Claude Opus 5
b21e229adf
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 6m29s
stated the wrong mechanism ⚠️ REVIEW FINDING, BLOCKING, AND IT IS THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS WRONG RATHER THAN THE BEHAVIOUR. Part 8b's cut-out arm claimed an "identical power trace" to the wedged arm and that "what separates them is `account()`". EVERY PART OF THAT WAS FALSE, and the check survived deleting the gate it named. Measured: cut-out arm, account() live named 0/200, distinct B shares: [0] cut-out arm, account() FORCED None named 0/200, distinct B shares: [0] wedged arm, account() live named 200/200, shares 77/125/133/154 W At its own cut-out the pack's usable energy ABOVE that cut-out is zero, so `weights()` answers 0.0, `_fill()`'s preferred pass gives it nothing, the healthy sibling covers the load alone so the last-resort pass never runs, and its share is 0 W ON ALL 200 CYCLES. A unit with a 0 W share is not in `asked`, so `len(asked) < 2` returns {} BEFORE EITHER ARM IS EVALUATED and `account()` is never consulted. Nothing was identical, "100 % of the ask" was 0/0, and the arm never reached the comparison it was written to grade. WHAT REPLACES IT IS A BETTER FACT, NOT A WEAKER ONE: at its own cut-out OPT-09 STOPS ASKING THE PACK AT ALL, so SAFETY-43's relative arm is never reached. That is a SECOND, INDEPENDENT protection sitting UPSTREAM of `account()` - the allocator declines to ask before the detector has to decline to alarm. So the arm is kept and re-pointed, not deleted: * the 0 W share is now ASSERTED (`_sat_last[1][Bee] == 0`), not inferred from the silence - a control that cannot say WHY it is quiet cannot fail; * the arm runs a SECOND time with `account()` DELETED (`no_account=True`) and must still be silent, which is what proves which mechanism does the work; * the account gate's claim is re-pointed at test_delivery.py part 1, where it is graded on a REAL positive 125 W share. ⚠️ AND IT WAS INVISIBLE FOR ONE REASON WORTH KEEPING: that was the ONLY line in part 8b that did not print its shares. `inverter-b+0` would have been on screen from the first run. Every line in the part prints them now. The derated control's vacuity guard also now asserts ITS OWN unit is asked, rather than re-asserting a different run's 200/200 - which is exactly why the old guard could not see this. ALSO, from the same review: N1 app/delivery.py said 0.05 was "twelve times more sensitive" than 0.85. 0.85/0.05 = 17 and no reading of the pair gives 12. An unsupported number in shipped source; replaced with what was actually measured. N2 M14's recorded count was 4 named checks in test_delivery.py and it is 5 - part 1's pre-existing "a shortfall AT the threshold is not one" also goes red. It under-claimed, so it never inflated the evidence, but a recorded figure that does not reproduce is still one. N3 test_delivery.py part 1 printed the alarm sentence with a bare `delinquent(...)["b"]`, which raises KeyError under M12/M13 and ABORTED THE FILE AT PART 1, leaving parts 2-8 ungraded. The direction is safe (an abort is a red; MUTATION.md's defect fabricates only greens) but the recorded coverage read smaller than the truth. It is a `.get` now, and M12/M13's counts are re-run: 7 and 7 named checks, not 5 and 6. CFG-07: the assessment is unchanged (worse by one control cycle, 35.0 -> 40.0 s, deliberately not fixed here) and now says WHEN it has to close - BEFORE INVERTER B IS COMMISSIONED (~2026-09-12), because the band is unreachable at N=1 and commissioning B is when it first becomes reachable - and that CFG-07 HAS NO DECISION DOCUMENT IN THIS TREE, so whoever takes it writes one first. No behaviour change. `delinquent()`'s two arms, the fraction, `min_w` and the N=1 path are all untouched by this commit. 27/27 suites green. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_01BwRLw7eKYj2byVdwB6kbjU