CoMorph further KGO-preserving refactoring

[MichaelWhitall]

PR Summary

Sci/Tech Reviewer: AlisonStirling
Code Reviewer:

The bulk of the refactoring of CoMorph in the comorph_dev branch was lodged in the lfric_apps trunk in Issue #178 / PR #292. But some more KGO-preserving refactoring has been done in the comorph_dev branch after the branch lodged for #292 was split-off from it. We now need to lodge these extra refactoring changes. We also need to add more of CoMorph's tune-able constants to the LFRic namelist.

For a detailed description of the changes, see the Issue page: #713.

closes #713
blocks #251

Code Quality Checklist

• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• My code follows the project's style guidelines
• Comments have been included that aid understanding and enhance the readability of the code
• My changes generate no new warnings
• All automated checks in the CI pipeline have completed successfully

Testing

• I have tested this change locally, using the LFRic Apps rose-stem suite
• If any tests fail (rose-stem or CI) the reason is understood and acceptable (e.g. kgo changes)
• I have added tests to cover new functionality as appropriate (e.g. system tests, unit tests, etc.)
• Any new tests have been assigned an appropriate amount of compute resource and have been allocated to an appropriate testing group (i.e. the developer tests are for jobs which use a small amount of compute resource and complete in a matter of minutes)

trac.log

Test Suite Results - lfric_apps - comorph_refact2/run1

Suite Information

Item	Value
Suite Name	comorph_refact2/run1
Suite User	michael.whitall
Workflow Start	2026-08-14T16:01:26
Groups Run	developer', 'lfric_atm_nwp_ex1a_extra', 'lfric_atm_nwp_azspice_extra

Dependency	Reference	Main Like
casim	MetOffice/casim@2026.07.1	True
jules	MetOffice/jules@2026.07.1	True
lfric_apps	MichaelWhitall/lfric_apps@comorph_refact2	False
lfric_core	MetOffice/lfric_core@60fc29a	True
moci	MetOffice/moci@2026.07.1	True
SimSys_Scripts	MetOffice/SimSys_Scripts@77a5166	True
socrates	MetOffice/socrates@2026.07.1	True
socrates-spectral	MetOffice/socrates-spectral@2026.07.1	True
ukca	MetOffice/ukca@9fc2b6d	True

Task Information

❌ failed tasks - 1

Task	State
memory_plot_ex_lfric_atm_nwp_gal9-C48_MG_ex1a_cce_fast-debug-32bit	failed

✅ succeeded tasks - 1304

⌛ waiting tasks - 4

Task	State
check_gungho_model_robert-moist-smag-BiP100x8-10x10_azspice_gnu_fast-debug-64bit	waiting
housekeep_azspice	waiting
housekeep_ex1a	waiting
plot_gungho_model_robert-moist-smag-BiP100x8-10x10_azspice_gnu_fast-debug-64bit	waiting

All but one of the tests worked fine; just one plotting task strangely fails with a "file not found" error. I think this is due to a glitch / filesystem problem on the hpc (the task that was supposed to create the required file succeeded so I don't know why its not there!)

Security Considerations

• I have reviewed my changes for potential security issues
• Sensitive data is properly handled (if applicable)
• Authentication and authorisation are properly implemented (if applicable)

Performance Impact

• Performance of the code has been considered and, if applicable, suitable performance measurements have been conducted

AI Assistance and Attribution

• Some of the content of this change has been produced with the assistance of Generative AI tool name (e.g., Met Office Github Copilot Enterprise, Github Copilot Personal, ChatGPT GPT-4, etc) and I have followed the Simulation Systems AI policy (including attribution labels)

Documentation

• Where appropriate I have updated documentation related to this change and confirmed that it builds correctly

PSyclone Approval

• If you have edited any PSyclone-related code (e.g. PSyKAl-lite, Kernel interface, optimisation scripts, LFRic data structure code) then please contact the TCD Team

Sci/Tech Review

• I understand this area of code and the changes being added
• The proposed changes correspond to the pull request description
• Documentation is sufficient (do documentation papers need updating)
• Sufficient testing has been completed

(Please alert the code reviewer via a tag when you have approved the SR)

Code Review

• All dependencies have been resolved
• Related Issues have been properly linked and addressed
• CLA compliance has been confirmed
• Code quality standards have been met
• Tests are adequate and have passed
• Documentation is complete and accurate
• Security considerations have been addressed
• Performance impact is acceptable

[AlisonStirling]

Sci tech review approved