adminandClaude Opus 5
182102eeaf
peak_soc_floor reads like a pack-wide reserve and is not one. The
grid-following loop has no SoC guard of any kind, so on a sustained-load
evening it discharges straight past that number and keeps going until the
pack's own BMS cut-out stops it.
The gap has now been written down four times without being filed -
SAFETY-18's finding (freeze.py:18), SAFETY-24's module note, its PR body,
and its honestly-uncaught 13th mutation - and never once measured. It is
measured here, on the committed 2026-08-20 capture, driving the SHIPPED
control.compute(), peakguard.decide(), peakguard.claim() and the real
arbiter.resolve() in main.py's order:
19:00-22:00 UTC, 830 W mean, minimum 701 W, zero export in the window
reference pack (300 Ah x 51.2 V x DoD 90) started at 21 %, one point
above peak_soc_floor
ends at 10.0 % - the bms_soc_floor cut-out
1525 Wh delivered by the LOOP over 587 cycles
549 cycles below peak_soc_floor, 343 of them still discharging
0 cycles on which the peak guard filed any floor at all
AND IT IS A BEHAVIOUR, NOT A CONFIG VALUE. The same evening ends at
9.9715 % at peak_soc_floor = 5, 11, 20 and 60 - the shipped value and both
ends of the schema range - identical to four decimal places. The option an
operator would reach for cannot move the number by any amount at all. On
the same day's high-load block the two states coexist: 49 cycles reporting
PEAK GUARD FLOOR-LIMITED and, on all 49 of them, the arbiter simultaneously
granting the loop up to 2000 W of discharge.
WHY SAFETY-24 COULD NOT CLOSE IT. The peak guard files a `lo` limit - a
LOWER bound on the setpoint. That asymmetry is exactly what makes it
trustworthy: a reviewer proved across 19,800 combinations that it can never
lower a target, cap a discharge or contradict the arbiter. The same property
makes it structurally incapable of stopping a discharge the loop itself
wants. A floor on the guard cannot become a floor on the pack by being
raised, and the sweep above is that sentence measured.
WHAT THIS COMMIT CHANGES IS THE HONESTY, on the four surfaces an operator
actually reads. That half is required whichever way the open question is
answered, and it is the real misstatement on the live system today:
* config.yaml, beside the option itself - it BOUNDS THE PEAK GUARD ONLY
and is NOT A PACK-WIDE RESERVE, with the replayed evening and the sweep;
* DOCS.md, in the options table and in a new section carrying the figures;
* the STATUS-PAGE ROW for a floor-limited guard. This is the one line a
human reads at the moment the guard stops discharging, and read alone it
says "the battery is being held at peak_soc_floor" - which the replay
shows is false in every cycle that row is rendered;
* the PERSISTENT NOTIFICATION, which outlives the page. It now names what
has stopped (the guard buying a lower bill) and what has not (the pack
being spent).
peakguard.py and freeze.py carry the measurement beside the findings they
already recorded, so the next reader does not have to take the caveat on
trust.
THE PRODUCT DECISION IS NOT TAKEN HERE, and must not be. Whether the loop
gets a reserve floor of its own decides whether this house's battery may
discharge to the BMS floor on a heavy evening; that moves real energy and it
is the owner's call. DECISIONS/SAFETY-25-loop-soc-floor.md is the memo AC 1
asks for: the options, what each costs, what each protects, weighed against
MAINT-01 (a pack repeatedly at the BMS floor is the SoC-drift condition the
maintenance cycle exists to correct, and an over-tight reserve fights it from
the other side) and against the fact that this would be the FIFTH SoC key -
OPT-04's arbitrage_soc_floor fired SAFETY-24's "revisit if a third floor
appears" trigger unremarked, so SAFETY-27's naming decision should land
first. It carries a recommendation and says plainly that it is not a
decision.
It also records a trap found while writing it, and now CHECKED through the
real arbiter rather than described: the obvious shape of a loop-side floor
is a `hi` limit at P_LOOP, and filed while the peak guard is asking for a
positive floor that is `lo > hi` - which arbiter.py resolves to a
CONTRADICTION at 0 W, the battery PARKED in the one quarter of the month
that sets the bill. It is the same crossing-limits hazard
shaping_suspended() already exists to avoid. The ordering
`bms_soc_floor < loop_soc_floor <= peak_soc_floor` removes it provably,
because wherever the reserve binds the guard is already floor-limited and
files lo = 0; both halves are run in part 10d.
test_peakguard.py part 10 is a TRIPWIRE, not a guarantee. It records a
defect and goes RED the day somebody builds a loop-side floor, so the
exposure cannot change size under a green suite and closing it has to be
deliberate. Part 11's mutation 13 stays honestly NOT CAUGHT - nothing
prevents the loop discharging past this floor - but it now reports a number
instead of a sentence.
Verified: 16/16 suites green in the CI image. Eight mutations, each against
a tree copied fresh with __pycache__ excluded and mounted :ro, so no .pyc
existed to go stale (MUTATION.md's structural immunity, the same one it
records for CI); byte deltas +61, -8, -465, -430, -1088, -46, file deleted,
and -95; none is +0 B. All eight go red on the named check:
M1 peakguard.claim() also files hi=floor_w -> 7 red, incl. 10c
M2 control.compute() gain forced to 0 -> 6 red, incl. 10a/10b
M3 scope sentence removed from the status row -> 10e red
M4 scope sentence removed from the notification -> 10e red
M5 scope paragraph removed from config.yaml -> 10e red
M6 scope bullet weakened in DOCS.md -> 10e red
M7 the decision memo deleted -> 10e red
M8 arbiter clamps crossing limits instead of
reporting a contradiction -> 5 red, incl. 10d
AC 2 is left explicitly OPEN, pending the owner's answer.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
GoodWe RS485 Controller — Home Assistant add-on repository
Replaces a GoodWe battery inverter's vendor controller with a local one: holds net grid exchange at zero by emulating the inverter's smart meter over RS485, and runs the monthly battery maintenance cycle the vendor box was doing.
repository.yaml add-on repository metadata
goodwe_controller/ the add-on
config.yaml manifest + options schema (the per-site config form)
app/ the controller
control.py the control law — pure functions, no I/O
maintenance.py the monthly cycle state machine
hass.py Supervisor/Core API access
store.py persistent state in /data
mqtt.py optional status entities
web.py ingress UI
main.py orchestration, heartbeat, failsafe behaviour
test_control.py runnable checks — no framework needed
test_maintenance.py runnable checks — walks a full cycle in fake time
DOCS.md the add-on's documentation tab
MUTATION.md how to run a mutation so the result means something
tools/mutation_run.sh the mutation harness - purges bytecode, then grades
firmware/goodwe-master.yaml ESPHome config for the T-CAN485
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
Picking this up after a break? Read HANDOVER.md first — current state,
what is known broken, and what to do next.
Install
Settings → Add-ons → Add-on store → ⋮ → Repositories → add
https://gittea.kammenstraatha.duckdns.org/admin/goodwe-addon
then install GoodWe RS485 Controller.
⚠️ The repository must be PUBLIC for this to work. Home Assistant clones it
anonymously; against a private repo the store shows nothing and gives no useful
error. If it must stay private, install locally instead: copy
goodwe_controller/ into the machine's /addons/ folder, then
ha store reload — it appears as a Local add-on.
⚠️ Bump version: in goodwe_controller/config.yaml for every change.
Supervisor keys the built image by that version, so without a bump it silently
reuses the old image and your fix appears not to work — on your bench and on
every client's machine.
Requires Home Assistant OS or Supervised. Add-ons cannot be installed on HA Container or Core.
Read this first
The inverter holds its last command forever. It has no meter-timeout of its own — a controller that dies mid-command leaves the battery running until a human intervenes. Measured on real hardware: 5 kW of discharge held for 113 seconds after a controller went silent.
Three layers exist because of that, and only the third covers the Home Assistant machine itself dying:
- ESP32 watchdog — no fresh setpoint for ~30 s → command 0 W, and keep commanding it.
- Wind-down before firmware updates — 0 W written before the update starts.
- RS485 e-stop (optional) — writes 0 W after 30 s of total bus silence.
Sites sold without the e-stop must have the acknowledgement in FIELD-GUIDE.md
§10 signed.
Development
The control law and the maintenance machine are pure Python with no Home Assistant imports, so they run anywhere:
cd goodwe_controller
python3 test_control.py
python3 test_maintenance.py
Both must pass before shipping any change. To prove a check bites - the way
almost every claim in this repository was established - mutate the module and
run tools/mutation_run.sh, which clears __pycache__ first. It is not
optional: a same-size edit reverted inside one second leaves CPython reusing the
old bytecode, and the run grades code that is not there. goodwe_controller/MUTATION.md
has the mechanism, the measurement, and what the flags do not do. They are not unit-test theatre —
each assertion corresponds to a rule whose absence produced an observed failure
on real hardware, and the comments in control.py say which.
Compatibility
Check the serial number, not the model name. Characters 6-8 of the serial are the platform tag:
| tag | platform | verdict |
|---|---|---|
ESU EMU ESA BPS BPU EMJ IJL |
105 — ES/EM/BP, AA55-era meter bus | supported |
SPB SPN |
745 — SBP G2 (GW…-SBP-20) |
no |
ESN ESC |
745 — ES G2 (GW…-ES-20) |
no |
ETU EHU BTU … |
205/745/753 — ET/EH/BT hybrids | no |
SDT DST MSU NSU … |
PV-only inverters — no battery to control | no |
A "-20" or "G2" suffix means a different platform with a different meter
protocol. The tags come from the goodwe library's PLATFORM_105_MODELS, which
is also what Home Assistant's own integration uses to pick a protocol.
- GoodWe ES / BP family inverters (AA55 / RS485 meter-bus generation)
- The protocol is reverse-engineered. There is no vendor contract, and a firmware change on GoodWe's side could break every installation at once. Say so when you sell it.