glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
834e7ca44b
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 5m15s
Review found validate.py:288-289 carrying numbers that appear nowhere else in the PR's evidence and could not be reproduced: over-absorption "1233 W at slew 1000 and 1344 W at slew 250 ... 1495 W at 0.6, 961 W at 0.3, ~0 W at 0.2". A grep for 1233/1344/1495 found them ONLY in that comment - the DECISIONS record, the PR body, test_control.py's audit table and slew_sim's own output all carried the correct ones. The measured values, from re-running tools/slew_sim.py on the real plant model at the stated conditions (max_w 5000, 2 s tick, 51 export steps 1.0-4.2 kW): slew column 958 (slew 1000) and 1081 (slew 250); gain column 987 (0.6), 876 (0.3), 435 (0.2). ⚠️ "~0 W at 0.2" WAS WRONG IN THE UNSAFE DIRECTION. It invited a future reader to conclude that dropping gain to 0.2 removes over-absorption. It does not: 435 W remains, which is 44 % of the figure at 0.6, not zero. The corrected text says so at the line rather than leaving a round number to be trusted. The conclusion the paragraph draws is unchanged and still holds on the measured figures: over-absorption is flat in slew_w and falls in gain, so `gain` is the constant that would have to move, and SAFETY-39 deliberately does not move it. No behaviour change; comment only. Full suite: 21 passed, 0 failed. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU