When hardware underperforms, audit deployment knobs before prescribing retraining

Symptom

Real-robot feedback after the C4 deployment - "turning is weak" - with two retraining options on the table: top up turn training, or restart from the s1e root.

Context

The sim account showed the policy turned well (75-81% at pw1.0); the robot was deployed at power-scale 0.8. The 3-6 pp difference between C2 and C4 policies at the same power was noise; the 40-50 pp difference between power levels was the entire effect. Both proposed retraining paths would have burned budget on a non-existent training gap, and restarting from s1e would additionally have discarded the sidewalk skill that took four rungs and a coordinate-bug hunt to obtain.

Change

Decision: retrain nothing. (1) Try pw1.0 on hardware first - sim says net gain; (2) only if 1.0 is unacceptable (heat/feel), the correct training fix is power/torque randomization in the S2 plant line (one variable, fixes turn and backward together) - not skill top-up; (3) restart-from-root explicitly ranked worst.

Outcome

The "weakness" was fully explained by the deployment knob; the sim/real signatures matched the earlier power-derating law verbatim ("与 C2 时代 power 衰减主要伤非前进轴 逐字吻合").

Mechanism

The policy's competence is defined under its training plant; deployment knobs (power scale, teleop mapping, command bands) silently define a different plant. Attributing a deploy-plant effect to a training gap produces exactly the wrong fix - more training on the wrong variable.

Applies when

• real robot underperforms a skill that sim says is fine
• proposals on the table include retraining or re-rooting
• deployment uses any override the trainer never saw (power scale, remapped commands, different control rate)