Last CI failure diagnosed and fixed (commit 0e4059c)

The Rodas5P() switch alone did not fix CI — Core (julia 1) still failed with:

AssertionError: Number of modes should be in {1,2,...,1}.

Root cause: initialization, not the solver

Reproduced locally on the exact failing stack (MethodOfLines 0.11.14, ModelingToolkit 11.31.1, ModelingToolkitBase 1.51.0, PDEBase 0.1.27). The full-order solve returns InitialFailure before any step is taken, so sol.original_sol has a single time column and POD(snapshot, 3) errors (only 1 mode available).

init(ode_prob, Rodas5P()) returns ReturnCode.InitialFailure directly. Instrumenting the initialization shows why:

• missing_guess_value = Constant(0.0) leaves every discretized state as a missing guess, so MethodOfLines' initialization system is structurally singular / underdetermined — 1 equation for 11 unknowns.
• MTK falls back to a least-squares initialization, which diverges from the all-zero guess: MaxIters, residual norm ≈ 4.9e4, giving a garbage u0 (values ≈ 1e19).
• Because the failure is in initialization, changing the stepping solver (Tsit5 → Rodas5P) can't help.

This is also why LTS passed but julia 1 failed: the older resolved stack produced a well-posed init; the post-floor stack does not.

Fix

The BCs fix every state to 0 at t=0 (v(x,0)=w(x,0)=0, and i₀(0)=0), so the correct initial condition is simply all zeros. Providing it explicitly makes initialization well-posed:

u0 = [u => 0.0 for u in ModelingToolkit.get_unknowns(simp_sys)]
ode_prob = ODEProblem(simp_sys, u0, tspan)

The solve then succeeds with a 15-column snapshot that exercises POD/DEIM as intended.

Validation (on the CI-failing stack)

• GROUP=Core Pkg.test() passes: Core/deim.jl 4/4, DataReduction 15/15, utils 10/10, "ModelOrderReduction tests passed".
• Runic.main(["--check", "test/deim.jl"]) (v1.7.0) clean.

Note: docs/src/tutorials/deim_FitzHugh-Nagumo.md still uses the missing_guess_value hack but with N=15, where the docs build currently passes — left unchanged to keep this PR focused. It carries the same latent fragility and could get the same treatment in a follow-up.

Should be ignored until reviewed by @ChrisRackauckas.