Training Coach

Doctrine

A report may cite any of these as doctrine-N.

1. doctrine-1Contract freeze and fingerprint discipline

   The policy I/O contract (observation layout, scales, history semantics, action pipeline) is frozen and fingerprinted; every exported policy is stamped and verified; contract changes ship as new versioned profiles that leave old artifacts bit-identical, and old policies run forever under their era's pinned profile.

   Case. The 215-dim omni contract was frozen with a three-machine digest; the one contract-level extension (lateral feed-forward) went in as a new `omni_ff` profile with the old profile provably untouched, and the contract checker caught two real wiring bugs before any training (`contract-freeze-and-checker`). A silently changed gait-clock default would have fed old policies a 25% slower clock - closed by pinned legacy profiles (`legacy-profile-pinning`). A stale derived USD forked plant mass 2.2% until an automated source-vs-derived instrument gated it (`derived-asset-staleness-check`). A gain profile is part of the closed loop a policy was trained in and belongs in its stamp; the recovery line's anchored authority was left out of its manifest and recorded as the gap not to repeat (`gain-profile-belongs-in-the-stamp`), and a second policy behind a deploy-side switch made the handoff state itself a contract (`recovery-two-policies-and-a-state-machine`, `walk-recovery-fsm-handoff`).

   Coach application. On any proposal touching obs/action semantics, defaults, or derived assets: demand the version/profile plan, the fingerprint update, and the checker extension in the same change; flag any old artifact that would run under new defaults.

   contract-freeze-and-checkerlegacy-profile-pinningderived-asset-staleness-checkgain-profile-belongs-in-the-stamprecovery-two-policies-and-a-state-machinewalk-recovery-fsm-handoff

2. doctrine-2Attribution by resolved training params - never eval-override knobs

   Capability differences between lineages are explained only by digging each lineage's *resolved* training configuration and eliminating columns; evaluation-side override knobs (kd-scale, power-scale, cycle-time) act on the plant for *every* policy and may serve as deployment mitigations but never as explanations.

   Case. Low-friction robustness across 8 lineages x 3840 cells was traced to kd DR *bandwidth* - every lineage had ground friction pinned to (1.0,1.0), so "trained friction" could not be the axis; the parameter axis and the plant axis were explicitly separated after the first attribution conflated them (`kd-bandwidth-mu-law-attribution`). "Weak turning" on hardware was a power-scale plant effect, not a training gap (`deploy-knob-attribution-before-retraining`); slowing the deploy clock was out-of-distribution, not a feature (`cycle-time-override-is-ood`). The ground truth for what a run trained under is the logged per-run config, not the source tree (`resolved-config-is-source-of-truth`).

   Coach application. Whenever asked "why is lineage A better", require the resolved-param table first; kill zero-variance columns; refuse explanations phrased in eval-knob terms; when a knob helps, label it deployment mitigation.

   kd-bandwidth-mu-law-attributiondeploy-knob-attribution-before-retrainingcycle-time-override-is-oodresolved-config-is-source-of-truth

3. doctrine-3PASS gates become constraints; FAIL gates become objectives

   Once a skill passes its gate, that gate converts into a standing regression constraint (budget <= 2/20 against the parent baseline) for all later training; gates currently failing are the only legitimate objectives of the next rung.

   Case. The C ladder ran one frozen 13-cell x 20-seed matrix at every rung with promotion = "new skill PASS and old skills within regression budget"; C1 was stopped and re-rooted precisely because it trained away the root's backward PASS (`fixed-acceptance-matrix-per-rung`, `preregistered-stop-criteria-per-rung`). The C4 product shipped only at 260/260 cells with zero regression.

   Coach application. Keep the ledger: every PASS adds a constraint row; propose rungs only against FAIL rows; treat any constraint violation as stop-and-attribute, never "the next rung might win it back".

   fixed-acceptance-matrix-per-rungpreregistered-stop-criteria-per-rung

4. doctrine-4One variable per ladder rung - counted against what the checkpoint saw

   A rung changes one variable, where "one" is counted against the checkpoint's actual training state, not against the current config's diff; batching is allowed only when each change owns a disjoint symptom space with a pre-registered ablation order.

   Case. Two rungs failed identically because resuming s1e-500 under the evolved config silently added four plant variables the checkpoint had never seen ("单变量纪律不只看「我改了什么」,还要看「checkpoint 见过什么」" - `resume-state-dr-audit`). v8 legally batched four orthogonal fixes with a written ablation order (`orthogonal-batch-with-ablation-order`); v9 spent one run completing a 2x2 factorial so either outcome convicted a factor (`fill-the-missing-factorial-cell`); v10b's three-way ablation wrongfully convicted the clock and had to be retried fairly.

   Coach application. Before any resume: diff cfg against the checkpoint's logged training state. Before any batch: require the symptom-ownership map and ablation order in writing.

   resume-state-dr-auditorthogonal-batch-with-ablation-orderfill-the-missing-factorial-cell

5. doctrine-5Pre-register risks, readings, and stop criteria before the ladder

   Before a ladder or risky rung, write down the known risks, the interpretation of every plausible outcome, and hit-any-one stop criteria - frozen before training, tightened when priors say results should come fast.

   Case. The C ladder opened with three numbered risks including the exact falsification condition for its own root choice; A/B arms carried "预注册读法(事后不改)" tables; a level expected to fail was run anyway for its pre-registered diagnostic value (`preregister-risks-and-fork-readings`). Stop criteria caught C4-redo rungs at +200 instead of full caps (`preregistered-stop-criteria-per-rung`); hardware sessions pre-registered per-config expected signatures and the disagreement rule "不改结论改账" (`preregistered-real-expectations`, `feasibility-accounts-lock-design-point`).

   Coach application. Refuse to open a rung without the written risk/reading/ stop block; after results, read conclusions off the pre-registered table and flag any post-hoc reinterpretation.

   preregister-risks-and-fork-readingspreregistered-stop-criteria-per-rungpreregistered-real-expectationsfeasibility-accounts-lock-design-point

6. doctrine-6Plant parameters are measured, never invented

   Every plant number carries measurement provenance: armature = N^2 x rotor inertia from no-load tests, friction split by rig and by API column, torque limits shaped by per-joint gait peaks, latency traced through the real pipeline, masses weighed - and DR bands are additive around the measured nominal, sized to the measured dispersion.

   Case. Guessed friction was 2.5x low and guessed damping 5x high (`friction-measured-not-guessed`); armature had been 0 with a 9:1 gearbox (81x reflected inertia, `armature-n2-rotor-inertia`); a uniform torque derating was "the wrong shape" vs measured peaks (`torque-limit-shape-by-measured-peaks`); the delay implementation itself was a wrong plant for a whole lineage (`latency-lerp-reverse-extrapolation`); the run design point was locked by three accounts including the tau_limit/kd speed ceiling (`feasibility-accounts-lock-design-point`); identified friction had to land in the right simulator API columns to act at all (`sim-api-friction-columns`). The recovery and one-leg lines opened with the same kind of accounts before any reward existed - a connected static path and the torque along it for an armless get-up, and the gains single support needs to be holdable at all (`get-up-feasibility-accounts-before-training`, `single-support-gain-authority-probe`).

   Coach application. For any plant value in a config review, ask "measured how?"; reject absolute ranges with no nominal; check API column mapping and derived-asset regeneration whenever measured values land.

   friction-measured-not-guessedarmature-n2-rotor-inertiatorque-limit-shape-by-measured-peakslatency-lerp-reverse-extrapolationfeasibility-accounts-lock-design-pointsim-api-friction-columnsget-up-feasibility-accounts-before-trainingsingle-support-gain-authority-probe

7. doctrine-7Sim2sim gate before sim2real - under deployment conditions

   Every checkpoint passes a second, independently built simulator before hardware, and both the gate and the smoke loop run under the measured deployment conditions (real pipeline delay, honest contact parameters, the deployment gain/power profile).

   Case. The standing order "先sim2sim 再sim2real" (`sim2sim-gate-before-sim2real`); acceptance flipped to match hardware only under measured condim/torsional friction (`eval-plant-honesty-contact-params`); gates moved permanently to `--delay 2` after the kicking incident (`pipeline-latency-is-plant-not-dr`); and the harness itself must be audited - a frame-convention bug in the cross-sim evaluator invalidated a whole line of verdicts (`body-frame-velocity-api-audit`). The recovery line's second simulator caught a torque penalty paid for by bracing the legs together (`torque-penalty-bought-by-leg-bracing`), and a 1.8x torque disagreement between the two plants stayed binding because its one surviving explanation was never tested (`torque-disagreement-between-simulators-unresolved`).

   Coach application. Block any hardware request lacking a second-sim PASS at deployment conditions; when sim2sim and training-side metrics disagree, treat the evaluator as a suspect too.

   sim2sim-gate-before-sim2realeval-plant-honesty-contact-paramspipeline-latency-is-plant-not-drbody-frame-velocity-api-audittorque-penalty-bought-by-leg-bracingtorque-disagreement-between-simulators-unresolved

8. doctrine-8Observation honesty - the actor's inputs are a hardware contract

   The actor observes only signals the real robot produces with realistic noise; privileged truths go to the critic; history windows are estimators and must train under plant variation; rewards on quantities the actor cannot observe buy only average suppression, never closed-loop correction.

   Case. Ground-truth velocity/forces went critic-only (`observation-honesty-critic-only`); frame_hist under zero DR memorized the trainer's plant fingerprint - 0/20 transfer (`history-obs-needs-plant-variation`); world-frame yaw rewards could not teach pull-back because heading is unobservable to the actor - correction was routed to the deploy outer loop instead of breaking the contract (`reward-observability-limit`, `deploy-heading-loop-and-align-training`).

   Coach application. Audit every actor-obs element for hardware existence; require minimal plant jitter whenever history/recurrence exists; for each reward, ask "can the actor see this error?" and route correction tasks to outer loops.

   observation-honesty-critic-onlyhistory-obs-needs-plant-variationreward-observability-limitdeploy-heading-loop-and-align-training

9. doctrine-9Reward economics are audited in realized currency

   Reward design decisions are made on realized per-step magnitudes under the actual policy and command distribution: price the do-nothing optimum before adding a mode, compare achieved values to the computed ignore-floor, calibrate thresholds between measured healthy and sick distributions, and ship every new penalty with a withdrawal clause.

   Case. feet_air_time at weight 2.0 realized 0.038 vs tracking 1.2 - drag was rational (`realized-contribution-audit`); ignoring a vy command cost 28-180x less than ignoring vx until a gated tracking term was added (`reward-cost-of-ignoring-audit`, `gate-new-reward-terms-by-command`); achieved-vs-floor separated "never learned" from "priced out" (`ignore-floor-diagnosis`); the foot-distance wall was placed between measured healthy (0.6% tax) and sick (55%) policies (`calibrate-threshold-between-healthy-and-sick`); the landing penalty carried a pre-registered stand-down condition and actually stood down (`calibration-threshold-with-withdrawal-clause`); two clearance terms were inert until zero-points and gate occupancy were checked (`inert-reward-term-audit`). A get-up policy sat because three gated terms paid the seated pose 84% of the return and the one term that could tell sitting from standing was an exp kernel reading 4.6e-5 at the real error (`seated-basin-dead-exp-kernel`); a torque-tail term was weighted by its measured steady value beside a peer term after the estimate proved 12x off (`tail-torque-needs-hinge-on-computed-demand`).

   Coach application. Never discuss weights in the abstract: demand the realized-contribution table, the ignore-floor number, and the healthy-pay calibration before any reward edit is approved.

   realized-contribution-auditreward-cost-of-ignoring-auditgate-new-reward-terms-by-commandignore-floor-diagnosiscalibrate-threshold-between-healthy-and-sickcalibration-threshold-with-withdrawal-clauseinert-reward-term-auditseated-basin-dead-exp-kerneltail-torque-needs-hinge-on-computed-demand

10. doctrine-10The zero-cost option must be the desired behavior

    For every penalty, name what the zero-cost option is; penalize failure events (slip, saturation excess, contact in flight windows), never the motion or joints that healthy behavior uses; make degenerate strategies fatal via termination where penalties cannot price them out.

    Case. Joint-usage penalties for drift taxed a 1.4%-of-momentum channel 2.7/step and collapsed training; the slip penalty costs a non-slipping gait exactly zero (`penalize-the-slip-not-the-joint`). A frozen-at-clamp joint pays zero action-rate forever - only a pre-clip saturation penalty flips the cheat economics (`saturation-cheating-zero-rate-cost`). Ungated phase shaping made standing 42x more expensive than stepping and cooked the hip motors (`moving-gate-42x-stand-tax`); crouch-shuffling lived until a height termination deleted it (`termination-closes-degenerate-basin`). A gated penalty is an exit: the policy parked just outside an uprightness gate, then just under a height gate, to stop paying a stance tax, and only a positive band plus an always-on guard closed both (`penalty-gate-is-an-escape-hatch`); a soft-limit penalty that charged the standing pose itself bought a 4.1 deg lean (`soft-limit-penalty-charges-nominal-pose`); an unpriced foot attitude was spent on edge-standing (`unpriced-foot-attitude-is-a-free-variable`); and the one-leg line listed its cheapest cheats before training and still met one through a zero-gradient band (`enumerate-cheapest-cheats-before-training`, `binary-band-reward-fake-touchdown`).

    Coach application. Run the "零代价的选项是什么" audit on every proposed term; convert motion taxes into event-conditional penalties; check the termination set against each known degenerate strategy.

    penalize-the-slip-not-the-jointsaturation-cheating-zero-rate-costmoving-gate-42x-stand-taxtermination-closes-degenerate-basinpenalty-gate-is-an-escape-hatchsoft-limit-penalty-charges-nominal-poseunpriced-foot-attitude-is-a-free-variableenumerate-cheapest-cheats-before-trainingbinary-band-reward-fake-touchdown

11. doctrine-11Measurement discipline: independent referees, signs, distributions

    A disputed measurement is adjudicated only by an independent algorithm from raw state; directional ability requires sign-antisymmetry under command reversal; bimodal metrics are reported as mode shares (never medians, never 3 seeds); ratios are not comparable when totals change; reward values compare only within one command distribution; single chaotic events never cross machines.

    Case. The triple reversal - a good metric was "refuted" by a sibling metric that shared the disease (`independent-referee-for-metric-disputes`, `body-frame-velocity-api-audit`); same-signed +/- responses were bias, not turning (`same-sign-response-is-yaw-bias`); the swing median sat in a bimodal gap (`median-hides-bimodal-distribution`); "v6 is jitterier" died on absolute energies (`ratio-metrics-need-absolute-check`); yaw gain measured 15x wrong in an oscillating frame (`heading-integral-not-body-rate`); a 44% improvement evaporated under same-distribution comparison (`same-distribution-reward-comparison`); drift direction was a limit cycle (`multiseed-sign-test-for-drift`); a cross-machine push cliff was chaos (`single-impulse-recovery-is-chaotic`).

    Coach application. Before accepting any surprising number: ask for the independent recomputation, the sign pair, the distribution shape, and the comparison conditions. Retract in writing when a metric falls.

    independent-referee-for-metric-disputesbody-frame-velocity-api-auditsame-sign-response-is-yaw-biasmedian-hides-bimodal-distributionratio-metrics-need-absolute-checkheading-integral-not-body-ratesame-distribution-reward-comparisonmultiseed-sign-test-for-driftsingle-impulse-recovery-is-chaotic

12. doctrine-12The deployment pipeline is plant

    Irreducible pipeline properties - action latency, rate limits, power/torque scaling, teleop command mappings - are part of the nominal plant, modeled from day one and reproduced in every gate; deploy-side scalings are crutches that flag unmodeled plant, and they cannot be algebraically folded into training constants.

    Case. Right-leg kicking was over-trained-delay x loop gain; power 0.8 was a gain-reduction crutch that retired when the delay was modeled (`pipeline-latency-is-plant-not-dr`); power derating damages non-forward axes first (`power-scale-hurts-nonforward-axes`); training at 0.4 scale as the "twin" of deploying 0.5 x 0.8 collapsed 0/20 (`deploy-scaling-not-training-equivalent`); one shared teleop speed sent an out-of-band lateral command and the robot clipped its own foot (`teleop-command-band-per-axis`); the latency DR range had not even covered the measured pipeline (`latency-dr-covers-measured-pipeline`). A rate limiter added at deployment only clipped a policy that kept commanding (`deploy-rate-limiter-windup`); moved into training and anchored on the last command it became an integrator in the balance loop (`slew-anchor-is-an-integrator`); anchored on the measured angle it bounded torque and kept the bandwidth (`beta-anchored-action-target`). The walking lines' safe setting, power-scale 0.8, cut the ends of the recovery policy's full-range travel and left its spikes alone; a gain inside the trained band did the job (`power-derating-cuts-full-range-contract`).

    Coach application. Demand the measured pipeline latency/limits in the plant model and in gate conditions; treat every deploy-side derating as a question ("what is this compensating?"); block per-axis command sources that exceed training bands.

    pipeline-latency-is-plant-not-drpower-scale-hurts-nonforward-axesdeploy-scaling-not-training-equivalentteleop-command-band-per-axislatency-dr-covers-measured-pipelinedeploy-rate-limiter-windupslew-anchor-is-an-integratorbeta-anchored-action-targetpower-derating-cuts-full-range-contract

13. doctrine-13DR budget is finite; its distribution is the measured support

    Robustness is a conserved budget: disturbance training on an already-hardened lineage borrows from existing margins; DR ranges span the measured deployment support - no fictitious tails (they buy degenerate gaits), no single constants (they allow thin-margin specialization); harden the plant only after the task distribution is final.

    Case. The same push dose helped a narrow lineage and damaged a balanced one - budget conservation (`push-dr-conditional-budget-conservation`); wide latency tails bought drag-glide, constant values shipped 60% thinner tilt margins - the answer is a narrow band on the measured support (`dr-tail-plant-continuation`, `constant-value-dr-overfits-margin`); task-first ordering because hardening a soon-to-change task wastes budget (`task-shaping-before-plant-hardening`); COM randomization used deliberately as a behavior-shaping tool, and rolled back on symptom per its own contract (`com-randomization-forces-leg-spread`, `com-dr-rollback-on-symptom`). DR that is switched on can still be thin: the run policy fell in the frontal plane its gain-and-latency randomization never touched (`thin-dr-judged-by-channel-coverage`), and a friction priority settled under one action contract had to be re-measured under the next (`friction-priority-re-measured-after-plant-change`).

    Coach application. Before any DR rung: check the untrained policy against the spec, the lineage's current DR load, and the measured real-world range; after it: audit retained margins, not just the new tolerance.

    push-dr-conditional-budget-conservationdr-tail-plant-continuationconstant-value-dr-overfits-margintask-shaping-before-plant-hardeningcom-randomization-forces-leg-spreadcom-dr-rollback-on-symptomthin-dr-judged-by-channel-coveragefriction-priority-re-measured-after-plant-change

14. doctrine-14Gates measure what hardware feels: posture, margins, stripped assists

    Acceptance batteries carry posture-class rows (tilt max median, per-joint L/R asymmetry, temperature) beside task rows, graded margin columns beside binary gates, chirality scored per side, at least one condition that removes the environment's free stabilization, and validated predictive scalars promoted into the gate.

    Case. Three same-shaped judging errors - survival, displacement, wz-difference - all missed what the operator felt; posture metrics had the predictive power (`task-metrics-vs-posture-metrics`, `stand-gate-posture-not-survival`); binary survival saturated and hid a 60% margin gap (`constant-value-dr-overfits-margin`); v5 passed everything on the ground and failed suspended (`suspension-probe-removes-free-stabilizer`); the hip_roll (l+r) scalar predicted real drift direction and ordering and entered the battery (`hip-roll-sum-predicts-lateral-drift`); averages hide chirality (`chirality-scored-separately`); gait-quality gates are judged at speeds that demand a gait (`low-speed-commands-reward-dragging`). The recovery line added the rest of the kit: where failed episodes end, not only where they started (`end-state-confusion-matrix`); a frozen acceptance distribution with a pinned seed (`frozen-acceptance-distribution-and-pinned-seed`); video of the metric rollout itself (`video-as-acceptance-record`); and the admission that a 10 s episode cannot see a stance that fails after a minute (`episode-length-bounds-what-a-gate-sees`). The one-leg line removed a foot-spacing wall that no gate measured, and the feet met on hardware (`removed-wall-returns-on-hardware`).

    Coach application. Review every battery for posture rows, margin columns, per-side scoring, and an assist-stripped condition; when operator feel and gates disagree, suspect the metric class first.

    task-metrics-vs-posture-metricsstand-gate-posture-not-survivalconstant-value-dr-overfits-marginsuspension-probe-removes-free-stabilizerhip-roll-sum-predicts-lateral-driftchirality-scored-separatelylow-speed-commands-reward-draggingend-state-confusion-matrixfrozen-acceptance-distribution-and-pinned-seedvideo-as-acceptance-recordepisode-length-bounds-what-a-gate-seesremoved-wall-returns-on-hardware

15. doctrine-15Fork and root selection: recoverability, maturity, frozen rewards

    Choose fork roots by which candidate's deficits the coming training can pay back (precision is recoverable; lost plasticity, symmetry, and margins are not); prefer mature checkpoints as roots even when younger ones score better as products; never fine-tune through a reward change - continuation is legal only with the reward frozen and plant/DR widening one rung at a time.

    Case. s1e-500 beat higher-precision candidates because its exclusive strengths were unrecoverable (`fork-root-recoverable-shortfall`); the b300 arm proved maturity is capital against adaptation shock (`root-maturity-vs-product-quality`); the B-arm scatter/half-recover/collapse signature falsified reward-change fine-tuning and drew the legal boundary for S2 continuation (`fine-tune-reward-change-falsified`).

    Coach application. For root debates, build the exclusive-strengths table and ask "which side can be trained back?"; require dual-arm evidence for maturity claims; classify any proposed continuation as reward-frozen or not before approving.

    fork-root-recoverable-shortfallroot-maturity-vs-product-qualityfine-tune-reward-change-falsified

16. doctrine-16Curricula: verified engagement, lineage counters, disease-phase gating

    Automatic curricula must prove they engage (a saturated ratchet is constant DR wearing a curriculum's name); every ramp counts lineage-cumulative progress, not per-process steps; penalties aimed at late-stage pathologies ramp in after exploration noise decays; difficulty rises on measured per-stratum success, never on schedule.

    Case. The s1f ratchet capped at iter 248 and never engaged (`auto-curriculum-engagement-check`); the saturation ramp re-fired at +600 after every resume and no shipped product ever saw the penalty (`curriculum-counter-lineage-steps`); the same penalty worked once gated to the disease phase and became an untouchable mechanism (`gate-penalties-to-the-disease-phase`); record-high aggregate reward hid a fully-failing delay stratum (`aggregate-metrics-mask-subgroup-failure`); bucket share is not a gradient lever (`bucket-share-is-not-a-gradient-lever`). An assist curriculum keyed to a pooled success share was withdrawn on the strength of the categories that already worked (`curriculum-criterion-conditioned-on-lagging-category`); a pace set by per-step income moved only when that income was time-gated (`per-step-income-drives-speed-time-gate`), and the same gate had to be retired in a lineage without the disease (`time-gate-vs-wide-stance-retire-the-fix`).

    Coach application. Ask every curriculum three questions: does it engage (show the internal state)? what does it count (process or lineage)? when is it present (against the pathology's phase)? Check where shipped checkpoints sit relative to every ramp.

    auto-curriculum-engagement-checkcurriculum-counter-lineage-stepsgate-penalties-to-the-disease-phaseaggregate-metrics-mask-subgroup-failurebucket-share-is-not-a-gradient-levercurriculum-criterion-conditioned-on-lagging-categoryper-step-income-drives-speed-time-gatetime-gate-vs-wide-stance-retire-the-fix

17. doctrine-17Probe before training: feasibility first, hypotheses in tables

    After two failed training attempts at a skill, stop training: demonstrate the behavior open-loop, enumerate hypotheses in a written table audited against actual configs cheapest-first, race one probe per side of the sim2real boundary for hardware-only pathologies, and use suspended tests to acquit or convict actuators before blaming authority.

    Case. "在黑暗里试钥匙" - four sidewalk rungs failed until an open-loop probe separated exploration/waveform/authority in one experiment (`open-loop-probe-before-reward-tuning`); the foot-drag mystery fell to a seven-hypothesis config audit (`hypothesis-table-code-audit`); the period-doubling was resolved by racing a reward-side and a plant-side evidence line - and both paid off, one per sub-case (`period-doubling-evidence-race`); the suspended test acquitted the roll actuator in one measurement (`suspended-test-isolates-actuator-authority`). A read-only configuration probe told a wall from a slope in the recovery line's seated basin (`configuration-probe-wall-not-slope`), and the fix it pointed to - where the feet are - took prone from 0/159 to 158/159 (`prone-dead-end-is-foot-placement`); a knob that did not move its variable was recorded as no test of the idea (`dof-vel-penalty-is-not-a-pacing-knob`).

    Coach application. When a skill resists training, prescribe the probe before any further reward edits; require verified target trajectories before imitation terms; keep a falsified-fixes list so closed roads stay closed (`amplitude-cut-falsified-yaw-fix`).

    open-loop-probe-before-reward-tuninghypothesis-table-code-auditperiod-doubling-evidence-racesuspended-test-isolates-actuator-authorityconfiguration-probe-wall-not-slopeprone-dead-end-is-foot-placementdof-vel-penalty-is-not-a-pacing-knobamplitude-cut-falsified-yaw-fix

18. doctrine-18External advice is recomputed locally; values transfer as ratios

    Every external suggestion is classified adopt / already-have / modify / trap by recomputing its claim on the local reward table and probe data; numeric values transfer only as dimensionless ratios (to tracking weight, leg length, sqrt(gL), control rate); citations are verified to exist.

    Case. "Start vy very small" would have destroyed sidewalk learning on this reward table - the gradient scales quadratically (`external-advice-audit-against-own-arithmetic`); swing-height targets and weights transferred correctly only through leg-length and tracking-ratio scaling (`transfer-ratios-not-absolutes`); the "6-step delay" was refused for lacking a control rate (`latency-dr-covers-measured-pipeline`); a borrowed reference's structure was FK-verified and its amplitude re-derived from the division of labor (`reference-structure-fk-amplitude-division`); retrieval agents fabricated verbatim arXiv quotes - only source-verifiable material was used; and one dismissed suggestion later proved right for a different mechanism, and was credited (`cycle-average-tracking-for-gait-quantities`). An advisor's staged state machine turned out to exist in none of the three papers it cited, and reading them changed the plan (`advisor-paraphrase-vs-paper`).

    Coach application. Intercept every "paper X does Y" with the local recomputation; convert absolutes to ratios before comparison; verify quotes; revisit dismissed advice when new mechanisms appear.

    external-advice-audit-against-own-arithmetictransfer-ratios-not-absoluteslatency-dr-covers-measured-pipelinereference-structure-fk-amplitude-divisioncycle-average-tracking-for-gait-quantitiesadvisor-paraphrase-vs-paper

19. doctrine-19Hardware sessions are scripted experiments, not tuning sessions

    Real-robot time executes a pre-registered matrix: risk-ordered (baseline first, fragile last with a spotter), stage-gated (suspended smoke before ground), A/B sessions bracketed by a repeated reference run, operators briefed on measured zero-command and untrained-axis behavior, chirality-aware disturbance protocols, no field tuning - the only legal field changes are scripted, single-variable, and self-reversing.

    Case. The S2 acceptance sheet (`risk-ordered-real-deployment`, `battery-bracketed-real-ab`, `know-zero-command-behavior`, `push-test-chirality-protocol`, `no-field-tuning-protocol`); the RAM-only torque experiment with automatic power-cycle rollback (`reversible-single-variable-field-experiments`); and the sim-veto rule - even sim's condemnations get one safeguarded hardware check when they judge the purpose-built configuration (`sim-veto-needs-real-confirmation`). The recovery line's first real run went ahead with its preconditions unmet and was stopped as dangerous (`first-real-get-up-violent-stage-one-policy`); after it: a staged hang, mat and floor protocol (`staged-hang-mat-floor-for-get-up`), a fixed power-cycle pre-flight and two-machine discipline (`power-cycle-preflight`, `two-machine-config-discipline`), a fall guard replaced rather than switched off (`fall-guard-becomes-a-state`), and logs that are part of the run (`hardware-log-is-the-attribution-input`).

    Coach application. Turn every hardware request into a runbook with order, gates, brackets, briefing, and anomaly plays; refuse improvised parameter changes on the floor.

    risk-ordered-real-deploymentbattery-bracketed-real-abknow-zero-command-behaviorpush-test-chirality-protocolno-field-tuning-protocolreversible-single-variable-field-experimentssim-veto-needs-real-confirmationfirst-real-get-up-violent-stage-one-policystaged-hang-mat-floor-for-get-uppower-cycle-preflighttwo-machine-config-disciplinefall-guard-becomes-a-statehardware-log-is-the-attribution-input

20. doctrine-20Close questions in writing; restart when the debt is structural

    Audited questions get frozen verdicts with citable wording and an explicit reopening bar; hardware verdicts are dated by deployment-stack and calibration state and expire when those change; and when successive rungs shuffle symptoms without net progress, freeze the lineage as regression baselines, pay the structural debts, and retrain minimal - carrying laws and instruments, not weights.

    Case. The chirality and COM questions were closed with frozen wording and "no reopening without new hard evidence" (`frozen-verdicts-semantic-boundaries`); v5/v6's condemnations expired with the deploy stack (`stale-verdicts-under-old-stack`); a 2-degree calibration fix moved the whole runnable envelope (`zero-offset-calibration-shifts-envelope`); plant upgrades are era boundaries with paired re-baselining (`plant-swap-invariants-vs-shifts`); and the 2026-08-05 reset froze v5-v11, fixed the latency FIFO / manifest / sampling / reward-table debts, and restarted - producing the lineage that reached hardware SOTA (`freeze-lineage-fix-structure-restart`, `minimal-reward-table-with-provenance`). The recovery line's real-robot verdicts ended up in three places that disagree, one of them an undated note in a command file (`write-hardware-verdicts-back`).

    Coach application. Maintain the closed-questions ledger and quote it when symptoms recur; stamp verdicts with stack/calibration versions; when a team is three rungs into symptom-shuffling, raise the restart question explicitly with the freeze-fix-restart pattern.

    frozen-verdicts-semantic-boundariesstale-verdicts-under-old-stackzero-offset-calibration-shifts-envelopeplant-swap-invariants-vs-shiftsfreeze-lineage-fix-structure-restartminimal-reward-table-with-provenancewrite-hardware-verdicts-back

21. doctrine-21Name the quantity in the space it lives in

    A goal, reward term or acceptance criterion about the feet, the base or the contact state is computed from the quantity itself - world poses, forces, per-category outcomes - never through a joint-angle, single-signal or pooled stand-in that assumes everything else sits at nominal; and every detector is validated on a behaviour known not to contain the event before it becomes a gate.

    Case. The recovery line was caught three times: |ankle roll| as "flat feet" sold stance width and the real robot slid into the splits, a hip-roll criterion was confounded by 50 deg of yaw, and the joint table said 0.271 m where the feet were 0.159 m apart; task-space terms produced the first flat, wide stance (`joint-space-proxy-for-task-space-quantity`). Flight detection lied in both directions across two lines - foot height flagged 40% false flight on a walking gait, contact force alone flagged slip chatter as hops (`contact-detector-single-signal-lies`). A pooled height average described a robot that did not exist - six in ten standing, four in ten sitting (`zero-partial-credit-is-not-an-iteration-problem`) - and the walking line had learned the same lesson on yaw rate (`heading-integral-not-body-rate`).

    Coach application. For every reward term and gate row, ask what physical quantity it stands for and whether it is measured directly; flag joint-space or single-signal stand-ins for task-space goals, ask for a detector validated on a negative control, and split pooled metrics by category before reading them.

    joint-space-proxy-for-task-space-quantitycontact-detector-single-signal-lieszero-partial-credit-is-not-an-iteration-problemheading-integral-not-body-rate

22. doctrine-22Continuation needs a live gradient; a release is chosen by a scan

    Continue a converged policy only on a change that creates a live gradient, on a short budget, with every checkpoint scanned on the transfer axis; choose a release by running the full battery over a band of checkpoints and stop on signals, never by taking the last one; and when edits to the terminal phase cannot move a behaviour, roll back and retrain with the constraint present from the start, keeping the order in which the lineage acquired its mechanisms as explicit curriculum phases.

    Case. A continuation with no new gradient drifted MuJoCo transfer from 100/98% to 80/28% while every Isaac gate stayed perfect, and a live-gradient continuation at the same depth kept it (`converged-continuation-is-poison`). One-leg checkpoints 100 iterations apart failed 1 and 38 of 40 cells, and late ones degraded (`checkpoint-choice-is-a-full-gate-scan`). Four in-lineage stance fixes failed because the stance was the end of the get-up path, and from scratch it grew right (`stance-decided-by-get-up-path`); fixes stacked on degraded states were rolled back by the user (`stop-stacking-roll-back-and-audit`); and the lineage's final recipe, trained from scratch in one run, sat at 0% because the order of its curriculum was part of the product (`curriculum-history-is-part-of-the-product`). The omni line's short adaptation budgets and mature roots are the same law seen from the other side (`continuation-budget-not-from-zero`, `root-maturity-vs-product-quality`).

    Coach application. Before approving a continuation, ask for the new gradient, the budget and the transfer axis in the scan; before approving a release, ask for the scan; after three rungs without progress on the target, propose rolling back to the last good checkpoint and a from-scratch phase plan instead of a fourth patch.

    converged-continuation-is-poisoncheckpoint-choice-is-a-full-gate-scanstance-decided-by-get-up-pathstop-stacking-roll-back-and-auditcurriculum-history-is-part-of-the-productcontinuation-budget-not-from-zeroroot-maturity-vs-product-quality

Experience cards

171 cards.

• Removing a foot-spacing wall passed every simulated gate and made the feet collide on the real robot - nothing priced stance width in the two-foot phase, the policy narrowed to the simulator's self-collision floor, and real calibration offsets closed the last millimetres; the wall came back with a gateremoved-wall-returns-on-hardware

  Observed onceonelegreal-deployreward-shapinggate-batteryreal-acceptance

  When a constraint is removed, name what will govern that quantity instead and add a gate for it; never let a simulator's collision floor be the margin, and when a gate is exceeded by a hair, record the exact numbers and hand the release decision to a person instead of quietly passing it.

  Symptom

  On the first real-robot try of oneleg_v0 (2026-09-16) the two feet collided; the user also judged the folded foot not high enough.

  Context

  The V0 reward table had dropped the feet_lateral_distance wall because it seemed to conflict with the hip adduction single support needs. In the two-foot command bucket no remaining term governed stance width, so the policy drifted narrower until the simulator's self-collision stopped it; the sim acceptance had no foot-spacing gate, so 40/40 said nothing about it. On the robot, calibration offsets consumed the margin.

  Change

  V0.1: the wall restored (-10, minimum 0.16 m), re-checked against measured numbers (a swing-phase lateral spacing of ~148 mm costs 0.12 per step, acceptable); fold weight 0.8 -> 2.0; a ninth gate: minimum foot spacing >= 100 mm and zero leg-contact frames. The removal was kept on record.

  Outcome

  oneleg_v0_1 (V0r2 model_2200) passed 39/40 with the spacing gate 40/40. The single miss (a 15.4 deg tilt transient against a < 15 deg limit during a side switch, steady 6.9 deg, everything else green) was recorded with its numbers and released for the user to overrule.

  Mechanism

  An unpriced degree of freedom drifts to wherever the simulator stops it; if that stop is the simulator's own collision model, the policy's margin on hardware is whatever the calibration error leaves.

  Applies when

  • dropping a reward term that looked redundant or conflicting
  • hardware shows a failure no simulated gate measures
  • a release candidate misses one gate row by a small amount

  “V0 撤墙被真机证伪（2026-09-16）：双脚桶没有任何项管站宽，策略贴 sim 自碰撞底线收窄，真机标定偏差一吃**双脚相碰**。 … min ≥ 100 mm 且腿碰 0 帧（eval_straight 同判据）—— … V0 真机双脚相碰暴露 sim 门未看脚距的缺口 … L s2 标称 tilt 瞬态 15.4°（门限 <15, 超 0.4°, 稳态 6.9°, 该跑其余全绿）——换侧瞬态蹭线, 判定放行留档, 用户可否决。”

• Verify changes in the run's resolved config (and checkpoint md5), never in the source you editedresolved-config-is-source-of-truth

  Replicatedomniprocessattributionprocesscontract-freeze

  Attribution and single-variable claims must be made on the resolved per-run config (and checkpoint hashes), not on source diffs; verify every intended variable landed before burning compute, and verify every rollback byte-level against the historical resolved config.

  Symptom

  An intended arm-B config change never reached the training run - the run was grid-identical (117/117 cells) to its C2 predecessor - and the burn was only understood afterwards.

  Context

  The repo's discipline hardened around the logged resolved config (logs/<run>/params/env.yaml) as the only source of truth: (1) the C2 root-cause analysis was performed against the checkpoint's logged env.yaml, not the code ("以真相源 23-19-25/params/env.yaml 核实"); (2) C4 added a pre-flight: grep the landed env.yaml for the new keys, and compare the first checkpoints of the two arms - identical md5 means the variable did not land, stop immediately; (3) the C4 full rollback was accepted only after starting a 1-iter run and byte-comparing its resolved env.yaml against the historical 700-era file (identical except 4 dormant schema fields, each verified to be at its no-op default).

  Change

  Standing pre-flight and post-change verification: dump/diff the resolved config that the run actually consumed; use checkpoint hash equality as a cheap "variable landed" detector between arms.

  Outcome

  Caught the not-landed variable class of failure; made the rollback provably equivalent to the historical training state rather than believed-equivalent.

  Mechanism

  Between edited source and the running experiment sit layered overrides, env-var switches, and registration logic; only the resolved, serialized config reflects their composition. Diffing at that level tests the actual experiment; diffing source tests intent.

  Applies when

  • launching an A/B pair or any single-variable rung
  • rolling back to a historical training state
  • a run behaves as if a change was never applied

  “开训前先验落盘 cfg（上一轮臂B 的改动没进 run，与 C2 逐格 117/117 相同）：grep -E "base_com|joint_friction|push_robot|track_lin_vel_y_exp" logs/<run>/params/env.yaml 另：两臂第一个 checkpoint 的 md5 若相同 = 变量没进去，立刻停。”

• Before resuming a checkpoint, diff the current cfg against what the checkpoint was trained withresume-state-dr-audit

  Replicatedomnitraining-runfork-selectiondomain-randomizationattributionprocess

  "One variable per rung" counts variables against what the checkpoint actually experienced: audit the checkpoint's logged training config and align every unintended difference before resuming.

  Symptom

  Two consecutive rungs (C1 back-mode, C2' forward-turn) failed from the same root with the same full-regression signature despite adding different new modes - so the mode was not the cause.

  Context

  Both runs resumed s1e-500 with the then-current cfg, which carried PD band (0.8,1.2) plus three DR events (base_com, joint_friction, push_robot) accumulated by later lineages. Verified on the training machine from the source of truth (the run's logged params/env.yaml): s1e-500's actual training state was PD +/-10% (0.9,1.1) and all three DR events None. Resuming it under the new cfg meant eating 4 new plant variables plus a new mode at once - the intended "1 variable" was actually 5. A worse variant (c1_redo from s2e_pd-1400) added push +/-0.3 to a root that had never seen it: near-total collapse within +100 iters.

  Change

  C2 aligned the cfg to the checkpoint's training state before resuming (PD back to (0.9,1.1), three DR events off) - making the new mode the only true variable. Permanent rule recorded: compare the checkpoint's training-time DR with the current cfg before any resume.

  Outcome

  C2 trained successfully from the same root that had "failed" twice (wz 20/20 with genuine sign-antisymmetric response by iter 700-800); the A/B falsification ("两个不同模式同签名崩") plus the env.yaml verification closed the attribution.

  Mechanism

  A resumed policy is instantly evaluated (and its value function trained) under whatever plant distribution the cfg specifies; every DR term the checkpoint never adapted to is a distribution shift applied on day one, compounding with the intended change. Single-variable discipline is therefore a property of (cfg diff) x (checkpoint history), not of the cfg diff alone.

  Applies when

  • resuming or forking any checkpoint under an evolved config
  • a resumed run degrades broadly within the first few hundred iterations
  • two different changes from the same root fail with the same signature

  “A/B 定谳：两个不同模式同签名崩 → 病因不是模式，是「从 s1e-500 续训」。… s1e-500 训练态 = kp/kd ±10% (0.9,1.1)，base_com / joint_friction / push_robot 全 None；而 cfg 里带着 (0.8,1.2) + … 三个 DR —— 从它续训等于一次吃 4 个新 plant 变量 + 新模式 … 永久教训：续训前必须比对 checkpoint 的训练态 DR 与现行 cfg。单变量纪律不只看「我改了什么」，还要看「checkpoint 见过什么」。”

• A field experiment is allowed when it is pre-scripted, single-variable, and self-reversing (RAM-only writes)reversible-single-variable-field-experiments

  Observed oncewalkreal-deployhardwarereal-acceptanceprocessattribution

  Permit hardware-side experiments only when scripted in advance with one variable, a log, and automatic reversion (volatile writes, git restore); keep every config mirror (yaml vs firmware) changed and restored as a unit.

  Symptom

  A hypothesis needed a hardware test - v5's "wild kicking" might trace to the RS00 torque cap being deployed at 11 N*m vs its trained 14 (-21%), on exactly the ankle-roll/hip-yaw joints doing lateral-yaw work - but changing limits in the field is the classic way to lose track of robot state.

  Context

  The experiment was written to be safe by construction: change exactly one number (robot.yaml RS00 tau_limit 11.0 -> 14.0), write to firmware RAM only (--write without --save, so a power cycle automatically rolls back to the saved 12/17/11), run the single logged trial, then restore both yaml (git checkout) and RAM immediately. The consistency requirement is explicit: the deploy tool's torque self-check compares against robot.yaml, so yaml and firmware must change and restore together; and the hypothesis scoping is itself single-variable - RS06's 67% cut was measured irrelevant (gait uses only 16% of rated) and hip torque was left alone for safety.

  Change

  Field experimentation policy refined: not "never touch hardware settings" but "only pre-scripted, one-variable, logged, auto-reverting changes with config/firmware kept consistent".

  Outcome

  The sub-experiment could answer the torque-cap hypothesis without any risk of the robot persisting in an undocumented state - forgetting to restore costs nothing but a git checkout.

  Mechanism

  The danger of field changes is state divergence (robot config drifting from the repo's record), not the change itself; volatile (RAM-only) writes bound the divergence lifetime to one power cycle, and single-variable scoping preserves attributability even in a field setting.

  Applies when

  • a hypothesis requires changing firmware limits or gains on the robot
  • field debugging tempts persistent config writes
  • designing safe escape hatches for deployment tooling

  “程序(--write 不带 --save = 只写 RAM,断电自动回滚)… deploy 的限扭自检是对 robot.yaml 比对的,所以 yaml 和固件必须同改同还原;忘了还原也没事,断电重启即回 12/17/11(上次 --save 的值),但 yaml 要 git checkout。”

• Reward fixes come in causal chains - foot height, then landing impact, then foot spacingreward-chain-foot-height-landing-spacing

  Observed oncewalkreward-shapingreward-shaping

  Plan reward shaping as a chain, not a point fix: when you patch a degenerate gait behavior, pre-register which adjacent behavior the optimizer will exploit next and watch for it.

  Symptom

  Three problems appeared strictly in sequence: (1) swing feet lifted too low; (2) after fixing that, feet slammed down - "实际比视频里暴力得多" (far more violent in person than on video); (3) after fixing that, feet drifted too close together and collided.

  Context

  Each reward fix removed one degenerate optimum and exposed the next. The fix for foot spacing (COM lateral randomization +/-5 cm to force leg spread) itself caused base side-to-side sway, requiring a further foot-to-centerline distance penalty. Lucen had just solved its own foot-height problem (19mm -> 40mm swing height) and logged landing impact and foot spacing as the predicted next two problems.

  Change

  Chain of additions - (1) penalty when swing foot below 5 cm; (2) landing vertical-velocity penalty at touchdown; (3) COM lateral randomization +/-5 cm, then foot-centerline distance penalty to cancel the induced sway.

  Outcome

  Reference robot progressed through each stage; each individual fix worked and predictably surfaced the successor problem. For Lucen the chain served as a pre-registered roadmap of what breaks next.

  Mechanism

  Locomotion rewards are coupled through contact dynamics: raising swing height adds potential energy that must go somewhere at touchdown (impact); penalizing impact and forcing robustness to COM shifts changes lateral support strategy (spacing/sway). The optimizer always exploits the cheapest unpenalized channel, so fixing one channel routes the exploit to its neighbor.

  Applies when

  • adding a foot-height / clearance reward
  • feet slam or landing impact grows after a clearance fix
  • feet converge toward the centerline or self-collide
  • any single-reward fix to a coupled gait behavior

  “抬脚太低 → 加惩罚：摆动足低于 5 cm 就扣分 / 加完之后砸脚 → 抬起来了但落地极猛，"实际比视频里暴力得多" → 加落地速度惩罚 … / 两脚太近甚至互撞 → 先试质心横向随机化 ±5 cm … 有效但引发新问题——基座开始左右摇摆 → 再加足-中心线距离惩罚 … 这三条是串联的：每个修复都会暴露下一个问题。”

• Before adding a command mode, compute what ignoring it costs - the lazy optimum must losereward-cost-of-ignoring-audit

  Mechanism understoodomnireward-shapingreward-shaping

  Price the do-nothing policy for every new command or objective: compute reward-per-step for "comply" vs "ignore" from the actual table, and only train once ignoring is decisively unprofitable.

  Symptom

  A new command mode can be silently unlearnable if the reward table makes "ignore the command entirely" nearly free compared to the tracking reward available elsewhere.

  Context

  For each C rung the team computed the per-step cost of completely ignoring the new command versus ignoring forward: ignoring vx=0.25 costs 1.264/step; ignoring wz=0.20 costs 0.984/step (78% of forward - gradient sufficient, so C2 was certified "zero reward surgery"); but ignoring vy=0.10 cost only 0.020/step - 50-60x weaker, because vy entered the table only as an L2 tax, not a tracking term.

  Change

  Rule instituted: a rung may claim "no reward change needed" only after this arithmetic shows the ignore-cost is the same order as forward's. For C4 the audit failed, so track_lin_vel_y_exp (+2.0, std 0.15, same form as vx) was added - raising the ignore-cost at cmd_vy=0.10 from 0.020 to 0.718/step (36x).

  Outcome

  C1/C2/C3 proceeded with zero reward edits, keeping single-variable attribution clean; C4's needed surgery was identified before training instead of after a failed run.

  Mechanism

  PPO converges to whatever costs least; if the reward margin for obeying a new command is a rounding error against existing terms, the "ignore" policy is the optimum and no amount of training fixes it. The audit prices the lazy optimum explicitly before spending compute.

  Applies when

  • adding a command axis or task mode to an existing reward table
  • a new skill trains flat while other skills stay healthy
  • certifying a rung as "no reward change"

  “cmd wz 0.20 → 0.984（coarse .473 + fine .491 + L2 .020）… 对照：忽略 vx=0.25 = 1.264（本级 78%，同量级）；忽略 vy=0.10 = 0.020（弱 50 倍——那才是 C4 必须加 track_lin_vel_y_exp 的原因）。本级不动奖励表。”

• A reward on a quantity the actor cannot observe teaches "produce less of it", never "correct it" - closed-loop correction needs an outer loopreward-observability-limit

  Mechanism understoodomniobservation-designobservation-honestyreward-shapingcontract-freeze

  Before adding a reward, check the actor can observe (or infer) the quantity: unobservable-error rewards buy only average suppression - route correction tasks to an outer loop whose commands stay in distribution, and do not break a frozen contract to add an observation a deploy-side loop can supply.

  Symptom

  Heading kept drifting despite world-frame yaw rewards, and a reviewer proposed heading-error rewards - raising the question of what yaw shaping can even teach this actor.

  Context

  The adopted architectural verdict: the actor's 45-dim base observation cannot see accumulated heading at all - projected_gravity is invariant to rotation about the gravity axis, and omega_z is a rate, not an angle. World-frame yaw-rate rewards are therefore privileged shaping that can only teach "少产生旋转" (generate less rotation), never "偏了以后拉回原线" (pull back to the line after drifting) - the policy cannot represent the error it would need to correct. The S1 gate (<=5 deg / 10 s) demands exactly the former, so the stack is right for its gate; active heading correction is assigned to the deployment outer loop (--heading P-loop converting heading error into in-distribution wz commands) plus small-wz training - and the 215-dim contract is explicitly NOT extended with a heading observation ("契约不加 heading 观测,冻结不动"). The reviewer's companion bias hypothesis was adjudicated with data: drift is bimodal - a basin mechanism decides whether you leave (seeds vary +/-16-46 deg vs -385 to -391 deg), and once out, rotation direction is constant (weight chirality; candidate root: the phase clock always swings left first).

  Change

  Yaw shaping kept as rate-tracking (three-layer stack); heading correction owned by the deploy outer loop; contract frozen; the "which behaviors need an outer loop" question settled by observability analysis rather than reward tuning.

  Outcome

  Stopped a contract change and a futile reward direction; drift work split correctly into rate-suppression (trainable) and error correction (outer loop), consistent with the earlier measured 10x drift reduction from the deploy-side loop.

  Mechanism

  A policy can only condition on its observation sigma-algebra; rewards on functions outside it shift the marginal action distribution (open-loop average effects) but cannot create feedback on the unobserved variable. Whether to add an observation, an outer loop, or accept average-shaping is decided by the task's gate: suppression gates need shaping, correction gates need the variable in some loop's view.

  Applies when

  • adding rewards on accumulated/世界-frame quantities (heading, position)
  • deciding between a new observation, an outer loop, and shaping
  • a drift symptom persists across reward-weight changes

  “actor 的 45 维基座观测不到累计航向(projected_gravity 对绕重力轴旋转不变,ωz 是速率不是角度)——世界系 yaw 奖励是特权塑形,只能教「少产生旋转」,不能教「偏了以后拉回原线」。… 主动纠偏闭环 = S3 把小 wz 进分布 + deploy --heading 外环 … 215 契约不加 heading 观测,冻结不动。”

• Order hardware runs by sim risk, gate each stage on the last, and put the fragile cell last with a spotterrisk-ordered-real-deployment

  Replicatedomnireal-deployreal-acceptanceprocess

  Script hardware sessions as a risk ladder: baseline first, sim-riskiest last with a spotter, suspended smoke before ground, each stage gated on the previous, environment (floor mu) recorded as a selection input - and stop at the stage that misbehaves.

  Symptom

  Five policy-x-gain combinations had to go on hardware in one session, with sim survival ranging from 20/20 down to 17/20 (and zero-command survival down to 2/20) - an unordered session risks breaking the robot on an avoidable run.

  Context

  The execution sheet fixed the order as sim-risk low to high, control baseline first (current SOTA establishes the floor reference), the fragile cell (fric-2400@kd1.0) last with a person spotting throughout. Stage gating: suspended smoke (feet off ground, 10 s each, all five pass before anything touches down) -> suspended with IMU and forward command (gait forms in the air) -> grounded runs -> speed raise only for combos that survived the previous stage -> zero-command tests only with a spotter, ordered by sim zero-cmd survival, with the 2/20 cell skipped by default. Preconditions include recording the floor material and estimating mu (if mu <~0.6, sim says pick the kd1.2 gain as main), port/CAN self-check, calibration frozen. Any stage failing stops the session at that stage: "任一段出问题就停在那一段, 不要跳到下一段".

  Change

  Session structured as a risk ladder with per-stage gates instead of a flat checklist; per-combo sim survival numbers written into the run table as the ordering key.

  Outcome

  The session design localized any failure to the cheapest stage that could reveal it, kept the robot safe for the informative fragile run, and made the control baseline available before any comparison run.

  Mechanism

  Hardware sessions consume a shared budget (robot integrity, battery, floor time); ordering by predicted risk means information is bought cheapest-first, and stage gates convert an expensive failure into a cheap earlier one. Baselines run first because every later reading is relative to them.

  Applies when

  • taking multiple policies/configs to hardware in one session
  • a candidate is known-fragile in sim but must be measured
  • writing a deployment runbook for a new robot

  “跑序 = sim 风险从低到高, 最险的放最后 (依据 = 存活门/零指令存活) … ⑤ 是 sim 里最脆的一格 … 放最后跑, 全程留人扶, 起步即给 cmd, 零指令不做。… 任一段出问题就停在那一段, 不要跳到下一段。”

• The best checkpoint to SHIP is not the best checkpoint to CONTINUE FROM - maturity is capital against adaptation shockroot-maturity-vs-product-quality

  Mechanism understoodomnifork-selectionfork-selectioncurriculumgate-battery

  Decide shipping points and fork roots separately: gates rank products, but a root candidate must prove itself by surviving a continuation under the next rung's shift (dual-arm if in doubt) - and prefer the more-trained point as root when product metrics conflict with maturity.

  Symptom

  A band re-audit found s1e-300 beat the incumbent root s1e-500 on nearly every quality gate (stepping 19/20 vs 13/20 with historically-best 26.9 mm swing, speed gate 14/20 vs 2/20, heading 26 vs 54 deg/20 s) - suggesting the root had been mis-picked and the younger point should take over.

  Context

  The dual-arm control settled it the other way: continuing the S2 PD rung from s1e-500 adapted smoothly (3/3 smoke throughout), while the b300 control arm (same config, from s1e-300) fell into a survival valley under the PD shock (+100 iters: 1/3 -> 0/3), never climbed out within budget, and its 800-iter product scored 13/20 survival - eliminated. Verdict: "幼年点自身指标再好也扛不住新 DR 适应冲击, 成熟度是本钱,s1e-500 根被数据背书" - a young point's own metrics, however good, do not survive new-DR adaptation shock; maturity is capital. The audit still yielded value: the band scan (200-1000, per-100) mapped the lineage's arc (200 dragging -> 300 peak -> 400+ decay -> 900+ drift blowout), and 300 remains the better PRODUCT answer for shipping-as-is questions.

  Change

  Selection doctrine split into two questions with different answers: best-product point (quality gates at the point itself) vs best-root point (survives adaptation shocks; more training age = more capital), each decided by its own evidence - and root claims settled by a dual-arm continuation test, not by point metrics.

  Outcome

  s1e-500 kept the root role with data behind it; the S2e ladder built on it passed rung after rung, while the b300 line was closed at the cost of one control arm.

  Mechanism

  Early checkpoints sit near sharp optima with less accumulated robustness structure; their headline metrics reflect the narrow training distribution, not resilience to distribution shifts. A continuation rung is itself a distribution shift, so the root property being selected for is shock tolerance - observable only by actually continuing, never by static gates.

  Applies when

  • a younger checkpoint outscores the current root on quality gates
  • choosing the base for a robustification or command ladder
  • a continuation run stalls in an early survival valley

  “b300 对照臂 … PD 冲击下存活谷(+100 起 1/3→0/3),预算尽未爬出,800 档 20-seed 存活 13/20 出局——幼年点自身指标再好也扛不住新 DR 适应冲击,成熟度是本钱,s1e-500 根被数据背书”

• A proposal in the runbook - torque and action limits as versioned safety tiers (classroom / research / expert) written to motor RAM and read back, separate from the reward's effort penalty - recorded as a proposal, its implementation unrecordedsafety-limits-are-a-layer-not-a-reward

  Hypothesisinfrareal-deployhardwareprocessreal-acceptance

  Keep hardware limits as an explicit, versioned safety layer (tiers written and read back at start, the persisted default the safest one) and the effort penalty as a behaviour layer; when a skill needs more torque, change tier deliberately rather than trading one layer against the other.

  Symptom

  Running and jumping need more torque than the deployed limits allow, and the temptation is to trade the training-side effort penalty against the hardware limit, or to hand a new user a robot "tuned however the last person left it".

  Context

  A message pasted into the operator runbook (undated, citing Berkeley's practice of storing the full motor configuration as JSON with write and read-back scripts) proposes: configuration is a versioned artifact, not a verbal agreement; three safety tiers in robot.yaml beside the gain and policy profiles - classroom (RS06 limited to 10 N*m, lateral joints clamped: "however bad the policy, it only moves awkwardly"), research (14 N*m, clamps at twice the measured need, the default) and expert (the 36 N*m rating, joint limits only, requiring an explicit flag); deploy writes the tier to motor RAM at start and reads it back, while the stored copy stays classroom so a power cut returns to the safest state. It frames limits as the safety layer and the effort penalty as the behaviour layer - more torque for running means switching tier, not weakening the penalty.

  Change

  None recorded: the message ends by asking which to do first, a rollback or the tiers.

  Outcome

  The sources do not record the tiers being implemented; the deployed limits stayed at 12/17/11 N*m through the recovery and one-leg lines (the one-leg spec treats raising the RS06 limit as a separate, unapproved hardware decision). Related and recorded elsewhere: torque limits were written to RAM only in a scripted, self-reversing field experiment.

  Mechanism

  Hardware limits bound the damage any policy can do; reward terms shape what a policy prefers. Mixing them either weakens safety to buy behaviour or distorts behaviour to buy safety.

  Applies when

  • a new skill needs more torque than the deployed limits
  • robots are handed to students or new users
  • motor configuration lives in people's heads or in the firmware only

  “配置是版本化的产物,不是口头约定。 … deploy_policy 启动时按档写进电机 RAM 并读回校验(落盘的那份永远保持 classroom,断电自动回到最安全状态)。 … 限幅是安全层,dof_torques_l2 是行为塑造层,它们在不同的层,不冲突。跑步要更大力矩就换档,而不是去动训练里的省力惩罚。”

• Training-log reward values and fixed-command eval values live on different distributions - comparing them once claimed a 44% improvement that was really 6-10%same-distribution-reward-comparison

  Mechanism understoodwalksim-evalmeasurementattributionprocess

  Quote reward-term values only with their distribution attached (command range, DR on/off, environment), and compare across runs only when those match; re-measure in a common environment before claiming any improvement percentage.

  Symptom

  A v6-era analysis concluded slip had dropped 44% by comparing the training log's Episode_Reward against values calibrated in a fixed-command play environment; a same-condition re-measurement showed the true improvement was 6-10%.

  Context

  The training log's reward is an expectation over the training command distribution (vx 0.15-0.5, yaw +/-0.6, with pushes and domain randomization); play-environment calibrations are taken at a single fixed command with DR off. Subtracting one from the other compares apples to oranges - the warning was written into the v7 pre-flight: "奖励数值只能在同一指令分布下比较 … 拿它和固定 cmd 的 play 环境标定值相减会得出错误结论(v6 那轮已经栽过一次)".

  Change

  Rule adopted: any before/after reward-term comparison must hold the command distribution, DR state, and evaluation environment fixed; training-log values compare only against training-log values of runs with identical command/DR configs.

  Outcome

  The phantom 44% improvement was retracted; later term-level accounting (e.g. the C4 ignore-floor work) consistently specified its distribution before quoting numbers.

  Mechanism

  A reward term's expectation depends on the visited-state distribution as much as on the policy; changing the command distribution or DR moves every term's baseline. Cross-distribution differences therefore measure the distributions, not the policy change.

  Applies when

  • comparing reward telemetry across training runs or vs play evals
  • claiming improvement percentages from training logs
  • term-level reward accounting for diagnosis

  “奖励数值只能在同一指令分布下比较。训练日志的 Episode_Reward 是在训练指令分布上算的(vx 0.15~0.5 / 偏航 ±0.6 / 带推力与域随机化), 拿它和固定 cmd 的 play 环境标定值相减会得出错误结论(v6 那轮已经栽过一次: 据此以为滑移降了 44%, 同条件对拍只有 6~10%)。”

• A nonzero response with the same sign for + and - commands is bias, not abilitysame-sign-response-is-yaw-bias

  Replicatedomnisim-evalmeasurementgate-batteryattribution

  Before crediting any directional skill, test both command signs: response must flip sign with the command; a same-signed pair is a bias to subtract, not an ability to report.

  Symptom

  Root-selection probe showed nonzero wz "tracking percentages" on turn commands, tempting the read that candidates could partially turn.

  Context

  During C-ladder root selection, s1e-500's measured yaw rate was +0.084 rad/s for cmd +0.3 and +0.093 rad/s for cmd -0.3 - same sign both ways. The same check on the C2 baseline gave wz+0.20 -> -0.13 and wz-0.20 -> +0.12 (again same sign), while the alternative root s2e_pd-1400 gave +0.16 / -0.16 - opposite signs, i.e. a genuine 16% command response.

  Change

  Reading corrected and written into the execution sheet: percentages on directional commands are meaningless unless the +cmd and -cmd responses have opposite signs; all three candidates were re-classified as "cannot turn, cannot sidewalk - C2/C3/C4 learn from zero". Acceptance criteria thereafter required "tracking >=50% AND left/right opposite-signed".

  Outcome

  Prevented crediting turn/sidewalk ability that did not exist; the antisymmetry clause became a standing part of every turn and sidewalk PASS condition (C2, C4, C4-redo levels all carry "且左右反号").

  Mechanism

  A constant yaw (or lateral) bias projects onto any command's sign convention and shows up as fake fractional tracking; only sign-antisymmetry under command reversal distinguishes a feedback response to the command from an open-loop offset.

  Applies when

  • evaluating turn/sidewalk/any signed-command tracking percentages
  • a candidate shows partial tracking on an axis it was never trained on
  • writing PASS criteria for a new directional skill

  “C2/C3 那些非零的 wz 百分比不是转向能力 —— 转向+ 与 转向− 的实测同号（s1e：cmd +0.3 → +0.084，cmd −0.3 → +0.093 rad/s），那是恒定偏航偏置。… 三个候选都不会转、都不会侧走。”

• A joint frozen at the action clamp pays zero action_rate forever - penalize pre-clip saturation to make the cheat cost moneysaturation-cheating-zero-rate-cost

  Mechanism understoodwalkreward-shapingreward-shapingaction-rategate-battery

  Whenever actions are clipped and any smoothness/rate penalty exists, add a pre-clip saturation penalty so living at the clamp costs more than oscillating - and audit for frozen-at-clamp joints (action std ~0, |a| at exactly the clip value) as a standing acceptance row.

  Symptom

  With action_rate_l2 raised to -0.2, walk_v7's hip_pitch actions froze at exactly +/-1.000 (the clamp), reproduced bit-for-bit on hardware (splits frozen at +/-0.35 rad); the gait-shaping term joint_pos_ref collapsed to 0.026-0.035. The repo had died in the same trap once before (walk_v0: four joints pinned at +/-1.0).

  Context

  Mechanism: a joint pinned at the clamp has action-rate cost exactly zero and forever zero - under a strong smoothness tax, "push to the clamp and freeze" becomes the dominant optimum. Lowering the weight (-0.2 -> -0.1) only reduces temptation; the frozen state still costs nothing, so the structural fix adds action_saturation = sum(relu( |a_raw| - 0.9)) at weight -1.0, computed on the PRE-clip network output - post-clip, |a|=1.01 and |a|=3 punish identically and the out-of-range gradient dies (v0's old disease: mean |a| 1.71 soaked in saturation). Economics: freezing at |a|=1.0 now pays 0.1/joint/step (two hips = 40% of alive) vs ~0.0004/step for the healthy reference oscillation - the cheat flips from free to ~250x negative. Honest limits were recorded: A1 does not forbid freezing at 0.89 (the anti-freeze pressure must come from the oscillation demand of joint_pos_ref), and the alternative "rate on post-clip target" was rejected as 换汤不换药 - a pinned target also has zero rate.

  Change

  v8-A: add action_saturation (-1.0, thresh 0.9, pre-clip) AND halve action_rate_l2 (-0.2 -> -0.1, still 3.3x the v5 value); success criterion pre-declared (joint_pos_ref telemetry returns to v6 scale).

  Outcome

  Booked as the structural repair of the v7 freeze; also fixed a config hygiene trap discovered on the way - action_rate was assigned twice in __post_init__ (v5 comment line then v7 line), merged to one assignment "别再留两处赋值给下次审计埋雷".

  Mechanism

  Clipping creates a zero-gradient, zero-cost absorbing region in action space; any penalty on action derivatives makes that region strictly optimal once entered. Only a penalty on clamp proximity itself (measured pre-clip so depth of violation is visible) restores a slope out of the absorbing region.

  Applies when

  • joints sit at exactly the action clip with near-zero variance
  • raising a smoothness penalty degrades gait amplitude
  • shaped-oscillation terms collapse after a rate-weight increase

  “钉死在钳位的关节 action_rate 代价精确为零且永远为零;−0.2 之下"推到钳位冻起来"成了压倒性最优 … 本仓第二次栽在同一坑(walk_v0 死于四关节钉死 ±1.0)。回调权重(−0.2→−0.1)只降低诱惑不消除作弊 … 算在 clip 前的原始网络输出上 … 作弊收支从"白赚"变成"倒贴 ~250 倍"。”

• A get-up policy righted itself and sat - three terms paid the seated pose 84% of the return, and the only shaping term that could tell sitting from standing was an exp kernel outputting 5e-5seated-basin-dead-exp-kernel

  Mechanism understoodrecoveryreward-shapingreward-shapingattribution

  When a policy parks in a degenerate posture, tabulate what each reward term pays that posture against the target (watch contact terms that reward touching rather than bearing load) and evaluate every exp kernel at the error actually observed; a kernel narrower than the real error is switched off, and widening it is a one-variable repair that adds nothing new.

  Symptom

  R0 converged by iteration 700 and gained 1.7% over the next 2,300; success 0.0% in all four fall categories. Three of four success conditions passed (tilt median 1.0 deg, both feet in contact 99.6%, angular rate low); height passed 0.6% (median 0.204 m against 0.326). The robot knelt in a W-sit: hip yaw +/-47 deg, knees folded to 92% of the hard limit, shins flat, pelvis on the ground, torso vertical.

  Context

  Minimal reward table: upright (1-g_z)/2 +2.0, base_height linear progress +1.5, stand_pose exp(-||q-q_stand||^2/std^2) x upright gate +1.0 with std 1.0, still +0.5 and feet_on_ground +0.5 both x the upright gate, plus regularizers. The upright gate is a hinge that opens below 30 deg of tilt. The pre-registered fallbacks were then checked against the measured state: tightening the tilt gate was falsified (tilt was already 1.0 deg); a success bonus contradicted the spec's own no-cliff-bounty rule; narrowing the categories was useless (all four converged to the same pose); raising init noise was too weak for a basin this deep. Only a half-rise intermediate state addressed it, and a cheaper repair existed.

  Change

  R0.1 (user decision, single variable): stand_pose std 1.0 -> 3.0. Not a new term and not a bounty - repairing a declared term that was numerically dead. The two runs' logged env.yaml differ in log_dir and std only.

  Outcome

  R0.1 58.2% overall (R0 0.0%): supine 91.5%, side 82.2%, mid 55.9%, prone 0/156; knees fully straight; ||q-q_stand||^2 9.99 -> 0.91 and the stand_pose term 4.6e-5 -> 0.90; get-up ~1 s, no re-falls, the curve still rising at the 3,000-iteration cap. Prone stayed at zero and needed a different fix (see prone-dead-end-is-foot-placement).

  Mechanism

  Sitting earned upright 1.98/2.0, still 0.43/0.5 and feet_on_ground 0.46/0.5 - 3.0 of a 3.57 per-second return - because feet_on_ground asked for contact, not load. The only terms separating sitting from standing were base_height (+0.70/s for standing) and stand_pose, whose kernel at the real 9.99 rad^2 error (75% of it in the two knees) was exp(-9.99) = 4.6e-5 with a gradient near 1e-4. Standing up meant risking 3.0/s to gain 0.70/s while unfolding knees at 92% of their limit under load. With std 3 the same term is exp(-9.99/9) = 0.33 - a live gradient, three quarters of it on the folded knees.

  Applies when

  • a policy converges early to an upright but low, seated or kneeling pose
  • a posture-matching exp term reads ~0 in the training logs
  • contact-based rewards saturate while the task metric does not move

  “**关键:`feet_on_ground` 只问"触地"不问"承重", 跪坐时双脚确实贴地,照样满分。** 三项 3.0/s = 总回报 3.57/s 的 84%。 … **exp(−9.99) = 4.6e-5** —— 权重 1.0 的项实际输出 5e-5、梯度 ~1e-4, **不是"还没学会",是数值上根本不存在**。 … **R0.1 决定(用户 2026-08-09 定,单变量)**:`stand_pose` 的 `std` **1.0 → 3.0**。 不是加新奖励、不是悬崖悬赏,而是**修复一个已声明但数值失效的项**”

• Train with self-collisions ON (filtering nested-link ghost pairs) - the reward wall prevents, the physics makes cheating impossibleself-collision-physics-plus-reward-wall

  Mechanism understoodwalkplant-calibrationplant-calibrationsim2simreward-shaping

  Never train a contact-risk behavior with self-collisions disabled; enable them with an audited filter list for nested/overlapping pairs (zero contacts across a pose sweep), record the fps cost, and keep a calibrated distance penalty as the preventive layer on top.

  Symptom

  walk_v8 logged 107 frames of leg-on-leg contact while still earning 0.751 tracking score - because training-side self-collisions were OFF, leg clipping was literally imperceptible to the policy ("碰腿在训练里 根本感知不到").

  Context

  Enabling self-collisions naively is its own trap: an Isaac audit had shown PhysX auto-filters adjacent bodies (base-hip clean for free) but nested links generate ghost forces - calf and ankle_roll overlap 65 mm at the zero pose, producing 12x body-weight phantom forces. The v10 recipe: enable self-collisions, explicitly filter only the two nested pairs (l/r calf-ankle_roll), then run a zero-contact audit at three poses (nominal stand, walk crouch, swing-extreme) requiring contact count = 0, adding any residual pair to the filter and re-auditing; a 500-iter sanity run for NaN and an fps-cost record (measured -8.8%). Redundancy with the reward-side foot-distance wall was argued, not assumed: "N2 离得远(奖励侧预防),SC 碰了疼(物理侧兜底)" - the reward keeps distance at range, the physics makes contact hurt - so the v8-style "clip legs and still score" outcome becomes physically impossible.

  Change

  enabled_self_collisions=True + 2-pair filter + three-pose zero-contact audit (re-verified at 0.00 N after the later mass update) + fps budget recorded.

  Outcome

  Leg contact entered the training signal; the audit protocol caught the nested-pair ghost-force hazard before it corrupted training; combined with the calibrated distance wall, later versions held contact = 0 on hardware and in sim.

  Mechanism

  A hazard absent from the training physics cannot be learned about, no matter the reward; but collision meshes that interpenetrate at rest inject large fictitious forces if enabled blindly. Filtered enabling plus a pose-swept zero-contact audit gives true contact physics with no phantom energy - and layering prevention (reward) with consequence (physics) covers both learning and enforcement.

  Applies when

  • real robot self-contacts while training scored it healthy
  • enabling self-collisions on a model with nested collision meshes
  • deciding between reward-side and physics-side fixes for clipping

  “PhysX 自动过滤相邻体(base↔hip_pitch 免费干净),幽灵力只在 calf↔ankle_roll(零位嵌套 65mm,12 倍体重)。… 与 N2 互补不冗余:N2 离得远(奖励侧预防),SC 碰了疼(物理侧兜底)—— v8 那种 107 帧互碰拿 0.751 跟踪分的事从此物理上不可能。”

• Isaac splits Coulomb friction into static and dynamic columns - wiring only static means zero loss during motion, silently discarding the identified valuesim-api-friction-columns

  Mechanism understoodinfraplant-calibrationplant-calibrationactuator-modelingdomain-randomization

  When installing identified actuator parameters, map each measured quantity to the simulator's exact API column for the operative regime (dynamic for moving loss, viscous for damping), verify per joint after landing, and audit how randomization intervals fall on each column's nominal.

  Symptom

  The hardware-identified Coulomb friction (tau_c) was about to be installed into the trainer through the friction= field alone - which in Isaac 5 populates only STATIC friction, so during motion the joints would lose no torque at all: "只给 static 则运动中不损耗, 辨识的 τ_c 走路时等于没接" (the identified tau_c would effectively not be connected while walking).

  Context

  The v12 integration wired all three columns deliberately: armature= and friction= from the 2026-08-04 hardware identification, PLUS dynamic_friction= (Isaac 5 splits Coulomb into static/dynamic; the moving-loss column is dynamic) and viscous_friction= (= the measured joint damping 0.02, aligned to MJCF's damping). Each value was re-checked per joint after landing. A DR interaction was audited and booked rather than hidden: randomize_joint_parameters jitters ALL friction columns with ONE interval - the [-0.05, +0.10] band was calibrated against the Coulomb nominal, and landing on the viscous nominal 0.02 it becomes [0, 0.12], "偏宽但保守" (wide but conservative), accepted with the note that pre-viscous behavior was already [0, 0.10] on a base of 0.

  Change

  Measured actuator parameters installed across all applicable API columns (armature, static, dynamic, viscous), with the DR side effect on shared randomization intervals audited and recorded.

  Outcome

  The first generation where the identified plant actually acts during motion in the trainer; the silent-column failure mode documented before it cost a training run.

  Mechanism

  Physics engines decompose "friction" differently (single coefficient vs static/dynamic/viscous columns); a measured parameter is only installed when it reaches the column the solver reads in the regime that matters (motion, not stiction). Randomizers that share one interval across columns rescale the band by each column's nominal - a hidden unit change.

  Applies when

  • installing identified friction/armature into any trainer
  • porting plant parameters between simulators or engine versions
  • joint losses in sim do not match bench measurements during motion

  “并额外传 dynamic_friction=(Isaac 5 把库仑拆 static/dynamic 两列,只给 static 则运动中不损耗,辨识的 τ_c 走路时等于没接)与 viscous_friction=(= joint_damping 0.02,对齐 MJCF damping)。… randomize_joint_parameters 用同一个 friction 区间抖三列, [-0.05,+0.10] 是按库仑标称标的,落到粘滞标称 0.02 上成了 [0,0.12]”

• A sim veto needs real confirmation too - the worst sim cell was scheduled as the most informative hardware runsim-veto-needs-real-confirmation

  Mechanism understoodomnireal-acceptancereal-acceptancesim2simattributionprocess

  Never let sim alone both condemn a purpose-built configuration and escape audit: spend one cheap, safeguarded hardware run on the condemned cell, pre-registering what agreement and disagreement would each imply about the proxy.

  Symptom

  The fric-2400@kd1.0 combination was sim's worst cell across the board (survival 17/20 - the only miss, mu0.4 1/20, push 103/160, zero-cmd 2/20), yet it was the only product specifically trained for the kd1.0 deployment gain - discarding it on sim evidence alone would leave the sim's own validity untested exactly where it mattered.

  Context

  The team had been burned in the other direction before ("Isaac 指标三次 零预警" - training-side metrics gave zero warning three times), so the symmetric rule was written: sim's rejection also needs hardware confirmation ("sim 判被支配 ≠ 真机被支配 … sim 的否决也要真机确认"). The run was pre-registered with a dual reading: real matches sim -> the S2f ladder closes and the fork root is settled; real clearly better than sim -> the MuJoCo proxy has a systematic bias in the kd1.0/low-margin region, "那比选型本身重要得多" - and every S2f sim acceptance would need re-scoring.

  Change

  The condemned configuration was kept on the hardware roster (last, spotted, minimal exposure) explicitly as a proxy-validation probe, not as a deployment candidate.

  Outcome

  Session design captured either result as progress: selection confirmed, or a proxy bias discovered that would re-price the whole ladder's verdicts.

  Mechanism

  Every sim verdict is a joint statement about the policy AND the proxy; cells where a policy was purpose-trained for the exact condition sim condemns are where proxy error is most likely and most costly. Testing the veto converts a selection decision into a calibration measurement of the evaluator itself.

  Applies when

  • sim rejects the configuration that targets the actual deployment condition
  • the eval proxy's calibration has never been checked in that regime
  • deciding which hardware runs are worth their risk

  “但它也是唯一为 kd1.0 部署档专门训的产物 —— sim 判被支配 ≠ 真机被支配, 「Isaac 指标三次零预警」的教训反过来同样成立: sim 的否决也要真机确认。… 若真机明显好于 sim → MuJoCo 代理在 kd1.0/低裕度区有系统性偏差, 那比选型本身重要得多。”

• Cross-simulator gate (Isaac Lab to MuJoCo) comes before any hardware attemptsim2sim-gate-before-sim2real

  Replicatedwalksim2sim-gatesim2simprocessgate-battery

  Gate every policy through a second simulator with an independently built plant before hardware; treat sim2sim failure as a contract or overfitting bug, and sim2real failure after a sim2sim pass as a plant/actuator gap.

  Symptom

  A policy that only ever ran in its training simulator carries untested dependencies on that simulator's solver, contact model, and defaults; the first place those dependencies surface should not be the real robot.

  Context

  Standing order of operations for the whole Lucen program, recorded as the opening line of the experience log: train in Isaac Lab, gate in MuJoCo, only then go to hardware. The MuJoCo side is the same plant used for evaluation batteries, so a sim2sim pass also validates the exported policy + contract (obs ordering, scales, defaults) outside the training stack.

  Change

  Pipeline rule adopted - every checkpoint must pass the MuJoCo evaluation battery (sim2sim) before it is considered for real deployment (sim2real).

  Outcome

  Used generation after generation as the cheap filter; hardware sessions only ever received policies that had already survived a second simulator.

  Mechanism

  Two simulators disagree exactly where a policy is overfit to simulator-specific artifacts (contact softness, integrator, default parameters, obs conventions); a cross-sim transfer catches contract bugs and solver overfitting at zero hardware risk, so real-robot failures that remain are attributable to genuine plant/actuator gaps.

  Applies when

  • planning the path from training to first hardware trial
  • exported policy behaves differently outside the training framework
  • triaging whether a real-robot failure is contract vs plant

  “先sim2sim - 从isaaclab 到mujoco / 再sim2real”

• Single-impulse push recovery is a binary chaotic quantity - cross-machine floating-point divergence can flip the outcomesingle-impulse-recovery-is-chaotic

  Mechanism understoodomnisim-evalmeasurementgate-batteryattribution

  Never gate or compare single-event recovery outcomes across machines or domains: evaluate disturbances as survival distributions over phases and seeds, compare longitudinally on one machine, and treat any single-point cliff as unconfirmed until it survives the statistical protocol.

  Symptom

  Mac evaluation found a hard "0.8 N*s cliff" (0/3 survival) that the training machine flatly contradicted: the identical protocol (0.8 impulse at 8 s, cmd 0.2) survived 3/3 there, and a 0.6/0.8/2/4 cross sweep survived everything.

  Context

  The verdict became a named lesson ("跨机混沌课文"): whether one specific push at one specific phase is survived depends on a trajectory that diverges across machines from floating-point differences alone - "单次冲量恢复是二值混沌量, 跨机浮点发散可翻结局". The boundary was drawn precisely: the 20-seed statistical gates DO agree across machines (established precedent), but that agreement cannot be extrapolated to single-point recovery tests. Protocol amended: disturbance evaluation uses multiple push phases (8/10/12 s), >=10 seeds, and only same-machine longitudinal comparisons; the Mac-side recommendation built on the unreproducible cliff was not adopted, while its directionally-consistent small-impulse data was kept.

  Change

  Push evaluation redefined from single-event pass/fail to multi-phase multi-seed statistics, with cross-machine comparison banned for event-level results and allowed for distribution-level ones.

  Outcome

  A false hardware-relevant "cliff" was prevented from steering the ladder (the s2e push rung decisions were made on same-machine statistics); the chaos lesson was cited again when real push tests were restricted to qualitative cross-domain use.

  Mechanism

  Perturbation recovery near the viability boundary has sensitive dependence on initial conditions; different BLAS/GPU reduction orders yield different trajectories from identical configs, so a binary outcome at one phase is machine-specific noise. Averaging over phases and seeds restores a quantity whose expectation is machine-stable.

  Applies when

  • a push/disturbance result differs between machines or sim and real
  • designing push-recovery acceptance tests
  • a sharp pass/fail cliff appears in a chaotic-regime evaluation

  “训练机上 Mac 原协议 (0.8 @8s cmd0.2) 3/3 全活 … 与 Mac 的 +0.8 0/3 直接矛盾。定性: 单次冲量恢复是二值混沌量, 跨机浮点发散可翻结局;统计门 (20-seed 八门) 跨机吻合的先例不能外推到单点恢复测试。协议改判: 抗推评测多相位 (push 时刻 8/10/12s) + ≥10 seed + 只做同机纵向比”

• Before training a one-leg stand, the accounts and a probe showed the default gains could not hold it at all - kp 20 needs 0.39 rad of error to carry the static roll moment, more than the whole adduction range - so per-joint gains came first, and thermal limits set the session lengthsingle-support-gain-authority-probe

  Mechanism understoodonelegplant-calibrationactuator-modelingplant-calibrationhardware

  Before training a posture that loads one joint statically, compute the steady tracking error load/kp and the series stiffness against m*g*h, and prove with a simple hand-written controller that the posture can be held under the deployment gains - change the gains first if it cannot; then size session length from the thermal account.

  Symptom

  The one-leg line (standing on one foot, the other folded back, no hopping) had to decide whether the existing gain profile could hold single support before any reward was designed.

  Context

  Hardware accounts (9.792 kg, COM 0.234 m high, 170 x 80 mm feet, legs 80% of the mass): moving the COM over one foot needs 107 mm of shift and the 20 deg hip-roll adduction range gives 131 mm - geometrically enough. The static frontal moment is 7.8-9 N*m, within RS02's 17 N*m - torque is enough. But at kp 20 carrying 7.8 N*m needs 0.39 rad of tracking error, more than the entire adduction range, and the real robot had already shown it: commanded +0.17, actual -0.04 (0.21 rad droop) under load, 0.0008 rad hanging - load, not the motor. A probe (probe_oneleg.py) then showed open-loop PD cannot hold single support on physics grounds, so the criterion became "an equilibrium exists and a hand-written 4-gain COM feedback can hold it": single-support roll stiffness is hip and ankle in series and must exceed m*g*h_com = 22.5 N*m/rad; ankle kp 12 in series with hip kp 80 gives only 10.4 (open loop 16/16 fell), ankle 60 with hip 80 gives 34.3 (52% margin).

  Change

  A per-joint gain profile (rl_oneleg: hip_roll kp 80, ankle_roll kp 60, the rest as rl_default) - which needed per-joint gain support in robot.yaml, the bridge, deploy and the trainer's actuator groups - decided before training. Thermal account: single support makes hip_roll the dominant heat load (about 7.8 N*m against a 7 N*m continuous rating), so acceptance and demos run in segments of at most 60 s with a temperature check.

  Outcome

  Under rl_oneleg the hand-written feedback held six cells cleanly for 6 s (hip_roll steady torque 2.1-3.4 N*m, half the thermal budget); under rl_default the same feedback on the same cells fell 0/4. The trained V0 policy then passed its 40-cell acceptance.

  Mechanism

  With PD position control, the steady error needed to carry a static load is load/kp; when that error exceeds the joint's range the posture is unreachable whatever the policy does, and series compliance between joints lowers the effective stiffness below the gravity stiffness that single support demands.

  Applies when

  • single-support, crouched or one-arm-load postures on PD actuators
  • a joint "droops" under load on hardware but tracks well when hanging
  • deciding whether a new skill needs its own gain profile

  “但 kp=20 时撑住 7.8 N·m 需要 **0.39 rad 跟踪误差 > 整个内收行程**。真机已实测: 命令 +0.17 实际 −0.04（droop 0.21 rad），悬挂时 0.0008 rad——是负载不是电机。 … 单支撑滚转是 hip/ankle **串联**刚度，必须 > m·g·h_com = 22.5 N·m/rad；ankle kp12 串 hip80 只有 10.4（开环 16/16 全摔），60 串 80 = 34.3（裕 52%） … **rl_default 同反馈同格 0/4 全摔**（增益档必要性对照）”

• A training-side rate limit anchored on the last commanded target is an integrator inside the balance loop - two unrelated lineages converged to the same 34-43% re-fall rate, a soft penalty could not fix it, and the bandwidth arithmetic said safety and standing could not coexistslew-anchor-is-an-integrator

  Mechanism understoodrecoverytraining-runactuator-modelingcontract-freezeattribution

  If you constrain actions in training, anchor the constraint on the measured state, not on the previous command - a limiter with memory adds lag inside the balance loop; and when two different lineages converge to the same failure rate, treat the cause as structural and stop adding soft penalties.

  Symptom

  With the rate limit moved into training (V1), policies either could not stand up or stood up and kept falling again: the stand oscillated, fell and climbed back, 34-43% of the time.

  Context

  V1.0-B (user decision: explore new postures from scratch, hard constraint in training): target <- prev + clip(target - prev, +/-S*dt) at the TIGHT rates, anchored on the last issued target like the bridge. Four runs: v1_0 from scratch 0.8% - every category righted under the limit, then knelt (the limit also damped the exploration that had escaped the seated basin in V0); v1_0c continued from R3.1 99.8% get-up but 36-43% re-fall and knee jitter 0.604 rad/s; v1_0p with a pull-assist curriculum (56 N -> 0, fully withdrawn) 39.1% unassisted, re-fall 34-42%; v1_0w with a windup-gap penalty 25.4%, re-fall 18-43%. Removing the limiter from v1_0p gave 0.0%: the policy had co-adapted with it.

  Change

  The rate-limit route was declared dead after four runs and the line was re-rooted on a beta-anchored action space (V2, user approval required).

  Outcome

  V2.0's first acceptance at full authority already showed re-falls of 0-1% (V1: 34-43%), the structural bet paying off before any tuning.

  Mechanism

  Anchored on the previous command, a saturated policy becomes a rate controller - one more integrator in the loop - and active balance through that lag oscillates, while a kneeling sit needs no active control and is stable. The arithmetic: kp 30 needs 0.4 rad of error for 12 N*m; at 4 rad/s that takes 0.1 s, half the pendulum time constant sqrt(0.38/9.8) ~ 0.2 s; keeping standing bandwidth needs S of at least ~8 rad/s, within 20% of the 10 rad/s velocity limit - no bound at all. Anchoring on the measured angle (q + beta*a) makes the full kp*beta authority available in one step, with no memory, and caps the impact at the same time.

  Applies when

  • adding rate limits, slew limits or target filters to a policy's action path
  • a policy stands but oscillates and re-falls after a constraint was added
  • different lineages or curricula land on the same failure signature

  “v1_0p(拉力课程):会站(prone 79.9%),再摔 34~42% —— **两条完全不同 血统、不同学习路径,收敛到同一失败率**。 … 动作饱和时它退化为 速率控制 = 环内多一个积分器;主动站姿平衡穿过该滞后必振荡(v1_0 的跪坐不需 主动控制,所以稳)。对照:**HoST 的 β 锚在当前实测 q,无记忆、无积分器**”

• The smoke watcher panicked at the wrong operating point and its score goes blind when gates saturate - treat it as a survival sentinel, not a judgesmoke-watcher-operating-point

  Replicatedomnisim-evalmeasurementprocessgate-battery

  Configure every automated evaluator at the lineage's declared deployment operating point, give it graded metrics that cannot saturate, and until then scope its authority to catastrophe-detection - never let a mis-configured watcher stop or rank a rung on its own.

  Symptom

  Two watcher misfires in one ladder: (1) during the friction rung the watcher (evaluating at kd 1.0) reported panic-level 1/3 survival from iter 3300 - falsified by the official kd 1.2 scan, because the lineage's design operating point was kd 1.2 and the watcher lacked the --kd-scale passthrough; (2) during the PD rung the watcher's early-stop score froze at iter 1050 despite ongoing drift improvements, because with all eight gates passing (constant 0/3 failures) the score has no gradient left - "八门全过恒 0/3 时 score 对漂移改善盲, s1f 课文三现".

  Context

  Both are the same category: the in-training smoke loop is an instrument with its own configuration (operating point, score design), and its verdicts are only as aligned as that configuration. The booked doctrine: "冒烟只当存活哨兵" - until the watcher evaluates at the deployment operating point with graded metrics, its role is detecting catastrophes, not ranking checkpoints; ranking belongs to the full battery at the design operating point (and the watcher's scoring was separately patched to weight survival 3x so recoveries during hard phases are not early-stopped away).

  Change

  Watcher debt booked (--kd-scale passthrough); score saturation acknowledged with graded columns planned; selection authority kept with 20-seed batteries at the declared operating point.

  Outcome

  A false panic did not abort a rung that was actually passing at its design point; a frozen score did not hide real drift gains; the instrument's authority was scoped to what its configuration can actually see.

  Mechanism

  An evaluator is itself configured (gain profile, delay, metrics); evaluating a policy away from its design operating point measures a counterfactual robot, and bounded scores saturate once binary gates pass, losing all sensitivity. Instruments need the same operating-point discipline as deployments and graded outputs to retain gradient.

  Applies when

  • an automated smoke loop contradicts the official battery
  • early-stop scores freeze while graded metrics still improve
  • lineages with non-default deployment gain/delay profiles

  “watcher (kd1.0 口径) 3300 起 1/3 恐慌被 kd1.2 正式扫描证伪为考纲外假象 —— 工作点评测口径教训: watch_ckpt 缺 --kd-scale 透传 (待补), 冒烟只当存活哨兵。… watcher score 饱和误停 @1050(八门全过恒 0/3 时 score 对漂移改善盲, s1f 课文三现)”

• A soft joint-limit penalty charged the standing pose itself - the geometric-zero knee sat on its hard limit, so stand_v1 bent its knees to dodge 0.419 per step and leaned 4.1 deg forward; excluding the knee gave 0.24 degsoft-limit-penalty-charges-nominal-pose

  Mechanism understoodstandreward-shapingreward-shapingplant-calibration

  Before training, evaluate every penalty at the nominal pose; if a joint's soft limit sits inside the pose the task requires (a straight knee on its hard stop), exclude that joint from the soft-limit penalty and let the action clip enforce the hard limit.

  Symptom

  stand_v1 (retrained after the default pose moved to the CAD geometric zero and mirror augmentation was added) fixed left/right asymmetry (6.8 -> 0.0 deg) but settled at a 4.1 deg forward lean, where pure PD at the same default settled at 0.1 deg - the policy was actively pushing itself forward, which is exactly the real robot's failure direction.

  Context

  soft_joint_pos_limit_factor = 0.9 shrank the knee's soft limit to -/+0.1047 rad, while the geometric-zero default has the knee at q = 0, exactly on the hard limit. Standing in the nominal pose therefore paid 0.2094 x 2.0 = 0.419 per step in dof_pos_limits (alive earned only 0.5). The policy's way out was to bend the knees to -/+0.1013 rad, and the cost was the forward lean.

  Change

  stand_v1b: the knees excluded from dof_pos_limits (a straight knee IS the standing pose; the hard limit is still enforced by the action clip). No other change.

  Outcome

  stand_v1b: max tilt 0.3 deg, steady tilt 0.24 deg, asymmetry 0.1 deg, height 0.384 m - exactly nominal - with knees at -0.0007 / +0.0005 rad. It became the standing release used on the real robot, and later the standing side of the recovery switch. The same exclusion was carried into the recovery contract (knee at the clip in the standing pose) and the one-leg reward table.

  Mechanism

  A limit penalty whose soft boundary lies inside the nominal pose turns the nominal into a taxed state, and the policy buys its way out with whatever posture change is cheapest - here a knee bend paid for with lean.

  Applies when

  • a standing or default pose has a joint at or near its hard limit
  • a policy settles in a small steady tilt that pure PD does not show
  • soft-limit factors shrink limits uniformly across joints

  “`soft_joint_pos_limit_factor=0.9` 把膝软限位内缩到 ∓0.1047,而几何零位 default **膝盖 q=0 正好压在硬限位上** ⇒ 站在标称姿态每步白扣 `0.2094 × 2.0 = 0.419` (alive 才 +0.5)。策略只能屈膝到 ∓0.1013 躲罚,代价是躯干前倾 —— 恰好是真机的 失效方向。 … 修掉"软限位罚标称姿态"后重训(`dof_pos_limits` 排除膝盖)。**前倾问题彻底消失** … 不再屈膝躲惩罚,高度正好落回标称 0.3840。”

• Real-robot trials of a new skill were staged by risk - a hanging dry run with the robot posed by hand, then one short try per category on a mat with the hardest last, then the composed behaviour (switch + walking) last - with the user present and a log every timestaged-hang-mat-floor-for-get-up

  Replicatedrecoveryreal-deployreal-acceptanceprocess

  Stage a new skill's hardware trials by risk - hanging dry run posed by hand, one short try on a mat per start category with the hardest last, the composed behaviour last - with an operator ready to cut enable and a log for every try; relax a safety ban only for short, attended runs and say so in writing.

  Symptom

  A get-up policy acts violently near the ground by design, and the first unstaged real run of the line was stopped as dangerous.

  Context

  The hanging checklist written with the first stamped recovery product (v2_5, 2026-08-11), to be ticked item by item with the user present: both machines on the same commit and firmware torque limits checked; the robot hung from a single point about 0.1 m off the ground; a dry run with the robot posed by hand into supine and prone to watch that the target stream is gentle (the beta contract keeps targets within +/-0.25 rad of the measured pose, so enabling causes no homing fling); the first floor try is supine only, on a mat, once, with torque and joint logs; categories are added one at a time, prone last; any kicking or oscillation cuts enable immediately. For the switch (08-14) the runbook orders: hang with the standing policy as the locomotion side, then on a mat push the robot over and let it recover, and only last swap in the walking policy. An exemption was also written: edge-standing policies stay banned from long or unattended runs, but a short single A/B with the user present, hung or on a mat, is allowed. The one-leg line reused the same order (hang, then floor with a spotter, 60 s segments with a temperature check).

  Change

  Real trials as a checklist of stages, each gated on the previous one, with the composed behaviour last.

  Outcome

  The line's first real get-up (v2_6, 08-11) came through this protocol and was reported "fairly stable"; no further hardware outcomes of the switch are recorded in the spec.

  Mechanism

  Each stage exposes one new risk (commanded targets without contact, a single category with contact, harder categories, then the interaction of two policies), so a failure is attributable and cheap.

  Applies when

  • first hardware trial of a recovery, jumping or other high-impact skill
  • switching between two policies on hardware for the first time
  • a policy with a known posture defect needs a comparison run

  “吊挂空跑: 手动摆到 supine/prone 姿态, 看目标流是否温和 (β 帽 7.5 N·m, 目标永远贴着当前 q ±0.25 rad —— 使能瞬间无归位甩动, 这是 β 契约附带保证) … 落地首试: supine 一类, 垫子, 单次; τ/q --log 全程记录 … 逐类别扩展 (prone 最后), 每类先单次”

• A real-robot verdict is (policy x deployment stack) - when the stack changes materially, old verdicts expirestale-verdicts-under-old-stack

  Mechanism understoodwalkreal-acceptancereal-acceptanceattributionprocess

  Date every hardware verdict with the deployment-stack version it was measured under; after any material stack change, re-test before trusting old condemnations or old praises - with the interpretation of each possible result written down first.

  Symptom

  walk_v5 stood condemned as "kicks wildly" and walk_v6 as "cannot walk unassisted" - but those verdicts were issued under an earlier deployment stack (--heading did not exist yet, several fixes had just landed); only v7 had ever run under the current unified stack.

  Context

  New sim evidence sharpened the doubt: a same-harness four-version sweep showed v6 was the HEALTHIEST archive at the real operating point (cmd 0.15: dominant frequency locked at 2.50, steps 35:35 perfectly symmetric, foot distance 203/190 mm best of four, mean tilt 4.2 deg, saturation 15%). A full re-test under the unified stack was scheduled with per-version questions and a pre-filled interpretation table ("判读表(预填假设,回来对号)"): e.g. v6 walks + frequency ~2.5 -> old verdict was the stack's fault, v6 becomes the comparison champion; v6 walks but at ~1.25 -> period-doubling on hardware = confirmed plant gap, actuator fitting promoted to mainline; v5 no longer kicks -> the kicking was an old-stack artifact.

  Change

  All four versions re-queued on hardware under one stack (same torque limits, slew profile, heading loop, logging), with the version-specific legacy profile pinned; verdicts held provisional until re-issued.

  Outcome

  The re-test design separated policy properties from stack artifacts before any policy was permanently written off - and turned each outcome into a specific conclusion via the pre-filled table.

  Mechanism

  A deployed behavior is produced by the policy plus everything between it and the motors (heading loop, slew limits, torque caps, clock); verdicts implicitly condition on that whole stack. Fixing the stack invalidates the conditioning, so old failures may be stack artifacts and old successes may not survive either.

  Applies when

  • deployment tooling (limits, filters, loops) changed since a policy was last judged
  • deciding which historical policy is the rightful baseline
  • a sim sweep contradicts an old hardware verdict

  “只有 v7 在完整的今日部署栈下上过真机 … v5"左右乱踢"、v6"未能自主"的判决全部来自更早的栈(--heading 尚不存在, 部分修复刚落地)——判决已过期。且 2026-08-02 四代同机仿真横测翻出了新证据:v6 在真机工况(cmd 0.15)下是四代里最健康的仿真档案”

• Four in-lineage attempts to widen the standing stance failed - remove a tax, add a joint-space knife, change the target, add a task-space metric penalty - because the stance was the end state of the get-up path; trained from scratch with the right terms it grew right from day onestance-decided-by-get-up-path

  Replicatedrecoveryattributioncurriculumfork-selectionreward-shaping

  A posture a skill ends in is shaped by the path the policy takes to reach it; if several single-variable edits to the terminal-phase reward cannot move it, stop editing that phase and retrain with the terminal constraint present from the start.

  Symptom

  v2_6c stood with its feet 0.159 m apart (task-space) and its hips yawed 45-47 deg the same way, which split on the real robot. Standing-phase reward edits did not move it.

  Context

  V2.7-A removed the flat-feet tax on compensated stances (stance unchanged); V2.7b added a hip-roll lower-bound hinge (+5 deg in 3,000 iterations, yaw ratchet); V2.8 changed the stand_pose target to a wide flat stance (stance unchanged, yaw not unwound, feet nearly overlapping, mu 0.4 transfer 2%); V2.9 penalized lateral spacing in metres (the policy parked just outside the penalty's gate in a lunge, 0% success). The v2_6c get-up goes through a split and closes the feet together as it rises.

  Change

  In-lineage stance surgery was formally closed. V3.1 trained from scratch with task-space stance terms present from the first iteration (and, after P1, a positive width band instead of a penalty).

  Outcome

  V3.1 P1b: lateral stance 0.364 m, foot tilt 0.0 deg, all four categories 100%, MuJoCo mu 1.0 and 0.4 both 100% - with a symmetric toe-out the kinematic audit had not enumerated. P1c (with a yaw guard): 0.355 m, all six acceptance criteria passing, mu 1.0-0.4 all 100%; it became the product.

  Mechanism

  A converged policy does not rebuild the path that produced its terminal posture; a standing-phase gradient only finds the nearest hack around the posture the get-up delivers.

  Applies when

  • the final posture of a transition skill is wrong and resists terminal-phase shaping
  • repeated continuation rungs produce hacks instead of the intended posture
  • deciding between another in-lineage fix and a from-scratch retrain

  “窄站距 + yaw 扭是 v2_6c 起身策略(劈叉起身 → 双脚并拢收势)的**结构性 终态**,不是站立段的孤立参数 —— 站立形态由起身路径决定,在血统内只动 站立段奖励改不动它。”

• A stand gate judged by survival passes a robot that wanders a meter - judge posture insteadstand-gate-posture-not-survival

  Mechanism understoodomnireal-acceptancegate-batteryreal-acceptance

  For every gate, ask what behavior the metric is a proxy for and validate its ordering against real observations; replace metrics whose ordering disagrees with reality, and demote them explicitly rather than silently.

  Symptom

  Real robot "standing" drifted 0.5-1.4 m across the floor while the sim stand gate scored a clean 20/20 - because the gate's metric was episode survival, which wandering does not violate.

  Context

  C2's stand condition was originally written as "survival regression <=2/20". A real-robot counter-example on 2026-08-08 forced the re-judgment: wandering robots survive. Cross-checking candidate sim metrics against real-robot feel showed max-tilt median ordering agreed with hands-on ranking, while displacement ordering was actually OPPOSITE to real impressions - so displacement was demoted to a reference quantity, not a gate.

  Change

  Stand PASS criterion rewritten from survival to posture: "stand tilt max median <= root baseline +1.5 deg"; displacement kept only as reference. Applied to all subsequent rungs (C4 and redo levels inherit it).

  Outcome

  Later rungs gated stand on tilt (e.g. C4 product: 7.7 deg vs parent 7.1 deg, +0.6 deg PASS); the wandering failure mode became visible to the battery instead of hidden by survival.

  Mechanism

  A gate metric is a proxy for an intended behavior; survival is a proxy for "did not fall", not "stood still". Metric choice must be validated against ground truth (real-robot feel/measurement), and a proxy whose ordering disagrees with reality on real data is worse than no metric - it steers selection backwards.

  Applies when

  • writing PASS conditions for stand/idle/hold behaviors
  • a gate passes policies that visibly misbehave on hardware
  • choosing between candidate metrics for an acceptance battery

  “stand 必须用位姿判，不能用存活判（2026-08-08 真机反证改判）：站着乱走 0.5~1.4 m 时存活照样 20/20 —— C2 的 stand 条件原写「存活退化 ≤2/20」，选错了指标。改为: stand 倾角 max 中位 ≤ 根基线 +1.5°（倾角与真机手感排序一致；位移排序与真机相反，降为参考量）”

• Four consecutive fixes were each continued from the previous fix's degraded state until the user stopped the ladder - "change parameters, don't stack errors" - rolled back to the last good checkpoint and audited the target geometry firststop-stacking-roll-back-and-audit

  Observed oncerecoveryprocessprocessfork-selectionattribution

  When successive rungs each start from the previous rung's output and the target symptom does not move, stop, roll back to the last good checkpoint and re-derive the next change from an audit; keep the measurements, discard the stacked remedies.

  Symptom

  After the real-robot splits, the V2.7 ladder tried to widen the stance: a term swap (A), a new stance knife (b), more iterations (甲), a doubled weight (乙). Stance barely moved while hip yaw ratcheted 46.7 -> 49.9 -> 52.5 deg toward its 60 deg limit.

  Context

  Each rung started from the previous rung's output. The user ruled on 2026-08-11 that things had gone wrong from V2.7-A: go back to v2_6 and rethink which parameters to change instead of stacking errors.

  Change

  乙 was killed at start and not counted; the product baseline rolled back to v2_6c model_29399; every measurement and law learned on the ladder was kept ("the data is real; what stacked was the treatment"). Before any new training, a zero-training kinematic audit of the stance targets was run.

  Outcome

  The audit found the stand_pose target itself rewarding the narrow stance (pose-target-geometric-audit) and showed geometrically why the yawed stance could not be widened with flat feet - so 乙 was proven unnecessary without running it. The next in-lineage attempts still failed, which is what established that the stance is set by the get-up path.

  Mechanism

  A rung continued from a degraded state inherits its compensations, so each new fix answers the previous fix's side effects; the yaw ratchet was the visible trace of that stacking.

  Applies when

  • three or more corrective rungs in a row without progress on the target metric
  • a side-effect metric ratchets in one direction across rungs
  • a new rung is being planned from the latest (not the best) checkpoint

  “用户裁:"从 V2.7-A 开始就出问题了,应该回到 2.6 再思考如何改变参数而不是 错误叠加。"认账:A 的补丁 → b 的新刀 → 甲的加时 → 乙的加权,每级都从上级 的**退化状态**续(yaw 46.7→52.5° 的棘轮就是叠加痕迹)。 … 数据是真的,叠加的是处置。”

• A suspended (no-load) test acquits or convicts the actuator before you blame authoritysuspended-test-isolates-actuator-authority

  Mechanism understoodomnireal-acceptancehardwarereal-acceptanceattribution

  Before attributing a failure to actuator authority, measure no-load tracking error and steady-state torque fraction; blame authority only if the task fails while the error grows with demanded force - and then fix gains or targets, not training.

  Symptom

  hip_roll sagged 0.21 rad on the ground and saturation questions loomed over the sidewalk plan - was the roll axis physically too weak (authority), or was something else limiting it?

  Context

  Before C4, the roll-authority question was settled by measurement triage: suspended test (--suspend, feet off ground) showed hip_roll tracking error 0.0008 rad - actuator acquitted; the entire 0.21 rad ground sag is load-induced. Steady-state torque was 25% of limit - 75% margin remains. Since sidewalk needs lateral force, not exact angles, authority was ruled "not a hard limit", with a pre-registered criterion for when it WOULD become one: sidewalk fails to track AND roll error keeps growing - then the fix is raising hip_roll kp or lowering the vy target, not more training.

  Change

  Hypothesis "roll authority insufficient" demoted from blocker to a monitored branch with an explicit trigger condition; C4 proceeded.

  Outcome

  Later open-loop probes confirmed the actuator could produce the behavior (sidewalk feed-forward ran at full amplitude, 5/5 survival), and the eventual C4 failure causes were measurement and reward, never authority.

  Mechanism

  Suspended vs loaded comparison separates the actuator's closed-loop competence from the load path: tiny no-load tracking error means the motor/controller is fine and any loaded deviation is statics (gravity / stiffness budget, kp trading error for force). Torque-fraction measurement then bounds how much force headroom actually remains.

  Applies when

  • suspecting an axis is "too weak" for a new skill
  • large position sag on a loaded joint
  • deciding between hardware fix, gain change, and more training

  “吊挂（--suspend）实测 hip_roll 跟踪误差 0.0008 rad → 执行器无罪，地面下垂 0.21 rad 全是负载所致；稳态占限扭 25% → 仍有 75% 扭矩余量。… 判据：若 C4 出现「侧走跟不动且 roll 误差继续变大」，那才是权限账 … 解法是提 hip_roll 的 kp 或降 vy 目标，不是硬训。”

• Add a single-point-suspension test to acceptance - the ground is a free stabilizer that hides divergencesuspension-probe-removes-free-stabilizer

  Mechanism understoodwalkgate-batterygate-batteryreal-acceptancesim2sim

  Include at least one acceptance condition that strips the environment's free stabilization (suspension, or equivalent) - the sim-passing policy that fails on hardware is often failing a condition the battery never posed.

  Symptom

  walk_v5 looked healthy in every on-ground sim test yet diverged on the real robot - the acceptance battery had never measured a condition that would have revealed it.

  Context

  The battery gained a single-point-suspension probe (robot hung, feet free): measure torso tilt while the policy runs without ground contact. v5 scored 45.9 deg mean tilt suspended - wildly unstable - which the file calls "最灵敏的失稳探针(拿掉地面这个免费稳定器)": ground reaction forces passively stabilize a marginal policy, so on-ground metrics saturate long before the policy's internal balance is actually sound. v6 halved it (23.0 deg, target <10 deg) - progress visible on a scale where on-ground numbers showed nothing.

  Change

  Suspended-tilt added as a standing acceptance row; run under the honest contact parameters battery (accept_v2 with measured condim 4 / torsional friction 0.035), under which v5 correctly FAILS in agreement with the real robot.

  Outcome

  The sim battery's verdict on v5 flipped from pass to fail, matching hardware; suspended tilt became the discriminating metric between v5 and v6 (45.9 vs 23.0 deg) when ground metrics differed little.

  Mechanism

  Contact with the ground closes a stabilizing feedback loop the policy gets for free; removing it exposes the policy's own attitude control authority. A metric measured only in the assisted condition cannot rank policies by the unassisted quantity that hardware will actually demand during perturbations and flight phases.

  Applies when

  • sim acceptance passes but hardware diverges
  • designing an acceptance battery for a legged robot
  • two candidates tie on ground metrics

  “单点吊那条是最灵敏的失稳探针(拿掉地面这个"免费稳定器"), v5 在地上一切正常却在真机发散, 就是因为验收从没测过这个工况。”

• Foot dragging is an attractor, not a low amplitude - and joint damping is the mode switch, adjustable at deploy timeswing-bistability-damping-switch

  Mechanism understoodomniattributionattributiondomain-randomizationactuator-modelingreal-acceptance

  When a quality metric is bimodal, stop treating it as an amplitude to be trained up: map the modes against initial conditions and plant parameters, find the parameter that switches basins, apply it first as a deployment lever, and only then bake it into the training distribution (as a plant-family shift, never as an execution-mapping change).

  Symptom

  s2e_pd-1400's swing height "median 12.1 mm" hid a perfect bimodal distribution: 20 seeds split into a drag mode (2.6-4.9 mm) and a step mode (19.3-24.0 mm) with NOT ONE seed in between - the median sat in the empty gap, and "swing debt -11 mm" really meant "50% probability of falling into the drag attractor".

  Context

  Two designed experiments closed the mechanism. Test A (nominal plant, 40 seeds): step 42% / drag 58% / middle 0 - at nominal gains, initial conditions alone pick the mode, both modes 100% survivable. Test B (fixed init, kp x kd grid): kd is the mode SWITCH - at kd 1.3 all surviving cells step (13-22 mm), at kd 0.7 nearly all drag (2.7-4.3), only at kd 1.0 does init get a vote; kp >= 1.2 is dangerous (5/6 falls). Global verification at kd x1.3 (20-seed, delay 2): survival 20/20 at ZERO cost, step share 42 -> 80%, swing median 12.1 -> 18.4 mm, slip record low 334, thicker tilt margin - costs: vx 85 -> 78%, saturation +5 pp. A Pareto sweep then priced the knob: step share 42/72/75/88/82/90 across kd 1.00-1.30 with a linear vx tax of -2.3 pp per 0.1 kd - the basin gain is fully collected at kd 1.20 ("1.30 是 over-damping 纯多付税"). Mechanism: low damping leaves a landing micro-oscillation / ground-slide channel the policy can exploit to drag; damping plugs the channel.

  Change

  Deployment lever adopted: kd-scale 1.20 (conservative 1.15) as the legitimate successor to the power-0.8 crutch ("前者削幅度保稳,后者堵 拖地通道换步态,且不牺牲存活"); training-side prescription: move the DR band to nominal-1.2 x (0.9,1.1) = [1.08,1.32], deleting the [0.7,1.0) drag-teaching zone - a contract-level change requiring digest re-baselining, gated on measuring the real robot's actual kd dispersion first.

  Outcome

  The kd surgery rung (s2e_kd) delivered basin 8 -> 11/20, slip 405 -> 331, vx 81 -> 85% with no out-of-band fragility (below-band check 20/20) - "拐杖烧进分布的正确姿势", explicitly contrasted with the failed s1g amplitude version: this one changes the plant family the policy has seen, that one changed the execution mapping the policy would have to relearn.

  Mechanism

  The gait's swing behavior is a bistable dynamical system whose basin boundaries are set by plant parameters; a policy trained across a kd band that includes the drag basin has learned to inhabit it. Shifting the deployed (and then trained) damping moves the system into the step basin without touching the policy - a plant-side fix for what looked like a training deficiency.

  Applies when

  • a gait quality metric splits into distinct modes across seeds
  • deciding between more training and a gain/damping change
  • converting a deployment crutch into a training-distribution change

  “20-seed 里拖地模式 2.6~4.9mm 与迈步模式 19.3~24.0mm 各半,中间一个不落 … kd 是模式开关——kd1.3 下 6/6 存活格全迈步 … kd0.7 下几乎全拖地 … swing 债的解(至少大半)在部署端阻尼档,不在训练端 … 机理:低阻尼下落脚微振荡/贴地滑给了策略顺势拖行的通道,加阻尼堵之。”

• A stronger action_rate penalty cut the median torque demand under the gate and left the p99 at 4x the limit - only a hinge on the pre-clip (computed) torque, weighted by comparison with a peer term, collapsed the tailtail-torque-needs-hinge-on-computed-demand

  Mechanism understoodrecoveryreward-shapingactuator-modelingreward-shapingmeasurement

  Judge actuator demand against the deployed limit, read the pre-clip demand (applied torque is censored and gives no gradient on the excess), use an L2 rate penalty for the median and a thresholded hinge on computed demand for the tail, and set a new term's weight from its measured steady magnitude next to a peer term rather than from a back-of-envelope estimate.

  Symptom

  After R0.5 hip_pitch delivered torque sat at its 12 N*m limit in a typical get-up (demand 119-125% of the limit, p99 4.2x) - zero control margin at exactly the moment modelling error matters.

  Context

  The 12/17/11 N*m limits are deployment limits written into robot.yaml by set_torque (RS06 at 33% of rated), and simulation uses the same effort_limit - so the gate is judged against them, not the 36 N*m rating (an early reading against the rating was retracted). Applied torque is clipped at the limit - censored data - so demand must be read from computed_torque. With the full-range action contract (hip_pitch scale 1.309, kp 30) a single-step action change of 0.306 already saturates hip_pitch, and action_rate penalizes exactly that change.

  Change

  R3.0: action_rate_l2 -0.01 -> -0.03 (child-run). R3.1: new torque_headroom = sum relu(|tau_computed|/limit - 0.9)^2, normalized so three motor types share a scale. Its weight was first estimated at -0.1, measured in a 12-iteration run at an effective -0.019 (12x smaller - the estimate had mixed a per-episode-peak p99 with a per-step p99, and at 1% of upright it would have been numerically absent), and set to -0.5 so its steady value (-0.095) matched action_rate's (-0.097).

  Outcome

  R3.0: sum |da|^2 -64%, success 99.6 -> 100%, delivered median = demand median (the clamp no longer fired in a typical episode), gate PASS at worst 79.9% - but p99 unchanged (hip_pitch 419-432% -> 427-436%). R3.1: p99 hip_pitch -> 148-189% (-57 to -65%), knee 422-439% -> 233-234%, saturation duty -60%, success 100%; the worst joint became hip_roll at 67.7%. Its cost appears in torque-penalty-bought-by-leg-bracing.

  Mechanism

  A squared-rate penalty presses the whole-episode sum and moves the typical step, not rare spikes; the spikes came from the kp term (large targets while a limb is blocked by the ground - velocity alone could not reach them under vel_limit), and a penalty on applied torque cannot see demand above the clip because every excess sample reads as exactly the limit.

  Applies when

  • torque demand saturates actuator limits in high-effort skills
  • a smoothness penalty improves medians but not peaks
  • a new reward term's weight is set by estimate alone

  “**必须用 `computed_torque` 而不是 `applied_torque`**:后者被 `effort_limit` 削平, 是删失数据,超限样本全被压成"恰好等于限",对超限部分梯度恒为 0。 … 改按同侪定标取 **−0.5**(稳态 ≈ −0.095,与 `action_rate_l2` 的 −0.097 等量)。”

• Three same-shaped judging errors - task metrics (survival, tracking, displacement) cannot stand in for posture metricstask-metrics-vs-posture-metrics

  Replicatedomnireal-acceptancereal-acceptancegate-batteryattribution

  Keep validated posture-class rows (tilt, per-joint L/R asymmetry, temperature) in every acceptance battery alongside task rows; when operator feel contradicts the gates, suspect the metric class before the operator - and never build a new skill on what is actually an asymmetry defect.

  Symptom

  The C2 product judged "full pass" on task metrics (A800: turn-gap 7 pp, vx+0.30 19/20) felt WORSE in the operator's hands than the half-pass 700: A800 tilted up to 12.90 deg (700: 6.64), drifted left while standing, showed larger per-joint asymmetries, and ran its hip_rolls 5 degC hotter.

  Context

  The re-judgment catalogued three same-type metric errors in one campaign: (1) stand judged by SURVIVAL - missed 0.5-1.4 m wandering; (2) stand ranked by DISPLACEMENT - ordering was opposite to real feel (tilt ordering matched); (3) chirality judged by wz-tracking GAP - measured turning symmetry while the robot's actual disease was postural left/right asymmetry, "两个不同的东西,且结论相反". Common pattern named: "我一直用「任务指标」当判据,而真机手感对应的是「姿态 指标」… 任务类指标不能替代它". The fix was already in the data: the per-joint left/right asymmetry table (printed identically by sim2sim and deploy) agreed with hardware in direction on every row - "判据可用、有预测力,我只是没把它写进 PASS 条件". Shipping decision followed the posture read: product reverted to 700 ("又一次「买到 精度、卖掉别的」"), and the C4 root moved to 700 as well, with the sharpest line of the episode: A800's left-drift "like sidewalking" is probably its frontal-plane asymmetry defect, not a capability - "在缺陷上建能力是危险的".

  Change

  Two posture quantities with demonstrated real-robot predictive power promoted into every PASS battery: tilt-max median and per-joint left/right asymmetry (both sim-computable, deploy-homologous); motor-temperature readout added to session close-out.

  Outcome

  Deployment flipped to the posture-better checkpoint; the hip_roll temperature table (43-48 degC vs 25-28) confirmed the earlier 90%-of-heat account; the run-line acceptance battery inherited the posture rows from birth ("任务类替代不了姿态类").

  Mechanism

  Task metrics measure goal attainment under the evaluator's episode definition; posture metrics measure the body state trajectory that operators, motors, and downstream skills actually experience. The two can rank candidates oppositely because task success tolerates postural pathology - so a battery without posture rows is blind to exactly what hardware feel reports first.

  Applies when

  • hardware feel disagrees with a green acceptance table
  • choosing between checkpoints that split task vs posture metrics
  • selecting the root for a skill that resembles an existing defect

  “共同模式:我一直用「任务指标」(存活 / 跟踪率 / 位移)当判据,而真机手感对应的是「姿态指标」(倾角、逐关节左右不对称)。→ 验收判据里必须有姿态类指标,任务类指标不能替代它。… A800 的「左飘像 side walk」很可能 … 是它更大的额平面不对称的表现 —— 在缺陷上建能力是危险的。”

• Fix the task first, harden the plant second - DR budget spent on a dying task is wastedtask-shaping-before-plant-hardening

  Mechanism understoodomniprocessdomain-randomizationprocesscurriculum

  Freeze the task/command distribution before spending DR budget on plant robustness; if the task will still change, schedule plant hardening as a final pass and book the interim robustness gap explicitly.

  Symptom

  Tempting default ordering was to keep the plant-hardened (S2) lineage and teach it new commands; but the S2 plant adaptation had been earned on the straight-walk task, and the new omni tasks (sidewalk, in-place turn) use completely different contact patterns.

  Context

  The team had direct evidence that DR robustness is a budget that gets reallocated when the data distribution changes ("push/μ 两轮已实证 DR 预算有限且会被重分配") - robustness trained under one task/command distribution does not persist when training continues under another.

  Change

  Ladder order set to: first C (task shaping - add command modes until the task family is final), then a second S2 pass (plant hardening) on the C product. The plant-robustness gap this creates mid-ladder is accepted and booked explicitly ("此处不欠账" - the debt is assigned to the second S2 pass, not denied).

  Outcome

  The first S2 pass was not wasted: its laws (kd bandwidth <-> low mu, push need not be trained, ground mu need not be trained, bistability) let the second pass drop from five rungs to three. The C ladder itself ran on the softer plant band without incident.

  Mechanism

  DR robustness is carried by the policy's visited-state distribution; changing the task changes that distribution, so robustness bought under the old task partially dissolves. Hardening before the task is final means paying for robustness on states that will no longer be visited - "给一个即将不存在的任务花预算" (spending budget on a soon-to-not-exist task).

  Applies when

  • deciding ordering between skill/command expansion and DR hardening
  • a hardened lineage is proposed as the root for a task change
  • robustness regressions appear after adding new command modes

  “S2 的 plant 适应是为直行步态调的，C4 侧走/C3 原地转是完全不同的接触模式，先硬化再改任务 = 给一个即将不存在的任务花预算（push/μ 两轮已实证 DR 预算有限且会被重分配）。故顺序改为 先 C（任务定型）→ 再 S2（plant 硬化）。”

• Teleop fed the sidewalk axis a command beyond its training band - feet clipped; give each axis its own speed settingteleop-command-band-per-axis

  Mechanism understoodomnireal-deployreal-acceptancehardwareattribution

  Give every command axis its own teleop scale, clamped to that axis's training band, and reproduce any hardware incident in sim with the exact deployed command values before touching training.

  Symptom

  Robot stepped on its own foot when sidewalking left under teleop - and only when going left.

  Context

  The teleop tool used one speed setting for all axes: --teleop-speed 0.20 applied to A/D sent cmd_vy = 0.20, above the training band's top (0.08-0.18) where foot-spacing margin is thinnest. Sim reproduction of the incident (product policy, pw0.8, 5 seeds x 20 s, true collision threshold = single foot width 104 mm): at vy 0.20 the minimum foot distance was 111-115 mm - 7-11 mm from self-collision - vs 147 mm at vy 0.10. Left was 4x more dangerous than right (25% vs 6% of time inside the 160 mm soft wall at vy 0.10), matching the left-only symptom; the margin did not degrade over time (pressing more just lengthened exposure).

  Change

  deploy_policy gained --teleop-side (default 0.10), separating the lateral speed from the forward speed so each axis's teleop command sits inside its own trained band.

  Outcome

  Command now inside the band with 43 mm margin at default; the incident became a quantified, reproduced, closed account rather than a mystery.

  Mechanism

  The policy's competence envelope is the training command distribution per axis; teleop mappings that share one scalar across axes silently command out-of-band inputs on the weakest axis. Asymmetric risk (left vs right) came from the policy's own chirality bias, so a symmetric command produced an asymmetric hazard.

  Applies when

  • wiring a joystick/teleop layer over a learned policy
  • a hardware incident occurs on one command direction only
  • training bands differ across command axes

  “A/D 一直与 W/S 共用速度档，所以按 A 下发的是 vy = 0.20 —— 既超训练带（0.08~0.18）上沿 … 0.20（遥控实际值）| 111~115 mm | 7~11 mm … 且左比右危险 4 倍 … 处置：deploy_policy 新增 --teleop-side（默认 0.10），侧移与前进档分开。”

• Add a termination that makes the degenerate strategy fatal - no height cut-off meant crouch-shuffling could live forevertermination-closes-degenerate-basin

  Observed oncewalkreward-shapingterminationreward-shaping

  For each known degenerate strategy, check whether the termination set makes it fatal; if the robot can live indefinitely inside the degenerate posture, add a termination just past the intended operating envelope rather than escalating penalties.

  Symptom

  Crouched foot-dragging survived indefinitely because the termination set contained only bad_orientation (40 deg) and base contact - there was no height termination at all, so a deep squat was a viable long-term strategy.

  Context

  The hypothesis audit found the missing termination (hypothesis 7); the cross-check against published configs found the field practice: Booster terminates at 0.45 m (38% of body height) and the research warning is that the termination height must not be so low that crouching survives it. The proposed value: 0.32 m, just below the walk crouch base height 0.3739 - a deep squat terminates immediately, "断掉蹲着蹭的活路" (cutting off the crouch-shuffle's livelihood).

  Change

  Add height termination at 0.32 m as a second-priority item of the walk fix package, alongside restoring base_height_l2 to -10.

  Outcome

  Entered the v5/v6 fix package under which the crouch-shuffle optimum disappeared (34 mm clearance, 87% tracking by v6).

  Mechanism

  Termination conditions define which strategies exist at all: a reward penalty prices a behavior, but a termination deletes its future returns entirely. Degenerate basins that are merely penalized can remain optimal under enough tracking pressure; a termination placed between the degenerate posture and the intended one makes the basin unreachable as a steady state.

  Applies when

  • a degenerate but stable behavior persists across reward tunings
  • auditing termination conditions for a locomotion task
  • a policy exploits the gap between penalized and terminated states

  “加终止高度:研究第 6 条"终止高度不能低到让蹲着也能活"。我们完全没有高度终止。建议 0.32 m(略低于 walk 蹲姿基座高 0.3739,深蹲即终止)。… 加终止高度 0.32 m(深蹲即终止,断掉蹲着蹭的活路)”

• The run policy never left the ground and fell in the second simulator from the frontal plane - its DR (gains and latency only) covered the actuator axis, not the frontal-plane contact and inertia disturbances the doubled stride amplified; "is DR on" is the wrong questionthin-dr-judged-by-channel-coverage

  Replicatedrundr-tuningdomain-randomizationsim2simattribution

  Judge a DR recipe by whether its randomized terms cover the channel where the skill can lose stability, not by whether DR is enabled; when a new skill lengthens single support or enlarges motion in one plane, add disturbances in the plane it destabilizes before training.

  Symptom

  run R1 (6,000 iterations, 78 min): no flight phase ever appeared, and every one of 13 checkpoints failed the eight-gate MuJoCo smoke. In Isaac: zero terminations in 6,000 iterations, 4.2 deg tilt. In MuJoCo at delay 2: 1/6 survived, falls within 1.9-6.2 s at 50.8-58.7 deg, the most saturated joints all roll joints.

  Context

  The run contract doubled sagittal travel (knee action scale 0.9, knee swing peak 1.14 rad) with a 0.60 s period and 0.40 duty - long single support - while roll/yaw scales were deliberately left at 0.5. DR copied the s1e recipe: kp/kd (0.9, 1.1) and latency on; mass, COM, joint friction and push all off; ground friction pinned at (1.0, 1.0). Flight was read two independent ways: Isaac's per-foot contact reward stayed 0.845-0.857, never above 0.87 - the arithmetic ceiling of a gait with zero flight - and 30 of 36 MuJoCo seeds had flight fraction exactly 0 (the nonzero six were all tumbling falls). Foot lift itself worked (46-59 mm against a 50 mm design point): the walk-era "not enough travel" failure did not recur.

  Change

  Verdict FAIL, with the pre-registered first knob (exploration noise 1.0 -> 1.2) explicitly rejected as aimed at a different axis. The lesson was generalized and applied at the next line's design review: the one-leg spec made push, body mass, base COM and friction DR mandatory for its permanent single support and banned the thin recipe.

  Outcome

  The run line did not continue past R1 in the sources. The one-leg V0 with the wider DR passed its friction-variant gate (mu 0.4 and 1.2) inside a 40/40 acceptance.

  Mechanism

  Randomizing gains and latency covers the actuator's axis; a skill whose failure lives in frontal-plane contact and inertia needs randomization on that channel (push, mass, COM, friction), or the trainer's exact plant becomes the only one the policy can stand on - the omni_s1 transfer trap a second time, this time with DR switched on.

  Applies when

  • a policy is flawless in the trainer and falls immediately in a second simulator
  • reusing a DR recipe from a skill with a different support pattern
  • failures concentrate on one axis (roll, yaw) the DR does not touch

  “**机理**: 矢状面行程翻倍 (膝摆动峰 1.14 rad) + T 0.60 + duty 0.40 的长单支撑, 把额状面扰动放大了一个量级; 而 roll/yaw 通道按 §3 **刻意没有放大** (仍 0.5), DR 又是 s1e 复刻的薄配方 (mass/COM/关节摩擦/push **四关全关**, 地面摩擦钉死 (1.0, 1.0))。 … 说明**薄 DR 的判据不能只看"有没有开 DR"**, 要看**开的那几项 是否覆盖失稳所在的通道** —— kp/kd 与延迟是执行器轴向的, 对额状面接触/惯性 扰动零覆盖。 … 0.87 正是「零腾空的走路步态」的天花板算术”

• A time gate that had cured one lineage's rushing made the from-scratch lineage trade away its stance width twice (0.364 -> 0.235 m, 0.355 -> 0.251 m) - its disease was absent there, so the fix was retired and the pre-gate checkpoint shippedtime-gate-vs-wide-stance-retire-the-fix

  Replicatedrecoveryreward-shapingreward-shapingcurriculumfork-selection

  Carry a fix into a new lineage only if its disease is present there; a mechanism that cured one lineage can be net negative in another, and when doubling a term's weight recovers almost nothing, treat the two objectives as structurally in conflict and remove the one whose purpose is gone.

  Symptom

  V3.1's phase 2 (the 3 s zero gate on standing income, continued from P1b) kept 100% success on every friction level and slowed the get-up, but the lateral stance drifted 0.364 -> 0.235 m and hip yaw crept to 57 deg against its 60 deg limit. With the width band's weight doubled (P2c, after P1c) it drifted again, 0.355 -> 0.251 m, below the pre-registered 0.30 m failure line.

  Context

  The zero gate had been introduced in V2.5/V2.5b to slow the old lineage's get-up. In V3.1 the rushing was already absent: P1c got up in 0.90-1.06 s with a worst torque ratio of 73.3%, better than the stamped v2_6c, because the full beta curriculum, second-difference smoothing and pull curriculum had cured the violence inside training.

  Change

  Recorded as a candidate law with two data points - the zero gate and a wide stance are mutually exclusive here - and the zero gate was removed from the V3.1 recipe. P1c (the pre-gate checkpoint) went through the full stamp-level acceptance instead.

  Outcome

  P1c passed everything: all six criteria, lateral stance 0.355 m, foot tilt P75 2.0 deg, mu {1.0, 0.8, 0.6, 0.4} x 10 seeds all 100%. recovery_v3_1p1c.onnx was stamped and pushed to the robot channel.

  Mechanism

  The zero gate moves the income toward "stay stable until the end", and under low-friction DR a wide stance has a slip tail, so survival outbids the width band; doubling the band's price bought back only 0.016 m - an auction that does not converge signals structural conflict, not an under-priced term.

  Applies when

  • porting reward mechanisms from an old lineage into a fresh recipe
  • a width, margin or posture metric erodes during a late training phase
  • a weight increase produces a negligible change in its target

  “**定律候选(二实证):归零门 × 宽站互斥**。 … 加价翻倍只挽回 0.016,竞拍不收敛)。 … **归零门是 v2_5 血统的历史包袱,对 V3.1 配方是净负资产,P2 阶段除名 —— P1c 即终点形态**。”

• Two simulators disagreed 1.8x on one policy's torque demand - four explanations were eliminated with numbers, the surviving suspect was never tested, and neither reading was allowed to cancel the othertorque-disagreement-between-simulators-unresolved

  Hypothesisrecoverysim2sim-gatesim2simactuator-modelingattribution

  When two simulators disagree on a safety-relevant quantity, eliminate the measurement explanations one at a time with numbers, name the survivor as a hypothesis, keep the pessimistic reading binding, and run the direct test (replay one action sequence open-loop through both plants) before the quantity is used to pass a gate for hardware.

  Symptom

  For R3.0, Isaac read hip_pitch torque demand at 75-80% of the limit (PASS); MuJoCo read the same policy at 148-152% (1.5x over the limit).

  Context

  Candidates were eliminated one by one: PD gains (identical, RS06 kp 30 / kd 1.5), the settle window (both skip the first 0.5 s), the statistic (worse-of-two-legs vs per-joint - explains ~15%), self-collision (the no-contact subset still read 152%), sampling (500 Hz peak vs 50 Hz sample - ~9%). About 1.8x remained. The prime suspect - Isaac's implicit actuator (PD solved inside the PhysX integration, chosen to mimic kHz firmware PD) against MuJoCo's 500 Hz explicit PD - was named but untested.

  Change

  The Isaac PASS was recorded as valid for the Isaac plant only; the prescribed decider was an open-loop replay of one action sequence through both plants, compared step by step, needing no training. It was upgraded to a precondition of R3.1.

  Outcome

  R3.1 ran in parallel with, not after, the replay, and the replay never appears as done. By §40 it was "the oldest open account" on the line, to be fed by real-robot logs - which the spec also never records. Meanwhile the 50 Hz sample under-read the peak by 34% as smoothing narrowed the spikes, so Isaac-side readings grew more optimistic exactly when the comparison mattered more.

  Mechanism

  Each measurement artifact explained a slice of the gap; what remained is a plant difference, and an untested plant hypothesis cannot license discarding the pessimistic simulator on a safety-relevant quantity.

  Conflicts

  The spec prescribes the open-loop replay (§23), upgrades it to an R3.1 precondition, then records that R3.1 ran in parallel without it (§24), and lists it as the oldest open account before hardware (§40); nothing through §50 (2026-08-14) records a result. Every later "torque gate PASS" on this line is an Isaac-plant reading plus a MuJoCo check, never a reconciled one.

  Applies when

  • Isaac and MuJoCo (or sim and hardware) report different torques, contacts or slips
  • implicit vs explicit actuator models are in play
  • a gate passes on one simulator only

  “**同一个策略,一侧判 PASS 一侧判超限 1.5 倍。** … 口径项全部扣掉后仍剩 **~1.8×** 没有解释。 … 但**这条没有验证,不能拿它当结论去抵消 MuJoCo 的读数**。 … (做法:拿同一条 动作序列在两边开环回放,逐拍比 τ —— 不需要重训)”

• Set torque limits per joint from measured gait peaks - a uniform percentage is the wrong shape, and training must use the deployed numberstorque-limit-shape-by-measured-peaks

  Mechanism understoodwalkactuator-modelingactuator-modelinghardwareplant-calibration

  Measure per-joint torque peaks in the actual gait and set each limit as measured-peak x margin capped at rating; then propagate the same numbers into training and add an automated deploy-time consistency check - never derate by a uniform percentage, never let training assume torque deployment will not grant.

  Symptom

  A uniform 50% torque derating (18/8.5/7) had piled safety margin on the joints that never use it while cutting the busiest joint below half its measured demand.

  Context

  Per-joint gait peaks were measured (walk_v5 at cmd 0.3/0.6): RS06 (hip_pitch/knee) uses 5.5-5.9 N*m = 15-16% of its 36 N*m rating - cutting it to 12 is a free safety win; RS02's ankle_pitch runs at 16.2 N*m = 95% of its 17 N*m rating - "它是速度的硬件瓶颈", no room to cut; RS00 measured 36-44%, capped at 11. The resulting shape 12/17/11 replaced the uniform percentage. Sweeps across several limit sets (rated / 50% / 14-17-11 / 12-17-11) produced identical speed, lift, and landing force - within this range the limits do not shape the gait; what matters is consistency: "关键是训练和硬件必须是同一个数", because the exporter fills effort_limit from tau_limit, and a policy trained at rated 36/17/14 "会假设有三倍力矩可用" while deployed at 12/17/11 (exactly the v5 cross-generation inconsistency later suspected in its wild kicking).

  Change

  robot.yaml tau_limit set to the measured-shape 12/17/11, firmware written to match, and train/isaac_values.py regenerated so training sees the same limits; the deploy tool self-checks limits against robot.yaml on every run.

  Outcome

  Free safety margin captured where demand is low, the real bottleneck joint left at rating, and the train/deploy torque worlds unified with an automated consistency check.

  Mechanism

  Torque demand is grossly unequal across joints in a gait (15% vs 95% of rating here); a uniform percentage misallocates the safety budget by construction. And since the trainer treats effort_limit as a plant truth, any train/deploy mismatch is an invisible plant gap of exactly the mismatch ratio.

  Applies when

  • choosing safety torque limits for a legged platform
  • training-vs-deployment actuator limit audit
  • one joint runs near rating while others idle

  “曾用统一 50%(18/8.5/7)是错的形状: 把余量堆在用不到的 RS06 上, 却把 ankle_pitch 砍到需求的 52%。… RS02 在 0.6 m/s 已用到额定 95%, 它是速度的硬件瓶颈 … 实测多组限幅 … 完全一致 —— 限幅在这个范围对步态零影响, 关键是训练和硬件必须是同一个数。… 若训练仍按额定 36/17/14, 学出的策略会假设有三倍力矩可用。”

Next page