glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
8d83ef0dfb
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 6m11s
B1, the blocking review finding. §5 of the decision said:
"A wedged unit reads a healthy SoC, so no envelope closes and no weight
moves - OPT-09 cannot see it at all."
The first clause is true and is about the ENVELOPE. The second clause is
FALSE, and it was load-bearing for the claim that OPT-09 and SAFETY-42 meet
without overlapping. A weight is a function of a pack's ENERGY HEADROOM, not
of what the pack delivers, so a wedged unit's weight moves whenever its
headroom differs from its sibling's - the ordinary case this card exists to
exploit. And delivery.delinquent() (app/delivery.py:484, threshold at :531)
names a unit only while its short_by() gap exceeds min_w = Tuning.saturation_w
= 500 W in ABSOLUTE WATTS. Shrinking the share shrinks the gap below the
threshold, and the alarm stops firing on a unit still delivering nothing.
So the seam, stated accurately: OPT-09 stops the ask AND narrows SAFETY-42's
detection window for a low-headroom unit. That is a DETECTION REGRESSION at
N=2. It is disclosed here, not fixed: making delinquent() relative to the ask
rather than absolute is SAFETY-42's code and a design change, filed as its own
card.
1. THE CORRECTION, in the three places that carried the claim
* DECISIONS/OPT-09-soc-aware-weights.md §5 - rewritten. States the seam
accurately, quotes the sentence it is replacing, carries the measured
rows and the window arithmetic, and names the residual in the same voice
as SAFETY-13's "2 of 272" and SAFETY-42's "the discriminator does not
exist". Also drops "they meet and do not overlap" from the opening.
* app/packshare.py - a new section in the module docstring, immediately
after "weights are a comfort choice for stability and not for delivery",
which is where the over-read starts.
* CHANGELOG.md - a new paragraph in the SAFETY-42 entry, ending on the
operator-facing sentence: a wedged inverter with less energy headroom
than its sibling can now go unreported at ordinary house loads.
test_packshare.py part 8's closing check and its "what this file cannot
see" list repeated the same false clause; both now say the ENVELOPE cannot
reach a wedged unit and point at part 8b for what the WEIGHTS do to it.
2. THE GRADED CHECK - test_packshare.py part 8b, 6 named checks
The reviewer's probe, reproduced: real compute(), real plan(), real
packshare.weights(), real delivery.account(), real delivery.delinquent();
the only model is the plant (A obeys within one cycle inside its rating,
B accepts its share and delivers 0 W). Unit B is WEDGED at 15 % against
its own 10 % floor, so envelope() does not close and account() explains
nothing - a SAFETY-42 true positive by that card's own definition, which
a PRECONDITION check asserts before anything is concluded from it.
load 1500 W, B wedged at 15 %, equal weights named on 199/200 cycles,
site target +3000 W, shares a+1500, b+1500, grid +0 W, named=[b]
load 1500 W, B wedged at 15 %, OPT-09 weights named on 0/200 cycles,
site target +1630 W, shares a+1505, b+125, grid -5 W, named=(nobody)
load 6000 W, B wedged at 15 %, equal weights named on 199/200 cycles
load 6000 W, B wedged at 15 %, OPT-09 weights named on 195/200 cycles
suppression window: equal weights, site target < 1000 W; OPT-09
weights, site target < 6500 W of a 9600 W site
THE CHECKS ASSERT THE CURRENT, UNFLATTERING BEHAVIOUR ON PURPOSE - that
the weighted arm names NOBODY where the equal arm names the wedged unit.
A check asserting the alarm still fires would fail, and papering over it
would be worse than the original defect. The 6000 W row is there so the
part is not pinning "the weighted arm never names anybody": past the
healthy pack's own rating, _fill()'s last-resort pass hands the wedged
unit 3000 W and both arms name it. The window is real and it has an edge.
MUTATION - packshare.weights() keeps its shape and forces every weight to
1.0 (M11 in part 11's table, which now has 11 rows). RUN on a purged tree
with python3 -B, not reasoned about:
load 1500 W, B wedged at 15 %, equal weights named on 199/200 cycles,
site target +3000 W, shares a+1500, b+1500, grid +0 W, named=[b]
load 1500 W, B wedged at 15 %, OPT-09 weights named on 199/200 cycles,
site target +3000 W, shares a+1500, b+1500, grid +0 W, named=[b]
load 6000 W, B wedged at 15 %, OPT-09 weights named on 199/200 cycles,
site target +4000 W, shares a+2000, b+2000, grid +4000 W, named=[b]
suppression window: equal weights < 1000 W; OPT-09 weights < 1000 W
FAIL AND WITH OPT-09's WEIGHTS IT IS NAMED ON NONE OF THE 200 [...]
FAIL ...and the arithmetic behind it, stated as a window [...]
FAIL AND IT IS NOT THAT THE WEIGHTED ARM NEVER NAMES ANYBODY [...]
test_packshare.py exits 1. Restored: exits 0.
3. THREE PROC-01 PROSE DEFECTS
* DECISIONS/OPT-09-soc-aware-weights.md:3 said "Base: release/1.0 @
464d398". The branch was rebased; git merge-base HEAD 3368231 is
3368231. Corrected, and it says why the old number was there.
* Same file:13 cited main.py:2272 for "resolution = resolve(...)".
git show 3368231:goodwe_controller/app/main.py | grep -n says 2422.
Corrected. The sibling citation arbiter.py:535 is right and is left.
* DOCS.md:174 said "Since 0.7.x the split is driven by two separate
things", which tells an operator the fix already shipped. config.yaml
is 0.8.0 and the live install is 0.7.0, where the split is 50/50 - this
card's own premise. Now "from 0.8.0 onwards", with an explicit warning
that 0.7.0 and earlier are a fixed 50/50.
NOT TOUCHED, deliberately: delinquent()'s absolute threshold (SAFETY-42's
code, its own card), and app/main.py:2699's double-logged scope refusal (N4,
filed separately).
INVERTER B DOES NOT EXIST (expected ~2026-09-12). Every two-unit figure above
is TWO COPIES OF A through a plant modelled in test_packshare.py; B's 4600 W /
20.48 kWh / 10 % floor are from the datasheet and the serial. Nothing here was
measured on hardware, and the added disclaimers say so in each place.
Verified with the real harness per .gitea/workflows/checks.yml
(goodwe-addon-checks:1): COLLECTED 24 files, ALLGREEN. Harness positive
control run first - test_validate.py deliberately broken, harness reported
"FAILED: test_validate.py" and exited 1; restored.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU