glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
3278f2ddf8
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 4m55s
Review found two false statements in the comment and one weak check. All three are fixed here; the constant itself is unchanged at 150 s and was never in question. 1. "That caps this constant at 900/5 = 180 s" was FALSE ABOUT THE CHECK IT CITED. test_clamp.py part 2 sweeps i = 0..899 and the rising edge at i=0 is free, so it measured `1 + floor(899/R)` - one alarm more than a real quarter earns. Measured: 224 s was GREEN across the whole suite. Anyone raising this to 200 s would have had a green board and a requirement quietly unmet - the same defect recorded at test_clamp.py:216, one notch weaker. The check now grades floor(QUARTER_S / REASSERT_S) directly, so it enforces the ceiling the comment claims for it. Verified: 150 PASS, 180 PASS, 181 FAIL, 224 FAIL. 180 is also the true requirement edge - on the worst sliding 900 s window 180 earns 5 alarms and 181 earns 4. 2. The "60 cycles of the §10.3 runaway" note was attributed to this module and truncated. It is main.py:2479 and reads "60 cycles of the §10.3 runaway produce 0 write-path engagements and 2 loop-side ones". Quoted in full, attributed correctly. 3. "48 engagements in 25 minutes" was left implying a pinned rail. It is roughly one cycle in six - real, and far above the 2-in-60 the guard was sized for, but not continuous. Restated, and labelled as a live-log reading rather than a measurement in this repo. Also recorded: the 1500 W tuning derivation is in the OTHER repo (admin/goodwe NOTES.md, "Simulated 2 kW load step (gain 0.6, clamp 1500)"), so this repo cannot corroborate it and a reader should not go looking here; and MIN_PER_QUARTER = 5 is a test-local integer, not a spec figure - the 900 s quarter is system-wide but the 5 is not, so the 180 s ceiling rests on one number a test author chose. Full suite: 20 passed, 0 failed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU