glenn schrooyenandClaude Opus 5
e709554857
checks / unit (pull_request) Successful in 3m29s
SAFETY-07 can command a discharge to hold a billed quarter down, and nothing below it consulted the state of charge. On the 2026-08-20 replay it asks for 878 Wh in a day. Relying on the BMS is not absurd - it is a real floor and it works - but it is the pack's protection rather than the operator's, and a month of aggressive quarters leaves the battery repeatedly at that cut-out with no EMS-side record of why. The first symptom is a pack never available when wanted, which is indistinguishable from the SoC drift MAINT-01 exists to correct. decide() now takes soc and soc_floor, both required and neither defaulted, and discharge_permitted() is the one place the question is answered. Above the floor nothing changes. At or below it the guard files a 0 W floor instead of a sized one - one-directional, so charging stays blocked and no discharge is capped - and reports floor_limited with the reason it bound. It is not a trip: every stop in 11.2's table still outranks the claim, and the floor is never negative, so 9.1's asymmetry survives as a property of the object (0 negative floors over 1296 swept combinations, SoC included). The SoC is graded only after `wanted > 0` is established, so it is never evaluated where it governs nothing. An unreadable SoC is floor-limited, not a full battery - a full battery is exactly the value that would disarm the floor, and this project shipped that defaulting once already. Failing to shave is not silent: one notification per episode (goodwe_peak_soc_floor), distinct from the saturation alarm because the two ask for opposite operator actions, plus its own status row and an action-log line. Verified by replay. The 2026-08-20 capture is driven against a modelled pack sized from the day's own measured appetite, so it genuinely exhausts: without the floor it reaches the BMS cut-out and holds there for 1227 guard cycles; with it the pack stops at 20.0 % and never touches the BMS. The energy withheld equals the energy between the two floors to within one cycle at the rail. The honest half is reported too - the worst quarter goes 4338 W -> 5030 W, because a floor-limited guard shaves less on purpose. Two new options, mirrored once in peakguard.PEAK_OPTION_DEFAULTS (TARIFF-02's pattern), imported by validate.py and main.py rather than typed as literals and pinned to config.yaml by a check that reads the file - so CFG-03 still tracks three places. validate.py rule 8 refuses peak_soc_floor <= bms_soc_floor at startup, in CFG-01/MAINT-04's manner. maintenance_soc_floor is deliberately not reused and not renamed: it is a drain target, not a spend limit, and the rename is recorded as a decision to revisit if a third floor appears. Eleven mutations of the shipped source were run against the checks; all eleven go red and there are no survivors. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 <noreply@anthropic.com> Claude-Session: https://claude.ai/code/session_015VXjA3LWccN1rJsk3okyPC