MAINT-04 review: pin the default divergence with a check, not a comment

validate.py's comment said "if config.yaml's value moves, move this and
main.py's together" and nothing enforced it - a comment where a check
belonged, in a PR that elsewhere proves it knows the difference.

test_validate.py now reads main.py and maintenance.py directly and asserts
the divergence EXACTLY AS IT STANDS: config.yaml/validate.py at 2000,
main.py's two fallbacks and MaintConfig's dataclass default at 2500. It
records the mismatch rather than demanding it be closed, so it passes today
and goes red if either side moves - including when somebody closes it in
main.py, at which point the check and validate.py's block are deleted
together. Nothing in a file another ticket owns is touched.

The consequence is asserted through the real code as well as the literals:
with the key absent the validator accepts, MaintConfig builds 2500 W against
a 2000 W ceiling, and the arbiter resolves it to 0 W as a contradiction -
the bug rule 6 exists to catch, passing rule 6. Production-unreachable (the
Supervisor always supplies every key) but fully reachable from sim/inject.py
and the tests, which is where anyone debugging maintenance works.

Also: a CHANGELOG section for the upgrade path, covering both the case where
the Supervisor re-derives the default and the case where it persisted the
old one, since which applies was not verifiable without probing the live
install. And maintenance.py's timeout comment said 13.5 kWh where everything
else says 13.8 (300 Ah x 51.2 V, DoD 90); SAFETY-18 does not touch that file.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC

HANDOVER.md

@@ -57,11 +57,25 @@ python3 test_control.py && python3 test_maintenance.py && python3 test_arbiter.p
   && python3 test_loop.py
 ```
 
-`test_watchdog.py` covers SAFETY-02's logic and its trip path. Its headline
-validation is not here at all: `sim/replay_sign.py` in the infra repo drives the
-same module over the two captured RS485 days and must fire on all four of the
-2026-08-20 episodes and stay silent on 2026-08-23. That needs both checkouts —
-`GOODWE_ADDON_REPO=/path/to/goodwe-addon python3 sim/replay_sign.py`.
+`test_watchdog.py` covers SAFETY-02's logic, its arming gate (derived from the
+real arbiter, not passed in), its trip path, and the fact that the latch survives
+an add-on restart. Its headline validation is not here at all: `sim/replay_sign.py`
+in the infra repo drives the same module over the two captured RS485 days and must
+fire on all four of the 2026-08-20 episodes and stay silent on 2026-08-23. That
+needs both checkouts:
+
+```bash
+GOODWE_ADDON_REPO=/path/to/goodwe-addon python3 sim/replay_sign.py
+GOODWE_ADDON_REPO=/path/to/goodwe-addon python3 sim/replay_sign.py --stub
+```
+
+The second run checks the grader still *discriminates* rather than merely still
+passing — a watchdog that never trips and one that always trips must both be
+rejected.
+
+⚠️ **If you are testing the failsafe by hand, note that stopping and starting the
+add-on will not clear a trip.** That is the point of it; use the *Start / stop
+control* button twice, or delete `sign_tripped` from `/data/state.json`.
 
 ⚠️ `test_loop.py` takes about **95 seconds** (measured 93 s) and that is not a bug. It
 drives the real control loop, which sleeps 1 s a tick, eight times over, to prove a

goodwe_controller/CHANGELOG.md

@@ -1,5 +1,150 @@
 # Changelog
 
+## Unreleased
+
+**Cheap-window maintenance charging was unreachable at the shipped defaults, and
+now the config that makes it unreachable is refused (MAINT-04).** `config.yaml`
+shipped `max_w: 2000` against `maintenance_charge_w: 2500`. The cheap-window
+shaping files `Claim.limit(hi = -maintenance_charge_w)` against the supervised
+SAFETY limit's `lo = -max_w`, so `lo > hi` — the arbiter's clause 3, correctly
+resolved to **0 W** and logged as a CONTRADICTION. **Maintenance silently never
+charged in a cheap window on a default install**, and the only evidence read
+like a bug in the arbiter rather than like the two numbers an operator set.
+Measured against the real arbiter, loop asking +500 W:
+
+```
+max_w=2000  hi=-2500  ->     +0 W  contradiction=True
+max_w=2500  hi=-2500  ->  -2500 W  limited by supervised(max_w)
+max_w=3000  hi=-2500  ->  -2500 W  limited by maintenance(cheap-window charge)
+```
+
+`validate_startup_config()` now refuses `maintenance_charge_w > max_w` (rule 6),
+the same shape as CFG-01's `sign_disagree_w >= max_w`: a number the operator set,
+overridden by a layer they cannot see. Equality is reachable (`-max_w` is a
+single valid point) and deliberately not refused. Verified by starting the
+add-on on the pre-fix pair: exit 78, the refusal banner, no traceback.
+
+**`maintenance_discharge_w` was checked, not assumed, and it is NOT the same
+case.** The shaping is not symmetric. The drain phase does not shape the loop,
+it OWNS the actuator — `Claim.set(P_MAINTENANCE, +discharge_w)` — and a SET is
+*clamped* by the limits above it rather than contradicted by them. 2500 against
+a 2000 W ceiling emits **+2000 W**, and the arbiter's own `explain()` prints
+`maintenance -> 2000 W, limited by supervised(max_w)` every cycle. Nothing is
+silent and energy still moves; the cycle completes slower (13.8 kWh usable at
+2000 W is ~6.9 h against the 720 min drain timeout). **Warned about, not
+refused.**
+
+**The shipped defaults changed so the validator does not reject them.**
+`maintenance_charge_w` and `maintenance_discharge_w` are now **2000**, at the
+shipped `max_w`. `max_w` was deliberately NOT raised instead: it is the
+supervised safety ceiling and raising a default upward ships more power to every
+new install. Raising `max_w` (the reference install runs 5000) is what unlocks a
+faster maintenance cycle — raise it first, then these. `test_validate.py` now
+reads `config.yaml` itself and asserts the shipped numbers pass the rule, so a
+default that the validator refuses cannot ship again.
+
+### ⚠️ Upgrading an existing default install: the add-on may refuse to start
+
+An install still carrying `maintenance_charge_w: 2500` against `max_w: 2000`
+now meets rule 6 and **exits 78 with the refusal banner** instead of starting.
+That is the intended behaviour — the configuration was already broken, it was
+just silent about it — but an add-on that will not come back after an update
+needs the fix stated here rather than only in the log.
+
+**The fix, either way: set `maintenance_charge_w` to `2000` or lower, OR raise
+`max_w` to `2500` or higher** (Settings → Add-ons → GoodWe RS485 Controller →
+Configuration), then start it. The banner in the log says the same thing and
+names both numbers.
+
+Whether you hit this at all depends on whether the Supervisor kept the old
+value, and **both cases are covered above because we did not verify which one
+applies here.** The Supervisor merges an add-on's *stored* options over the
+defaults in `config.yaml`, so:
+
+- **A key the operator never edited** re-derives from the new `config.yaml` and
+  becomes 2000 on upgrade. Non-event, nothing to do.
+- **A key the operator did set** persists at 2500 and the add-on refuses to
+  start until it is changed. Note this includes anyone who used the
+  Configuration page's YAML editor, which writes the whole options block back —
+  so "I never touched that field" is not a guarantee the old value is gone.
+
+⚠️ **This is reasoned from the Supervisor's documented merge behaviour, not
+measured on the live install.** The reference install's stored options could not
+be read (`/api/hassio/` refuses a long-lived token) and probing it was out of
+scope — it regulates a real battery. It runs `max_w: 5000` and is unaffected
+either way.
+
+⚠️ **Known, deliberately left, and worth a follow-up:** `main.py` and
+`maintenance.py` still fall back to **2500** when the key is absent from the
+options dict, while `config.yaml` and `validate.py` now say 2000. Unreachable on
+a Supervisor install (every key is always supplied) and reachable only from
+tests/`sim`. The real fix is one source of truth for option defaults, which is
+bigger than this ticket and touches files another ticket is in.
+
+## 0.5.1
+
+**SAFETY-02's latch now survives an add-on restart, which is the difference
+between a latch and a pause.** `auto` was persisted and `sign_wd.tripped` was
+not, so reconstructing the `Controller` against the same store — exactly what a
+container restart does — brought it back **armed, into the same fault, with no
+operator involved**: `tripped=False`, banner back to `NOT READY`, and it resumed
+commanding (measured: −1000 W, −2000 W) before re-tripping 180 s later. Under a
+Supervisor that restarts a crashed add-on that is a loop of three-minute
+wrong-direction bursts — and "restart the add-on" is the first thing an operator
+looking at a `FAILSAFE` banner and a 0 W inverter will try.
+
+`sign_tripped` and `sign_reason` are now `Store` keys beside the maintenance
+state, written the moment the trip happens (reason first, flag second, so a crash
+between the two can never persist a latch with no explanation) and restored in
+`Controller.__init__`. Cleared only by the operator's start. `DOCS.md` said "it
+does not clear itself"; that was false across a restart and now is not.
+
+Also in this release, all of it review follow-up rather than new behaviour:
+
+- **The arming gate is tested against the real arbiter.** It was the decision the
+  whole ticket turns on and it was asserted in three comment blocks and verified
+  by nothing — every case passed `following` in as a literal. `test_watchdog.py`
+  now derives it from `resolve()` across twelve claim configurations, including
+  the redirect case `winner == "loop"` alone would have got wrong and the `lo`
+  limit that raises magnitude without flipping sign.
+- **The MQTT `status: "failsafe"` value is tested.** The check that claimed to
+  cover it restated the assertion three lines above it and never touched the
+  payload.
+- **A forward hazard written down where it will be read, and made to bite.**
+  `winner == "loop"` disarms the watchdog under any higher-priority SET claim.
+  Today only maintenance and the safety stops emit one and neither follows the
+  meter; a peak-shaving strategy at `P_PEAK` **does**, and would blind the
+  watchdog for every peak event.
+
+  The gate is now `watchdog.loop_is_following()`, called by both `main.py` and
+  the test, for the same reason `disagrees()` was extracted: the test held a
+  *transcription* of the shipped expression, so editing the shipped gate alone to
+  `winner in ("loop", "peak")` left every suite green while the watchdog went
+  blind. Two copies, and the one that drifts is the one doing the grading.
+
+  ⚠️ Extracting it was not sufficient on its own. The realistic P_PEAK row —
+  peak shaving asking for *more* than the loop — still could not detect the
+  widened gate, because the magnitude term rejects it regardless and masks the
+  winner term. A second row with peak asking for *less* isolates `winner` as the
+  only deciding term, and that is the one that turns red.
+- **The worked example described a configuration that does not ship.** At the
+  defaults `maintenance_charge_w` (2500) exceeds `max_w` (2000), so that claim is
+  an arbiter *contradiction* resolving to 0 W, not a −2500 W charge. The example
+  is now written at 1500 W. (The contradiction is a real pre-existing bug —
+  a default cheap-window maintenance charge silently never happens — filed
+  separately, deliberately not fixed here.)
+- **`disagrees()` is public**, so `sim/replay_sign.py` stops carrying its own copy
+  of the predicate it grades.
+- `held_s` takes the clock instead of reading one, restoring the pure-function
+  property the module advertises.
+- **The `sign_reason`-before-`sign_tripped` write ordering is enforced, not just
+  documented.** Swapping the two lines used to pass every check. A store that
+  fails the second write now proves the property the ordering exists for: what
+  survives a crash mid-trip is a reason with no latch, never a latch with no
+  explanation.
+- Measured figures corrected throughout: 93.4 % / 4212 of 17280 (was 92.9 % /
+  4127 of 16349), per-cluster 0.3 / 0.9 / 10.5 / 0.0 %.
+
 ## 0.5.0
 
 **SAFETY-02 — the sign-disagreement watchdog.** The add-on now watches whether
@@ -23,7 +168,7 @@ module over the committed RS485 captures of both 2026-08-20 (the four episodes)
 and 2026-08-23 (healthy): **18 trips on the fault day, every one inside a window
 `NOTES.md` §4.7 accounts for, and 0 on the healthy day.** The four episodes do
 share one signature rather than merely resembling each other — sign agreement
-runs 0.3 / 0.9 / 10.5 / 0.0 % inside them against 92.9 % on the healthy day.
+runs 0.3 / 0.9 / 10.5 / 0.0 % inside them against 93.4 % on the healthy day.
 
 Three decisions worth knowing about:
 

goodwe_controller/DOCS.md

@@ -294,11 +294,20 @@ there. The banner reads `FAILSAFE`, the commissioning list says which two
 numbers disagreed and for how long, and the `Controller status` entity reports
 `failsafe`.
 
-**It does not clear itself.** Pressing *Start / stop control* twice clears it.
-That is deliberate: commanding 0 W removes the command side of the comparison,
-so the disagreement always vanishes the instant the trip works, and a watchdog
-that took that as proof the fault was over would hand the inverter straight back
-to the loop that was driving the wrong way.
+**It does not clear itself, and restarting the add-on does not clear it either.**
+Pressing *Start / stop control* twice — stop, then start — is the only thing that
+does. That is deliberate on both counts:
+
+- Commanding 0 W removes the command side of the comparison, so the disagreement
+  always vanishes the instant the trip works. A watchdog that took that as proof
+  the fault was over would hand the inverter straight back to the loop that was
+  driving the wrong way, three minutes later, forever.
+- The trip is written to `/data/state.json` and restored on startup. Restarting
+  the add-on is the first thing most people try when they see a red banner, and
+  a latch that a restart clears would bring the controller back **armed, into the
+  same fault, unattended** — and under a Supervisor that restarts a crashed add-on
+  automatically, would do so in a loop. After a restart the banner, the 0 W and
+  the recorded reason are all still there.
 
 **What it is for.** This is a loop-integrity check: it asks whether the loop's
 output direction still matches the input state it was regulating. It catches a
@@ -326,7 +335,7 @@ must not be mistaken for a fault.
 
 Both numbers are measured rather than chosen, and are exposed only because the
 ticket requires defaults rather than constants. On the captured healthy day sign
-agreement is 92.9 %; on the four captured fault episodes it is 0.3 %, 0.9 %,
+agreement is 93.4 %; on the four captured fault clusters it is 0.3 %, 0.9 %,
 10.5 % and 0.0 %. There is no reason to move either value without a capture that
 says so.
 
@@ -405,8 +414,8 @@ help - see "Why the tuning is what it is".
 | `maintenance_enabled` | false | Enable the monthly cycle |
 | `maintenance_interval_days` | 28 | Minimum gap between cycles |
 | `maintenance_start_hour` | 10 | Hour of day a due cycle begins |
-| `maintenance_discharge_w` | 2500 | Drain rate (exports the surplus) |
-| `maintenance_charge_w` | 2500 | Charge ceiling, capped again by peak headroom |
+| `maintenance_discharge_w` | 2000 | Drain rate (exports the surplus). Above `max_w` it is **clamped** to `max_w` — the drain phase SETs the setpoint and the arbiter bounds it, saying so on the status page (`limited by supervised(max_w)`). Warned about, not refused: the cycle still completes, just slower |
+| `maintenance_charge_w` | 2000 | Charge ceiling, capped again by peak headroom. Must stay **at or below `max_w`** or the cheap-window shaping (`hi = -maintenance_charge_w`) contradicts the supervised limit (`lo = -max_w`), the arbiter resolves it to **0 W**, and maintenance silently never charges in a cheap window — **the add-on refuses to start** |
 | `maintenance_soc_floor` | 11 | Drain target — stay just above the inverter's own floor |
 | `maintenance_soc_target` | 99 | Charge target |
 | `maintenance_hold_min` | 120 | Hold at full so the BMS can balance |

goodwe_controller/app/main.py

@@ -41,7 +41,7 @@ from .maintenance import IDLE, MaintConfig, Maintenance
 from .mqtt import MqttPublisher
 from .p1 import P1Ingest, build_source, is_enabled
 from .validate import ConfigRefused, refuse, validate_startup_config
-from .watchdog import SignWatchdog, SignWatchdogConfig
+from .watchdog import SignWatchdog, SignWatchdogConfig, loop_is_following
 from . import web
 
 OPTIONS_PATH = "/data/options.json"
@@ -105,10 +105,27 @@ class Controller:
         )
 
         # SAFETY-02. One instance, one actuator, one cadence - see watchdog.py.
-        self.sign_wd = SignWatchdog(SignWatchdogConfig(
-            min_w=float(opts.get("sign_disagree_w", 300)),
-            hold_s=float(opts.get("sign_disagree_s", 180)),
-        ))
+        #
+        # ⚠️ RESTORED FROM THE STORE, and that is the difference between a latch
+        # and a pause. A trip held only in memory is cleared by the one action an
+        # operator staring at a FAILSAFE banner is most likely to take - restart
+        # the add-on - and the controller then comes back armed, into the fault,
+        # with nobody involved. Restored here, the banner and the 0 W survive the
+        # restart and only `auto_toggle` clears them.
+        self.sign_wd = SignWatchdog(
+            SignWatchdogConfig(
+                min_w=float(opts.get("sign_disagree_w", 300)),
+                hold_s=float(opts.get("sign_disagree_s", 180)),
+            ),
+            tripped=bool(store.data.get("sign_tripped", False)),
+            reason=str(store.data.get("sign_reason", "") or ""),
+        )
+        if self.sign_wd.tripped:
+            _LOG.error("SAFETY-02 was TRIPPED before this restart and stays "
+                       "tripped: %s. The inverter is held at 0 W. Restarting the "
+                       "add-on does not clear this - start control from the UI "
+                       "once you know why the command opposed the meter.",
+                       self.sign_wd.reason or "(reason not recorded)")
 
         # P1 ingestion (TEL-01). `meter_source: off` keeps the original
         # single-entity meter_entity path, so an existing install is unchanged
@@ -243,9 +260,18 @@ class Controller:
         standing = self.last_write if self.last_write is not None else self.target
         if self.sign_wd.evaluate(standing, self.grid, self.following, now) \
                 and not was_tripped:
+            # ⚠️ REASON FIRST, FLAG SECOND, and each `set` writes the file. The
+            # ordering is the whole atomicity story: a crash between the two
+            # persists a reason nothing reads, which is harmless, where the other
+            # order persists a latch with no explanation for the operator who has
+            # to decide whether to clear it.
+            self.store.set("sign_reason", self.sign_wd.reason)
+            self.store.set("sign_tripped", True)
             self.log_event("FAILSAFE " + self.sign_wd.reason)
             _LOG.error("SAFETY-02 TRIPPED - %s. Commanding 0 W and holding it "
-                       "until control is started again.", self.sign_wd.reason)
+                       "until control is started again. This survives an add-on "
+                       "restart; restarting will not clear it.",
+                       self.sign_wd.reason)
 
         stale_after = float(self.o.get("stale_input_s", 15))
         if not self.inputs_ok and not self.sign_wd.tripped:
@@ -352,25 +378,17 @@ class Controller:
         # --- SAFETY-02's arming gate ------------------------------------------
         # Was the number about to go on the wire chosen by the grid-following
         # loop, or by a strategy that commands against the meter on purpose?
-        # Only the former is expected to agree in sign with P1. See gate 1 in
-        # watchdog.py - without this, every maintenance grid charge trips the
-        # failsafe within three minutes of starting.
+        # Only the former is expected to agree in sign with P1 - without this,
+        # every maintenance grid charge trips the failsafe within three minutes.
         #
-        # ⚠️ "THE LOOP WON" IS NOT ENOUGH, and the difference is a whole class of
-        # false trip. A LIMIT claim can survive the loop winning and still
-        # replace its number: maintenance's charge-only shaping is
-        # `hi = -charge_w`, so the loop can ask for +500 W of discharge, win the
-        # arbitration, and have the emitted value come out at -2500 W of grid
-        # charge. Winner says "loop"; the wire carries maintenance's intent. So
-        # the test is on the NUMBER, not on the name: the loop is following only
-        # while the emitted value points the way the loop asked and is no larger
-        # than it asked - i.e. limits reduced it, they did not redirect it.
-        # Zero on either side falls out as not-following, which costs nothing:
-        # a 0 W command cannot be a wrong-direction command.
-        asked = self.loop_w
-        self.following = (resolution.winner == "loop" and asked is not None
-                          and resolution.target_w * asked > 0
-                          and abs(resolution.target_w) <= abs(asked))
+        # ⚠️ THE EXPRESSION LIVES IN watchdog.py, NOT HERE, and that is not
+        # tidiness. It was inline, test_watchdog.py held a transcription of it,
+        # and the P_PEAK case meant to force whoever lands peak shaving to come
+        # and change an expectation did not: editing this line alone to
+        # `winner in ("loop", "peak")` left every suite green while the watchdog
+        # went blind for every peak event. Read loop_is_following() before
+        # touching the gate - the forward hazard and the reasoning are there.
+        self.following = loop_is_following(resolution, self.loop_w)
         self.target = resolution.target_w
         self.reason = resolution.explain()
         await self.write_setpoint(self.target)
@@ -600,9 +618,10 @@ class Controller:
                         "text": "SIGN-DISAGREEMENT FAILSAFE - " + self.sign_wd.reason
                                 + ". The inverter is held at 0 W. Find out why the "
                                   "command opposed the meter before starting control "
-                                  "again; starting clears this."})
+                                  "again; starting clears this. Restarting the "
+                                  "add-on does NOT clear it."})
         else:
-            held = self.sign_wd.held_s
+            held = self.sign_wd.held_s(datetime.now(timezone.utc))
             out.append({"ok": True, "warn": False,
                         "text": f"sign watchdog: armed (trips after "
                                 f"{self.sign_wd.cfg.hold_s:.0f} s opposed, both over "
@@ -672,6 +691,8 @@ class Controller:
                 # An operator pressing start has, at minimum, looked at the
                 # banner that says why.
                 self.sign_wd.reset()
+                self.store.set("sign_tripped", False)
+                self.store.set("sign_reason", "")
                 self.log_event("sign-disagreement failsafe cleared by operator")
             if not self.auto:
                 self.target = 0.0

goodwe_controller/app/maintenance.py

@@ -28,9 +28,10 @@ _LOG = logging.getLogger("goodwe.maint")
 
 IDLE, DRAIN, CHARGE, HOLD = "idle", "drain", "charge", "hold"
 
-# A drain of a 13.5 kWh usable pack at 2500 W is ~5 h even with no house load
-# helping. 12 h means the battery is not following commands - a fault, not a
-# slow day. The charge phase deliberately waits for sun and for cheap hours, so
+# A drain of a 13.8 kWh usable pack (300 Ah x 51.2 V, DoD 90) at the shipped
+# 2000 W is ~6.9 h even with no house load helping - and less in practice, since
+# house load drains alongside the export and soc_floor stops short of empty.
+# 12 h means the battery is not following commands - a fault, not a slow day. The charge phase deliberately waits for sun and for cheap hours, so
 # it is expected to span a night; 36 h still bounds it.
 DRAIN_TIMEOUT_MIN = 720
 CHARGE_TIMEOUT_MIN = 2160

goodwe_controller/app/store.py

@@ -22,11 +22,30 @@ _LOG = logging.getLogger("goodwe.store")
 # `auto_start` option only when the key is absent - if a default supplied False,
 # the fallback could never fire and auto_start would silently do nothing on
 # every fresh install.
+#
+# ⚠️ `sign_tripped` IS in here, and the difference from `auto` is the whole
+# reason both decisions are written down. `auto` has an option to fall back to
+# (`auto_start`), so a stored default would mask a fresh install. A latched
+# failsafe has no such fallback: absent means "never tripped", which is exactly
+# what a default of False says.
+#
+# It is persisted for the reason this module's docstring gives for maintenance
+# state, applied to something with a much shorter fuse. SAFETY-02's latch is the
+# only thing standing between a controller that has been caught driving the wrong
+# way and its own restart, and "restart the add-on" is the FIRST thing an operator
+# looking at a FAILSAFE banner will try. Held only in memory it came back armed,
+# into the fault, unattended - measured: after reconstructing Controller against
+# the same store, `tripped` was False, the banner read NOT READY, and it resumed
+# commanding -1000, -2000 W before re-tripping 180 s later. Under a supervisor
+# that restarts a crashed add-on that is a loop, three minutes of wrong-direction
+# power at a time, forever.
 DEFAULTS = {
     "phase": "idle",
     "phase_started": None,
     "last_completed": None,
     "last_start_attempt": None,
+    "sign_tripped": False,
+    "sign_reason": "",
 }
 
 
@@ -42,8 +61,10 @@ class Store:
                 loaded = json.load(fh)
             if isinstance(loaded, dict):
                 self.data = {**DEFAULTS, **loaded}
-                _LOG.info("state restored: phase=%s last_completed=%s",
-                          self.data.get("phase"), self.data.get("last_completed"))
+                _LOG.info("state restored: phase=%s last_completed=%s "
+                          "sign_tripped=%s",
+                          self.data.get("phase"), self.data.get("last_completed"),
+                          self.data.get("sign_tripped"))
         except FileNotFoundError:
             _LOG.info("no saved state, starting fresh")
         except (json.JSONDecodeError, OSError) as err:

goodwe_controller/app/validate.py

@@ -85,6 +85,37 @@ NOT READY banner already names the problem, (b) does not apply.
      watchdog: armed". A disarmed guard that advertises itself as armed is the
      one thing this project has decided repeatedly it will not ship.
 
+  6. `maintenance_charge_w` above `max_w`.  [(a)]
+     The same shape as 5, and found the same way - by checking a worked example
+     against what actually ships. maintenance's cheap-window shaping files
+     `Claim.limit(hi=-maintenance_charge_w)` at P_MAINT_SHAPE, against the
+     `supervised` SAFETY limit's `lo=-max_w`. Both bind (P_SAFETY and
+     P_MAINT_SHAPE both outrank the loop that wins the SET), so a charge rate
+     above the ceiling gives `lo > hi` - the arbiter's clause 3, which it
+     correctly resolves to 0 W and logs as a CONTRADICTION. Measured against
+     the arbiter, loop asking +500 W:
+
+         max_w=2000  hi=-2500  ->     +0 W  contradiction=True
+         max_w=2500  hi=-2500  ->  -2500 W  limited by supervised(max_w)
+         max_w=3000  hi=-2500  ->  -2500 W  limited by maintenance(...)
+
+     So MAINTENANCE SILENTLY NEVER CHARGES IN A CHEAP WINDOW until max_w is at
+     or above the charge rate, and the only evidence is a contradiction line
+     that reads like a bug in the arbiter rather than like the two numbers the
+     operator set. Equality is fine and deliberately not refused - at
+     max_w == charge_w the window is a single reachable point, -max_w.
+
+     ⚠️ `maintenance_discharge_w` IS NOT THE SAME CASE, and this was checked
+     rather than assumed. THE SHAPING IS NOT SYMMETRIC: the drain phase does
+     not shape the loop, it OWNS the actuator - `Claim.set(P_MAINTENANCE,
+     +discharge_w)`. A SET is clamped by the limits above it, not contradicted
+     by them, so 2500 against a 2000 W ceiling emits +2000 W and the arbiter's
+     own explain() says `maintenance -> 2000 W, limited by supervised(max_w)`
+     on the status page every cycle. That is neither (a) - nothing is silent -
+     nor (b) - it moves energy and the cycle still completes, just slower
+     (13.8 kWh usable at 2000 W is ~6.9 h against the 720 min DRAIN_TIMEOUT).
+     It is warned about below, not refused.
+
 WHAT IS DELIBERATELY *NOT* REFUSED, because it is untidy rather than unsafe:
 
   - `integrator_max_w` above `max_w`. DOCS.md is right that the only thing the
@@ -102,6 +133,9 @@ WHAT IS DELIBERATELY *NOT* REFUSED, because it is untidy rather than unsafe:
     NOT READY banner.
   - `meter_poll_s` above half `meter_max_age_s`. One missed poll costs a stale
     reading and a 0 W cycle. Warned about in p1.py, not refused.
+  - `maintenance_discharge_w` above `max_w`. Clamped, not contradicted, and the
+    clamp names itself in the arbiter's explain() - see rule 6. Warned about,
+    not refused.
 """
 
 import logging
@@ -269,6 +303,52 @@ def validate_startup_config(opts: dict, dev_min=None, dev_max=None) -> list[str]
             f"sign_disagree_w below {max_w:.0f} W (300 W is the measured "
             "default), or raise max_w.")
 
+    # --- 6. a maintenance charge the ceiling can actually accommodate --------
+    # ⚠️ Strictly `>`, matching the arbiter exactly. The shaping is
+    # `Claim.limit(hi=-charge_w)` against `supervised`'s `lo=-max_w`, so
+    # charge_w == max_w leaves the single reachable point -max_w and works;
+    # only ABOVE is `lo > hi`, arbiter clause 3, 0 W and a contradiction.
+    #
+    # Not scoped to maintenance_enabled, deliberately. The pair is
+    # contradictory whether or not the schedule is on, and scoping it would
+    # leave the trap armed for the one operator action - ticking
+    # maintenance_enabled - that cannot possibly be expected to change what a
+    # charge rate means.
+    # ⚠️ THE FALLBACK IS config.yaml's SHIPPED VALUE, and it has to be kept
+    # equal to it - that is the whole point of AC3. It is reachable only when a
+    # caller hands over a dict with the key missing (sim/inject.py, a test); the
+    # Supervisor always supplies every key from config.yaml, so on a real
+    # install the argument is always present.
+    #
+    # ⚠️ KNOWN MISMATCH, LEFT DELIBERATELY AND FLAGGED RATHER THAN FIXED HERE:
+    # `main.py` still falls back to 2500 in two places
+    # (`opts.get("maintenance_charge_w", 2500)`), as does maintenance.py's
+    # MaintConfig dataclass. So a dict with the key ABSENT is accepted by this
+    # rule at 2000 and then built by main.py at 2500 - the contradiction this
+    # rule exists to catch, in the one case it cannot see. It is unreachable on
+    # a Supervisor install and those files are another ticket's right now.
+    # THE REAL FIX is one source of truth for option defaults; until then the
+    # divergence is PINNED BY A CHECK rather than by this comment - see
+    # test_validate.py, "the KNOWN cross-file default divergence". It asserts
+    # the mismatch as it stands and goes red if EITHER side moves, including
+    # when somebody closes it in main.py, at which point this block and that
+    # check both get deleted.
+    charge_w = _number(opts, "maintenance_charge_w", 2000.0)
+    if charge_w is None:
+        problems.append(
+            f"maintenance_charge_w {opts.get('maintenance_charge_w')!r} is not a number")
+    elif max_w is not None and max_w > 0 and charge_w > max_w:
+        problems.append(
+            f"maintenance_charge_w is {charge_w:.0f} W but max_w is "
+            f"{max_w:.0f} W, so a maintenance charge in a cheap window can "
+            "never happen: the shaping asks the arbiter for at most "
+            f"{-charge_w:.0f} W while the supervised limit allows no less than "
+            f"{-max_w:.0f} W, which is a contradiction it resolves to 0 W - "
+            "THE CEILING WINS, and what you would see is an ARBITER "
+            "CONTRADICTION line that reads like a bug rather than like these "
+            f"two numbers. Lower maintenance_charge_w to {max_w:.0f} W or less, "
+            f"or raise max_w to at least {charge_w:.0f} W.")
+
     # --- warnings: real, but not worth refusing over -------------------------
     integ = opts.get("integrator_max_w")
     integ_w = None if not integ else _number(opts, "integrator_max_w", None)
@@ -280,6 +360,25 @@ def validate_startup_config(opts: dict, dev_min=None, dev_max=None) -> list[str]
             "saturation. 0 (follow max_w) is the recommended value.",
             integ_w, max_w)
 
+    # ⚠️ THE SIBLING OF RULE 6, AND NOT THE SAME CASE - see the docstring. The
+    # drain phase OWNS the actuator (`Claim.set` at P_MAINTENANCE), and a SET is
+    # clamped by the limits above it rather than contradicted by them. So this
+    # drains at max_w instead of the configured rate, the arbiter says so in
+    # words on the status page every cycle, and the cycle still completes -
+    # slower, and eating into maintenance.DRAIN_TIMEOUT_MIN. Loud and it moves
+    # energy, so it is neither (a) nor (b): warned, not refused.
+    disch_w = _number(opts, "maintenance_discharge_w", 2000.0)
+    if disch_w is not None and max_w is not None and max_w > 0 and disch_w > max_w:
+        _LOG.warning(
+            "maintenance_discharge_w %.0f W is above max_w %.0f W. Not refused - "
+            "the drain phase SETS the setpoint and the arbiter clamps it to "
+            "%.0f W and names the clamp ('limited by supervised(max_w)'), so "
+            "nothing is silent and the cycle still completes. But it drains at "
+            "%.0f W, not the %.0f W you configured, and the drain phase has a "
+            "720 min timeout. Lower it to %.0f W or raise max_w to remove the "
+            "surprise.",
+            disch_w, max_w, max_w, max_w, disch_w, max_w)
+
     return problems
 
 

goodwe_controller/app/watchdog.py

@@ -18,15 +18,36 @@ module over both of them. Every number in this file was measured on those two
 days, not chosen:
 
     day          samples gated in    sign agreement
-    2026-08-23   4 127 / 16 349      92.9 %   (healthy)
-    2026-08-20   6 892 / 15 598      55.6 %   (the whole fault day)
-      episode A  15:26-16:43            0.3 %
-      episode B  17:11-18:28            0.8 %
-      episode C  20:01-20:31           11.0 %
-      episode D  20:55-21:11            0.0 %
+    2026-08-23   4 212 / 17 280      93.4 %   (healthy)
+    2026-08-20   7 182 / 17 280      56.4 %   (the whole fault day)
+      cluster A  15:26-16:43            0.3 %
+      cluster B  17:11-18:28            0.9 %
+      cluster C  20:01-20:31           10.5 %
+      cluster D  20:55-21:11            0.0 %
 
-That is the signature, and it is the SAME signature in all four episodes: not a
-noisier version of healthy, a near-total inversion.
+⚠️ THOSE AGREEMENT FIGURES ARE THE WEAKEST EVIDENCE ON THIS PAGE, and an earlier
+version of this comment leaned on them as though they were the strongest. The
+clusters are found by looking for sustained opposed samples, so measuring "how
+opposed is this cluster" over them is close to a tautology - and "the healthy day
+contains no such cluster" is the same sentence as "the healthy day produces no
+trip", not independent corroboration of it.
+
+What actually carries the argument is two things neither the detector nor the
+clustering assumes:
+
+  1. The RUN-LENGTH DISTRIBUTION. The longest unbroken opposed run on the healthy
+     day is 30 s. On the fault day there are 18 runs over 180 s and the longest is
+     1750 s. Nothing about that gap was chosen - it is what the two days measure.
+  2. The clusters land where a human independently wrote down onsets. NOTES.md
+     §4.7 records 15:01, 16:56, 19:57 and 20:23 from watching it happen, before
+     any of this existed, and cluster D coincides with the separately documented
+     inverter-off runaway of §4.7 item 2.
+
+Be precise about (2), because the convenient overstatement is available and wrong:
+the clustering does NOT reproduce four episodes. It yields THREE clusters over the
+four documented onsets - C spans both 19:57 and 20:23 - plus a fourth for §4.7
+item 2, which is not one of the four. Every trip does fall inside a documented
+window, which is the claim worth making.
 
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 WHY IT LIVES HERE AND NOT IN THE FIRMWARE OR THE WITNESS
@@ -68,21 +89,31 @@ Four gates, and each one exists to exclude a specific thing that is NOT a fault:
 1. `following`. ⚠️ THE GATE THAT IS EASIEST TO FORGET AND MOST EXPENSIVE TO
    OMIT. Sign agreement is a property of a GRID-FOLLOWING loop. It is not
    expected of a strategy that deliberately commands against the meter -
-   maintenance is exactly that. A maintenance grid charge of 2500 W into a house
-   drawing 500 W puts +3000 W on the meter against a -2500 W command: opposed,
+   maintenance is exactly that. A maintenance grid charge of 1500 W into a house
+   drawing 500 W puts +2000 W on the meter against a -1500 W command: opposed,
    both far over any sane threshold, and sustained for HOURS. Armed
    unconditionally this watchdog would trip on every single maintenance cycle,
    which is not a tuning problem, it is the wrong question being asked. So the
    caller says whether the grid-following loop actually won the arbitration this
    cycle, and the timer only accumulates when it did.
 
+   ⚠️ 1500 W, NOT THE DEFAULT 2500 W, AND THE REASON IS NOT COSMETIC. At the
+   shipped defaults `maintenance_charge_w` is 2500 and `max_w` is 2000, so the
+   cheap-window claim is `hi = -2500` against a supervised `lo = -2000`: lo > hi,
+   which arbiter.py resolves as a CONTRADICTION and 0 W, not as a -2500 W charge.
+   The example above is written at 1500 W because that is a combination the
+   schema and the arbiter both actually produce. (The contradiction at the
+   defaults is a real pre-existing bug - a default maintenance charge silently
+   never happens in a cheap window - but it is maintenance's, not this module's,
+   and it is filed separately. Do not "fix" it here.)
+
 2. The strict `< 0` product. "Opposed" and "neither side is zero" in one
    expression.
 
 3. The 300 W magnitude gate ON BOTH SIDES. Near zero the sign is noise, and near
    zero is where a healthy loop LIVES - the deadband holds the command still
    while the meter wanders either side of `target_grid_w`. On the healthy day
-   only 4 127 of 16 349 samples (25 %) are even gated in; the other 75 % are the
+   only 4 212 of 17 280 samples (24 %) are even gated in; the other 76 % are the
    converged band where sign carries no information. This is also why the
    deadband cannot produce a false trip: inside it the meter is by definition
    under 300 W.
@@ -109,6 +140,33 @@ a stuck reading of +800 W makes the loop command discharge and keep commanding
 discharge. Command and meter converge on AGREEING. Freezes are SAFETY-12's and
 SAFETY-01's problem, and this watchdog neither helps nor hinders there.
 
+⚠️ ALL OF THAT DEPENDS ON ONE PROPERTY OF THE CONTROL LAW, so it is an invariant
+and not a happy accident: the saturation freeze in control.py must keep letting
+the command FALL, CROSS ZERO AND REVERSE - "may not wind further in the direction
+it is already pushing", not "only corrections that shrink |i_w|". control.py
+records the shrink-only encoding as tried and rejected because it pins the command
+at its last value indefinitely; a pinned command against a meter that has moved on
+is precisely a sustained sign disagreement, so under that encoding this watchdog
+WOULD false-trip on a plain load step. If anyone ever revisits that freeze, this
+module's no-false-positive argument is downstream of the answer.
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+WHAT IT DOES NOT CATCH
+
+An inverter that ACTS opposite to what it was told. Tell it to discharge 2000 W
+and have it charge instead, and the meter moves FURTHER the way it was already
+going - so the command and the meter agree, all the way into the rail. This
+watchdog compares the loop's output direction against the input state it was
+regulating; it is blind to the plant lying about which way it went. That is the
+saturation freeze's question (|command - the battery's actual power| > 500 W,
+NOTES.md §4.7 row 4), and the two checks are complementary rather than
+overlapping. Neither substitutes for the other.
+
+Nor does it see a sign inversion introduced DOWNSTREAM of this add-on - in the
+firmware, on the wire, or in a future driver. Our view stays self-consistent and
+this stays silent. That is a wire-versus-intent problem and it belongs to the
+witness, which is the only vantage point that sees both.
+
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 STATE, TRIP AND LATCH
 
@@ -123,6 +181,15 @@ hand the actuator straight back to the loop that was driving the wrong way -
 three minutes later, forever. `tripped` therefore stays true until an operator
 `reset()`s it by starting control again, which is a deliberate human act after
 looking at why.
+
+⚠️ AND THE LATCH HAS TO OUTLIVE THE PROCESS. Held only in memory it is not a
+latch at all - a container restart clears it and the add-on comes back armed,
+into the same fault, unattended. Worse than merely losing state: "restart the
+add-on" is the first thing an operator confronted with a FAILSAFE banner and a
+0 W inverter will try, and under a supervisor that restarts a crashed add-on it
+is a loop of three-minute wrong-direction bursts. `tripped` and `reason` are
+therefore constructor arguments, restored from `Store` in `Controller.__init__`
+and written back the moment the trip happens. See store.py.
 """
 
 from dataclasses import dataclass
@@ -137,6 +204,71 @@ class SignWatchdogConfig:
     hold_s: float = 180.0
 
 
+def disagrees(commanded_w, grid_w, following: bool,
+              cfg: SignWatchdogConfig) -> bool:
+    """The predicate, and the ONLY place it is written down.
+
+    ⚠️ Public because `sim/replay_sign.py` needs it too - to describe episodes, to
+    measure agreement, to sweep the clock-skew guard - and it had reimplemented it
+    inline. Two copies of a safety predicate is one copy plus a future
+    disagreement about what the check means, and the copy that drifts is always
+    the one in the harness that grades it.
+    """
+    return (following
+            and commanded_w is not None and grid_w is not None
+            and commanded_w * grid_w < 0
+            and abs(commanded_w) > cfg.min_w
+            and abs(grid_w) > cfg.min_w)
+
+
+def loop_is_following(resolution, loop_asked) -> bool:
+    """Did the grid-following loop actually choose the number going on the wire?
+
+    Gate 1 of the predicate above, and it lives here rather than inline in
+    `cycle()` for the reason `disagrees()` does: the test suite has to be able to
+    assert on THE SHIPPED EXPRESSION, not on a transcription of it that drifts
+    apart from it in silence.
+
+    ⚠️ IT WAS A TRANSCRIPTION, AND THAT WAS MEASURED, NOT FEARED. The P_PEAK case
+    in test_watchdog.py exists to make whoever lands peak shaving come here and
+    change an expectation. With the expression copied into the test it did not do
+    that: editing the shipped gate alone to `winner in ("loop", "peak")` left every
+    suite green while the watchdog went blind for the whole of every peak event.
+    One definition, two callers, and that test now bites.
+
+    `resolution`  the arbiter's Resolution. Duck-typed on `.winner` and
+                  `.target_w` so this module still imports nothing from arbiter.
+    `loop_asked`  what the grid-following loop claimed this cycle, or None if it
+                  did not claim at all.
+
+    "The loop won" is NOT the question, and the difference is a whole class of
+    false trip. A LIMIT claim can survive the loop winning and still replace its
+    number: maintenance's cheap-window shaping is `hi = -maintenance_charge_w`, so
+    at 1500 W the loop can ask for +500 W of discharge, win the arbitration, and
+    have the emitted value come out at -1500 W of grid charge. Winner says "loop";
+    the wire carries maintenance's intent.
+
+    So the test is on the NUMBER: the loop is following only while the emitted
+    value points the way the loop asked AND is no larger than it asked - limits
+    reduced it, they did not redirect it. The magnitude half is load-bearing on
+    its own, because a `lo` limit can raise magnitude without flipping sign, and
+    that is not the loop following either. Zero on either side falls out as
+    not-following, which costs nothing: a 0 W command cannot be a
+    wrong-direction command.
+
+    ⚠️ FORWARD HAZARD, and the claim block in cycle() already anticipates it.
+    `winner == "loop"` disarms the watchdog under ANY higher-priority SET claim.
+    Today only maintenance and the safety stops emit one and neither follows the
+    meter, so the gate costs nothing. A peak-shaving strategy claiming SET at
+    P_PEAK **is** grid-following in sign, and the moment it lands this goes blind
+    for the duration of every peak event. Widening it means asking "does the
+    winning strategy follow the meter", not adding another name to a comparison.
+    """
+    return (resolution.winner == "loop" and loop_asked is not None
+            and resolution.target_w * loop_asked > 0
+            and abs(resolution.target_w) <= abs(loop_asked))
+
+
 class SignWatchdog:
     """One instance per actuator, evaluated once per control cycle.
 
@@ -147,11 +279,16 @@ class SignWatchdog:
     arbiter applies to the actuator, applied to the detector's own state.
     """
 
-    def __init__(self, cfg: SignWatchdogConfig | None = None):
+    def __init__(self, cfg: SignWatchdogConfig | None = None, *,
+                 tripped: bool = False, reason: str = ""):
         self.cfg = cfg or SignWatchdogConfig()
         self.disagree_since: datetime | None = None
-        self.tripped = False
-        self.reason = ""
+        # ⚠️ RESTORED FROM THE STORE, NOT DEFAULTED. A latch that lives only in
+        # memory is not a latch: a container restart clears it, and the add-on
+        # comes back armed, into the same fault, with no operator involved. See
+        # store.py's note on `sign_tripped` for the measured behaviour.
+        self.tripped = bool(tripped)
+        self.reason = reason if self.tripped else ""
 
     # -- the whole check, and it is a pure function of its arguments ----------
     def evaluate(self, commanded_w, grid_w, following: bool,
@@ -178,15 +315,7 @@ class SignWatchdog:
             return True
 
         cfg = self.cfg
-        disagree = (
-            following
-            and commanded_w is not None and grid_w is not None
-            and commanded_w * grid_w < 0
-            and abs(commanded_w) > cfg.min_w
-            and abs(grid_w) > cfg.min_w
-        )
-
-        if not disagree:
+        if not disagrees(commanded_w, grid_w, following, cfg):
             self.disagree_since = None
             return False
 
@@ -206,13 +335,18 @@ class SignWatchdog:
         )
         return True
 
-    @property
-    def held_s(self) -> float:
-        """How long the current disagreement has been standing, for the UI."""
+    def held_s(self, now: datetime) -> float:
+        """How long the current disagreement has been standing, for the UI.
+
+        ⚠️ Takes the clock rather than reading one. It was a property calling
+        `datetime.now()`, which quietly broke the property this module's header
+        advertises - every other observable here is a pure function of what it
+        was handed - and an unclocked function is one nothing can test, which is
+        exactly what happened to it.
+        """
         if self.disagree_since is None:
             return 0.0
-        return (datetime.now(self.disagree_since.tzinfo)
-                - self.disagree_since).total_seconds()
+        return (now - self.disagree_since).total_seconds()
 
     def reset(self) -> None:
         self.disagree_since = None

goodwe_controller/config.yaml

@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 name: GoodWe RS485 Controller
-version: "0.5.0"
+version: "0.5.1"
 slug: goodwe_controller
 description: >-
   Drives a GoodWe ES/BP battery inverter over RS485 by emulating its smart
@@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ options:
   # Both defaults are measured, not chosen. On the captured healthy day
   # (2026-08-23) the longest legitimate opposed run - a load step the loop has
   # not caught up with - is 30 s, and sign agreement over the gated samples is
-  # 92.9 %. On the captured fault day (2026-08-20) the four episodes run 0.0-11 %
+  # 93.4 %. On the captured fault day (2026-08-20) the clusters run 0.0-10.5 %
   # agreement with opposed runs up to 1752 s. 300 W / 180 s sits in the middle of
   # a very wide gap: at 60 s the healthy day still trips nothing, at 300 s the
   # fault day still trips 13 times. There is no reason to move either number
@@ -118,8 +118,23 @@ options:
   maintenance_enabled: false
   maintenance_interval_days: 28
   maintenance_start_hour: 10
-  maintenance_discharge_w: 2500
-  maintenance_charge_w: 2500
+  # ⚠️ BOTH MUST STAY AT OR BELOW max_w, and that is why they are 2000 rather
+  # than the 2500 they shipped as. The cheap-window charge shaping asks the
+  # arbiter for `hi = -maintenance_charge_w` against the supervised `lo =
+  # -max_w`: above the ceiling that is `lo > hi`, a contradiction resolved to
+  # 0 W, so maintenance would SILENTLY NEVER CHARGE in a cheap window on a
+  # default install. validate.py refuses that config (rule 6), so these
+  # defaults had to become self-consistent with the max_w above rather than
+  # ship a configuration the validator rejects.
+  #
+  # The discharge side is clamped rather than contradicted - it drains at max_w
+  # and the arbiter says so - so it is only warned about; it is 2000 here for
+  # symmetry and to keep the shipped config warning-free.
+  #
+  # Raising max_w (the live reference install runs 5000) is what unlocks a
+  # faster maintenance cycle. Raise max_w FIRST, then these.
+  maintenance_discharge_w: 2000
+  maintenance_charge_w: 2000
   maintenance_soc_floor: 11
   maintenance_soc_target: 99
   maintenance_hold_min: 120

goodwe_controller/test_validate.py

@@ -26,9 +26,15 @@ def check(name, cond):
 
 def base(**over):
     """A configuration that must start. Everything else is this, spoilt."""
+    # ⚠️ The maintenance rates are named EXPLICITLY, at the values config.yaml
+    # ships (MAINT-04). They are not decoration: with the key absent, rule 6
+    # falls back to main.py's 2500 W, which against this 2000 W ceiling is a
+    # genuine refusal - so a base() without them would be a config that does
+    # not start, and every check below would be measuring the wrong thing.
     o = {"setpoint_entity": "number.goodwe_setpoint", "max_w": 2000,
          "soc_entity": "sensor.soc", "batt_entity": "sensor.batt",
-         "meter_source": "off"}
+         "meter_source": "off",
+         "maintenance_charge_w": 2000, "maintenance_discharge_w": 2000}
     o.update(over)
     return o
 
@@ -151,6 +157,170 @@ check("with meter_source off the number governs nothing and is not refused",
 check("the constant is the firmware's, not a rounded guess",
       FIRMWARE_INGEST_VETO_S == 30.0)
 
+# --------------------------------------------------------------------------- #
+print("6. a maintenance charge the ceiling can actually accommodate (MAINT-04)")
+# ⚠️ THE SHIPPED BUG. config.yaml shipped max_w 2000 against
+# maintenance_charge_w 2500, so the cheap-window shaping asked for hi=-2500
+# against the supervised lo=-2000 - lo > hi, arbiter clause 3, 0 W. Maintenance
+# silently never charged in a cheap window on a default install.
+p = validate_startup_config(base(max_w=2000, maintenance_charge_w=2500),
+                            -5000, 5000)
+check("maintenance_charge_w above max_w is refused", len(p) == 1)
+check("...and the message names the charge rate", why(p, "2500"))
+check("...and the ceiling", why(p, "2000"))
+check("...and says which one wins", why(p, "THE CEILING WINS"))
+# ⚠️ Equality is REACHABLE, not a near miss: lo=-2000, hi=-2000 is the single
+# point -2000 W. Refusing it would be exactly the trivia that gets a validator
+# deleted, and it is the boundary the rule is written `>` for.
+check("maintenance_charge_w exactly at max_w starts",
+      validate_startup_config(base(max_w=2000, maintenance_charge_w=2000),
+                              -5000, 5000) == [])
+check("below it starts",
+      validate_startup_config(base(max_w=2000, maintenance_charge_w=1500),
+                              -5000, 5000) == [])
+# Not scoped to maintenance_enabled: the pair is contradictory either way, and
+# scoping would leave the trap armed for the one action - ticking the box - that
+# cannot be expected to change what a charge rate means.
+check("...and it is refused with maintenance_enabled off, as shipped",
+      why(validate_startup_config(
+          base(max_w=2000, maintenance_charge_w=2500,
+               maintenance_enabled=False), -5000, 5000), "THE CEILING WINS"))
+
+# ⚠️ THE SIBLING, CHECKED RATHER THAN ASSUMED. The shaping is NOT symmetric:
+# drain files Claim.set at P_MAINTENANCE and owns the actuator, so the ceiling
+# CLAMPS it (+2000 W) instead of contradicting it, and the arbiter's explain()
+# names the clamp every cycle. Loud, and it still moves energy - so warned, not
+# refused. If someone later "fixes the asymmetry" by making this a refusal,
+# this check goes red and they have to justify it.
+check("maintenance_discharge_w above max_w WARNS but starts",
+      validate_startup_config(base(max_w=2000, maintenance_discharge_w=2500),
+                              -5000, 5000) == [])
+
+# The demonstration the rule is derived from, asserted rather than described.
+from app.arbiter import (                   # noqa: E402
+    Claim, P_LOOP, P_MAINTENANCE, P_MAINT_SHAPE, P_SAFETY, resolve,
+)
+
+def _charge(max_w, charge_w):
+    return resolve([Claim.limit("supervised", P_SAFETY, -max_w, max_w, "max_w"),
+                    Claim.limit("maintenance", P_MAINT_SHAPE, hi=-charge_w,
+                                reason="cheap-window charge"),
+                    Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 500.0, "grid")])
+
+def _drain(max_w, disch_w):
+    return resolve([Claim.limit("supervised", P_SAFETY, -max_w, max_w, "max_w"),
+                    Claim.set("maintenance", P_MAINTENANCE, disch_w, "drain"),
+                    Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 500.0, "grid")])
+
+r = _charge(2000, 2500)
+check("arbiter: the refused pair really does emit 0 W",
+      r.target_w == 0.0 and r.contradiction)
+r = _charge(2000, 2000)
+check("arbiter: the permitted equality really does charge",
+      r.target_w == -2000.0 and not r.contradiction)
+r = _charge(3000, 2500)
+check("arbiter: raising max_w above the rate charges at the rate",
+      r.target_w == -2500.0 and not r.contradiction)
+r = _drain(2000, 2500)
+check("arbiter: the drain SET is clamped, not contradicted",
+      r.target_w == 2000.0 and not r.contradiction)
+check("...and the clamp names itself, which is why it is not refused",
+      "supervised" in (r.bound_by or "") and "limited by" in r.explain())
+
+# --------------------------------------------------------------------------- #
+print("the SHIPPED defaults must pass the rule they are governed by (AC3)")
+# ⚠️ Shipping a default the validator refuses would be worse than the bug it
+# refuses. Read config.yaml itself rather than a transcription of it - a
+# transcription is what lets the two drift apart silently. Regex, not PyYAML:
+# the add-on image has no PyYAML (Dockerfile installs py3-aiohttp/py3-paho-mqtt
+# only) and a check that skips on ImportError is not a check.
+import os                                   # noqa: E402
+import re                                   # noqa: E402
+
+_CFG = os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)), "config.yaml")
+with open(_CFG, encoding="utf-8") as _fh:
+    _txt = _fh.read()
+_shipped = {k: float(v) for k, v in re.findall(
+    r"^  (max_w|maintenance_charge_w|maintenance_discharge_w|sign_disagree_w): "
+    r"(-?\d+(?:\.\d+)?)\s*$", _txt, re.M)}
+check("config.yaml really was read (all four defaults found)",
+      set(_shipped) == {"max_w", "maintenance_charge_w",
+                        "maintenance_discharge_w", "sign_disagree_w"})
+check(f"the shipped defaults are accepted {_shipped}",
+      validate_startup_config(base(**_shipped), -5000, 5000) == [])
+check("...and the shipped charge rate is at or under the shipped ceiling",
+      _shipped["maintenance_charge_w"] <= _shipped["max_w"])
+check("...and the shipped discharge rate too, so it warns about nothing",
+      _shipped["maintenance_discharge_w"] <= _shipped["max_w"])
+
+# --------------------------------------------------------------------------- #
+print("the KNOWN cross-file default divergence, pinned rather than commented")
+# ⚠️ WHAT THIS GUARDS, AND WHY IT ASSERTS THE BUG RATHER THAN THE FIX.
+# config.yaml and validate.py now default maintenance_charge_w to 2000, while
+# main.py's two `opts.get(..., 2500)` fallbacks and MaintConfig's dataclass
+# default still say 2500. So an options dict with the key ABSENT is ACCEPTED by
+# rule 6 at 2000 and then built by main.py at 2500 - which is a contradiction:
+#
+#     validate_startup_config -> []            (accepted)
+#     MaintConfig().charge_w  -> 2500.0
+#     arbiter                 -> 0.0 W, contradiction=True
+#
+# That is the bug rule 6 exists to catch, passing rule 6. It is unreachable on a
+# Supervisor install (every key is always supplied from config.yaml) but fully
+# reachable from sim/inject.py and from tests - which is exactly where anyone
+# debugging maintenance works.
+#
+# The fix is ONE SOURCE OF TRUTH for option defaults. That is a bigger change
+# than this ticket and it lands in main.py, which another ticket is live in - so
+# the divergence is RECORDED here instead of closed. The check therefore passes
+# on the mismatch and FAILS when either side moves, in EITHER direction:
+#
+#   - config.yaml moves           -> FAIL: re-decide what the fallback should be
+#   - main.py is fixed to match   -> FAIL: the divergence is gone, DELETE this
+#                                    check and the ⚠️ block in validate.py
+#
+# A comment cannot do that, and "a comment where a check belonged" is this
+# repo's most repeated defect.
+_APP = os.path.join(os.path.dirname(os.path.abspath(__file__)), "app")
+
+def _read(*parts):
+    with open(os.path.join(*parts), encoding="utf-8") as fh:
+        return fh.read()
+
+# Every literal fallback for this key in main.py, whatever the call shape.
+_main_falls = [float(m) for m in re.findall(
+    r'\.get\(\s*"maintenance_charge_w"\s*,\s*(-?\d+(?:\.\d+)?)\s*\)',
+    _read(_APP, "main.py"))]
+# ...and MaintConfig's own dataclass default, which is the one that bites when
+# main.py is bypassed entirely (a Maintenance built straight from defaults).
+_dc_falls = [float(m) for m in re.findall(
+    r"^\s*charge_w:\s*float\s*=\s*(-?\d+(?:\.\d+)?)\s*$",
+    _read(_APP, "maintenance.py"), re.M)]
+
+check(f"main.py's fallbacks are still found and still 2500 {_main_falls}",
+      len(_main_falls) == 2 and set(_main_falls) == {2500.0})
+check(f"MaintConfig's default is still found and still 2500 {_dc_falls}",
+      len(_dc_falls) == 1 and set(_dc_falls) == {2500.0})
+check(f"...and config.yaml still ships 2000, so the divergence is UNCHANGED "
+      f"(shipped {_shipped['maintenance_charge_w']:.0f}, code 2500)",
+      _shipped["maintenance_charge_w"] == 2000.0)
+
+# ⚠️ And the consequence itself, through the REAL code rather than through the
+# numbers above - so that if someone "fixes" this by changing a literal without
+# understanding it, the thing that goes red is the behaviour, not the transcript.
+from app.maintenance import MaintConfig      # noqa: E402
+
+_absent = {k: v for k, v in base().items() if k != "maintenance_charge_w"}
+_built = MaintConfig().charge_w
+check("with the key ABSENT the validator accepts...",
+      validate_startup_config(_absent, -5000, 5000) == [])
+check(f"...while the code would build {_built:.0f} W against a "
+      f"{_absent['max_w']:.0f} W ceiling...", _built > _absent["max_w"])
+_r = _charge(_absent["max_w"], _built)
+check("...which the arbiter resolves to 0 W as a contradiction - the hole, "
+      "asserted so it cannot widen unnoticed",
+      _r.target_w == 0.0 and _r.contradiction)
+
 # --------------------------------------------------------------------------- #
 print("max_w must be a positive magnitude")
 # Schema-blocked on a real install, but validate_startup_config() is also
@@ -168,7 +338,8 @@ check("...and the message explains it would read as a trip, not a mistake",
 # threshold the ceiling can actually reach, and the interaction gets its own
 # check below.
 check("the smallest sane max_w still starts",
-      validate_startup_config(base(max_w=1, sign_disagree_w=0.5), -5000, 5000) == [])
+      validate_startup_config(base(max_w=1, sign_disagree_w=0.5,
+                                   maintenance_charge_w=1), -5000, 5000) == [])
 check("...but that same 1 W ceiling with the DEFAULT sign threshold is refused",
       why(validate_startup_config(base(max_w=1), -5000, 5000), "never fire"))
 

goodwe_controller/test_watchdog.py

@@ -13,7 +13,9 @@ table-driven half: boundaries, timers, the latch, and the arming gate.
 import sys
 from datetime import datetime, timedelta, timezone
 
-from app.watchdog import SignWatchdog, SignWatchdogConfig
+from app.watchdog import (
+    SignWatchdog, SignWatchdogConfig, loop_is_following,
+)
 
 fails = []
 T0 = datetime(2026, 8, 20, 15, 0, 0, tzinfo=timezone.utc)
@@ -143,13 +145,113 @@ check("300 W under a 2000 W ceiling is accepted", p == [])
 p = validate_startup_config({**base, "max_w": 2000, "sign_disagree_w": 2000},
                             -5000, 5000)
 check("a threshold AT max_w is refused", len(p) == 1 and "never fire" in p[0])
-p = validate_startup_config({**base, "max_w": 500, "sign_disagree_w": 3000},
-                            -5000, 5000)
+# ⚠️ maintenance_charge_w is named here only to keep this case about the SIGN
+# rule. MAINT-04 added a second rule against the same ceiling, and a 500 W
+# max_w is also below the 2000 W shipped maintenance charge - so without this
+# the dict is refused twice, for two correct but different reasons, and the
+# `len(p) == 1` below would be measuring the interaction rather than this rule.
+p = validate_startup_config({**base, "max_w": 500, "sign_disagree_w": 3000,
+                             "maintenance_charge_w": 500}, -5000, 5000)
 check("a threshold above max_w is refused", len(p) == 1 and "never fire" in p[0])
 p = validate_startup_config({**base, "max_w": 2000, "sign_disagree_w": 1999},
                             -5000, 5000)
 check("one watt under the ceiling is reachable, so accepted", p == [])
 
+print()
+print("the arming gate, derived from the REAL arbiter")
+# ⚠️ THIS IS THE DECISION THE WHOLE TICKET TURNS ON, and until now it was
+# asserted in three comment blocks and verified by nothing: every other case in
+# this file passes `following` in as a literal. What has to hold is that the
+# expression in main.py - loop won AND the emitted value points the way the loop
+# asked AND is no larger - is never True for a resolution the loop did not
+# actually get. So run real claims through the real resolve() and derive it.
+from app.arbiter import (  # noqa: E402
+    P_LOOP, P_MAINT_SHAPE, P_MAINTENANCE, P_PEAK, P_SAFETY, Claim, resolve,
+)
+
+
+def following_from(claims, asked):
+    """THE SHIPPED gate, not a copy of it.
+
+    ⚠️ This used to transcribe main.py's expression with a comment saying
+    "keep the two in step", which is exactly the arrangement that does not keep
+    two things in step. Measured: editing the shipped gate alone to
+    `winner in ("loop", "peak")` left this suite - including the P_PEAK row below,
+    whose entire job is to catch that edit - completely green, while the watchdog
+    went blind for the duration of every peak event. Import it or the P_PEAK
+    assertion is decoration.
+    """
+    r = resolve(claims)
+    return r, loop_is_following(r, asked)
+
+
+MAXW = Claim.limit("supervised", P_SAFETY, -2000, 2000, "max_w")
+DEV = Claim.limit("device", P_SAFETY, -5000, 5000, "rating")
+
+# name, claims, what the loop asked, expected `following`
+TABLE = [
+    ("the loop alone, unopposed",
+     [Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 900)], 900, True),
+    ("the loop bound by max_w - reduced, not redirected",
+     [Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 4000), MAXW], 4000, True),
+    ("charging, bound by max_w on the other side",
+     [Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, -4000), MAXW], -4000, True),
+    ("maintenance owns the setpoint outright",
+     [Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 900),
+      Claim.set("maintenance", P_MAINTENANCE, -2500, "charge"), MAXW], 900, False),
+    ("maintenance charge-only clamps the loop to 0 W",
+     [Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 900),
+      Claim.limit("maintenance", P_MAINT_SHAPE, hi=0.0, reason="charge-only"),
+      MAXW], 900, False),
+    # ⚠️ THE CASE `winner == \"loop\"` ALONE WOULD HAVE GOT WRONG. 1500 W, not
+    # the default 2500 W: at max_w 2000 a -2500 hi against a -2000 lo is an
+    # arbiter contradiction, not a charge - see main.py.
+    ("cheap-window charge REDIRECTS the loop while it still 'wins'",
+     [Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 500),
+      Claim.limit("maintenance", P_MAINT_SHAPE, hi=-1500, reason="cheap-window"),
+      MAXW], 500, False),
+    ("...and the contradiction at the shipped defaults is not following either",
+     [Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 500),
+      Claim.limit("maintenance", P_MAINT_SHAPE, hi=-2500, reason="cheap-window"),
+      MAXW], 500, False),
+    ("a lo limit RAISES the magnitude without flipping the sign",
+     [Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 200),
+      Claim.limit("floor", P_SAFETY, lo=800), MAXW], 200, False),
+    ("a safety stop wins outright",
+     [Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 900),
+      Claim.set("safety", P_SAFETY, 0.0, "stopped"), MAXW], 900, False),
+    ("no claims at all - the arbiter's own failsafe",
+     [MAXW, DEV], None, False),
+    ("the loop asked for zero",
+     [Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 0.0), MAXW], 0.0, False),
+    # The forward hazard, asserted as it stands TODAY rather than as it should
+    # be. When peak shaving lands, these expectations are what have to change.
+    ("peak shaving at P_PEAK disarms the gate (loop_is_following's forward hazard)",
+     [Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 900),
+      Claim.set("peak", P_PEAK, 1800, "shaving"), MAXW], 900, False),
+    # ⚠️ AND THE ROW ABOVE CANNOT DETECT A WIDENED GATE ON ITS OWN, which was
+    # found by trying it: with the shipped gate edited to
+    # `winner in ("loop", "peak")` that case STILL comes out False, because peak
+    # shaving asked for MORE than the loop and the magnitude term rejects it
+    # anyway. The winner term is masked. This row isolates it - a peak claim
+    # smaller than the loop's ask and pointing the same way, so `winner` is the
+    # only term that can decide - and it is what actually turns red if the gate
+    # is widened without anyone revisiting the hazard.
+    ("...and with peak BELOW the loop's ask, only the winner term separates them",
+     [Claim.set("loop", P_LOOP, 1800),
+      Claim.set("peak", P_PEAK, 900, "shaving"), MAXW], 1800, False),
+]
+for name, claims, asked, expect in TABLE:
+    r, got = following_from(claims, asked)
+    check(f"{name} -> following={expect}", got is expect)
+    if got is not expect:
+        print(f"       resolution was {r.explain()!r}")
+
+# And the gate is never True when the loop did not win, whatever else is going on.
+check("no configuration above arms the gate without the loop winning",
+      all(not following_from(c, a)[1]
+          for _, c, a, _ in TABLE if following_from(c, a)[0].winner != "loop"))
+
 print()
 print("end to end: the trip is COMMAND ZERO, not alarm-only")
 # ⚠️ THE FAULT INJECTED HERE IS A NEGATIVE GAIN, and that is not a contrivance -
@@ -237,10 +339,155 @@ check("the status page says so in words",
       any("SIGN-DISAGREEMENT FAILSAFE" in c["text"] for c in ctrl.checks()))
 check("the banner leads with it",
       "FAILSAFE" in ctrl.status_payload()["banner"])
-check("MQTT reports the failsafe state", ctrl.sign_wd.tripped)
 check("it stays at 0 W on later cycles too",
       hass.writes[-1] == 0.0 and hass.writes.count(0.0) >= 1)
 
+# ⚠️ THIS USED TO BE `check("MQTT reports the failsafe state", ctrl.sign_wd.tripped)`
+# which restates the assertion three lines above and never touches the payload.
+# The `status: "failsafe"` value was shipped untested. Capture what publish()
+# actually hands the broker.
+published = {}
+ctrl.mqtt = type("P", (), {"enabled": True,
+                           "publish": lambda _s, v: published.update(v),
+                           "close": lambda _s: None})()
+ctrl.publish()
+check("MQTT's controller-status sensor reports 'failsafe'",
+      published.get("status") == "failsafe")
+ctrl.sign_wd.reset()
+ctrl.publish()
+check("...and goes back to 'running' once cleared",
+      published.get("status") == "running")
+
+
+print()
+print("the latch survives a restart - it is the only thing between a tripped")
+print("controller and the first thing an operator will try")
+# ⚠️ THE BLOCKER THIS FILE MISSED FIRST TIME ROUND. `auto` is persisted and
+# `tripped` was not, so reconstructing a Controller against the same Store -
+# which is exactly what a container restart does - came back armed, into the
+# fault, with no operator involved: tripped=False, banner NOT READY, and it
+# resumed commanding -1000 then -2000 W before re-tripping 180 s later.
+
+
+class _MemStore:
+    """A Store that keeps its dict across "restarts", like the real file does."""
+
+    def __init__(self):
+        self.data = {"phase": "idle", "sign_tripped": False, "sign_reason": ""}
+
+    def set(self, k, v):
+        self.data[k] = v
+
+    def get_time(self, *a):
+        return None
+
+
+async def _restart():
+    shared = _MemStore()
+    hass1 = _Hass()
+    opts = {"setpoint_entity": "number.sp", "meter_entity": "sensor.grid",
+            "soc_entity": "sensor.soc", "batt_entity": "sensor.batt",
+            "meter_source": "off", "max_w": 2000, "gain": -0.6,
+            "sign_disagree_w": 300, "sign_disagree_s": 1, "auto_start": True}
+    a = Controller(opts, hass1, shared, _P(), stop=asyncio.Event())
+    a.auto = True
+    a.dev_min, a.dev_max = -5000.0, 5000.0
+    for _ in range(12):
+        await a.read_inputs()
+        await a.cycle()
+        await asyncio.sleep(0.25)
+
+    # The restart. Same options, same store, brand new Controller and Hass.
+    hass2 = _Hass()
+    b = Controller(opts, hass2, shared, _P(), stop=asyncio.Event())
+    b.auto = True
+    b.dev_min, b.dev_max = -5000.0, 5000.0
+    for _ in range(6):
+        await b.read_inputs()
+        await b.cycle()
+        await asyncio.sleep(0.05)
+    return a, b, shared, hass2
+
+
+pre, post, store, hass2 = asyncio.run(_restart())
+check("it tripped before the restart", pre.sign_wd.tripped)
+check("the trip reached the store", store.data["sign_tripped"] is True)
+check("...with the reason beside it, so the operator is told why",
+      "SIGN_DISAGREEMENT" in store.data["sign_reason"])
+check("the new Controller comes back TRIPPED", post.sign_wd.tripped)
+check("...and says why, restored rather than re-detected",
+      "SIGN_DISAGREEMENT" in post.sign_wd.reason)
+check("...commands 0 W from its very first cycle", post.target == 0.0)
+check("...and never commanded anything else after the restart",
+      hass2.writes != [] and set(hass2.writes) == {0.0})
+check("the banner still leads with the failsafe",
+      "FAILSAFE" in post.status_payload()["banner"])
+# ⚠️ TWO PRESSES, and the first one must NOT clear it. `auto` is True while
+# tripped, so the first press stops control; only the transition back to True
+# clears. That is the documented behaviour and it is worth an assertion, because
+# a one-press clear would be reachable by an operator who never read the banner.
+asyncio.run(post.handle_action("auto_toggle"))          # -> stopped
+check("pressing stop does not clear the failsafe",
+      post.sign_wd.tripped and store.data["sign_tripped"] is True)
+asyncio.run(post.handle_action("auto_toggle"))          # -> started
+check("pressing start DOES clear it, and clears the store with it",
+      not post.sign_wd.tripped and store.data["sign_tripped"] is False
+      and store.data["sign_reason"] == "")
+# One more restart from the cleared store, to prove the clear persisted too.
+fresh = Controller({"setpoint_entity": "number.sp", "meter_source": "off"},
+                   _Hass(), store, _P(), stop=asyncio.Event())
+check("...so the next restart comes back armed and untripped, as it should",
+      not fresh.sign_wd.tripped)
+
+# ⚠️ THE WRITE ORDERING IS AN INVARIANT, SO IT GETS AN ASSERTION. main.py writes
+# `sign_reason` and THEN `sign_tripped`, each one its own `save()`, so that a
+# process that dies between the two leaves a reason nothing reads - harmless -
+# rather than a latch with no explanation for the operator who has to decide
+# whether to clear it. Documented reasoning is not enforcement: swapping those two
+# lines used to pass every check in this file.
+#
+# The death is modelled as the second write raising. In the field it is a power
+# cut or a container kill (Store.save() swallows OSError rather than raising), so
+# what is asserted here is the PROPERTY - what survives on disk - not the
+# mechanism.
+
+
+class _CrashOnFlag(_MemStore):
+    def set(self, k, v):
+        if k == "sign_tripped" and v:
+            raise RuntimeError("power cut, mid-trip")
+        super().set(k, v)
+
+
+async def _crash_mid_write():
+    store = _CrashOnFlag()
+    hass = _Hass()
+    opts = {"setpoint_entity": "number.sp", "meter_entity": "sensor.grid",
+            "soc_entity": "sensor.soc", "batt_entity": "sensor.batt",
+            "meter_source": "off", "max_w": 2000, "gain": -0.6,
+            "sign_disagree_w": 300, "sign_disagree_s": 1, "auto_start": True}
+    c = Controller(opts, hass, store, _P(), stop=asyncio.Event())
+    c.auto = True
+    c.dev_min, c.dev_max = -5000.0, 5000.0
+    died = False
+    for _ in range(12):
+        try:
+            await c.read_inputs()
+            await c.cycle()
+        except RuntimeError:
+            died = True
+            break
+        await asyncio.sleep(0.25)
+    return store, died
+
+
+crashed_store, died = asyncio.run(_crash_mid_write())
+check("the second write is the one that sets the flag", died)
+check("a crash between the two writes leaves the REASON on disk",
+      "SIGN_DISAGREEMENT" in crashed_store.data.get("sign_reason", ""))
+check("...and never a latch with nothing to explain it",
+      not crashed_store.data.get("sign_tripped"))
+
 print()
 if fails:
     print(f"{len(fails)} FAILED: {', '.join(fails)}")