- marginal_freight()'s docstring claimed small additions "cost ~0" if
they fit in slack - the code is actually a continuous amortized rate
with no such threshold. Fixed the wording to match the real behavior.
- The one known failing test asserted fixed money values from a 2026-09-18
screenshot against live, drifting market prices - removed that
assertion (it was testing market drift, not code correctness) but kept
the exact area check. Replaced with a structural, price-independent
regression check instead of just deleting: degradation == prod_cost/180
and plan_cost == prod_cost+infra_cost+cm_cost, asserted directly from
simulate()'s own fields, holds at any price.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
network.py: tools/network.py now computes freight cost from the real fuel
model (puga.shipping.round_trip_cost) for direct-jump transfers instead of
the flat 9250 AIC placeholder; gateway transfers or an explicit trip_cost
in the chain YAML still use that as a fallback. puga/network.py's combine()
docstring now flags that its "flows cancel, only freight matters" claim
only holds under a symmetric-price basis (uni30, the default) - under
--basis real it understates the benefit of physical transfer by the
bid-ask spread on the moved quantity.
whatif.py: now charges marginal freight too - only the EXTRA round trips
an addition needs beyond the base's existing traffic, so a small addition
riding along on already-necessary hauls costs ~0, while one that adds
meaningfully to shipped tonnage doesn't get a free pass.
Terminology: "profit/day ÷ capex" was being reported as "ROI/day X%",
which invites reading it as a compoundable rate. It's just 1/payback_days -
there's no reinvestment mechanism and every opportunity here is
capacity/market-limited, so it can't be annualized like a real yield.
Payback in days is now the primary number everywhere (scan.py, simulate.py,
network.py, whatif.py); see docs/decisions.md for the reasoning.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Was wrong earlier this session claiming demolition gives nothing back.
FIO's /rain/userplanetbuildingreclaimables confirms partial material
return (observed 50-90% depending on material, not a fixed fraction -
looked up live, not approximated). --remove now prices the real
reclaim for anything actually built and nets it against new capex,
so a demolish-and-reinvest question gets the true net cash picture
instead of double-penalizing the removed building.
Used this to check "demolish BHP's HWP, build a 2nd CHP or POL
instead" - both are clearly net losers even counting the ~57,750 AIC
reclaim credit (net capex still positive, and marginal profit is
negative either way) - dominated by just adding the new building
without removing anything, since nothing scarce actually forces the
swap.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Mirrors --add - removes AMOUNT (default: all) of a building from the
copied spec. Used this to check whether BHP's HWP is still worth
running after its price drop (still +19.8k-28.4k/day marginal,
nowhere near a teardown call) without hand-writing two spec files.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Formalizes a pattern repeated by hand all session: copy the current
whole-base plan, add a building/recipe, diff simulate() against the
baseline for the true marginal profit and capex (not PRUNplanner's
plan-level ROI, which divides whole-plan profit by only the new capex
and badly overstates once a base exists).
Also flags any workforce tier the addition newly overloads, distinct
from a pre-existing overload it didn't cause - this is what caught the
PP2/pioneer-housing and 2nd-CHP/pioneer-housing surprises by hand
before this tool existed.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 5 <noreply@anthropic.com>
dodoxandClaude Sonnet 5