TEST-21: delivery_hold_s's floor re-derived — 30.0 s did not reproduce, it is 35.0 s, and 185 still stands #67
Merged
admin
merged 2 commits from 2026-09-07 22:41:36 +02:00
TEST-21 into release/1.0
2
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
f76639c7b2 |
TEST-21: two of the argmax's four axes are on an edge, and the doc did not say so
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 6m22s
§3.3 already set the standard - "a worst case sitting on an edge of the grid
would be a number about the grid" - and then did not check its own argmax
against it. Review did. Reproduced here independently before writing it down:
stagger 0 -> 1 -> 2 -> 3 -> 4 0.0 15.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 s
weights (A) at stagger 4 0.5 -> 20.0 0.7/0.9/0.99 -> 0.0
0.10 -> 35.0 s
Strictly increasing in stagger, maximal at the largest modelled stagger, and
maximal at the most asymmetric split. Interior only in `gain` and `slew_w`.
⚠️ SO THE HEADLINE IS 0.0 s AT stagger=0. The 35.0 s is ENTIRELY a product of
the modelled serialised-write stagger, which is declared MODELLED in the harness
and is a TERM of the figure rather than a detail of it. A site whose two writes
land in the same cycle does not produce this episode at all.
It does not move `delivery_hold_s`: 185 s must cover the worst the modelled site
can produce, and four cycles of stagger is inside what a real two-inverter write
path can do. What changes is that a reader asking "is 35.0 s about the plant or
about the grid?" now gets the answer instead of the invitation.
⚠️ THE PR BODY HAD CLAIMED THE ARGMAX WAS "interior to the grid, not on an edge
of an axis I had to choose". That was wrong, and it is the claim the doc's own
standard exists to test. The grid is the record's own, fixed by §3.3 before this
rebuild ran, which is the mitigating half and is stated too.
Also: `nl.yaml` wrote "35.0 s" beside "5,29 keer" and "75,0 s" in one sentence.
Dutch takes the comma.
Suite: 26 files, all pass.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
|
||
 adminandClaude Opus 5
|
57775d4e06 |
TEST-21: delivery_hold_s's floor re-derived, and 30.0 s did not reproduce
No code and no option changes. What changes is a number this repository claimed
about a shipped safety constant.
`delivery_hold_s: 185` shipped resting on "30.0 s, the worst continuous
legitimate episode at the shipped threshold across all 2640 runs", plus a lag
sweep giving 45.0 s and 90.0 s - from a harness `DECISIONS/SAFETY-42` §1
deliberately did NOT commit, because it imports `plantsim` and `frame_check` out
of admin/goodwe. So the floor under a safety constant could not be re-run. That
is PROC-01's shape, with eleven instances in three days.
The harness is committed now, in admin/goodwe as `sim/delivery_window.py`, and
NOT here. `plantsim` and `frame_check` are that repo's; restating them in this
tree is CI-08's coupling, which has broken three times, and the alternative
fate - skipped for want of its imports - is a green that establishes nothing.
There the dependency runs one way: THIS repo's `control`, `arbiter` and the
shipped `delivery.delinquent()` are imported live out of whichever checkout is
under test. Its `--selftest` is now a step in that repo's `checks.yml`, so a
change here that moves `saturation_w`, `max_w`, `delivery_hold_s` or the shape
of `delinquent()` goes red there instead of leaving a stale number here.
cd goodwe/sim && GOODWE_ADDON_REPO=/path/to/goodwe-addon \
python3 -B delivery_window.py --selftest --campaign --blag
⚠️ THE HEADLINE DID NOT REPRODUCE: 35.0 s, not 30.0 s. Recorded as measured. The
harness was not adjusted until it agreed - the one correction made during the
rebuild was made AGAINST the doc's number (§1 records it) and made every figure
LARGER.
WHAT REPRODUCED - and it is the part the compatibility promise rests on:
* the N=1 control arm is 0.0 s at EVERY threshold in EVERY run. §3.2's algebra
measured, not argued.
* the flapping family is 0.0 s everywhere in all 840 runs - the family that
defeated SAFETY-30's site window still cannot touch this check.
* 45.0 s at twice A's lag, to the cycle.
WHAT DID NOT:
* the headline, by one control cycle (30.0 -> 35.0 s); the reversal family by
two (20.0 -> 30.0 s).
* the NON-MONOTONE curve. §3.3 finding 3 read 55.0 s at 250 W against 40.0 s
at 100 W as a property of the reduction. This rebuild's curve is monotone.
The mechanism is real and is still the reason not to read either table as a
sensitivity curve, but it is an ARGUMENT now, not a measurement, and it is
written down as weaker.
* the low-threshold rows, badly (40.0 -> 120.0 s at 100 W). Nothing ships
there, but that gap is the honest measure of how much of the original table
was a property of axes nobody wrote down. §3.3 fixes every axis COUNT and
RANGE and no individual value; the rebuild prints its choices above its own
table so the caveat travels with the number.
* the four-times-slower row moved the OTHER way: 75.0 s, not 90.0 s.
185 s IS NOT CHANGED. It is 5.29x the re-measured worst (the record claimed
6.2x), 2.47x the four-times-slower case, 6.2x the firmware's LINK_STALE_S veto
and 4.9x inside the billing quarter. All four bounds clear and none narrowly,
and the ordering of the argument is unchanged. Moving a shipped safety constant
because a margin went from 6.2x to 5.3x while every bound holds would re-open
SAFETY-41's four-attempt false-trip regime for nothing.
⚠️ ONE CONSEQUENCE AN OPERATOR CAN HIT. At 30.0 s the rig's floor coincided with
the firmware's veto and a reader could not tell which was binding. At 35.0 s the
rig's is strictly the binding one - and it is ABOVE the schema's own
`int(30,900)` minimum. `delivery_hold_s: 30` is therefore below a MEASURED
legitimate episode and would report on ordinary saturation. Both translations
now say so. Raising the schema floor is a change to a shipped option's contract
and is left to its own card rather than smuggled in here.
⚠️ THE B-LAG ROWS ARE RELABELLED THROUGHOUT. Inverter B does not physically
exist (~2026-09-12); `plantsim.INVERTER_B` is A COPIED, `measured=False`. Every
two-inverter figure in this record is two copies of A, and the lag sweep is a
SENSITIVITY STUDY ON A HYPOTHESIS ABOUT B, not a measurement of it. The old
wording - "MEASURED, not felt" - overstated exactly that, and "the RAMP does not
move it at all" was too strong: halving it is worth 0 s at A's lag and +5 s at
twice it.
Touched: DECISIONS/SAFETY-42 §1 and §3.3, app/delivery.py's provenance comment,
config.yaml's `delivery_hold_s` block, both translations, CHANGELOG Unreleased.
26/26 suites pass.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
|