Training Coach
Doctrine
A report may cite any of these as doctrine-N.
doctrine-1Contract freeze and fingerprint disciplineThe 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.
doctrine-2Attribution by resolved training params - never eval-override knobsCapability 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.
doctrine-3PASS gates become constraints; FAIL gates become objectivesOnce 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".
doctrine-4One variable per ladder rung - counted against what the checkpoint sawA 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.
doctrine-5Pre-register risks, readings, and stop criteria before the ladderBefore 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.
doctrine-6Plant parameters are measured, never inventedEvery 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.
doctrine-7Sim2sim gate before sim2real - under deployment conditionsEvery 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.
doctrine-8Observation honesty - the actor's inputs are a hardware contractThe 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.
doctrine-9Reward economics are audited in realized currencyReward 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.
doctrine-10The zero-cost option must be the desired behaviorFor 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.
doctrine-11Measurement discipline: independent referees, signs, distributionsA 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.
doctrine-12The deployment pipeline is plantIrreducible 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.
doctrine-13DR budget is finite; its distribution is the measured supportRobustness 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.
doctrine-14Gates measure what hardware feels: posture, margins, stripped assistsAcceptance 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.
doctrine-15Fork and root selection: recoverability, maturity, frozen rewardsChoose 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.
doctrine-16Curricula: verified engagement, lineage counters, disease-phase gatingAutomatic 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.
doctrine-17Probe before training: feasibility first, hypotheses in tablesAfter 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`).
doctrine-18External advice is recomputed locally; values transfer as ratiosEvery 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.
doctrine-19Hardware sessions are scripted experiments, not tuning sessionsReal-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.
doctrine-20Close questions in writing; restart when the debt is structuralAudited 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.
doctrine-21Name the quantity in the space it lives inA 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.
doctrine-22Continuation needs a live gradient; a release is chosen by a scanContinue 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.
Experience cards
165 cards matching “bucket-share-is-not-a-gradient-lever”.
Guessed joint friction was 2.5x low and damping 5x high - measure, then DR around nominal
friction-measured-not-guessedMeasure frictionloss and damping separately (they need different rigs), put the measured value at DR center, and express DR as an additive band around that nominal - a DR range around a guessed value can exclude the real robot entirely.
Symptom
Old MJCF friction values were invented, not measured; when finally measured, every guessed value was wrong by a large factor in some direction.
Context
Joint friction split into Coulomb (frictionloss, tau_c) and viscous (damping b). Measured with the robot hung from a crane (吊机测) while armature was measured no-load; the two measurements are deliberately separated. Old MJCF: frictionloss 0.05, damping 0.1, DR joint_friction range [0, 0.1] "凭空拍的" (made up out of thin air).
Change
Replace guessed values with measured ones - frictionloss: RS06 0.15 / RS02 0.12 / RS00 0.13 N*m (old 0.05, i.e. 2.5x too low); damping: 0.02 N*m*s/rad on all three motor types (old 0.1, i.e. 5x too high). DR reshaped from an absolute made-up range [0, 0.1] to an additive band around measured nominal: joint_friction_add [-0.05, +0.10].
Outcome
"摩擦定稿(与 armature 一起, plant 参数第一次全部来自实测)" - friction frozen as part of the first fully-measured plant; DR now brackets a measured truth instead of spanning an invented interval.
Mechanism
Coulomb friction and viscous damping have opposite behavioral signatures (constant-torque threshold vs velocity-proportional drag); guessing both wrong in opposite directions gives a plant that is simultaneously too easy to start moving and too hard to move fast. DR centered on a wrong nominal makes the policy robust to a family of plants that does not contain the real one.
Applies when
- plant friction/damping values have no measurement provenance
- DR ranges are absolute intervals rather than bands around a nominal
- policy is over- or under-damped on hardware relative to sim
“测关节摩擦。吊机测，而armature应该空机测试。… frictionloss τ_c (N·m) │ 0.15 │ 0.12 │ 0.13 │ 0.05(低 2.5×) … damping b (N·m·s/rad) │ 0.02 │ 0.02 │ 0.02 │ 0.1(高 5×) … DR │ joint_friction_add: [−0.05, +0.10] 叠标称 │ 旧 [0, 0.1] 凭空拍的”
Experience.md § 摩擦定稿表 (lines 12-25) Every new penalty ships with a pre-registered withdrawal clause - if healthy gait must pay above the cap, the term stands down
calibration-threshold-with-withdrawal-clauseIntroduce every new penalty with: the zero-cost-option audit, a replay-calibrated weight formula (healthy pays a fixed small fraction of tracking), and a pre-registered withdrawal condition - and let the clause fire without argument when the calibration says the term cannot be afforded.
Symptom
Three same-shaped crashes had established a failure archetype: v4's clearance, v8a's landing window (weight off by 58x uncalibrated), and v6a's bare hip_yaw suppression all combined a zero-cost "don't move" option with a fee on any motion - a reverse barrier that pushes policies toward standing still.
Context
The v11 landing-window penalty was therefore introduced under a calibration-threshold protocol: (1) shape chosen with the window tightened (h_gate 0.03 -> 0.02, because 0.03 equaled the clearance target and priced the entire descent); (2) weight from a FORMULA, not judgment: measure the term's raw value on healthy replays (v5/v10b), set w = -(0.10-0.15 x tracking reward) / raw_healthy; (3) withdrawal clause pre-registered: if healthy gait must pay >15% of tracking no matter the tuning, the term is withdrawn to the next version rather than forced in - "不硬上". The companion hip_yaw quieting term ran the same protocol (calibrate on replays, healthy pays <=5%) and was later retired entirely when a structural fix (zero action scale) made its shaping tax unnecessary.
Change
Penalty introduction protocol: shape audit (what is the zero-cost option?), replay-based weight formula, healthy-pay cap with a written stand-down condition - all before training.
Outcome
The landing term was in fact withdrawn under its clause (v12 records "P5 落地窗口罚 已撤 … 维持撤下"), demonstrating the protocol firing as designed instead of the fourth same-type crash.
Mechanism
A penalty's damage mode is mispricing healthy behavior; since the healthy price is measurable in advance on replays, both the weight and the go/no-go decision can be computed rather than discovered by a ruined training run. The withdrawal clause converts "make it work" pressure into a clean deferral.
Applies when
- adding any motion-taxing penalty to a working gait
- a proposed term's weight has no measurement behind it
- a previous same-shaped term crashed training
“权重公式而非拍脑袋:先在 v5/v10b 回放上量 h_gate=0.02 的原始值,w = −(0.10~0.15 × 跟踪奖励) / raw_健康;标定门槛:若健康步态无论如何要付 >15% 跟踪,本项撤下留 v12,不硬上 (v4 clearance/v8a-B/v6a 三次同型翻车的教训:代价为零的"不动"选项 + 一动就收费 = 反向壁垒)。”
train/WALK_V11_SPEC.md § 6. P5 —— 落地窗口罚(三代欠账,标定门槛制) Training at scale 0.4 is NOT the twin of deploying 0.5 at power 0.8 - the algebra matches, the learned policy does not
deploy-scaling-not-training-equivalentNever assume deploy-side scalings can be folded into training-time constants ("burning the crutch into training"): the learned optimum depends on the training-time authority, so treat such conversions as full experiments with pre-registered expectations and a sim2sim gate before any hardware.
Symptom
s1g (S1.6) trained from zero at action_scale 0.4 - meant as the "training twin" of the hardware-proven s1c-at-power-0.8 (0.8 x 0.5 = 0.4) - was all green in Isaac (zero falls, reward 117) yet scored 0/3 across all eight checkpoints and 0/20 at 20 seeds in the MuJoCo gate, falling forward at median 1.57 s with a 2.9x speed overshoot.
Context
The pre-registered expectation (survival gate should pass, since the conviction matrix showed s1c@0.8+delay2 all-survive) was cleanly falsified, and the harness was acquitted by controls: --delay 0 fell identically (not a delay fragility), check_contract all green, and s1c through the same harness survived 2/3. The verdict: "「s1c@0.8 = 0.4 训练孪生」的代数等价不成立" - a policy deployed with a derated output still LIVES in the 0.5 internal model it trained under (its value function, its expectations of its own authority), while a policy that starts training with reduced authority learns a different, clip-hugging gait with zero margin for plant differences ("部署端打折的策略活在 0.5 的内模里,训练起点收权限学出的是贴 clip 的 另一套步态,对 plant 差异零余量"). Result: the policy was withdrawn before hardware ("撤回——不上真机"), the lineage root moved back to the 0.5-contract s1c-5500, and this became the C ladder's cited fact-check ("s1g 是 0/20 证伪出局的那一代").
Change
The amplitude-surgery route abandoned; contract kept at scale 0.5; the deploy-side 0.8 crutch later retired on its own merits when the delay-complete s1e generation ran at full power.
Outcome
One training run bought a clean falsification of a plausible algebraic identity; no hardware time was spent on it because the sim2sim gate caught it.
Mechanism
Output scaling commutes with the network arithmetic but not with learning: the training-time scale shapes which gait solutions are reachable and how much clip headroom the optimum keeps. A derated mature policy retains the wide-authority solution executed softly; a from-zero narrow-authority policy finds a different optimum that saturates its smaller envelope - the two are not the same controller in different units.
Applies when
- proposing to move a deployment derating into a training constant
- a scaled-down contract policy hugs the action clip
- Isaac-green / cross-sim-zero results on a re-scaled lineage
“预注册 a) 证伪——Isaac 全绿(零摔/reward 117)但 MuJoCo --delay 2 八档 checkpoint 扫描全数 0/3、iter6500 20-seed 0/20 … 「s1c@0.8 = 0.4 训练孪生」的代数等价不成立: 部署端打折的策略活在 0.5 的内模里,训练起点收权限学出的是贴 clip 的另一套步态,对 plant 差异零余量。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 3. S1.6 判决(2026-08-07 验收) Verify changes in the run's resolved config (and checkpoint md5), never in the source you edited
resolved-config-is-source-of-truthAttribution 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。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3d. ⚠️ 开训前先验落盘 cfg / 3l. 回退清单（验证） Before resuming a checkpoint, diff the current cfg against what the checkpoint was trained with
resume-state-dr-audit"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」。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3b. 这不是重复实验 —— 前两次的病根已定位并修掉 A 2-degree joint-zero calibration fix moved the whole runnable envelope - re-test old "cannot run" verdicts after recalibration
zero-offset-calibration-shifts-envelopeDate every hardware verdict with the calibration state; after any zero/mount recalibration, re-test previously condemned policy-power combinations and previously "unexplainable" posture offsets before attributing either to training or model.
Symptom
s1d was on record as "only runs at power 0.7" (kicked wildly at 0.8); after a calibration pass, the same policy ran 12 s at 0.8 with no kicking at all.
Context
The calibration had fixed a 2.08 deg zero offset on r_hip_roll - exactly the constant error source on the dominant joint of the kicking oscillation loop ("恰是乱踢振荡环主导关节的常值误差源"). The three-generation post-calibration hardware sweep also closed a second case: the robot's mysterious "backward lean" disappeared after calibration, and the sim-real posture difference collapsed from opposite-sign 5+ deg to same-sign ~2 deg ("后仰案实质了结") - the lean had been a sensing/zero artifact, not a mass-model error. Booked consequence: if the s1d recovery re-verifies, "真机可跑档整体 上移" - every policy's runnable power envelope shifts up, and downstream lineages' hardware expectations get revised.
Change
Joint-zero and mount calibration promoted from setup chore to a variable that dates hardware verdicts: verdicts about which power/scale levels a policy can run are conditioned on the calibration state they were measured under.
Outcome
One policy rehabilitated at a higher power level; one standing sim-real posture discrepancy closed without touching model or training; a pending re-verification booked rather than asserted.
Mechanism
A constant joint-zero error acts as a persistent disturbance injected at the feedback loop's most-loaded joint; near an oscillation threshold, removing a 2-degree bias is the difference between a stable and an unstable loop. Since the error is additive and machine-side, it shifts every policy's stability envelope simultaneously - which is why verdicts must carry their calibration date.
Conflicts
The s1d rehabilitation awaited one confirming re-run at the time of writing ("待复核一跑坐实") - the offset-as-cause reading is the head suspect, not a closed verdict.
Applies when
- a policy oscillates at a power level others tolerate
- sim and real disagree on a constant posture offset
- deciding whether to re-test old hardware verdicts after maintenance/calibration
“发现①:s1d@0.8 能跑了(旧账「只有 0.7 能跑」)——12s 无乱踢。头号嫌疑 = 标定修正:r_hip_roll offset 修 2.08°,恰是乱踢振荡环主导关节的常值误差源。… 发现②:「后仰」标定后消失 … sim-real 姿态差从反号 5°+ 收敛到同号 2°,后仰案实质了结。”
train/README.md § 真机 @0.8 三代横评(2026-08-07 标定后) Close a question with an audit, then freeze the wording - later symptoms may not reopen it without new hard evidence
frozen-verdicts-semantic-boundariesWhen an audit closes a hardware-vs-policy question, record the closing evidence, freeze a citable wording for future recurrences, and set the reopening bar explicitly; separate robustness perturbations from plant-truth questions so a DR rung's failure can never silently reopen a closed measurement.
Symptom
Recurring directional bias on the robot kept re-suggesting "maybe the hardware/COM/mechanics are asymmetric", threatening to re-litigate questions that audits had already closed - burning attention each time a descendant policy leaned or drifted.
Context
Two boundary decisions were written as permanent: (1) semantic separation - "S2④ COM ±20mm = 纯鲁棒性扰动,不再承担「解释真机后仰」任务" - if the COM-DR rung degrades, the ONLY allowed conclusion is "policy insufficiently robust to COM uncertainty"; reopening "is the CAD COM wrong" is forbidden because the mass audit was completed and closed (@63f9212). (2) a frozen wording for chirality, to be quoted verbatim whenever left/right bias appears in later rungs: observed directional bias = policy-level spontaneous symmetry breaking; plant asymmetry = no supporting evidence after the mass + model symmetry audit; mitigation candidate pi_sym queued, not blocking. The evidential basis was quantitative: the root policy was perfectly symmetric under +/-6 N*s pushes (40/40) while descendants broke (17/40, 13/40) - "手性是 S2 训练中获得的, 根没有; 机械侧已双 PASS 关案, 不重开".
Change
Closed questions carry (a) the audit commit that closed them, (b) a frozen citable wording for recurrences, and (c) an explicit evidence bar for reopening ("无新硬证据不得重开").
Outcome
Later chirality observations (C2's 15 pp turn gap, hip_roll drift bias) were handled as policy-lineage properties with policy-side mitigations, without a single hardware re-audit cycle.
Mechanism
Symptom classes recur under different guises; without a frozen verdict each recurrence re-runs the same expensive investigation and risks a different (worse-informed) conclusion. Freezing verdict plus wording converts recurring symptoms into citations, while the evidence bar keeps the closure honest rather than dogmatic - the root/descendant symmetry comparison is what makes "it's the training, not the machine" checkable at any time.
Applies when
- a recurring symptom keeps suggesting an already-audited hardware cause
- writing conclusions for a completed calibration/audit
- a DR rung's degradation invites re-measuring the plant
“若 S2④ 退化,结论只能是「当前 policy 对 COM 不确定性不够鲁棒」,不得重开「CAD COM 是不是错了」… 手性冻结表述 … Plant asymmetry: no supporting evidence after mass + model symmetry audit … 无新硬证据不得重开机械不对称”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 4. 语义分界与手性冻结表述(2026-08-07 用户定,永久) 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 time
staged-hang-mat-floor-for-get-upStage 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”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §40 吊挂执行单(真机首试;需用户在场,逐项打勾) Model CAN polling skew - joint observations are 6-9 ms stale by read order
can-timing-skew-modelingIf joints are read sequentially over a shared bus, reproduce the per-group observation staleness in sim (or randomize it over the measured range) - synchronous observations are a privileged fiction.
Symptom
Policies trained with synchronous joint observations degrade on hardware where motors are polled sequentially over CAN - hip data is already 6-9 ms old by the time ankle data arrives.
Context
Menlo's core sim2real finding on a leg platform of almost identical mass to Lucen's. CAN is a sequential bus: one poll cycle reads motors in a fixed order, so the observation vector mixes timestamps. Lucen runs 6:6 motors on a dual CAN split, so the problem transfers one-to-one.
Change
Explicitly model CAN timing skew in sim: give the joint groups different observation delays matching physical read order. Menlo went further - running real firmware in the loop with a motor simulator between MuJoCo and firmware injecting 0.4-2 ms uniformly distributed delay.
Outcome
Reported by the reference team as their core sim2real enabler on a same-scale platform; recorded in Lucen's experience log as directly applicable ("这个问题一模一样").
Mechanism
A policy exploits any cross-joint temporal coherence present in training observations; when hardware breaks that coherence per bus position, the learned feedback acts on inconsistent state estimates, injecting phase error exactly at the control bandwidth.
Conflicts
Second-hand episode: outcome numbers are the reference team's report, not a Lucen-run experiment; Lucen adopted the requirement but the corpus has no Lucen A/B of skew-on vs skew-off.
Applies when
- robot polls actuators sequentially over CAN/RS485 or similar shared bus
- sim2real degradation appears as jitter or oscillation not seen in sim
- designing the observation/delay model before a training run
“电机走 CAN 是顺序轮询的，髋部电机的数据到踝部电机上报时已经陈旧了 6-9 ms，他们直接在仿真里显式建模了 CAN 时序偏斜，按读取顺序给三组关节不同的观测延迟。… 注入 0.4–2 ms 的均匀分布延迟。你们是 6:6 双 CAN 分总线，这个问题一模一样”
Experience.md § 执行器 + 时序建模 (line 6) Run acceptance under measured contact parameters - honest condim/torsional-friction flipped a false PASS into a real-matching FAIL
eval-plant-honesty-contact-paramsPin the evaluation plant's contact model to measured values (contact dimension, torsional/rolling friction, mu) before trusting any gate that involves slip, impact, or drift - a gate can only fail a policy for physics its simulator contains.
Symptom
walk_v5 passed the old acceptance battery yet failed on the real robot (footfall force, drift, kicking) - the evaluation plant was flattering the policy.
Context
The battery was re-run under "honest contact parameters" - condim 4 (adding torsional contact) with measured torsional friction 0.035 - and v5 then FAILED exactly the rows corresponding to its real problems: heading 185 deg (limit 30), support-foot yaw slip 284 deg (limit 80), landing force 1.72x (limit 1.5x), suspended tilt 45.9 deg (limit 10). The slip physics depends on torsional friction, which the default contact model (condim 3) does not even simulate - a slip problem is invisible to an evaluator that cannot represent yaw friction at the foot. Term-sizing measurements for the new rewards were likewise taken under the same honest parameters (cmd 0.45, skipping the 5 s start transient).
Change
Acceptance harness pinned to condim 4 / torsion 0.035 (measured); verdicts issued under defaults declared non-citable for these rows.
Outcome
Sim acceptance verdicts began agreeing with hardware ("现在失败, 与真机一致"); the v6 fixes could be developed and validated against an evaluator that could actually see the disease.
Mechanism
An evaluator is a plant model too: contact dimensionality and friction values decide which failure modes exist in the simulation at all. Evaluating under default contact parameters tests the policy in a world where its real failure is physically impossible, producing structurally false PASSes.
Applies when
- sim acceptance passes policies that fail on hardware
- slip/drift/impact gates run under default simulator contact settings
- setting up a cross-simulator evaluation harness
“accept_v2.py 已加三条判据, walk_v5 在诚实的接触参数下(--condim 4 --torsion 0.035)现在失败, 与真机一致:直行 15s 航向累计 <30° | 185° ✗ … 落脚力峰值 <1.5× 体重 | 1.72× ✗”
train/WALK_V6_MINIMAL.md § 5. 验收 The 1.5 Hz step-frequency gate was retracted - the author had misread his own actuator data, and the limit fought pendulum dynamics
gate-threshold-retracted-frequencyEvery gate threshold must cite its measurement and survive a first-principles sanity check; when a gate keeps failing otherwise healthy behavior, re-derive the threshold from the raw data before enforcing it again - and retract wrong gates in writing.
Symptom
An acceptance criterion "step frequency <= 1.5 Hz" kept failing healthy policies (walk_v4 at 2.33 Hz), and an earlier attempt to force slower stepping (v3) had killed stepping altogether.
Context
The threshold had been derived from the author's own actuator frequency-response measurements - but re-reading the raw table showed the misread: amplitude ratio at 2.0 Hz is 0.88 (knee) / 0.83 (ankle), acceptable; the genuinely bad point was walk_v2's 3.8 Hz at 0.58. Mechanism check agreed: the leg as a compound pendulum (L ~ 0.30 m) has a natural frequency ~1.1 Hz, swing half-period 0.45 s - the observed 2.1-2.4 Hz sits near where the leg wants to swing, and forcing 1.5 Hz "是跟摆动动力学对着干" (fights the swing dynamics). The frequency definition itself was pinned by two independent methods (contact-event counting 2.39 Hz vs FFT 2.33 Hz, agreeing): reported numbers are cycle frequency = steps per leg per second.
Change
Gate retracted in writing: "步频 ≤1.5 Hz 应删除或放宽到 ≤2.5 Hz"; frequency definition standardized before entering any config.
Outcome
walk_v4/v6's 2.1-2.4 Hz reclassified from disease to normal; the v3 failure got its probable explanation (suppressing stepping to meet a wrong gate).
Mechanism
A gate is only as good as the measurement and the reading behind it; thresholds inherited from a misread plot become invisible design constraints that later training obeys at real cost. Cross-checking a threshold against first-principles dynamics (pendulum frequency) is a cheap way to catch such misreads.
Applies when
- an acceptance threshold repeatedly fails policies that look healthy
- thresholds were set from a single person's reading of raw data
- a forced compliance with a gate degrades the behavior it guards
“我当初依据自己测的执行器频响定的,但看错了区间。… 2.0~2.4 Hz 的幅值比 0.83~0.88 是可接受的;真正不行的是 walk_v2 的 3.8 Hz。… 腿按复摆算(L≈0.30 m)自然频率约 1.1 Hz … 把它压到 1.5 Hz 是跟摆动动力学对着干(walk_v3 把迈步压没了,可能正是这个原因)。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § ② 撤回"步频 ≤1.5 Hz"这条验收标准 —— 是我定错了 A single run's drift direction may be a limit cycle, not a policy bias - check the sign distribution across seeds
multiseed-sign-test-for-driftDistinguish "bias" from "broken symmetry limit cycle" by the sign distribution over many seeds; report drift as (mean, sign split), and never compare single-run drift magnitudes across versions.
Symptom
Net yaw over 15 s appeared to worsen from -41 deg (v2) to -84 deg (v4), inviting the conclusion that the new version drifted more.
Context
The Isaac-side view across 32 environments told a different story: per-env yaw was mixed-sign (20 negative / 12 positive) with mean ~0 - the drift is a limit cycle whose direction depends on initial conditions, not a systematic policy bias. The single MuJoCo run had sampled one draw from that distribution, so its magnitude could not be compared across versions as if it were a property.
Change
Evaluation rule: before classifying drift as systematic, run multiple seeds and examine the sign distribution; single-trajectory drift magnitudes are samples, not properties.
Outcome
The v2-vs-v4 drift "regression" was reclassified as not-established; later drift work (hip_roll l+r bias) used cross-policy, cross-seed evidence instead.
Mechanism
Symmetric dynamical systems can settle into either of two mirrored limit cycles; the selected cycle is decided by noise and initial state. A statistic whose sign is initial-condition-dependent has no meaning as a single sample - only its distribution does.
Applies when
- comparing heading drift or lateral drift across policy versions
- a symmetric-looking behavior shows a consistent direction in one run
- deciding whether to fix "drift" in reward or calibration
“偏航反而变差(−41° → −84°):注意 Isaac 侧 32 env 的逐 env 偏航是正负混合(20/12)、均值 ≈0,说明这是极限环性质(方向随初值)而非策略偏置 —— MuJoCo 单次跑测到的是分布里的一个样本,不能当作系统性偏差。要判断需多种子统计。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § walk_v4 独立验收 读法 (偏航) 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 unrecorded
safety-limits-are-a-layer-not-a-rewardKeep 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。”
RL系统/FOLLOW THIS copy 2.md § 面向 developer / 教育机构该怎么做 (pasted proposal, undated) A sim veto needs real confirmation too - the worst sim cell was scheduled as the most informative hardware run
sim-veto-needs-real-confirmationNever 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。”
train/REAL_RUN_S2.md § 上机名单 note / 2. sim 侧预注册预期 ⑤ A 10 s acceptance episode left 6-7 s of standing to observe - a narrow stance held for that window and split on hardware; a gate cannot see instability slower than its own horizon
episode-length-bounds-what-a-gate-seesSize the standing phase of an acceptance episode, and its disturbances and floor friction, to what deployment will impose; a pass on a short static window certifies only that window.
Symptom
v2_6 passed every simulation gate (success 99.6%, re-falls 0-1%) and then, on the real robot, stood up and slid into the splits several times; prone starts stood and then fell backwards.
Context
Acceptance ran 10 s episodes; a ~1-2 s get-up left roughly 6-7 s of static standing on a nominal floor with no disturbance. The narrow stance's lateral margin and the straight-knee stance's lack of any flex buffer are both failure modes that need time, disturbance or lower friction to show.
Change
The gap was booked as a known blind spot of the gate ("long-duration standing stability") alongside the task-space stance criterion; later rungs added MuJoCo friction sweeps at mu 0.4 to every checkpoint scan.
Outcome
The spec through §50 records the blind spot but no longer standing window or disturbance row in the recovery acceptance itself.
Mechanism
An acceptance episode observes only the dynamics that unfold within its horizon under its conditions; slow drifts and disturbance-triggered failures are outside it by construction.
Applies when
- a policy passes sim gates and fails on hardware after a delay
- acceptance episodes are short relative to deployment use
- stability is judged without pushes or friction variation
“**sim 门为什么没逮住**:10 s episode 起身后只站 ~6-7 s,静态窗口内窄站距 撑得住;真机站立时长/扰动谱在门口径之外 —— 长时站立稳定性记为口径缺口。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §43 判读:sim 门为什么没逮住 Diagnose a behavior failure by enumerating hypotheses and auditing each against the actual config, cheapest first
hypothesis-table-code-auditBefore changing anything, write the full hypothesis list for the symptom and audit each against the resolved config and measured magnitudes, cheapest check first; train only on the survivors.
Symptom
Real robot leaned forward "wanting to walk" but dragged its feet instead of lifting them - a symptom with many plausible causes and no obvious single fix.
Context
Seven hypotheses were listed and each checked against the actual training config files (velocity_env_cfg.py, isaac_values.py), ordered by check cost: missing foot clearance term (CONFIRMED, primary - feet_air_time existed but no swing-height term at all); energy penalties dominating (REJECTED - energy terms total -0.19 vs tracking +1.2, 16%); command range too narrow (CONFIRMED - (0.15,0.35)); nominal pose too crouched / action scale too small (HALF - knee 0.5 rad = 28.6 deg deep, scale fine); mixed PD across motor types (REJECTED - already grouped); missing base-height reward (REJECTED - present at -5.0); height-drop termination (REJECTED - none exists, which itself became finding #4 of the fix list).
Change
The audit produced a ranked fix list (add clearance penalty; widen speed range; reduce nominal crouch) with each rejected hypothesis documented so it would not be re-litigated.
Outcome
Three confirmed causes fixed over v5/v6: swing height went 22-23 mm -> 34 mm, tracking 81% -> 87%; the rejected hypotheses stayed rejected (no wasted rungs on energy weights or PD grouping).
Mechanism
Multi-cause symptoms invite guess-and-train loops; a written hypothesis table forces each candidate to be confirmed or rejected against actual values (not impressions), and cost-ordering the checks means most hypotheses die for the price of reading a config.
Applies when
- a real or sim behavior failure has multiple plausible causes
- the team is about to "try a fix" without an audit
- post-mortems keep re-proposing already-rejected causes
“真机现象:躯干前倾像要走,脚抬不起来(拖着蹭)。按成本从低到高逐条核查 … | 1 | 缺 foot clearance | ✅ 成立,首要 | 有 feet_air_time,无任何摆动足高度项 | | 2 | 能量惩罚压过跟踪 | ❌ 不成立 | 能量类合计 −0.19,跟踪 +1.2,只占 16% |”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § walk 拖地问题 — 七条假设的代码核查结果 Every acceptance run records video of the very rollout that produced the numbers - the seated basin, edge-standing feet, tangled legs and the narrow stance were all seen on video before, or instead of, a metric catching them
video-as-acceptance-recordMake video a default output of every acceptance run, rendered from the same rollout the metrics come from (fixed views including the feet), and watch it - posture failures are visible before any gate row exists for them; never let video replace or override the numeric gate.
Symptom
Posture failures in the recovery line kept arriving as things the numbers had no row for: a kneeling W-sit, feet standing on their outer edges, crossed legs, a stance too narrow to hold on hardware.
Context
From 2026-08-09 (user decision) accept_recovery renders offscreen by default, following one env for the whole episode and archiving the clip. The MuJoCo gate's --video renders three views (side, front, feet) of the same rollout the metrics come from, with all plant modelling (delay, push); the older replay-based renderer produced an independent trajectory without delay and was not used for acceptance. Video never gates: if rendering breaks, --no-video keeps the numeric gate running.
Change
Video as a default acceptance artifact, named per policy, category and view, reviewed by the user.
Outcome
The R0.1 prone clip showed the same kneel-sit as R0; the R3.1 failure clip showed the crossed legs; the v2_5 feet view showed edge standing and led to V2.6; the v2_6 videos led the user to order a real-robot A/B between v2_5b and v2_6. Once, the recorder did not start (P1c final acceptance) and the visual material had to be produced separately.
Mechanism
Metrics exist only for failure modes someone anticipated; video shows the unanticipated ones, and rendering the metric rollout itself guarantees the picture and the numbers describe the same episode.
Applies when
- setting up an acceptance pipeline for posture-sensitive skills
- numbers pass but a human reviewer is uneasy
- sim videos are rendered by a separate replay tool
“**验收存视频(用户定 2026-08-09)**:`accept_recovery.py` 默认开 Isaac 离屏 渲染,跟拍一个 env 的整局并归档 … 跪坐这类盆地在数字表出现前肉眼先看见,视频是验收的 定性存档,数字门不受它影响”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §5 R0 验收门(预注册)验收存视频(用户定 2026-08-09) Prove an armless get-up exists before training it - a connected static domain, 25% torque on the cheapest path, an 8 mm hand-over gap, a static roll-over - and write down what each scan cannot represent
get-up-feasibility-accounts-before-trainingBefore training a get-up or any multi-contact skill, compute the quasi-static accounts - connectivity of the static domain, torque along the cheapest path, hand-over gaps, COM shift available for rolling - and state which configurations each scan cannot represent; when a policy gets stuck in one of those, extend the scan before blaming the reward.
Symptom
A torso-and-legs robot has no arms to push off the ground; whether it can get up from the floor at all was unknown when the line opened.
Context
recovery_feasibility.py ran three accounts before any training (the run line's "hard accounts first" discipline): a sagittal quasi-static scan (0.05 rad grid, 44,520 configurations, MuJoCo FK, flat-foot assumption). (1) The static standing domain (COM over the feet, torques in limit) has 29,586 cells, flood-fill connected with no islands, from a 0.097 m deepest squat to the 0.384 m stand. (2) The minimum-torque path peaks at 25% of the limits (knee 2.9/12, ankle 3.7/17 N*m) - a 4x margin. (3) All 508 ground-contact configurations have the contact behind the COM; the smallest gap to pure foot support is 8 mm. A roll-over account: swinging both straight legs to one side shifts the COM 96 mm against a 62 mm torso half-width - 1.6x, so rolling needs no momentum. Three conclusions were written down for later attribution: the legs are 80% of the mass (swinging them moves the COM), prone has no flat-foot hand-over face (merge into a supine/side sit first), and supine needs no sit-up (hip flexion is limited to 75 deg).
Change
The accounts gated opening the line and were cited in every later argument about what the robot can physically do.
Outcome
They held where they applied: in V1.0 every fall category was righted under a hard rate limit, which the spec records as the quasi-static roll-over account verified by training, and the 25% torque path was the basis for pursuing a slow get-up. They also misled once: account (3) is sagittal, and on 08-09 the spec corrected its scope - it cannot represent the splayed W-sit where the policy actually stalled. A follow-up prone hip-ROM scan (471,625 cells) found 3,912 two-foot-contact cells and none with both soles within 25 deg of level (best 40.2 deg): a flat-footed push-up from prone is infeasible on this robot, so the fix became where the feet go after sitting up.
Mechanism
A get-up needs a connected path through statically feasible configurations and enough torque along it; quasi-static accounts bound both cheaply, and momentum can only make the real problem easier. A reduced-dimensional scan, though, only speaks for the configurations it can express.
Conflicts
In R0.1-R0.2 the spec read account (3)'s "prone has no front hand-over" as "prone lacks the roll-over skill"; R0.3's confusion matrix showed prone had righted its torso 159/159, and the spec then restricted account (3) to the sagittal configurations it models.
Applies when
- opening a get-up, recovery or climbing skill on a new robot
- a robot lacks arms or other obvious contact options
- a policy stalls in a configuration a feasibility scan never modelled
“本机 **torso + legs、无手臂可撑地**,开训前先证明存在不依赖手臂的物理解 … 双腿同侧直腿摆最大横移 **96 mm = 1.6×** … **静态摆腿即可翻身,无需动量**”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §1 机械可行性判决(2026-08-09,recovery_feasibility.py 三笔账) Low-friction robustness traced to kd DR bandwidth, not friction training - by digging resolved params across 8 lineages, 3840 cells
kd-bandwidth-mu-law-attributionAttribute capability differences by tabulating every lineage's resolved training params and eliminating zero-variance and non-aligned columns first; never let an eval-side override knob serve as the explanation axis, and never write a mechanism into a law before it survives a targeted test.
Symptom
Lineages differed wildly in low-ground-friction survival, and the intuitive explanation - "some trained ground friction, some didn't" - was about to steer the ladder toward a ground-mu training rung.
Context
The attribution ran as a full parameter-vs-result cross: 8 lineages x 4 eval kd levels x 6 mu levels x 20 seeds = 3840 cells, with each lineage's RESOLVED training params dug out and compared item by item. First kill: all 8 lineages had ground mu pinned at (1.0,1.0) - zero variance - so low-mu differences cannot come from friction training at all. The only training parameter aligned with the mu score was kd DR bandwidth: narrow (<=0.24) lineages scored 19.9/19.5/19.5, wide (>=0.40) scored 17.1/15.2/14.6/14.2/12.8 - the two groups completely non-overlapping. Every rival was excluded item by item (kd center no; kp band no; COM small-beneficial non-driving; friction rung a clean double null 19.5->19.5 and 15.2->14.6; iteration count non-monotonic), and the one clean single-variable causal link confirmed it: the s2e-3 kd surgery (0.7,1.3)->(1.08,1.32) moved the score 17.1->19.5. Counter-proof against "each best at its own operating point": the narrow-band lineage evaluated OUT of band (18.2) still beat the wide-band lineage at its own band center (9.2). Two axes were ordered never to be conflated (the first attribution's own error): training kd bandwidth is a parameter axis / lineage property; the eval-side --kd-scale knob is a plant axis (more damping physically helps on slippery floors for ALL policies) - "plant 轴只能当部署缓解,不能当 归因". A tempting mechanism story ("drag vs step attractor") was tested and falsified, and explicitly kept OUT of the law: "机制未定, 不入定律".
Change
The planned ground-mu training rung was recommended closed ("建议 不开") in favor of a kd band-narrowing rung (0.8,1.2)->(0.9,1.1) centered on the deployed value - with a pre-registered risk that the law demands "bandwidth = measured dispersion" and the real robot's kd dispersion was not yet measured; if it exceeds +/-10%, narrowing sacrifices real coverage and the rung must yield.
Outcome
A whole training rung was deleted from the ladder by attribution alone (the second S2 pass dropped mu and push, 5 rungs -> 3); floor material became a deployment-selection input (mu <~0.6 -> deploy the kd1.2 gain profile) rather than a training target.
Mechanism
Cross-lineage performance differences must be attributed over the actual training-parameter table, not over eval knobs or plausible stories: eval knobs act on the plant for every policy (a physical effect), while lineage properties come only from training-time parameters. Zero-variance columns are free eliminations, and one clean single-variable rung is worth more than any correlation.
Applies when
- explaining why lineages differ on a robustness axis
- an eval-side knob (gain scale, power) changes results and invites misattribution
- deciding whether to open a DR rung for an axis never actually varied in training
“8 血统地面 μ 训练带全部钉 (1.0,1.0) 零方差,低 μ 差异与「训没训地面摩擦」无关,是 kd DR 带宽的副产物 … 宽 ≤0.24 → 19.9/19.5/19.5;宽 ≥0.40 → 17.1/15.2/14.6/14.2/12.8, 两组完全不重叠。… 训练 kd 带宽 = 参数轴/血统属性;评测部署 --kd-scale = plant 轴 … plant 轴只能当部署缓解, 不能当归因。… 机制未定, 不入定律。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 4. 地面 μ 鲁棒性 = kd DR 带宽的副产物 (2026-08-08) Friction DR was demoted after a measurement (94% success at mu 0.4 with no friction randomization) and promoted again when the action contract changed and mu 0.4 fell to 76% - DR priorities belong to a plant and contract, not to a task
friction-priority-re-measured-after-plant-changeRe-measure transfer along the friction axis for every new action contract or plant, not once per task; a DR priority settled under one action parameterization does not carry to the next.
Symptom
Getting up is all scraping and pushing against the ground, and training pinned friction at 1.0, so friction looked like the first thing to randomize.
Context
The MuJoCo gate on R0.5 (5 categories x 10 seeds x 4 friction levels) measured 100/100/98/94% at mu 1.0/0.8/0.6/0.4: degradation showed first as time (prone 3.2 -> 5.3 s), not failure, so friction DR was demoted and the DR budget earmarked for mass/COM. After the switch to the beta-anchored action space, V2.2 read 90/94/90/76%: mu 0.4 was now the weak row.
Change
V2.3 (single variable): friction DR static (1.0, 1.0) -> (0.2, 2.0), dynamic (0.15, 1.6), the HiFAR range keeping the base dynamic/static ratio; restitution untouched. Continued from v2_2.
Outcome
Isaac nominal 99.8% (DR did not hurt the nominal plant); MuJoCo 98/98/96/92% - mu 0.4 76 -> 92%, mu 1.0 back to R3.1's 98% with bounded torque.
Mechanism
How much a policy leans on friction depends on how it moves; the spec records that the sensitivity rose after the action contract changed but does not establish why.
Applies when
- changing the action space, gains or authority of an existing skill
- deciding which DR axis to spend the next rung on
- an earlier sweep justified leaving an axis unrandomized
“**μ 砍到 0.4(训练值的 40%)仍有 94%**,退化先体现在**用时**(prone 3.2→5.3 s) 而不是成败。μ≥0.8 完全无损。→ **§17 曾把"摩擦随机化提到 R4 第一项"当作优先 事项,这条实测把它降级了**”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §21 MuJoCo 复核门 ② 摩擦依赖 The latency DR range must cover the measured deployment pipeline - 0-20 ms could not even reach the real 1-2 control steps
latency-dr-covers-measured-pipelineMeasure end-to-end action latency in control steps on your own stack (including cross-process queue boundaries), set the DR range to cover it with margin, and never import a delay count without its control frequency.
Symptom
Action latency was randomized over 0-20 ms (0-1 control step at 50 Hz), but the measured deployment path is 1-2 steps: the deploy process writes the target, an independently running BusWorker picks it up on its NEXT cycle, plus CAN round-trip - the training range could not cover the robot's actual latency at all.
Context
Fix: widen action_latency_s to 0-0.06 (0-3 steps). The external reference's "uniform 6 steps" was explicitly NOT copied - that number depends on his unknown control frequency; locally, a sweep at 0/1/2/3 steps showed walk_v5 survives all with insensitive metrics, so 6 steps "在我们这里没有依据" (has no local basis). The range was set from the measured pipeline with margin, not from a foreign constant.
Change
action_latency_s (0, 0.02) -> (0, 0.06), justified by pipeline analysis (writer/worker cycle boundary + bus time) and bounded by the local latency sweep.
Outcome
The DR band now brackets the true deployment latency; the policy trains against the delay it will actually face instead of a fictional sub-step world.
Mechanism
Latency DR only immunizes against delays inside its support; a range below the physical pipeline guarantees an untrained distribution shift at deployment. The correct range comes from tracing the pipeline's worst case (queueing boundaries + transport), and foreign step-counts are meaningless without the control rate they were measured at.
Applies when
- setting or auditing action-delay randomization
- deployment uses a separate bus/worker process from the policy loop
- importing delay-modeling numbers from other projects
“现行 0~20 ms = 0~1 个 50Hz 控制步, 而实测部署链路是 1~2 步(deploy 写 STATE.target 后, 独立跑的 BusWorker 下一轮才取走下发, 再加 CAN 往返)——现在的区间覆盖不到真机的实际延迟。… 不照抄参考来源的"统一 6 步": 那取决于他的控制频率(未知), 而我们扫过 0/1/2/3 步 … 6 步在我们这里没有依据。”
train/WALK_V7_SPEC.md § ⑤ action_latency_s 0~0.02 → 0~0.06 Deployment power derating damages non-forward axes far more than forward - sweep it in sim before deploying
power-scale-hurts-nonforward-axesTreat deployment power/torque scaling as a plant parameter: evaluate the policy in sim at the exact deployment scale, expect non-dominant axes to degrade first under derating, and either deploy at the training power or train with power randomization.
Symptom
Policies deployed at power-scale 0.8 (a safety derating of commanded torque) looked fine walking forward but were weak at backward and turning, inviting the wrong diagnosis "the skill was not trained well".
Context
Measured repeatedly: on s1e, going 1.0 -> 0.8 cost forward 18% but backward 58%; on C4-ff800, turn tracking was +25%/+40% at pw0.8 vs +75%/+58% at pw1.0, backward 51-52% vs 97-103%, while forward stayed 96-98% at both. Sim evaluation numbers in the plan were all pw1.0, but the robot was being run at 0.8.
Change
Pre-deploy protocol added: sweep the exported policy across power in sim (for PW in 0.8 0.9 1.0: eval_c_matrix --power $PW --seeds 20) and deploy at the first level where both turn directions reach >=50%. For C4 the recommendation was raise the robot to pw1.0 - the sweep showed it nearly free (saturation 47%->33%, left foot-clipping danger zone 25%->6%, cost only tilt 6.7->8.3 deg).
Outcome
Turning "weakness" resolved without any retraining; the sim sweep correctly predicted the real-robot signature at both power levels.
Mechanism
Forward walking is the reward-dominant, torque-cheapest skill with the most margin; backward/turn/sidewalk live closer to the torque envelope, so a uniform torque derating consumes their margin first. Training ran at power 1.0 (the trainer does no power scaling), so deploying at 0.8 is a systematic underactuation the policy never experienced.
Applies when
- deploying with any torque/power derating or safety scale
- secondary skills (backward, turn, lateral) underperform on hardware while forward walking looks fine
- choosing the deployment power level for a new policy
“power 衰减对非前进轴的伤害远大于前进轴（s1e：前进 1.0→0.8 掉 18%，后退掉 58%）。转向是非前进轴，0.8 下很可能明显跟不动。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3c. A-2 上机前先定部署力度档 / 3p. 二 Every rung gets written stop criteria - hit any one, stop; tightened when priors say results should come fast
preregistered-stop-criteria-per-rungFreeze per-rung stop criteria (old-skill floors, new-skill deadline, oscillation signature, known pathology signatures) before training, stop on first hit - and shorten the deadline in proportion to how fast your mechanism says results should appear.
Symptom
Continued training past the point of degradation had previously destroyed capabilities (C1 trained away the root's backward skill); without hard stop rules, sunk-cost reasoning keeps runs alive too long.
Context
Standard rung protocol - eval_c_matrix every 100 iters at 5 seeds with a fixed criteria list, frozen before training ("开训前写死，事后不许改"): (1) stand or vx+0.15 at <=3/5 for two consecutive points; (2) vx+0.15 tracking <70% for two consecutive points (vs recorded root baseline); (3) oscillation signature - survival repeatedly crossing zero between adjacent checkpoints, stop on first occurrence, do not wait for confirmation; (4) new-skill-no-progress deadline (e.g. wz tracking <30% or still same-signed after iter 400); (5) a known lineage pathology signature (s1c arm-B: scatter -> half-recover -> collapse).
Change
Stop budgets scale with prior knowledge: when C4-redo4's feed-forward was already proven open-loop, the no-progress deadline was tightened from +500 to +100 iters ("前馈是开环就给 71~96% 的 … 若 +100 还没有 … 不值得再烧").
Outcome
Multiple rungs were stopped exactly on criterion (C4-redo criterion 4 at iter 1200; redo2/redo3 at absolute 900), converting each into a clean hypothesis test instead of a drifting run; no rung burned its full cap on a dead hypothesis.
Mechanism
Degradation of retained skills is a lineage-level injury that later training often cannot undo, so detection latency is capital loss; and a stop rule written before the run cannot be bent by hope. Tightening deadlines when priors predict immediate results converts "no result yet" into evidence against the mechanism.
Applies when
- starting any resumed/curriculum training rung
- deciding whether to keep training a run that shows early regression
- a mechanism-backed change should produce results immediately
“每 100 iter eval_c_matrix.py --seeds 5，命中任一即停 … 存活在相邻 checkpoint 间反复跨越 0（出现即停）… 收紧版：绝对 iter 900（= +200）时 vy±0.10 跟踪仍 <30% 即停”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3h. 预注册停梯判据（开训前写死，事后不许改） PPO's Gaussian noise cannot compose phase-locked oscillations - deliver them as feed-forward and let the policy learn the residual
feedforward-for-phase-locked-skillsIf a skill needs a temporally coherent (phase-locked) action component, do not expect step-wise exploration to find it: inject a verified feed-forward and train the policy as a residual stabilizer, keeping the feed-forward inside the deployment contract.
Symptom
Four different reward arrangements (no reference / wrong-sign reference / correct-sign reference / cage released) all failed to elicit sidewalk, while open-loop probes proved the behavior existed and was safe on the same platform with the same policy as base.
Context
Producing lateral velocity requires a phase-locked hip_roll oscillation synchronized to the gait clock. PPO's exploration is per-step, zero-mean, uncorrelated Gaussian noise - it can never compose a sustained phase-locked component, so the behavior is unreachable by exploration regardless of how it is rewarded. The fix changed the delivery channel: target = default + scale*action + lat_ff(cmd_vy, phi). The policy's action becomes a residual on top of the feed-forward, retaining full balance authority (it can even cancel the feed-forward); the feed-forward supplies exactly the component exploration cannot. This mirrors why the sagittal joint_pos_ref worked (it also delivered phase structure), just via a different channel.
Change
Contract-level change, done cleanly: new profile omni_ff (= omni + lat_ff_gain -0.5), existing omni profile bit-identical; feed-forward applied after the action delay stage; missing cmd/phase raises instead of silently dropping; deployment must use the same phi as build_obs (recomputing gives a one-tick phase misalignment).
Outcome
From C2-700, +100 iterations sufficed: product omni_c4_ff800 scored vy +120%/+125% (from +4%/-1%), 260/260 cells at 20/20 survival, zero old-skill regression, left/right gap 5 pp - the entire C4 saga resolved by changing the delivery mechanism, not the reward.
Mechanism
Exploration noise spans only the subspace its correlation structure can express; skills requiring coherent oscillation lie outside the span of i.i.d. per-step noise. Feed-forward moves the required structure into the action pipeline where it needs zero probability mass to appear, reducing the learning problem to stabilizing around a demonstrated behavior - which PPO does well.
Applies when
- a periodic/oscillatory skill trains flat under every reward variant
- open-loop injection of the behavior already works
- considering GRU/curriculum/exploration tricks for a rhythmic skill
“病因不在奖励，在探索形式：产生侧向速度需要相位锁定的 hip_roll 振荡，PPO 的逐步高斯噪声零均值无相关，合不出相位锁定分量。… target = default + scale·a + lat_ff(cmd_vy, φ)。策略动作因此是前馈之上的残差，保留全部平衡权限”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3j. C4-redo4：唯一变量 = 侧步参考改为前馈注入（契约级） The walk phase machine structurally cannot express flight - rebuild the representation for duty < 0.5, teach flight with a mask tax, never a cliff bounty
phase-machine-structural-limitsWhen a new gait changes the contact pattern's structure, audit whether the phase/mask representation can express it and rebuild the representation if not; teach the new contact pattern with graded mask-mismatch pressure and count it in acceptance with artifact-proof definitions (minimum segment length), never with cliff bounties.
Symptom
Running requires both feet airborne, but the walk-era phase machine switches legs by the sign of sin(phase) - with duty < 0.5 the two swing windows must OVERLAP during flight, which a sign-switching representation cannot express at all.
Context
The run phase machine was re-architected rather than patched: per-leg phases (left = phi, right = phi+0.5 mod 1) with leg_phase < duty defining stance, aligned to the walk sin convention at duty=0.5 so the machines agree where their domains overlap. Flight is taught by the SAME mechanism that once cured foot-dragging, direction reversed: in the two planned flight windows the contact mask is (0,0) and feet_contact_number_duty charges -0.3 per foot still on the ground - a mild ~0.16/step tax, deliberately NOT a cliff: "悬崖式腾空奖励诱发跳跃 hack,v4-clearance 家族老课文". The reference shape (half-sine bump over swing progress) is zero at window boundaries by construction, eliminating the clearing-window that the C4 probe measured to cost 13-19% on non-sinusoidal references. The shape self-check ("零代价选项是什么") was run on three behaviors: standing pays ref everywhere (known cmd=0 stepping risk, booked), walking pays only the flight-window tax, proper running collects full marks.
Change
New rewards.py run section (leg_phase_duty / stance_mask_duty / ref_run / clearance_run / contact_duty) with the walk versions untouched byte-for-byte; flight acceptance metric defined with a segment-length floor (>=40 ms to count) so numeric contact flicker cannot fake flight.
Outcome
Flight became expressible and taught by a calibrated mild pressure; the walk lineage's phase code stayed frozen as its own contract.
Mechanism
A phase representation defines which contact patterns exist in the reward's vocabulary; duty cycling below 0.5 introduces states (double-flight) outside a half-period sign convention's language, so no weight tuning can teach them. And rare desirable events taught by cliff-shaped bounties invite hacks (jumping in place); the graded mask tax prices the planned pattern without creating a jackpot.
Applies when
- extending a walking stack to running/jumping (duty < 0.5)
- a desired contact pattern never appears despite reward increases
- defining flight/contact acceptance metrics
“duty<0.5 时摆动窗 (1−duty)T > T/2,两腿摆动窗在腾空段重叠 —— sin 符号切腿的机制结构上表达不了"双脚同时在空中"。… feet_contact_number_duty 对"还踩着地"持续 −0.3/脚 —— 与 walk 治拖地同一机制,方向相反。不腾空的税 ~0.16/步 … 梯度温和不构成悬崖(悬崖式腾空奖励诱发跳跃 hack,v4-clearance 家族老课文)。”
train/RUN_V0_SPEC.md § 5. 相位机设计 Calibrate a wall penalty by measuring healthy and sick policies - healthy pays ~0, the disease pays a wall
calibrate-threshold-between-healthy-and-sickCalibrate every threshold penalty by evaluating its exact formula on replays of at least one healthy and one sick policy: place the threshold between their distributions, size the weight so the sick policy pays a decisive fraction of tracking while the healthy one pays ~0, and pre-compute neighboring thresholds for cheap adjustment.
Symptom
Real walk_v7 occasionally clipped its own legs (stance narrowed to 133 mm mean vs nominal 214.5); a foot-distance penalty was needed, but an uncalibrated threshold/weight risked either doing nothing or becoming a reverse barrier.
Context
The term (relu(d_min - lateral foot distance), measured in the base yaw frame because world-frame y is meaningless after turning) was calibrated before training by replaying three known policies through the exact reward formula at the acceptance operating point: healthy v5 (183 mm) pays 0.6% of tracking - effectively free; narrowed v7 (133 mm) pays 22% - effective widening pressure; collapsed v8 (93 mm) pays 55% - a wall. d_min 0.16 was placed deliberately between healthy and sick, with alternative thresholds (0.14/0.18) pre-computed in the tool output for later adjustment. The shape self-check was named as a standing question: "先问'零代价的选项是什么'" - the zero-cost region must be exactly the desired behavior.
Change
feet_lateral_distance added at d_min 0.16 / weight -10, with telemetry expectation pre-registered (should decay toward 0 as stance learns >160 mm; if bow-legged over-widening >214 appears, only then discuss an upper bound).
Outcome
v9_probe on hardware: no leg contact ("没碰腿(N2 兑现)"), stance min 145/126 mm green; the term's zero-cost design left healthy gait untaxed.
Mechanism
A relu threshold penalty defines a free region and a priced region; its correctness is entirely in where the boundary sits relative to the healthy and pathological distributions. Replaying known-good and known-bad policies through the exact formula measures both distributions in the term's own currency, making the threshold and weight a placement decision instead of a guess.
Applies when
- adding any relu/threshold-style wall penalty
- a safety margin (foot distance, joint limit, clearance) needs enforcement without taxing normal behavior
- choosing between candidate thresholds for a new term
“形状自检 (v6 横向组/v8-B 的教训 —— 先问"零代价的选项是什么"): 标称站距付 0, 健康步态付 ~0, 收窄才付费 … v5(健康) 183 mm … 0.6% ≈ 免费 | v7(收窄) 133 mm … 22% —— 有效推宽 | v8(塌陷) 93 mm … 55% —— 墙 … d_min=0.16 恰在 v5(183)与 v7(133)之间”
train/WALK_V9_SPEC.md § 2. N2 —— 脚距惩罚(已完成权重预标定) An outer heading P-loop at deploy cut drift 10x because its output stays inside the trained command band - then training was aligned to it
deploy-heading-loop-and-align-trainingFix drift-class problems first with an outer loop whose output provably stays inside the trained command band; when adopting it permanently, align the training command generator to the deployment's actual command mixture (feedback-driven AND constant), matching law, gain, and clip exactly.
Symptom
Persistent heading drift on straight-line walking (v6 net yaw 60.3 deg over 15 s) that reward-side fixes had only partially tamed.
Context
The deploy stack added --heading: an external P loop wz = clip(0.5 * wrap_to_pi(theta0 - theta), +/-0.6), recomputed each frame and fed into the policy's ordinary wz command slot. Measured: net yaw walk_v6 60.3 -> 5.8 deg, walk_v5 17.4 -> 4.2 deg. A run-level audit later corrected the mechanism story: training had heading_command=False since v1 - the policy had NEVER seen heading-error feedback, so the loop works purely because its output lands inside the trained command distribution wz ~ U(+/-0.6): "收益真实,当时的机理解释写错了" (the benefit is real; the mechanism explanation had been wrong). v8 then closed the loop properly: training-side heading command enabled with rel_heading_envs=0.5 - half the envs get heading-error-driven wz, half get explicit constant wz, because deployment feeds wz BOTH ways (straight-line = heading feedback, turning = constant command) and rel=1.0 would have made constant-wz turning out-of-distribution. The law, gain, and clip were aligned item-by-item between trainer and deploy tool.
Change
Deploy-side outer loop first (no retrain needed); then v8-D enabled the matching training-side heading command at rel=0.5 with identical gain (0.5) and clip (+/-0.6), contract unchanged (wz slot carries the computed value).
Outcome
Drift handled at deploy (5.8 deg) generations before training caught up; the alignment removed the residual train/deploy distribution mismatch, with the accepted cost booked (open-loop straight walking becomes more OOD for heading-envs - irrelevant since acceptance and deployment always run the loop).
Mechanism
A learned velocity-tracking policy is a valid inner loop for any outer controller whose commands stay within the trained command distribution - the policy needs no knowledge of the outer objective. Full alignment then requires training on the same mixture of command sources the deployment actually uses, in the observed proportions.
Applies when
- heading/position drift on a velocity-tracking policy
- designing outer loops over learned locomotion controllers
- training command distribution differs from how deployment feeds commands
“审计更正(2026-08-02,run 级 env.yaml):训练侧自 v1 复盘起就是 heading_command=False … 策略从未见过航向误差反馈。--heading 是评估/部署侧外加的航向 P 环(wz=clip(0.5·err,±0.6), 落在训练分布 wz~U(±0.6) 内)。实测净偏航 walk_v6 60.3° → 5.8° … 收益真实,当时的机理解释写错了”
train/WALK_V7_SPEC.md § 0. 本轮之前已经改掉 (航向闭环, 含审计更正) Armature must be N^2 x rotor inertia, never 0 - measure it no-load
armature-n2-rotor-inertiaEvery geared actuator carries N^2 * I_rotor of reflected inertia at the joint; set armature from a no-load measurement, never leave it 0 and never guess it.
Symptom
Sim joints accelerate more easily than real joints; old MJCF had armature = 0 (rotor reflected inertia entirely unmodeled), a systematic sim2real gap on every joint.
Context
Original hand-written MJCF plant used armature 0. The team derived and then measured the correct value: torque needed at the rotor is I_rotor * N * alpha; after the N:1 gearbox the output shaft "feels" an extra N^2 * I_rotor of inertia. With a 9:1 reduction that is an 81x amplification of the rotor inertia, far too large to ignore.
Change
Set per-motor armature from no-load (motor out of the robot) measurement instead of 0: RS06 = 0.0070 kg*m^2, RS02 = 0.0032 kg*m^2, RS00 = 0.0015 kg*m^2. Landed together with measured friction as the first fully-measured plant parameter set.
Outcome
Plant parameters "第一次全部来自实测" (first time all from measurement); became the frozen plant baseline for all subsequent training generations.
Mechanism
Reflected inertia scales with the square of the gear ratio: the rotor spins N times faster than the joint, so its kinetic energy (and the torque needed to accelerate it) appears N^2 larger at the output. Omitting it makes simulated joints unrealistically fast/light, so policies learn action rates the real actuator cannot deliver.
Applies when
- building or auditing a simulation plant model for a geared/QDD actuator
- sim policy moves joints faster or snappier than the real robot can
- MJCF/URDF review shows armature or rotor inertia set to 0 or a default
“armature 转子反射惯量有问题 在sim里面一定要处理 不能是0，空机测试。转子处需要的力矩 = I_rotor × N × α 经减速箱放大 N 倍后 = N² × I_rotor × α 所以输出轴"感觉到"多了一个 N² × I_rotor 的惯量。 这就是 armature。… 关键是那个平方。减速比 9:1 就放大 81 倍。”
Experience.md § # armature 转子反射惯量有问题 (line 9) Knee swing collapsed because it directly trades against the slip penalty - price the conflict explicitly and clamp what reward cannot hold
knee-swing-vs-slip-pricingWhen a behavior collapses as another metric improves, look for the term pair trading them and set their price ratio deliberately (with escalation and reverse tripwires pre-registered); where the policy actively spends action budget to undo your target, stop paying more reward and clamp the target space structurally.
Symptom
Knee peak-to-peak swing collapsed across generations - v5 33 deg, v10 26-30, v10b 7-8, v11 6.5-8.6 - and rolling the clock back did not recover it, acquitting the clock; the collapse tracked the gated slip penalty instead: "屈膝与不打滑在当前奖励里直接对抗" - v10b's excellent 93 deg slip was purchased with knee amplitude.
Context
Reward-side flexion fixes had failed three times: raising reference amplitude backfired twice (v9/v11), and v11's deep-squat default was actively fought by the policy - it spent 0.68 of action budget pulling the squat straight ("被策略花 0.68 动作拉直反杀"). v12's design accepted the conflict as real and attacked on two tracks: (1) ECONOMICS - a direct knee_swing_amplitude reward (+0.3, target 0.55 rad, capped at 0.6/step = 55% of tracking), explicitly opposed to the slip penalty by design ("显式对立——这正是设计:v12 就是这场对抗的定价实验"), with an escalation ladder (K +0.3 -> +0.5, then slip -0.5 -> -0.3, one layer at a time) and a reverse tripwire (slip telemetry back at v10 levels -> slip weight to -0.8, accept ~20 deg knee compromise); (2) STRUCTURE - knee target bounds [0.2, 0.9] rad so full straightening is physically impossible (straightest 11.5 deg) and the 0.68 fighting budget is released. A bonus falsifiable prediction was attached: phase-lock strength tracks amplitude (v9_probe 48 deg locked 2.5 Hz; v11 low-amplitude 1.36 Hz unlocked), so if K works, hardware phase-lock should return - one change, two verdicts.
Change
knee_swing_amplitude reward + knee target clamp + pre-registered escalation/reverse levers; the failed reward-side-only approach retired.
Outcome
The lineage was frozen before v12 trained (strategic reset), but the diagnosis stands as the walk line's clearest example of two reward terms trading a behavior between them, with the pricing experiment and structural clamp fully designed and calibrated.
Mechanism
When two terms price opposite aspects of one motion (swing amplitude creates yaw momentum that becomes slip), the optimizer settles wherever the price ratio puts it - patching one side moves the equilibrium, not the conflict. Explicit pricing makes the trade a designed quantity; structural clamps remove the regions where the policy spends budget fighting the designer.
Conflicts
The pricing experiment (K vs slip) was designed and calibrated but never trained - the 2026-08-05 reset suspended v12; the collapse attribution table and the 0.68-action counterattack are measured, the remedy's效果 is untested.
Applies when
- one gait quality degrades in lockstep with another's improvement
- the policy visibly fights a default pose or reference
- repeated reward-side fixes for the same behavior have failed
“膝摆塌在 v10→v10b,头号嫌疑是门控滑移罚(四代实测膝 p2p:v5 33° / v10 26~30° / v10b 7~8° / v11 6.5~8.6°;退时钟没救回 → 非时钟)——"屈膝"与"不打滑"在当前奖励里直接对抗 … 奖励侧修屈膝已三败 … v11 深蹲 default 被策略花 0.68 动作拉直反杀”
train/WALK_V12_SPEC.md § 0. 定位 / 2. K —— 膝摆经济(与滑移罚的对偶) Brief the operator on the lineage's measured zero-command and untrained-axis behavior before handing over the joystick
know-zero-command-behaviorBefore any teleop/demo, measure and write down the policy's zero-command behavior and per-axis competence, label untrained axes explicitly as not-bugs, and set the floor/procedure to accommodate the known drift.
Symptom
A teleop session was about to start on a policy that does not stand still at zero command and has never been trained on lateral commands - behaviors an unbriefed operator would report as bugs or emergencies.
Context
Three measured facts were written into the teleop instructions ("都有 实测依据, 不是猜"): (1) A/D (lateral) keys will get essentially no response - probe-measured sidewalk tracking ~3%, an untrained axis: "这正是 C4 要解决的事, 不是 bug"; (2) no keypress = cmd 0, and this lineage does not stand still at zero command - a three-generation lineage property: paces in place, drifts right ~5 cm/s, net rotation -30 deg/20 s; sim survival is 20/20 (it will not fall) but it walks away slowly, so leave floor margin especially on the right; (3) S (backward) WILL respond - probe-measured 20/20 survival, 67% tracking untrained, which is also why this root was chosen for the C ladder. Plus a keybinding dry-run while suspended before touching down.
Change
Operator briefing became part of the deployment artifact: expected response per key, expected idle behavior with magnitudes and directions, and the distinction between untrained (expected, not a bug) and abnormal.
Outcome
The session proceeded with correct interpretations available in advance; the known zero-command wander was handled by floor margin and start-with-command procedure rather than misdiagnosed on the spot.
Mechanism
A learned policy's off-nominal behaviors (idle drift, untrained axes) are lineage properties, stable and measurable in sim beforehand; operator surprise converts known properties into false incident reports and unsafe reactions. A briefing transfers the measured behavior model to the person holding the controller.
Applies when
- handing a learned policy to an operator or demo audience
- the policy idles in a non-stationary way at zero command
- some command axes are untrained in the current lineage
“A/D 基本不会有反应 —— s1e 从未训过非零 vy, 选根探针实测侧走跟踪率 ~3% … 这正是 C4 要解决的事, 不是 bug。… 不按键 = cmd 0, 而 s1e 在零指令下不站定 —— 血统属性, 三代实录: 原地踏步 + 右漂 ~5 cm/s + 净旋 −30°/20s。”
train/REAL_RUN_S2.md § 附: WSAD 遥控 上机前必须知道的三条 Borrow reward values from other robots as ratios (to tracking weight, to leg length) - never as absolute numbers
transfer-ratios-not-absolutesWhen importing any numeric from another robot's config or paper, identify its natural normalizer (tracking weight, leg length, sqrt(g*L), body mass) and transfer the dimensionless ratio; sanity-check against a same-scale robot when one exists.
Symptom
Published configs offered tempting absolute values (swing height target 0.06-0.08 m, weight -20) that would have been wrong for a robot with half the leg length and a different tracking weight.
Context
The cross-check normalized before transferring: G1's feet_swing_height weight -20 against tracking +1.0 is a 20x ratio, so with local tracking at 1.5 the equivalent is -30, not -20. G1's 0.06 m target on a ~0.70 m leg scales to ~28 mm on the local 0.325 m leg (Humanoid-Gym converts to ~23 mm), confirming the locally chosen 0.03 m and explicitly rejecting copying 0.05-0.08 absolutes. A same-class robot (Menlo's 16 kg) was used to sanity-check feet_air_time (+0.5 vs the local 2.0, flagged over-high). A nondimensional check of the same kind later validated the sidewalk speed target (v/sqrt(gL) = 0.081 vs hardware-verified 0.101 - 0.104 - inside the envelope, conservative).
Change
All borrowed values converted through ratios (weight/tracking-weight, height/leg-length, dimensionless speed) before entering the config.
Outcome
The scaled values worked (0.03 m target matched both the scaling law and measured 22-23 mm baseline); no cross-robot absolute was ever copied raw.
Mechanism
Reward economies are scale-relative (only ratios to the tracking term matter to the optimum) and kinematic quantities are morphology-relative (clearance scales with leg length, speed with sqrt(g*L)); absolutes encode the source robot's scale, ratios encode the design intent.
Applies when
- copying reward weights/targets from open-source configs or papers
- setting clearance heights, speed targets, or impact thresholds
- comparing your weights to published tables
“G1 的 feet_swing_height 是 tracking 的 20 倍(−20 vs +1.0)。我们 tracking 是 1.5,按同比例应为 −30 … G1 目标 0.06 m / 腿长 ~0.70 m,换算到我们 0.325 m 腿长约 28 mm;Humanoid-Gym 换算约 23 mm。故 target 取 0.03 m 是对的 … 不必抄 0.05~0.08 的绝对值。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § 修正 ②(权重放大) / 修正 ③(目标高度按腿长缩放) Score left and right separately - averages hide chirality breaking that mirror augmentation does not prevent
chirality-scored-separatelyReport every mirrored skill as two numbers with an explicit gap budget; never accept an average, and never assume augmentation guarantees symmetry - measure it per lineage and treat breakage as hard to reverse.
Symptom
Policies developed quantified left/right asymmetry (e.g. C2-700 turned right at 82% but left at 67% - a 15 pp gap; push tolerance 40/40 symmetric on the root vs 17/40 on a deep-trained descendant), and averaged metrics would have reported healthy midpoints.
Context
The repo had policy-level symmetry-breaking evidence strong enough to make separate scoring a battery rule: "左右必须分开打分 … 平均 vy 跟踪会把它掩盖". Notably, chirality broke and never recovered even though mirror augmentation (command-level mirror_prob 0.5) was on the whole time - augmentation reduced but did not prevent asymmetry, and once broken it stayed broken through subsequent rungs. PASS conditions therefore carried explicit symmetry budgets (left/right tracking gap <=10 pp), and sim's predicted asymmetry (700: right faster than left) was flagged for direct real-robot timing confirmation.
Change
Battery rule: every directional skill reports left and right (CW/CCW) as separate rows with a max-gap budget; mirror augmentation treated as mitigation, not proof of symmetry.
Outcome
The 700-vs-A800 asymmetry gap (15 pp vs 7 pp) became a first-class selection criterion; C4 product shipped with a measured 5 pp gap.
Mechanism
Averaging over mirrored conditions cancels antisymmetric error exactly where it matters; and symmetry lost during training is a lineage injury (like plasticity loss) that later rungs do not spontaneously heal, so it must be gated, not assumed.
Applies when
- evaluating turn/sidewalk/push-recovery or any mirrored skill
- relying on mirror/symmetry augmentation
- selecting between checkpoints with similar average scores
“左右必须分开打分（left/right lateral、CW/CCW turn 各自一行）—— 本仓已有 policy-level symmetry breaking 的量化证据，平均 vy 跟踪会把它掩盖。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 5. 固定验收矩阵 (左右分开打分) A constant-value plant rung passed every binary gate with record scores - and shipped 60% thinner posture margins that hardware exposed
constant-value-dr-overfits-marginRandomize deployment-critical axes over a narrow band spanning the measured real support - never a single value, never a fictitious tail - and report graded margin quantities (tilt margin) next to binary gates, because saturated gates rank thin-margin and thick-margin policies identically.
Symptom
s2_lag1 (trained at constant 1-frame latency) posted the strongest sim gate sheet in history (20/20 everywhere) yet was unstable on hardware, while s1e (trained across the full 0-3 frame band) was the every-run-stable SOTA at the same power.
Context
The sim autopsy (new --delay-jitter harness modeling the BusWorker's time-varying phase drift): 18 runs across constant and time-varying delays ALL survived - time variation alone does not kill - but the tilt-margin ordering reproduced hardware exactly: s1e 7.7-9.1 deg (thickest) < s2_lag1 10.7-15.0 < s1c 16.2-18.2. Attribution: constant-value training permits precise specialization to that one value; s1e's band diversity forced cross-value robustness - "恒定 1 帧训练 vs s1e 的 0~3 帧全带——分布多样性逼出跨值鲁棒,恒定值允许精确 特化" - so the constant-rung policy's margins were ~60% thinner, fine in sim's clean world, pushed over the line by real-world disturbances. Tool lesson booked: "存活门二值饱和后掩盖裕度差" - binary survival gates saturate and hide margin differences; graded margin columns (tilt-max) belong in the report. The synthesis with the opposite failure (wide tails cause drag-glide): the proposed resolution was a NARROW uniform band (0.02, 0.04) covering exactly the real 1-2 ticks - diversity inside the measured support, no tail, no single point. s1e's root selection later leaned on the same property: its full-band latency training "预装" the delay rungs and delivered "全工况稳定裕度" that survived power derating.
Change
DR-on-an-axis design refined to a three-way distinction: no wide fictitious tails (drag), no single constant values (thin margins), but a narrow band spanning the measured real support; acceptance reports gained graded margin columns alongside binary gates.
Outcome
The tilt-margin column entered the standard report; the s1e root (band-trained) carried the C ladder while the constant-value branch was archived with its three contributions credited.
Mechanism
Robustness margins are shaped by the diversity of the training distribution, not just its support: a point-mass distribution lets the optimizer trade margin for on-point performance, while a band forces solutions that keep margin across the band - and binary survival metrics cannot see the difference until the margin is spent on hardware.
Conflicts
The narrow-band (0.02,0.04) resolution was a pending recommendation ("裁决建议(待用户)") at the time of writing; the lineage instead moved root to s1e whose full-band training predated the staged ladder - the deterministic-staging card and this card record the two failure modes the final design must avoid simultaneously.
Applies when
- a rung trained at a fixed plant value aces sim but wobbles on hardware
- binary acceptance gates are all saturated across candidates
- choosing between constant, banded, and wide DR on one axis
“18 跑全活,时变性单独不足以击杀;但 tilt_max 裕度排序完整复现真机:s1e 7.7~9.1°(最厚)< s2_lag1 10.7~15.0 … 恒定 1 帧训练 vs s1e 的 0~3 帧全带——分布多样性逼出跨值鲁棒,恒定值允许精确特化 … 存活门二值饱和后掩盖裕度差(s2_lag1 sim 门 20/20 史上最强却真机不稳)”
train/README.md § s2_lag1 真机不稳 × s1e 稳的 sim 对拍(2026-08-07,时变延迟实验) Changing the gait clock silently flipped a hardwired threshold's meaning - write derived constants as expressions
derived-constants-must-track-their-baseBefore changing any base parameter (clock, control rate, scale), enumerate every constant derived from it and every constant that must NOT change; convert derived literals into expressions of the base so the next change cannot silently flip a term's meaning.
Symptom
Slowing the clock 0.40 -> 0.50 s would have silently inverted the feet_air_time threshold's semantics: the 0.25 s threshold was hardwired, so at ct 0.40 the swing window (~0.20 s) sat below it (constant pressure to lengthen strides), while at ct 0.50 the window (~0.25 s) equals it - the term's meaning flips from "push longer" to "neutral" with no code error anywhere.
Context
The clock change audit walked every dependent quantity: most followed automatically (joint_pos_ref / clearance / contact_number cycle_time params, gait_phase observation, deploy/sim2sim/policy_io, export) - wiring confirmed, zero hand edits; the air_time threshold was the one hardwired constant, fixed by preserving the RATIO: 0.25 -> 0.3125 = 0.625 x ct, with the recommendation to commit it as the expression 0.625*ct "一劳永逸" (solved once and forever). The same audit also listed what must NOT follow the clock (50 Hz control rate, physics dt/decimation, 47-dim contract, action_latency absolute seconds, PD/torque limits) - the change's blast radius stated in both directions.
Change
feet_air_time threshold re-expressed as a fraction of cycle_time; auto-following vs must-not-change lists written into the spec for the clock migration.
Outcome
The clock migration (v10, repeated in v11) carried no silent semantic flips; the expression form removed the trap for every future clock change.
Mechanism
Constants derived from a base parameter encode a ratio at their birth; storing the evaluated number severs the dependency, so changing the base leaves stale semantics with no failing test. Expressions preserve the intent; and an explicit both-directions dependency list (follows / must-not-follow) is what makes a base-parameter change reviewable.
Applies when
- changing gait clock, control frequency, or units
- a reward threshold interacts with a phase/window duration
- config audit finds literals that encode ratios
“feet_air_time 阈值 0.25 是写死的,不跟 ct 走——0.40 时摆动窗 ~0.20s<0.25(恒拉长压力),0.50 时摆动窗 ~0.25s≈阈值(语义翻转)。按比例保原压力:0.25 → 0.3125(=0.625×ct;建议直接写成 0.625 * ct 表达式,一劳永逸)。”
train/WALK_V10_SPEC.md § 3. T —— 慢时钟 (训练侧必做一件) One fixed acceptance matrix for every rung - new skill must PASS while every old skill stays within a regression budget
fixed-acceptance-matrix-per-rungFreeze one acceptance matrix for the whole ladder; every promotion requires the new skill's PASS plus bounded regression on every prior skill, measured against the parent's baseline under the current (bug- fixed) metric code - and include command transitions, not just steady states.
Symptom
Sequential skill training silently trades old skills for new ones (C1 trained away the root's backward ability); without a constant measurement frame, each rung's numbers are incomparable and regressions hide.
Context
The C ladder ran the same 13-cell command matrix at 20 seeds per cell at every rung (stand; vx +0.15/+0.30; vx -0.10/-0.20; vy +/-0.10; wz +/-0.20; two vx&wz combos; two vx&vy combos), with promotion requiring "新技能 PASS 且旧技能不明显退化" - old-skill regression budget <=2/20 against the parent's recorded 20-seed baseline. For the transition-rich final rung, a command-switch block was added (forward->stop, stop->backward, forward->turn, left->right, turn->forward; survival + re-track within 2 s) because "每个 steady command 都会做 ≠ 命令切换不会摔" - steady-state success does not imply switch safety, and the joystick does switches. The C4 product's gate ran 260 cells (13 x 20) all 20/20.
Change
Battery frozen once, reused verbatim per rung; baselines re-measured per parent (and re-measured again after the metric-frame fix, since old baselines were taken with the buggy coordinate reading - "旧基线是坏坐标系的， 不可引用").
Outcome
Regressions were caught at the rung that caused them (C1's backward loss, C2's vx+0.30 decay), and cross-rung comparisons stayed valid for the ladder's whole life.
Mechanism
A constant matrix makes every rung's output a point in the same metric space, so "did we lose anything" is a table diff, not a judgment call; the per-skill regression budget converts previously earned PASSes into standing constraints on all future training.
Applies when
- designing gates for sequential skill addition
- promoting a checkpoint to be the next rung's root
- after any evaluation-code fix (old baselines must be re-measured)
“新技能 PASS 且旧技能不明显退化才晋级。… C5 追加：命令切换验收（steady ≠ transition） forward→stop、stop→backward、forward→turn、left→right、turn→forward，各 20 seed，判存活 + 切换后 2 s 内是否重新跟上。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 5. 固定验收矩阵（每级跑同一张，每项 20 seed） After seven patch-generations, freeze the lineage as a regression baseline, fix the structural debts, and retrain from zero
freeze-lineage-fix-structure-restartWhen successive rungs keep trading one symptom for another, ask whether the remaining problems are structural (contracts, latency, sampling, reward-table architecture); if so, freeze the lineage as regression baselines, pay the structural debts, and restart minimal - carrying forward laws and instruments, not weights and weights' patches.
Symptom
The v5-v11 walk lineage had accumulated interacting patches (reward terms, gates, clamps, per-joint scales) faster than it converged on the user's goal; v12's spec itself was superseded before training by an external review's verdict that the remaining problems were structural, not parametric.
Context
The 2026-08-05 status banner records the pivot: the walk profile was rolled back wholesale to v10b parameters, the v5-v11 lineage frozen "只作回归对照" (kept only as regression baselines), and four structural debts were named as prerequisites for a from-zero straight-walk baseline: the action-latency FIFO (fixed with its own test), the ONNX manifest contract, discrete command sampling, and a minimal reward table. The v12 spec - fully designed, partially implemented - was suspended: "本规格挂起,不再按此开训".
Change
Strategy switched from "one more patch generation" to freeze-fix-restart: lineage checkpoints retained as comparison anchors, infrastructure hardened first, then a clean retrain with a minimal reward table (this restart produced the s* generation that later became the real-robot SOTA line).
Outcome
A designed-and-ready training generation was deliberately not run - the review's structural findings outranked sunk design cost; the restart line inherited seven generations of laws (calibrations, gate batteries, falsified fixes) without inheriting their entangled reward table.
Mechanism
Patch lineages accumulate coupled terms whose interactions eventually cost more to reason about than a restart costs to train; the knowledge worth keeping is the laws and instruments (measured plant values, calibrated gates, falsified directions), not the entangled weights. A restart on hardened structure converts the lineage's lessons into a clean initial design instead of another delta.
Applies when
- repeated rungs shuffle symptoms without net progress
- an external review flags infrastructure/contract debts
- deciding between another patch generation and a clean retrain
“同日外部评审定调换路线:冻结 v5~v11 血统(只作回归对照),修结构性问题(latency FIFO 已修 tests/test_action_latency.py、ONNX manifest 契约、离散命令采样、最小奖励表)后从零训直行基线。本规格挂起,不再按此开训。”
train/WALK_V12_SPEC.md § ⚠️ 状态 (2026-08-05) Measure yaw rate by integrating heading, not by averaging body-frame angular velocity - the two differed 15x
heading-integral-not-body-rateFor any secular rate (turn gain, drift), integrate the world-frame angle over the window; never average instantaneous body-frame rates during oscillatory motion - and when code comments warn about a measurement, believe them before re-measuring.
Symptom
Two measurements of the same turn gain disagreed by a factor of ~15: time-averaged body-frame omega_z gave -0.05 while the sim2sim harness's heading-angle integration gave +0.473.
Context
The harness code comment had already documented and predicted the failure: during gait the torso oscillates (body-frame omega_z std up to 0.7); projecting world angular velocity onto a swaying body axis and then averaging biases the estimate systematically - "实测体系均值 −0.04 而实际在以 +0.15 转" (measured body-frame mean -0.04 while actually turning at +0.15). The author's own -0.05 measurement was declared void and the training machine's 1.58/2.45 turn gains confirmed valid.
Change
Measurement doctrine fixed: yaw rate for evaluation = net heading change by integration over the window; instantaneous body-frame rates are unusable for averaged directional statistics during legged gait.
Outcome
Subsequent friction sweeps and turn-gain accounting were all conducted in the heading-integral currency, making cross-simulator comparisons (MuJoCo vs Isaac 1.04/1.02) meaningful.
Mechanism
Averaging a vector quantity expressed in an oscillating frame couples the frame's oscillation into the mean (a rectification bias); the heading integral is computed in the world frame where the gait oscillation integrates to ~zero, leaving the secular component.
Applies when
- measuring turn gain, heading drift, or any secular angular rate
- a body-frame-averaged statistic disagrees with trajectory-level truth
- writing evaluation code for oscillating platforms
“我用体坐标系 ωz 的时间均值测,得 −0.05;sim2sim 用航向角积分,得 +0.473。差 15 倍。… 步态中躯干摇晃(体系 ωz std 可达 0.7),把世界角速度投到摇摆的体轴上再取均值会系统性偏掉 … 结论:偏航率必须用航向积分,体系瞬时角速度取均值不可用。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § ③ 转向增益 —— 我的测法是错的,训练机的 1.58/2.45 成立 Push-test protocol - positive side first, fragile side spotted, axes aligned in the log, and cross-machine push counts stay qualitative
push-test-chirality-protocolOrder disturbance tests from the robust side to the fragile side with protection scaled to sim-measured asymmetry, align and log frame conventions before testing, and treat cross-domain disturbance counts as qualitative evidence only.
Symptom
Hand-push testing on hardware risked falls on a side sim had already flagged as fragile, and push counts invited apples-to-oranges comparison with sim numbers.
Context
Sim chirality was explicit: descendants were far more fragile in -y (fric-3000@kd1.2: +6 N*s survived 15/20 vs -6 N*s only 3-9/20) while the s1e control was perfectly symmetric (40/40). The protocol therefore: push the positive direction first, keep a spotter for the negative side; before any push, record which real-robot side corresponds to sim's +y in the log ("上机前对一次坐标"); and - citing the chaos lesson ("混沌课文") - real push results are used only as qualitative corroboration, never compared numerically with sim survival counts across machines.
Change
Push testing became a scripted, chirality-aware protocol with frame alignment as a logged precondition and an explicit epistemic limit on cross-domain count comparison.
Outcome
The fragile side was tested with protection informed by sim's quantified asymmetry; logs stayed interpretable because the frame correspondence was recorded before the first push.
Mechanism
Disturbance-response chirality is a real, quantifiable lineage property, so test order should follow measured fragility; and perturbation outcomes are chaotic in the details (divergent trajectories from tiny differences), so counts do not transfer across domains even when qualitative rankings do.
Applies when
- planning push/disturbance tests on hardware
- sim shows directional asymmetry in disturbance survival
- someone proposes comparing real push counts to sim counts
“先正向后负向, 负向留人扶 —— sim 手性明确: 后代在负 y 向显著更脆 (fric-3000 @kd1.2: +6 N·s 15/20 vs −6 N·s 3~9/20), 而 s1e@0.8 两向 40/40 完全对称。上机前对一次坐标 … 跨机不做二值结论 (混沌课文): 真机推力只作定性对照, 不与 sim 计数对比。”
train/REAL_RUN_S2.md § 3. 抗推 (可选, 人手推; 做则按此协议) Oversized lateral COM randomization (+/-5 cm) deliberately forces leg spread
com-randomization-forces-leg-spreadDR ranges can be behavior-shaping tools, not just robustness padding: oversize a randomization axis to force a strategy the reward struggles to express - and expect a compensating behavior to appear as the cost.
Symptom
Feet drift toward the centerline and even collide; policy has no incentive to keep a lateral support base.
Context
COM randomization ranges were chosen asymmetrically by axis: lateral +/-5 cm ("比常规大，故意的" - larger than usual, on purpose), fore-aft +/-2 cm, vertical +/-2 cm. The oversized lateral range is not robustness padding but a behavioral forcing function. Lucen logged it as directly relevant to its own roll-channel / sideways leg-kick symptom.
Change
Set COM randomization to lateral +/-5 cm, fore-aft +/-2 cm, vertical +/-2 cm, with the lateral band intentionally oversized to make narrow stances fail during training.
Outcome
Effective at separating the feet on the reference robot; side effect - the base began swaying left-right, which then required a foot-centerline distance penalty (see reward-chain-foot-height-landing-spacing).
Mechanism
Randomizing COM laterally makes narrow-stance policies fall for some draws, so PPO discovers wide stances as the only strategy robust across the band - DR used as an implicit reward. The sway side effect appears because the policy hedges against unknown COM by active lateral correction.
Applies when
- feet too close / self-collision in a learned gait
- roll-axis instability suspected to come from narrow stance
- choosing COM or mass-offset DR ranges
“两脚太近甚至互撞 → 先试质心横向随机化 ±5 cm，逼迫策略把脚分开；有效但引发新问题——基座开始左右摇摆 … 横向 ±5 cm（比常规大，故意的，用来逼出分腿）/ 前后 ±2 cm / 垂直 ±2 cm”
Experience.md § 质心随机化范围 (lines 75, 84-86) Design the next run to complete the 2x2 - either outcome then convicts or acquits a factor cleanly
fill-the-missing-factorial-cellWhen two config factors are jointly suspected, lay out the factorial of existing evidence, spend one run on the missing cell with both interpretations and an early-abort tripwire written in advance - and treat either outcome as a verdict, not a disappointment.
Symptom
Hip joints froze at the action clamp in v7, but the history could not say whether the culprit was the raised action_rate (-0.2) or the halved reference amplitude (scale 0.15): existing versions covered only three corners of the (rate x scale) space - v5 (-0.03, 0.30) healthy, v6 (-0.03, 0.15) healthy, v7 (-0.2, 0.15) frozen.
Context
v9 was designed explicitly as the missing cell (-0.2, 0.30), with the readings pre-registered: v9 not frozen -> the real anti-freeze force was always the reference amplitude and -0.2 may stay; v9 frozen -> -0.2 is convicted beyond appeal (freezes at both amplitudes) and the next version goes straight to a structural fix. "两个结局都是干净的信息" - both endings are clean information.
Change
One training run allocated purely to complete the factorial, with freeze tripwires (joint_pos_ref telemetry <0.1 at iter 1000-1500 -> abort, do not run to 6000) so a conviction costs the minimum compute.
Outcome
v9 froze - the rate weight was convicted at both amplitudes ("−0.2 铁案定罪"), and v10 moved to the structural saturation fix with the weight question closed instead of re-litigated.
Mechanism
Three corners of a 2x2 leave the two factors confounded in the failure corner; the fourth observation makes each factor's marginal effect identifiable. Pre-registering both readings turns the run into a guaranteed-informative experiment regardless of outcome.
Applies when
- two config changes are confounded in a failure
- version history already covers some corners of a factor grid
- deciding what single experiment buys the most attribution
“这恰好补齐一个 2×2 实验矩阵的缺格 … v9 不冻 → 真正的抗冻结主力一直是参考摆幅,−0.2 可以留;v9 仍冻 → −0.2 铁案定罪(两种摆幅下都冻),v10 直接上结构修复 … 两个结局都是干净的信息。”
train/WALK_V9_SPEC.md § 0. 设计原则 (2×2 实验矩阵)