,109.0,123.12,68.48,125.53,155.99,161.9,138.77,160.57,167.35,173.0,142.2,172.83,196.19,211.26,205.85,218.77,217.08,222.0,210.98,208.46,208.88,210.02,209.77,202.61,200.27,191.49,194.39,195.04,197.26,190.92,188.39,198.05,203.05,191.84,216.08,216.08,214.92,200.0,223.37,201.43,196.32,190.0,199.53,194.83,180.53,172.23,179.88,175.77,167.1,173.89,163.29,165.99,171.41,178.73,170.27,177.37,187.71,201.07,193.62,207.61,218.27,226.77,227.17,234.05,236.99,229.94,248.93,227.5,216.08,195.67,215.99,195.01,177.1,155.09,174.91,152.71,139.59,123.83,140.77,123.19,114.96,94.5,102.77,96.63,94.57,116.34,114.63,126.82,129.89,123.95,105.0,119.11,121.0,136.79,123.41,135.01,135.0,156.68,146.88,152.16,162.02,181.78,154.76,184.28,194.3,215.76,197.23,234.15,253.03,296.58,345.32,389.16,482.99,559.0,551.11,446.41,358.97,295.9,271.39,268.06,241.43,238.01,239.7,226.41,223.05,211.56,218.21,210.61,197.78,171.79],"unit":"EUR / MWh","deprecated":false}

goodwe_controller/scenarios/energy-charts-be-price-2026-09-10-quarterhourly.json

@@ -0,0 +1 @@
+{"license_info":"CC BY 4.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) from Bundesnetzagentur | SMARD.de","unix_seconds":[1788991200,1788992100,1788993000,1788993900,1788994800,1788995700,1788996600,1788997500,1788998400,1788999300,1789000200,1789001100,1789002000,1789002900,1789003800,1789004700,1789005600,1789006500,1789007400,1789008300,1789009200,1789010100,1789011000,1789011900,1789012800,1789013700,1789014600,1789015500,1789016400,1789017300,1789018200,1789019100,1789020000,1789020900,1789021800,1789022700,1789023600,1789024500,1789025400,1789026300,1789027200,1789028100,1789029000,1789029900,1789030800,1789031700,1789032600,1789033500,1789034400,1789035300,1789036200,1789037100,1789038000,1789038900,1789039800,1789040700,1789041600,1789042500,1789043400,1789044300,1789045200,1789046100,1789047000,1789047900,1789048800,1789049700,1789050600,1789051500,1789052400,1789053300,1789054200,1789055100,1789056000,1789056900,1789057800,1789058700,1789059600,1789060500,1789061400,1789062300,1789063200,1789064100,1789065000,1789065900,1789066800,1789067700,1789068600,1789069500,1789070400,1789071300,1789072200,1789073100,1789074000,1789074900,1789075800,1789076700],"price":[216.08,216.08,214.92,200.0,223.37,201.43,196.32,190.0,199.53,194.83,180.53,172.23,179.88,175.77,167.1,173.89,163.29,165.99,171.41,178.73,170.27,177.37,187.71,201.07,193.62,207.61,218.27,226.77,227.17,234.05,236.99,229.94,248.93,227.5,216.08,195.67,215.99,195.01,177.1,155.09,174.91,152.71,139.59,123.83,140.77,123.19,114.96,94.5,102.77,96.63,94.57,116.34,114.63,126.82,129.89,123.95,105.0,119.11,121.0,136.79,123.41,135.01,135.0,156.68,146.88,152.16,162.02,181.78,154.76,184.28,194.3,215.76,197.23,234.15,253.03,296.58,345.32,389.16,482.99,559.0,551.11,446.41,358.97,295.9,271.39,268.06,241.43,238.01,239.7,226.41,223.05,211.56,218.21,210.61,197.78,171.79],"unit":"EUR / MWh","deprecated":false}

goodwe_controller/scenarios/energy-charts-be-price-captures.json

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+{
+ "card": "TARIFF-08, extended by TARIFF-09",
+ "what": "UNMODIFIED response bodies from the public EPEX BE day-ahead feed, captured so the SHIPPED parser can be replayed against what the source really publishes",
+ "why": "every price fixture in the suite was built from a `{\"data\": [{\"start\": ..., \"price_eur_mwh\": ...}]}` document that this feed has never published. The suite therefore graded `_points_from_json` against its own assumption - a closed loop that could not notice the assumption was wrong - and §11.4 turned the resulting failure into a silent fall back to the static profile. A captured real body is what breaks that loop, so these files are bytes, not a reconstruction: nothing here is pretty-printed, re-keyed or trimmed. TARIFF-09 adds a body from a request that names a DATE RANGE, for the same reason one layer out: the shipped plugin took `since`/`until` and asked for the bare default URL, so the feed answered ONE Brussels day and every hour past today was carried forward and dropped from the trade set as provisional. A two-day body captured from the range request is what makes \"asking for the range gets the range\" checkable against something the plugin did not shape.",
+ "source": "Energy-Charts API (Fraunhofer ISE), api.energy-charts.info",
+ "upstream": "Bundesnetzagentur | SMARD.de",
+ "licence": "CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)",
+ "licence_note": "the BE bidding zone is in the API's CC BY 4.0 list, so redistribution is permitted with attribution. DATA-02 established this against the API's own OpenAPI document before committing `epex-be-dayahead-2025-09-01_2026-09-01.json`; both bodies below carry the same `license_info` string, recorded per file and asserted by the replay test.",
+ "attribution": "Data licensed CC BY 4.0 by Bundesnetzagentur | SMARD.de, retrieved via the Energy-Charts API (Fraunhofer ISE), https://energy-charts.info. Published without changes.",
+ "retrieved_utc": "2026-09-10T06:35:00+00:00 (TARIFF-08's two), 2026-09-10T07:45:49+00:00 (TARIFF-09's)",
+ "retrieved_with": "curl, by hand; no code in `app/` fetches these",
+ "shape": "COLUMNAR: parallel `unix_seconds` (UTC epoch seconds) and `price` arrays, plus `unit`, `license_info` and `deprecated`. There is no `data` key and no per-point object.",
+ "replayed_by": "test_price.py sections 2b (TARIFF-08) and 2c (TARIFF-09)",
+ "files": {
+  "energy-charts-be-price-2026-09-10-quarterhourly.json": {
+   "url": "https://api.energy-charts.info/price?bzn=BE",
+   "note": "the SHIPPED default URL of `generic_dayahead`, verbatim and with no parameters, so the replay drives the bytes the add-on's own request produces",
+   "covers_local_day": "2026-09-10 (Europe/Brussels)",
+   "granularity_s": 900,
+   "intervals": 96,
+   "bytes": 1877,
+   "sha256": "176309d0020ad208320797385ef68b6a98ac248218539416cddf6579dd060487",
+   "unit_as_returned": "EUR / MWh",
+   "licence_as_returned": "CC BY 4.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) from Bundesnetzagentur | SMARD.de",
+   "deprecated_as_returned": false,
+   "top_level_keys": [
+    "deprecated",
+    "license_info",
+    "price",
+    "unit",
+    "unix_seconds"
+   ],
+   "also_returned_verbatim_by": {
+    "url": "https://api.energy-charts.info/price?bzn=BE&start=2026-09-10&end=2026-09-11",
+    "retrieved_utc": "2026-09-10T07:46:55+00:00",
+    "note": "TARIFF-09's PRE-PUBLICATION case, and it needed no second file because the answer was BYTE-IDENTICAL to the bare-URL capture above - the same 1877 bytes and the same sha256. Asked for two days at 09:46 CEST, before the ~13:00-14:00 CET auction publishes 2026-09-11, the feed returned the ONE day that exists. That is the short answer this card requires to stay a `series` of what exists rather than becoming `no_data`, and the replay re-derives the identity from the bytes rather than restating it."
+   }
+  },
+  "energy-charts-be-price-2025-09-10-hourly.json": {
+   "url": "https://api.energy-charts.info/price?bzn=BE&start=2025-09-10&end=2025-09-10",
+   "note": "a day BEFORE Belgium's 15-minute MTU (2025-10-01), so the same endpoint answers HOURLY. Kept because the parser must not assume either spacing, and a fixture at only one granularity cannot grade that",
+   "covers_local_day": "2025-09-10 (Europe/Brussels)",
+   "granularity_s": 3600,
+   "intervals": 24,
+   "bytes": 572,
+   "sha256": "03fe41690810df224611f4016899f856457f67a3c12c7654da17b1331ff2eff4",
+   "unit_as_returned": "EUR / MWh",
+   "licence_as_returned": "CC BY 4.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) from Bundesnetzagentur | SMARD.de",
+   "deprecated_as_returned": false,
+   "top_level_keys": [
+    "deprecated",
+    "license_info",
+    "price",
+    "unit",
+    "unix_seconds"
+   ]
+  },
+  "energy-charts-be-price-2026-09-09_2026-09-10-twoday.json": {
+   "url": "https://api.energy-charts.info/price?bzn=BE&start=2026-09-09&end=2026-09-10",
+   "retrieved_utc": "2026-09-10T07:45:49+00:00",
+   "note": "TARIFF-09. A RANGE request, and the counterfactual the ticket is built on: `start`/`end` are INCLUSIVE Brussels calendar dates and this one answers 192 quarter-hours across TWO local days, where the bare `?bzn=BE` of the same endpoint answers 96 across one. The shipped `generic_dayahead` now derives these two dates from the `since`/`until` it is handed.",
+   "covers_local_days": [
+    "2026-09-09",
+    "2026-09-10"
+   ],
+   "granularity_s": 900,
+   "intervals": 192,
+   "bytes": 3579,
+   "sha256": "4d83f5efb4294a4a682562eac619bf35e45c95edde957bfa94c402e1777cc9b3",
+   "unit_as_returned": "EUR / MWh",
+   "licence_as_returned": "CC BY 4.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) from Bundesnetzagentur | SMARD.de",
+   "deprecated_as_returned": false,
+   "top_level_keys": [
+    "deprecated",
+    "license_info",
+    "price",
+    "unit",
+    "unix_seconds"
+   ]
+  }
+ }
+}