glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
8e241a3243
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 5m32s
Two blocking findings from review, both in prose, both corrected at every site. 1. "trips on tick 7" was not what the fixture prints. It prints 11, five runs out of five, and the developer's own report says 11. ⚠️ But the deeper problem is that the number should never have been quoted: the tick is counted on the WALL CLOCK inside cycle() (hold_s 2 s, ticks 0.20 s apart), so it is load-dependent - 7 is what a box slow enough to stretch each tick to ~0.29 s would print - and nothing pins it. The DECISIONS transcript now says 11 because it is a transcript of a run; the CHANGELOG stops quoting a tick at all and states the checkable thing instead: it trips without the gate and never with it, which part 3 grades. 2. ⚠️ SURVIVOR 2's SIZE CLAIM WAS FALSE FOR ONE OF THE TWO CONSUMERS THIS CARD EXISTS TO PROTECT. It read "one contributing at most 250 W to a loop whose reporting floor is 700 W" at three sites. That bounds the COMMAND. Once the register is frozen its REPORTED value is unrelated to the command - which is exactly HW-01's shape: commanded ~0 W, register stuck on the last large number. Measured in review: a unit frozen at -1200 W beside a healthy +900 W sibling yields circulating_w = 1800 W against the 700 W floor, 2.6x OVER, with no gate armed. So the scoping is TRUE for the per-unit sign check and FALSE for circulation. Corrected to say exactly that, and the circulation consumer's exposure below MOVE_W is now recorded as a KNOWN GAP rather than a covered one. It survived because part 9's S2 check asserts only `not stale` and part 4 pairs the frozen unit with a RESTING sibling (circulating_w([A_FROZEN_W, 0.0]) == 0.0) - neither grades the size sentence. No behaviour change. Full suite: 22 passed, 0 failed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU