Finalise model names for GB (+ NL)

[braddf]

As per recent discussions, trying to simplify the naming of our models available through the v1 API.

GB should be as follows going forward:

• blend
• ecmwf_mo
• ecmwf_mo_sat_8h
• ecmwf
• sat_8h
• mo

We'll reintroduce the "adjusted" boolean flag, enabled by default, to make it as low friction as possible to get our best forecasts.

NL is currently:

• blend
• blend_adjust
• ecmwf_mo_sat_uncurtailed
• ecmwf_mo_sat_uncurtailed_adjust

We should definitely move the adjust values to the flag/boolean, and whether we also simplify to just uncurtailed is a choice. We can leave an alias for the current name, but the flag might be a breaking change (now or later)

[CodeVishal-17]

I’d be happy to take this up. GB’s naming can be made consistent with NL by treating adjusted as a parameter rather than part of the model identifier.

Before implementation, I can look into the current model naming and usage across the codebase, particularly whether uncurtailed represents a distinct model or just a configuration/processing option. Based on that, I can update the API naming, preserve compatibility where appropriate, and add/update the relevant tests.

Would it be okay if I work on this issue and open a PR?

[ocf-bot]

@CodeVishal-17 Thank you for reaching out! Unfortunately, this issue is not suitable for open source contribution and so hasn't been marked with "good first issue" or "contributions welcome". Please consult our contribution guidelines for more information on how you can contribute, and hope to see you around!