SAFETY-31 AC 4: the alarm's attribution was graded by nothing, and a mutation proved it #68
Merged
admin
merged 2 commits from 2026-09-08 04:27:17 +02:00
SAFETY-31-attribution into release/1.0
2
Commits
| Author | SHA1 | Message | Date | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
9099ceb1af |
SAFETY-31: the grid is 42, not 90, and the wrong number was in the failure text
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 6m27s
Review reproduced every figure in both PRs except one, and rejected on it. ⚠️ "0 of 90 GAINS x SPLITS combinations produce opposing shares" - the SUBSTANCE is right and review re-measured it, but the DENOMINATOR is invented. sitesim.py declares GAINS with 7 entries and SPLITS with 6: the grid is 42. 90 is not even divisible by 7, so no reading of "GAINS x SPLITS" reaches it. It is almost certainly TEST-20`s RUN count (84 + 6), which is a different quantity that happened to be nearby. ⚠️ AND THE WORST COPY OF IT WAS INSIDE THE `PRECONDITION FAILED` TEXT, so the next engineer to see this scenario go red would have been handed an unreproducible measurement as their diagnosis - the exact defect class this campaign exists to correct, in the failure path where it does the most harm. Corrected in all seven places. At the failure-text site the denominator is now `len(GAINS) * len(SPLITS)`, computed rather than typed, so it cannot drift from the grid again - the same fix test_translations.py already took. Also N3: a missing blank line was going to render the S3 and M19 paragraphs as one in DECISIONS. Re-run after the change: `inject.py two_master_circulation` PASS in 35 s, norig, no rig lock taken. Add-on suite 26 files, all pass. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU |
||
|
glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
|
295a2aedb6 |
SAFETY-31 AC 4: the alarm's attribution was graded by nothing, and a mutation proved it
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 6m27s
`pos, neg = opposing(...)` -> `([], [])` in main.py's `check_circulating()`
(-102 B) deletes the "Right now X is discharging while Y charges" clause from
the operator notification, and SURVIVED ALL 26 FILES. The commit that shipped
this card claimed "18 mutations, all RED"; the ledger has no entry for the
attribution, and this is that entry.
It is not dead code. Ledger M18 - the whole `await check_circulating()` call
removed - is red on four checks, so the function runs. The three checks on the
notification asserted METER CANNOT SEE, CONTROL HAS BEEN STOPPED and `isolator`,
and never an inverter name. `circulation.py`'s own docstring calls that sentence
the first thing somebody woken by this alarm needs and "impossible to
reconstruct from the number alone".
test_watchdog.py section 6a closes it on a fixture that can tell three failures
apart:
* the roster is ["garage", "shed", "cellar"] - operator names, none of them
`UNIT_A`, for test_maintenance.py section 11's reason: on a fixture whose
names are the module's own constants a check cannot tell the roster from
the constant;
* the site is run TWICE, MIRRORED, so the sentence is not symmetric and a
pos/neg swap is a different red from a deletion;
* a third pack rests at 5 W, so the floor that stops a pack in standby being
named as a participant in a 6 kW loop is graded too.
Mutations, on a tree with no __pycache__ mounted :ro into the checks image:
M20 pos, neg = opposing(...) -> ([], []) -102 B RED (2 checks)
M21 pos and neg exchanged +0 B RED (3 checks)
M22 opposing(..., min_w=cfg.min_w/2.0) -> 0.0 -25 B RED (3 checks)
26/26 files green with the block in place.
AND A DISCLOSURE, WHICH IS THE UNCOMFORTABLE HALF. DECISIONS section 3 records
that the 924-run campaign behind `circulation_w: 700` and `circulation_hold_s:
75` used a harness that is not committed in either repository. Two further
sweeps have now been run and no two of the three agree: peaks of 1700 W, 2750 W
and 1048 W, and worst-continuous figures above 700 W of 5.0 s, 15.0 s and 5.0 s.
That is NOT evidence of fabrication and is not reported as any. The committed
sweep measures why the spread is that wide: on one grid, changing only the
plant model and the write-stagger set, the worst legitimate peak is 1048 W, or
2250 W, or 0 W. The plant and the stagger are TERMS of the number. What the
spread does establish is that the claim cannot be adjudicated while the
instrument is missing.
The window argument survives and is now committed - all three sweeps trip zero
times, on 924 + 48 + 840 non-faulty runs. The threshold CURVE does not survive
as stated: `505.0 s at 100 W`, which is what the "knee at 400 W" argument rests
on, is 10.0 s on the committed grid. The curve still falls with the threshold,
so the knee is real in direction; its depth is established by nothing anybody
can run, and this commit says so rather than repeating it. The overclaiming
comment at test_watchdog.py's 1700 W fixture ("the worst single transient the
rig can produce") is replaced with what the fixture can support.
The committed, re-runnable half is admin/goodwe's `two_master_circulation`,
opened as a separate PR against that repository.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU
|