Training Coach

Doctrine

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

1. doctrine-1Contract freeze and fingerprint discipline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12. doctrine-12The deployment pipeline is plant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Experience cards

161 cards matching “curriculum-criterion-conditioned-on-lagging-category”.

• No parameter tuning on the floor - a failing config retries once, then it is out; anomalies go back to simno-field-tuning-protocol

  Replicatedomnireal-deployreal-acceptanceprocesscontract-freeze

  Hardware time is for executing and measuring the pre-registered matrix, never for tuning: failing configs get one retry then elimination, anomalies get recorded and reproduced in sim, and contract-check bypass flags stay unused.

  Symptom

  Hardware sessions create pressure to fix problems live - nudge a gain, tweak a scale - which destroys attribution and risks the robot.

  Context

  The anomaly-handling section of the acceptance sheet is three fixed plays: (1) falls at start -> retry once at the same settings; falls again -> that configuration is eliminated, "不现场调参" (no on-site parameter tuning); (2) limit cycle or motor screech -> stop immediately, record the gain level and the joint, reproduce in sim before any discussion; (3) systematic disagreement with sim -> record it as a finding (hardware outranks sim) rather than adjusting anything to force agreement. Related guardrails elsewhere in the sheet: never pass --allow-unstamped / --allow-plant-drift to bypass manifest checks - if it errors, something real is wrong, stop and look.

  Change

  Field sessions restricted to executing the pre-written matrix; every fix path routed through sim reproduction and the normal config/rung process.

  Outcome

  Sessions stayed interpretable (each run matched a documented config) and safety overrides never became habit; anomalies arrived back in sim as reproducible cases instead of half-remembered floor stories.

  Mechanism

  Field-tuned values are measured under adrenaline on one floor with no logging or baselines - they contaminate the config lineage and are unattributable afterwards; and every bypass flag that skips a contract check converts a designed safety property into an operator promise.

  Applies when

  • a config fails or oscillates during a hardware session
  • someone reaches for a live gain tweak or a bypass flag
  • writing the anomaly-handling section of a deployment runbook

  “起步即摔 → 换档重试一次, 仍摔则该档出局, 不现场调参。出现极限环/啸叫 → 立刻停, 记录档位与关节, 回 sim 复现再议。… 不要给 --allow-unstamped / --allow-plant-drift —— 三枚 ONNX 都已盖章 … 真要报错说明有别的问题, 停下来看。”

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

  Observed oncewalkreal-deployhardwarereal-acceptanceprocessattribution

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

  Symptom

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

  Context

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

  Change

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

  Outcome

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

  Mechanism

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

  Applies when

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

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

• The recovery line's real-robot verdicts live in three places that disagree - the spec's "fairly stable, first real stand-up" for v2_6, an undated runbook note that only v3_1p1c works, and a first run whose details were never recordedwrite-hardware-verdicts-back

  Observed oncerecoveryreal-deployreal-acceptanceprocessattribution

  A hardware verdict is a dated entry in the authoritative ledger - policy file and stamp, gain profile, floor, battery, tries, log file, what was seen - written back the same day; a note in a command file is a pointer, not a verdict, and a newer verdict that contradicts an older one must say so.

  Symptom

  Asked "which recovery policy works on the real robot", the sources give different answers, and none of them carries the conditions of the test.

  Context

  08-09: the first real run was stopped as violent and dangerous; which ONNX, which gain profile and whether a log existed were marked "to be recorded" and never were. 08-11: v2_6 was "fairly stable", the line's first real get-up, with splits after standing; v2_5b's result and both CSVs were "to be reported". 08-14: v3_1p1c was stamped and pushed, with "the real first test still needs the user present"; the spec records no hardware result for it. The operator runbook (undated) puts above the v2_6 and v2_5b floor commands the note that none of the recovery policies below work, only recovery_v3_1p1c - a verdict never written back into the spec, with no date, floor, battery, number of tries or log attached.

  Change

  None recorded in the sources; this card records the gap.

  Outcome

  The line's authoritative record ends with v3_1p1c as the product awaiting its first real test, while the operator's note implies it is the only one that works and that v2_6 (recorded as a success) does not.

  Mechanism

  Verdicts given at the robot travel by word of mouth and command-file comments; without a record carrying the conditions, a later reader cannot tell a changed verdict from a changed floor, battery or stack.

  Conflicts

  §43 (2026-08-11) records v2_6 as the first successful real get-up ("fairly stable"); the undated runbook says every recovery policy except recovery_v3_1p1c does not work; §49 (2026-08-14) says v3_1p1c's first real test was still pending. The runbook's claim has no date and was never written back to the spec, so it cannot be ordered against §43.

  Applies when

  • choosing which policy to deploy from an operator's notes
  • a hardware session ends without a written result
  • two documents disagree about what worked on the robot

  “下面的recovery都不行 只有recovery_v3_1p1c.onnx”

• A joint-velocity penalty meant to slow the get-up cut joint speed 16% and left the get-up time unchanged - the knob never moved the variable, so the idea it was meant to test stayed untesteddof-vel-penalty-is-not-a-pacing-knob

  Mechanism understoodrecoveryreward-shapingreward-shapingattribution

  Before reading a result as a test of an idea, check that the knob actually moved the independent variable; velocity regularizers smooth a schedule they do not set, and a schedule driven by per-step task income moves only when that income's time structure does.

  Symptom

  The get-up took 0.6-0.9 s in Isaac with large torque demand; the user proposed getting up more slowly so less torque would be needed.

  Context

  The idea had support in the accounts: the acceptance bound is an upper bound of 5 s (5-8x margin), the quasi-static squat path peaks at 25% of the limits, and rolling over needs no momentum. R3.2 raised dof_vel from -1e-3 to -5e-3 as the single variable.

  Change

  dof_vel -1e-3 -> -5e-3 (child-run from R3.1).

  Outcome

  Get-up medians moved +0.02-0.04 s (noise); raw joint velocity -16%; torque demand median got worse (hip_pitch 46-48% -> 63-67%) as the new term competed with torque_headroom on the same joints; MuJoCo 98 -> 96%. Verdict FAIL on the knob, not on the idea, and the rung was not adopted. When pace was later attacked through the income's time structure (V2.5/V2.5b), the MuJoCo get-up moved into the 3.5-4.5 s design band.

  Mechanism

  The pace was set by base_height_progress paying for every step spent high (stand earlier, earn more); a velocity regularizer only smooths motion along the same schedule and does not change when the robot stands up.

  Applies when

  • trying to make a skill slower or gentler with smoothness penalties
  • an experiment's primary metric did not move and a verdict is being written
  • two penalties act on the same joints

  “**关键判读:`dof_vel` 罚只把关节速度压了 16%,而起身用时一点没变。** 也就是说**这一级根本没有把"慢下来"这个自变量推动起来** —— 所以它**不构成对 用户假说的检验** … 起身节奏由 `base_height_progress` 的逐步计酬决定(早站起来就多 拿),速度正则只在同一条时间轨迹上把动作抹匀,不改变何时站起来。”

• Guessed joint friction was 2.5x low and damping 5x high - measure, then DR around nominalfriction-measured-not-guessed

  Mechanism understoodwalkplant-calibrationplant-calibrationdomain-randomization

  Measure 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”

• Every new penalty ships with a pre-registered withdrawal clause - if healthy gait must pay above the cap, the term stands downcalibration-threshold-with-withdrawal-clause

  Replicatedwalkreward-shapingreward-shapingprocess

  Introduce 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)。”

• Exponential tracking kernels go flat exactly when the error is largest - pair them with an L2 term for the far fieldexp-kernel-needs-l2-far-field

  Mechanism understoodwalkreward-shapingreward-shaping

  Never let an exp/Gaussian kernel be the only tracking pressure on a quantity that can drift far from target: pair it with an unbounded (L2) term sized as the "don't diverge" floor, and check which frame the kernel reads.

  Symptom

  With only an exp-type yaw tracking term (exp(-err/std^2), std 0.25), a robot whose heading had drifted badly received almost no corrective gradient: at error 0.6 rad/s the term evaluates to exp(-0.36/0.0625) = 0.003 - near zero AND flat.

  Context

  The exp kernel is excellent for fine tracking near zero error but its gradient vanishes at large error - precisely when correction matters most. Fix: add track_ang_vel_z_err_l2 (-0.5), a plain quadratic on the same quantity: "exp 管精细跟踪、L2 管'别发散', 互补". Both terms deliberately read WORLD-frame wz (matching the exp term's source), because this torso sways enough that body-frame wz means are systematically off (measured -0.039 while actually turning +0.152). The same far-field-gradient argument reappears in the v8 risk list: frozen joints could not climb back because their huge error put them on the exp plateau ("远端梯度消失是冻结自锁的帮凶").

  Change

  Added the L2 companion term at -0.5 alongside the existing exp term (a term that had been in an earlier draft and was lost in a rewrite - itself worth noticing).

  Outcome

  Corrective pressure restored across the whole error range; the exp+L2 pairing became the house pattern for tracking terms.

  Mechanism

  d/de[exp(-e^2/s^2)] -> 0 as e grows: the kernel saturates and cannot distinguish bad from terrible. A quadratic's gradient grows with error, covering the far field; summing the two yields monotone corrective pressure with fine shaping near the target.

  Applies when

  • tracking rewards use exp/Gaussian kernels alone
  • a drifted or frozen state fails to recover during training
  • designing tracking terms for quantities with large transient errors

  “exp 在误差大时梯度趋零, 恰好在最需要纠正的时候失灵。… 误差 0.6 → exp(-0.36/0.0625) = 0.003, 接近零且平坦。… exp 管精细跟踪、L2 管"别发散", 互补。”

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

  Observed oncerecoveryprocessprocessfork-selectionattribution

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

  Symptom

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

  Context

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

  Change

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

  Outcome

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

  Mechanism

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

  Applies when

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

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

• Fall recovery was defined as the whole chain - any fallen pose, a stable stand, a clean hand-back to walking - and built as a second policy behind a deploy-side switch, not folded into the walking PPOrecovery-two-policies-and-a-state-machine

  Observed oncerecoveryprocessprocesscontract-freezereal-acceptance

  Define a recovery skill by the whole chain it must complete, including the hand-back to the next controller; if it is built as a separate policy, make the switching logic and its handoff contract a deliverable of their own, and keep the recovery observation contract a subset of the locomotion one so a unified policy stays possible later.

  Symptom

  A walking robot that falls needs a human to stand it back up. The design question on 2026-08-09 was whether to teach getting up inside the existing omni walking policy or beside it.

  Context

  The user set the goal as "any fallen pose -> stand up alone -> stand stably", and the spec named the real difficulty as the full chain fall -> recovery -> stable stand -> correctly initialised walking history and clock -> walking, making the deploy state machine a first-class deliverable. A unified single policy had a real-robot precedent (arXiv:2605.18611, a state-dependent gate near 37 deg tilt) but was deferred until a recovery policy and an omni policy were each reliable. The line ran on its own branch and worktree with every walk/stand/omni/run config path untouched. The development path copied the G1 learned get-up logic (arXiv:2502.12152): first find any feasible get-up (ugly accepted), then add smoothing, torque and real-robot constraints. The recovery contract kept the base 45-dim observation (command slice held at 0, no gait phase, no frame history - their reasons do not apply to a skill without a clock or a velocity task), so it stays a prefix of the 215-dim omni contract and a later merge is not foreclosed.

  Change

  Two policies and a deploy-side switch instead of one retrained walking policy; recovery got its own minimal contract (45 dims, full-range action, later the beta-anchored profile) and its own acceptance battery.

  Outcome

  The split held for the whole line: on 08-14 deploy_policy gained a second (PolicyIO, ONNX) pair behind --recovery-policy, each loaded under its own manifest contract, and the runbook runs stand_v1b or omni_c4_ff800 as the locomotion side with recovery_v3_1p1c. The literature scan of 08-10 found that every verified get-up implementation deploys one end-to-end policy (or softly gated experts) and stages only on the training side - so the runtime state machine here is the walk/recovery switch, not a staged get-up.

  Mechanism

  A separate policy keeps each reward table single-purpose and lets a proven walking lineage stay byte-frozen; the cost moves to the handoff, where every piece of state one policy leaves behind (history, clock, last action, command) must be reset for the other.

  Applies when

  • adding fall recovery or get-up to a robot that already walks
  • choosing between one unified policy and a switched pair of policies
  • designing the observation/action contract of a secondary skill

  “先做 recovery policy + omni policy 两个策略,部署侧状态机切换;不把 recovery 硬塞进现有 omni PPO。 … 任务定义:**任意跌倒姿态 → 自己站起来 → 稳定站立**。真正的难点不只是"起身", … omni walk**(§6 部署状态机是本 spec 的一等公民,不是附录)”

• Tightening the bridge's rate limiter under an unchanged policy cut torque peaks 30-50% and made other things worse - the policy cannot see the limiter, keeps commanding and winds up; a deploy-side limiter is a safety net, not a curedeploy-rate-limiter-windup

  Mechanism understoodrecoverysim2sim-gateactuator-modelingsim2simreal-acceptance

  A rate or torque limiter added at deployment lowers peaks but the policy still commands as if unconstrained (saturation, windup, new contacts); use it as a safety net mirrored in evaluation, and put the constraint where the policy can learn around it.

  Symptom

  After the violent first real-robot get-up, the cheapest candidate fix was to tighten the bridge's slew (rate) limit for the recovery policy without retraining.

  Context

  Probe on R3.1 in MuJoCo (5 categories x 3 seeds, mu 1.0), monkeypatching the limiter with no repository change: TIGHT = RS06 4.0 / RS02 3.0 / RS00 2.0 rad/s (about 0.08/0.06/0.04 rad per policy step) against the current vel_limit setting.

  Change

  The probe decided the role of the limiter rather than a deployment.

  Outcome

  Success 14/15 -> 12/15; get-up median 2.35 -> 3.53 s (max 9.30); torque demand peak median hip_pitch 164% -> 111%, knee 166% -> 86%; action saturation still 100%; leg-leg contact 558 -> 860 frames. The limiter was kept only as a real-robot safety net (mirrored into sim2sim evaluation); the cure moved into training - where the next lesson was that a limiter anchored on the last command is itself an integrator (slew-anchor-is-an-integrator).

  Mechanism

  A policy that never trained with the limiter keeps issuing the targets it learned; the limiter clips them, the target window runs ahead (windup), and the robot follows a trajectory the policy never evaluated.

  Applies when

  • a trained policy is too violent on hardware and a quick deploy-side fix is tempting
  • adding slew, torque or velocity limits in a bridge or firmware
  • evaluation and deployment use different limiter settings

  “判读:**链路侧收紧立等可取地把 τ 峰值砍 30~50%,但成功率掉、饱和率仍 100%、 腿-腿接触反升** —— 策略感知不到限速器,目标窗口继续狂奔。⇒ 收紧 slew 只配当 **真机侧安全网**(必须同步进 sim2sim 口径,基础设施现成),**不配当治法; 治法必须进训练**。”

• Deployment power derating damages non-forward axes far more than forward - sweep it in sim before deployingpower-scale-hurts-nonforward-axes

  Replicatedomnireal-deployreal-acceptanceactuator-modelingattribution

  Treat 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。”

• Calibrate a wall penalty by measuring healthy and sick policies - healthy pays ~0, the disease pays a wallcalibrate-threshold-between-healthy-and-sick

  Mechanism understoodwalkreward-shapingreward-shapinggate-battery

  Calibrate 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”

• Diagnose a behavior failure by enumerating hypotheses and auditing each against the actual config, cheapest firsthypothesis-table-code-audit

  Replicatedwalkattributionattributionprocessreward-shaping

  Before 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% |”

• Design the next run to complete the 2x2 - either outcome then convicts or acquits a factor cleanlyfill-the-missing-factorial-cell

  Mechanism understoodwalkprocessprocessattributionreward-shaping

  When 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。”

• Fix a too-deep nominal pose before adding any penalties - the default stance defines the basin training starts innominal-posture-before-penalties

  Mechanism understoodwalkreward-shapingreward-shapingplant-calibration

  Before tuning penalties on a degenerate gait, audit the nominal pose and height targets against morphology and published ratios; if the default stance encodes the degenerate behavior, fix it first - and recompute dependent quantities (init height) by FK, not by hand.

  Symptom

  Policy lived in a crouched shuffle; nominal knee angle was 0.5 rad (28.6 deg) - deeper than published configs (Unitree G1 0.3 rad / 17.2 deg, Booster T1 0.4 rad) - so the policy's starting point and its action-space center both sat inside the crouch basin.

  Context

  Initially ranked "secondary" in the local diagnosis, this was promoted to co-first priority by the cross-check against published reward tables, which states that with nominal knee flexion above ~0.4 rad, fixing the posture must precede adding any penalties ("改这个之前别加任何 惩罚都是白费"). Companion base-height items: walk profile had weakened base_height_l2 to -5.0 (base class -10, field standard -10 to -20, "the second most common cause of death"), and the height target must be the STANDING height (0.384), not the crouch height.

  Change

  Nominal knee 0.5 -> 0.3 rad with init_base_height recomputed by MuJoCo FK (0.3739 -> 0.3802); base_height_l2 restored to -10 with standing height target; both bundled as first-priority alongside the clearance term.

  Outcome

  Part of the v5/v6 package that lifted swing height to 34 mm and tracking to 87%; the crouch basin stopped being the default answer.

  Mechanism

  The nominal pose is the fixed point every regularizer pulls toward and the point where action=0 lands; if that point is itself the degenerate posture, every penalty fights the geometry. Correcting the attractor is prior to shaping the gradient field around it.

  Applies when

  • policy converges to a crouched or collapsed posture
  • nominal joint angles were chosen for stability rather than gait
  • base-height reward targets or weights were locally weakened

  “研究明确说"nominal 膝屈超过 ~0.4 rad 必须先改,改这个之前别加任何惩罚"。我们是 0.50,超标。… base_height_l2 在 walk profile 里被减到 −5.0(基类是 −10)。研究说这是"第二常见死因"且应 −10 ~ −20。改回 −10。目标高度用站立高 0.384 是对的(研究要求 target 必须是*站立*高度而非蹲姿)。”

• The standing-pose reward had been pulling toward the narrow stance the whole line was fighting - a zero-training kinematic audit of the target vector found it, after first auditing the wrong nominalpose-target-geometric-audit

  Mechanism understoodrecoveryattributionreward-shapingattributionplant-calibration

  Before training on a pose target, audit it with forward kinematics - is it geometrically consistent (feet flat, intended stance, intended width) and is it the frame you think it is (action nominal vs standing default)? A posture term's target may itself be the attractor you are fighting.

  Symptom

  Several rungs aimed at widening the stance failed; the stance stayed narrow as if something kept pulling it back.

  Context

  The audit (MuJoCo forward kinematics, no training): every 5 deg of hip roll widens the stance ~5.5 cm (0.271 m at 5 deg, 0.383 m at 15 deg); at 47 deg of hip yaw a wide stance cannot be flat-footed (residual foot tilt ~0.7 x hip roll), which explained the stalled rungs. The first report also said the stand_pose nominal (hip roll 25, knee 60) has a 63 deg residual foot tilt - but that was the action frame's nominal (the limit-midpoint squat), which stand_pose never used, despite a docstring warning not to mix them. stand_pose's real target was DEFAULT_JOINT_POS: the contract's all-zero pose, legs parallel, ~0.22 m apart.

  Change

  The disease statement was corrected in writing: the narrow stance was not an accidental by-product of proxy traps but the target stand_pose had been actively rewarding. A stored "narrow the stance" knife was marked toxic. V2.8 moved the target to a flat 15-deg stance (sigma 3 -> 1.5, flat_feet margin 5 -> 20 deg).

  Outcome

  V2.8 still failed in-lineage (stance unchanged, feet nearly overlapping, mu 0.4 transfer 2%) - see stance-decided-by-get-up-path - and the from-scratch V3.1 removed both roll joints from stand_pose and put width into a task-space term, which is what finally produced a 0.355 m flat stance. The 63 deg finding was kept as a warning: an action nominal used as a standing target would be a ready-made pit.

  Mechanism

  A posture term with a sharp kernel around the wrong target is an active attractor; every other term fighting it pays twice.

  Applies when

  • a posture keeps returning despite penalties against it
  • a reward uses a default or nominal pose as its target
  • the contract has more than one "nominal" (action frame vs standing pose)

  “上文"stand_pose 的 nominal (hip25/knee60) 残倾 63°"**审计错了对象**:那是 **动作参考系 nominal**(限位中点蹲),stand_pose 从未指向它(函数 docstring 原文即警告"两者别混",还是混了 —— 记档)。 … **修正后的病根陈述:窄站距不是代理陷阱的意外副产物,而是 stand_pose 一直在主动奖励的目标本身**”

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

  Mechanism understoodwalkactuator-modelingactuator-modelinghardwareplant-calibration

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

  Symptom

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

  Context

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

  Change

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

  Outcome

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

  Mechanism

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

  Applies when

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

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

• Cutting swing amplitude 40% raised yaw-momentum demand 53% - the falsified fix is recorded so nobody walks that road againamplitude-cut-falsified-yaw-fix

  Mechanism understoodwalksim-evalmeasurementattributionreward-shaping

  Test gait fixes against the quantity the ground must actually supply (torque/force rates vs friction ceilings), not against kinematic proxies; record falsified fixes with their mechanism so the search space shrinks permanently.

  Symptom

  Support-foot yaw slip stayed at ~223 deg (vs 225 deg) after walk_v6 cut joint swing amplitudes by ~40% (hip_pitch 20.6->10.4 deg, knee 31.3->18.8 deg) - the change built on the theory "smaller swing = less yaw momentum to dump into the ground".

  Context

  Direct measurement inverted the theory: yaw-momentum amplitude ROSE 16% (+/-0.1000 -> +/-0.1159) and its rate of change rose 53% (1.86 -> 2.84 N*m demanded from the ground), pinned exactly at the foot's supply ceiling (2.8-3.3 N*m at mu 0.6-0.7) - so slip could not drop. The extra demand lives in higher harmonics: v6's crisper foot placement (better clearance 34 mm, lower landing force) shortens the momentum- exchange window, concentrating the same exchange into less time. The verdict was written as a closed road: "下一轮不要再走这个方向". An honest residue was also booked: WHY amplitude down but momentum up 16% remained unresolved, with the named next step (per-rigid-body decomposition of H_z, since per-joint RMS sensitivity ignores phase correlations).

  Change

  The "reduce amplitude to reduce yaw momentum" lever was removed from the planning space; future yaw-slip work redirected toward the supply side (friction) and momentum-rate mechanics.

  Outcome

  Slip unchanged (225 -> 223 deg); the falsification and its mechanism became a permanent constraint on the fix search space.

  Mechanism

  Ground yaw torque demand scales with the rate of change of angular momentum, not its amplitude; kinematic amplitude cuts that also sharpen contact timing can raise dH/dt while lowering range. When demand exceeds the friction-limited supply ceiling, slip is set by the ceiling, so demand-side changes below the ceiling do nothing visible.

  Applies when

  • attacking foot slip or yaw drift via gait shape changes
  • a fix targets an amplitude while the constraint is a rate
  • documenting a failed intervention after a version comparison

  “walk_v6 | ±0.1159 (+16%) | 2.50 Hz | 2.84 N·m (+53%) … 脚的供给上限 2.8~3.3 N·m(μ 0.6~0.7)—— v6 正好顶在天花板上, 所以滑移一点没降。… 结论: "减小摆动幅度以降低偏航动量"这条被 v6 证伪 —— 砍 39% 幅度, 需求反升 53%。下一轮不要再走这个方向。”

• A walking policy's tilt cutoff is a legal state for a recovery policy - the default 45 deg fall guard had to be raised for recovery tests and is disabled once the switch owns falls, so the abort chain becomes the recovery timeout, the operator's cut, and the firmware torque limitsfall-guard-becomes-a-state

  Observed oncerecoveryreal-deployreal-acceptancehardwareprocess

  When a new skill makes a safety cutoff's trigger a legal state, replace the cutoff with a bound of the skill's own (a timeout ending in a safe stop) instead of just switching it off; keep the operator's cut and the firmware limits as independent layers, and write every flag change into the run sheet.

  Symptom

  deploy_policy's default protection stops the robot beyond 45 deg of tilt. A recovery policy starts lying at roughly 90-97 deg, so under the default it is refused on the spot - a flag the first hanging checklist forgot.

  Context

  The layers in the sources: deploy_policy's tilt cutoff (default 45 deg, a line in the safety chain); for standalone recovery tests the cutoff was raised (110 deg in the spec's A/B sheet; 181 deg, effectively off, in some runbook commands); with --recovery-policy the cutoff is disabled because a fall is now a state, not an exception, and RECOVERY lasting over 15 s ends in a safe stop (the runbook calls it the line where the spotter steps in). Independent of the policy: firmware torque limits checked at start (12/17/11 N*m, set_torque --check), the operator cutting enable at any kicking or oscillation, and in the one-leg teleop a space-bar stop that puts the foot down.

  Change

  The flag was added to the run sheets, and the FSM replaced the removed cutoff with its own bound (the timeout).

  Outcome

  The spec records the flag omission and its fix; it does not record the FSM's timeout being exercised on hardware.

  Mechanism

  A safety cutoff encodes one policy's notion of "abnormal"; a new skill whose normal operation lies beyond it either cannot run or runs with the cutoff off, and only a replacement bound keeps the chain closed.

  Applies when

  • deploying recovery, fall-damage or acrobatic skills behind existing safety checks
  • a run sheet disables a protection flag
  • listing the abort chain for a hardware session

  “--max-tilt-deg(默认 45°,安全链第 13 行写的那个)。recovery 的合法状态覆盖整个倾角域,把它抬到 181 = 实效关闭 … RECOVERY 超时 15s 会自动安全停(看护介入线)”

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

  Mechanism understoodwalkreal-acceptancereal-acceptanceattributionprocess

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

  Symptom

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

  Context

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

  Change

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

  Outcome

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

  Mechanism

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

  Applies when

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

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

• Ideal PD is not enough - add a delay buffer and fit armature/friction/delay per jointactuator-delay-buffer-fitting

  Observed oncewalkactuator-modelingactuator-modelingplant-calibration

  Never ship ideal PD to hardware: add a measured delay (in control steps) and per-joint armature/friction fitted from step and sine responses, and treat remaining actuator mismatch as your standing largest sim2real residual.

  Symptom

  Standard ideal PD actuator model transfers poorly; sim assumes targets take effect instantly and joints reach arbitrary acceleration.

  Context

  A developer with a successful on-hardware Isaac Lab biped modified the actuator model in two ways and calibrated it against the real robot: step-response plus sine-sweep tests (positive step, negative step, sine tracking), overlaying sim curves on measured curves and hand-tuning.

  Change

  (1) Delay buffer: action targets take effect after a uniform 6 time-step delay on all joints; (2) acceleration limiting so the actuator cannot reach arbitrary acceleration; (3) per-joint fit of armature / friction / delay - different joints genuinely needed different values.

  Outcome

  Hip joints fit worst, knee best; the developer rated the result "not perfect, the best I could do" and still listed actuator-model improvement as next work - i.e. even the fitted model remained the dominant residual.

  Mechanism

  Real actuation is a lagged, bandwidth-limited system; a delay buffer and acceleration cap are the two cheapest structures that reproduce its phase and magnitude response. Per-joint differences come from differing load, wiring, and friction states, so a single global constant underfits.

  Applies when

  • actuator model in sim is ideal PD with no delay
  • step-response of real joint visibly lags or overshoots the sim's
  • budgeting which sim2real gap to attack first

  “标准 ideal PD actuator 不够用，他改了两处：延迟缓冲：目标不是立即生效，全部关节统一 6 个 time step 延迟 / 加速度曲线：执行器不能瞬间达到任意加速度 … 用 armature / friction / delay 三个参数逐关节拟合，标定方法是阶跃响应 + 正弦扫描 … 髋部关节偏差最大，膝关节最好。”

• Armature must be N^2 x rotor inertia, never 0 - measure it no-loadarmature-n2-rotor-inertia

  Mechanism understoodwalkplant-calibrationplant-calibrationactuator-modeling

  Every 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。”

• Close a question with an audit, then freeze the wording - later symptoms may not reopen it without new hard evidencefrozen-verdicts-semantic-boundaries

  Mechanism understoodomniprocessprocessattributionplant-calibration

  When 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”

• A hardware run without its log is an anecdote - the first real get-up's policy, gain profile and log were never recorded, two CSVs stayed "to be reported", and runbook commands wrote different policies' logs under one copied filenamehardware-log-is-the-attribution-input

  Replicatedinfrareal-deployreal-acceptancemeasurementprocess

  Make the log part of the run: name it from the policy and conditions automatically (never by hand-copied filenames), record the policy digest and gain profile inside it, include what the open questions need (torque, joint positions and targets), and treat a session without a collected log as incomplete.

  Symptom

  The recovery line's oldest open question - whether Isaac or MuJoCo reads torque demand correctly - was waiting on real-robot logs that never arrived, and the verdicts that did arrive could not be tied to files.

  Context

  deploy_policy writes a CSV per run (--log); the runbook's own analysis snippet reads its joint-position, target and action columns (q_, tgt_, act_), and the recovery hanging checklist asks for torque and joint logs for the whole run, to be compared with simulation. The first real get-up (08-09): policy, gain profile and log "to be recorded later". The first real A/B (08-11): v2_5b's result and both policies' CSVs "to be reported". In the runbook's walking commands, three runs of two different c4 policies log to real_s1e_pw08_teleop_0808.csv, and s1e and s2e_fric runs log to real_c2_700_pw08_teleop_0808.csv - filenames copied from other commands.

  Change

  None recorded; the spec kept listing the open-loop comparison as waiting for real logs.

  Outcome

  No real-robot log appears in the recovery spec through §50, so the simulator disagreement stayed unresolved and hardware verdicts stayed unattached to data.

  Mechanism

  Attribution needs the run's identity (policy digest, profile, conditions) and its signals in one artifact; a filename copied from another command mislabels the file, and a log not collected at the session is rarely collected later.

  Applies when

  • planning a hardware session whose result should settle a sim question
  • log filenames are typed or pasted by hand
  • hardware feedback arrives as prose without files

  “python tools/deploy_policy.py --policy train/policies/omni_c4_ff800_pj.onnx … --log train/real_logs/real_s1e_pw08_teleop_0808.csv … q,t,a=d[:,c("q_")],d[:,c("tgt_")],d[:,c("act_")]”

• Prove a new penalty actually fires - two ways a clearance term silently did nothinginert-reward-term-audit

  Mechanism understoodwalkreward-shapingreward-shapingplant-calibration

  Before training with a new reward term, log its realized per-step value under the current policy and confirm it is nonzero where intended - check coordinate zero-points against FK and check who occupies the term's gate; and never weaken the term that creates the states your new term needs.

  Symptom

  A newly designed swing-height clearance penalty could have trained as a no-op twice over, and the companion advice to lower feet_air_time actively backfired when tried.

  Context

  Instance 1 (zero-point offset): the proposed code used body_pos_w of the foot link, but that is the ankle_roll_link frame origin, which sits 0.0585 m above the ground even with the foot flat on it - so (0.03 - 0.0585) is always negative and the penalty is永远 0; the 0.0585 offset must be subtracted (verified identical in MuJoCo FK and Isaac). Instance 2 (gate occupancy): the clearance penalty fires only in swing phase; a dragging policy keeps both feet in contact, so the penalty is constantly 0 for exactly the policy it was meant to fix - and worse, any slight lift immediately incurs it, a reverse threshold. Lowering feet_air_time to 0.5 on that advice measurably collapsed air time to 0.0002 (below v3). Corrected understanding: "clearance 是把已有的摆动相抬高, 造出摆动相仍要靠 air_time" - air_time creates the swing phase, clearance raises it.

  Change

  Fixed the height zero-point; kept feet_air_time as the swing-phase creator with clearance layered on top; both errors documented as corrections to the team's own earlier advice.

  Outcome

  With both fixed, swing height rose from 22-23 mm (v2) to 29 mm (v5) to 34 mm (v6); the inert-term failure class entered the standing checklist.

  Mechanism

  A penalty's gradient exists only where its gate is occupied and its argument crosses its threshold; frame offsets shift the threshold out of reach, and phase gates can have zero occupancy under exactly the policy being treated. Terms interact as an ecology - one term must create the states in which another can act.

  Applies when

  • adding any gated or thresholded penalty (clearance, impact, slip)
  • a new term produces no behavioral change at any weight
  • body-frame positions are used in reward code

  “body_pos_w 是 ankle_roll_link 坐标系原点,平放触地时仍高出地面 0.0585 m。… (0.03 − 0.0585) 恒为负 → 惩罚永远是 0 … clearance 惩罚只在摆动相生效,拖地时两脚始终触地 → 惩罚恒 0;而一旦轻微抬脚就立刻扣分,对正在拖地的策略是反向门槛。… 正确认识:clearance 是"把已有的摆动相抬高",造出摆动相仍要靠 air_time。”

• Audit rewards by realized contribution (weight x achieved value) - a weight of 2.0 was really paying 0.04realized-contribution-audit

  Mechanism understoodwalkreward-shapingreward-shapingattribution

  Evaluate a reward table by each term's realized per-step contribution under the current policy, never by its weight column; if a term's realized value is ~0, escalating its weight is a no-op - change the term's structure instead.

  Symptom

  Foot dragging persisted through repeated weight escalation: feet_air_time had been raised 0.25 -> 1.0 -> 2.0 across versions with no behavioral change, and the training-side comment even recorded the fact ("几乎没有 单支撑相, 是拖着脚蹭") without the fix changing form.

  Context

  Computing realized per-term contributions in the trained state exposed the economy: feet_air_time contributed weight 2.0 x achieved 0.019 = 0.038 per step, against tracking's +1.20 - lifting the leg earned 3% of what tracking earned, so dragging was the rational optimum no matter the weight escalation. The same table acquitted the energy penalties (total -0.30 negative vs +1.74 positive) that a naive read of weights (-5.0 orientation!) would have blamed.

  Change

  Fix redirected from "raise the weight again" to "add a term whose realized contribution changes the optimum": a clearance penalty sized so its realized magnitude (~0.018/foot when dragging) is comparable to feet_air_time's, enough to flip the optimum without drowning tracking.

  Outcome

  With the term economy corrected (plus posture/range fixes), swing height reached 34 mm and tracking 87% by v6; weight escalation of the old term was abandoned.

  Mechanism

  A reward weight is only a multiplier on whatever the policy currently achieves on that term; when the achieved value is near zero (behavior absent), escalating the weight multiplies near-zero. Optimizer behavior is governed by realized per-step magnitudes, so audits must be conducted in that currency.

  Applies when

  • a behavior persists despite repeated weight increases
  • auditing whether penalties are "too strong" or rewards "too weak"
  • sizing a new reward term against existing ones

  “把 feet_air_time 权重从 0.25 → 1.0 → 2.0 一路加,但没有加高度项。量级算下来:feet_air_time 权重 2.0 × 实得 0.019 = 0.038,而跟踪奖励是 1.2。抬腿的边际收益只有跟踪的 3%,拖地当然是最优解。… 正项 +1.74,负项 −0.30。能量惩罚不是瓶颈,抬腿没收益才是。”

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

  Observed oncewalkreward-shapingreward-shaping

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

  Symptom

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

  Context

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

  Change

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

  Outcome

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

  Mechanism

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

  Applies when

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

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

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

  Replicatedwalksim2sim-gatesim2simprocessgate-battery

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

  Symptom

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

  Context

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

  Change

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

  Outcome

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

  Mechanism

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

  Applies when

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

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

• The restart reward table lists a reason for every term AND a lesson for every exclusion - absent terms are removed, not zero-weightedminimal-reward-table-with-provenance

  Mechanism understoodomnireward-shapingreward-shapingprocesscontract-freeze

  Maintain the reward table as an evidence ledger: every term cites the episode that justifies it, every excluded term cites the episode that convicted it (including the development stage it is valid at), and retired terms are deleted from the config, never left at weight zero.

  Symptom

  Seven walk generations had accumulated an entangled reward table where nobody could say which term earned its place; the restart needed a table that could be audited line by line.

  Context

  The minimal table v2 was built under three written principles: "一项管 一件事、结构性反抬脚的项一个不留、塑形只留一套相位逻辑;不在表里的一律 不加" (one term per job; zero structurally-anti-lift terms; exactly one phase-shaping logic; nothing outside the table gets added). Every row carries its provenance (e.g. base_height target = standing height cites the v4 crouch lesson; split x/y tracking cites the merged-exp gradient hole; world-frame yaw cites the v1/v3 body-frame lesson). Every EXCLUSION carries its same-type precedent: feet_landing_vel out because it is poison while the gait is unformed (drag pays 0, lifting pays - the v4-clearance / v8a-B "reverse threshold" family) though it was fine in v7 when the gait already existed - term validity depends on developmental stage; feet_air_time out with its measured non-lever evidence (v6 had it at 2.0 and still lifted 4 mm); and replaced terms are REMOVED from the config ("置 None,不是权重 0 挂着") so audits see truth, not dormant weight.

  Change

  Reward table rebuilt as ~20 rows each with weight + provenance column; exclusion list maintained alongside with the falsifying episode for each; dormant terms deleted rather than zeroed.

  Outcome

  Later revisions (S1.2/S1.3) modified the table by citing and updating specific rows' evidence rather than re-arguing the whole design; the table doubled as the lineage's reward-lesson index.

  Mechanism

  A reward table is a set of standing hypotheses; attaching each row's evidence makes revisions targeted and reversible, and recording why a term is absent prevents the cycle of re-adding known poisons. Deleting vs zero-weighting matters because config audits and DR interactions see the term either way - a zero-weight term is dormant complexity waiting to be flipped on wrongly.

  Applies when

  • designing a reward table for a restart or new task
  • someone proposes re-adding a previously removed term
  • auditing which reward rows still earn their place

  “原则:一项管一件事、结构性反抬脚的项一个不留、塑形只留一套相位逻辑;不在表里的一律不加 … feet_landing_vel(评审 #4):拖地时代价恒 0、抬脚才收费——与 v4-clearance/v8a-B 同属「反抬脚门槛」家族,步态未成形时是毒;v7④ 加它时步态已存在。… 已从 cfg 移除(置 None),不是权重 0 挂着。”

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

  Replicatedomnitraining-runfork-selectiondomain-randomizationattributionprocess

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

  Symptom

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

  Context

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

  Change

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

  Outcome

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

  Mechanism

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

  Applies when

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

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

• action_rate weight is the sim2real bandwidth knob - re-tune it whenever a rate limiter is removedaction-rate-weight-vs-bandwidth

  Observed oncewalkreward-shapingaction-ratereward-shapingactuator-modeling

  Set action_rate weight relative to real actuator bandwidth, and re-tune it any time another smoothing/limiting element (filter, slew limiter, gain) changes - reward weights are load-bearing parts of the actuator model.

  Symptom

  With a low action_rate_l2 weight the policy learns fast actions; the unmodeled part of the actuator response is then excited hardest, and sim2real "直接崩" (collapses outright). With too high a weight, actions become so slow the robot cannot maintain balance.

  Context

  The reference developer called action_rate_l2 the single most important reward for transfer, with side-by-side video evidence that the high-penalty, slower policy is clearly better on hardware. Lucen context: the team had just removed the SOFT_SPD=1.0 velocity limiter, which had been an implicit actuator-bandwidth constraint - leaving action_rate as the only remaining constraint on action speed.

  Change

  Decision recorded: after removing SOFT_SPD, re-evaluate the action_rate weight rather than keep the old value, since its effective role changed from "additional smoother" to "sole bandwidth constraint".

  Outcome

  Logged as a priority follow-up ("重新评估 action_rate 权重 - 拆掉 SOFT_SPD 之后这一项的作用变了"); the failure mode it guards against is training high-frequency actions the real actuators cannot track.

  Mechanism

  Slower actions stay inside the frequency band where the ideal-PD sim actuator and the real actuator agree; fast actions probe the band where unmodeled delay, inductance, and bandwidth limits dominate, so model error is amplified in exact proportion to action speed. Any removed external rate limit transfers that constraint's entire job onto the action_rate penalty.

  Conflicts

  The low/high tradeoff evidence is the external developer's report (with video); the Lucen-side entry is a pre-registered risk and decision, not yet an on-robot A/B at the time of writing.

  Applies when

  • removing or adding an action filter, slew limiter, or low-level speed cap
  • real robot shows high-frequency chatter or overheating absent in sim
  • tuning smoothness rewards before a hardware deployment

  “权重低 → 动作快 → 执行器模型不准的部分被放大，sim2real 直接崩 / 权重高 → 动作慢 → 好迁移，但可能慢到无法维持平衡 … 我们刚拆掉 SOFT_SPD=1.0 的限速器，等于把执行器带宽约束整个移除了。action_rate 惩罚现在是唯一还在约束动作速率的东西，需要重新评估权重”

• Oversized lateral COM randomization (+/-5 cm) deliberately forces leg spreadcom-randomization-forces-leg-spread

  Observed oncewalkdr-tuningdomain-randomizationreward-shaping

  DR 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”

• Freeze the deployment contract, stamp every export, and let an automated checker catch wiring bugscontract-freeze-and-checker

  Replicatedomniprocesscontract-freezeprocesssim2sim

  Freeze and fingerprint the policy I/O contract; ship contract changes as new versioned profiles that leave old artifacts bit-identical; and extend the automated contract checker with every pipeline change, forcing the new path to execute in the check.

  Symptom

  Contract-level changes (observation layout, action pipeline) are where silent sim/real divergence is born; two real wiring bugs appeared the one time the action pipeline was extended.

  Context

  The 215-dim observation contract was frozen ("纪元 3，三机 digest" - an era number plus a digest agreed across three machines); proposals that would break it (e.g. a GRU memory) were rejected on contract grounds. Every exported ONNX is stamped and verified with a manifest (onnx_manifest --stamp / --verify), and deployment refuses mismatched combinations. When C4 added the lateral feed-forward, it went in as a NEW profile (omni_ff) leaving the existing omni profile's behavior bit-identical; the checker (check_contract) was extended to force the feed-forward path to actually execute (cmd_vy=0.13) and promptly caught two genuine bugs: (1) re-clamping with soft_joint_pos_limits after the feed-forward (0.23 rad deviation) instead of reusing the parent's clip; (2) indexing processed actions by asset.joint_names instead of the action term's own contract-ordered _joint_names, which landed the feed-forward on the wrong joints (l_hip_yaw / r_ankle_pitch).

  Change

  Contract discipline as implemented: frozen dims + digest; manifest stamping and refusal; contract changes only via new versioned profiles; checker updated in the same commit as any pipeline change, with inputs chosen so new code paths are exercised.

  Outcome

  Both wiring bugs caught before any training or deployment ("两个都是 check_contract 当场抓出来的 —— 这次它值回票价"); old deployments provably unaffected by the new profile.

  Mechanism

  The contract is the only interface the policy and robot share; freezing plus fingerprinting makes divergence detectable, and an executable checker turns "the contract holds" from a belief into a test - but only if its inputs actually drive the new code path.

  Applies when

  • modifying the action or observation pipeline of a deployed policy
  • exporting policies for hardware
  • proposals that would change observation dims or history structure

  “契约校验抓到的两个真错误（记账，别再犯）：1. 前馈后误用 soft_joint_pos_limits（URDF 限位 ×0.9）重钳 → 0.23 rad 偏差 … 2. 用 asset.joint_names 索引 _processed_actions → 前馈落到 l_hip_yaw/r_ankle_pitch 上 … 两个都是 check_contract 当场抓出来的 —— 这次它值回票价。”

• Borrow reward values from other robots as ratios (to tracking weight, to leg length) - never as absolute numberstransfer-ratios-not-absolutes

  Mechanism understoodwalkreward-shapingreward-shapingprocess

  When 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。”

• Write each config's expected hardware signature before the session - and if reality disagrees, change the books, not the conclusionpreregistered-real-expectations

  Replicatedomnireal-acceptancereal-acceptanceprocesssim2sim

  Before hardware runs, write per-config expected signatures and the disagreement rule (hardware outranks sim; discrepancies get recorded, not reconciled); validate the harness by checking it reproduces at least one known real behavior.

  Symptom

  Hardware impressions are easily narrated after the fact; without written expectations, any real-robot outcome can be made to "match" the sim story.

  Context

  The S2 acceptance sheet carried a section titled "sim 侧预注册预期 (事后核对, 不许事后改)" - per-configuration behavioral signatures written before the session: s1e@0.8 the disturbance king (push 159/160, zero chirality, all-mu 20/20) at the cost of speed gates 0/20 and zero-command wander ~0.98 m with -29.5 deg/20 s rotation; fric-3000 "walks accurately but is easier to push over"; fric-2400 neither. Credibility check included: the sim harness had reproduced the already-recorded real behavior (pace in place + right drift + net rotation -30 deg/20 s), which "提高本单全部预期的可信度". The anomaly clause fixed the epistemics in advance: if results systematically disagree with sim, "不改结论改账" - don't massage the conclusion, write the discrepancy into the books, and per the earlier zero-warning lesson, hardware wins.

  Change

  Every hardware session ships with a pre-registered expectation table (signature per config), a baseline-match credibility check, and a written precedence rule for disagreement.

  Outcome

  The A/B session became falsifiable: agreement confirms the proxy, disagreement is booked as a proxy-bias finding rather than argued away.

  Mechanism

  Pre-registration converts qualitative hardware sessions into tests of the sim-to-real mapping itself; a reproduced known behavior calibrates trust in the remaining predictions; and fixing "who wins on disagreement" beforehand prevents authority from drifting to whichever source flatters the plan.

  Applies when

  • planning any hardware acceptance or A/B session
  • the sim harness's credibility in this regime is unestablished
  • post-session write-ups tempt narrative fitting

  “⚠️ sim 复现了真机已记录的「原地踏步 + 右漂 + 净旋 −30°/20s」—— harness 与真机行为对得上, 提高本单全部预期的可信度。… 结果与 sim 系统性不符 → 不改结论改账: 写进 README 该节, 按 「Isaac 指标三次零预警」的教训, 以真机为准。”

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

  Mechanism understoodomniattributionattributiondomain-randomizationactuator-modelingreal-acceptance

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

  Symptom

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

  Context

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

  Change

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

  Outcome

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

  Mechanism

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

  Applies when

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

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

• Slowing the gait clock at deployment is out-of-distribution and backfires - lower the commanded speed instead, or train the knobcycle-time-override-is-ood

  Mechanism understoodwalkreal-deployreal-acceptanceattributioncontract-freeze

  Any deployment override must correspond to a dimension the policy was trained to handle; to make a parameter field-adjustable, randomize it in training and observe it - otherwise use the levers inside the trained envelope (commands) and leave the knob alone.

  Symptom

  Real-robot feedback "walks very fast and unstable" suggested slowing the gait; a deploy-side --cycle-time override existed, making "just slow the clock" a one-flag temptation.

  Context

  A sim sweep of the override on walk_v6 @cmd 0.3 showed monotone degradation away from the trained 0.40 s cycle: at 0.50 s tilt jumped 7.9 -> 13.2 deg and landing force 1.52x -> 2.24x; at 0.80 s (half speed) clearance collapsed to 3 mm - dragging again - with 20 deg tilt. Meanwhile the legitimate lever, lowering the commanded speed with the clock untouched, improved everything monotonically: cmd 0.1 gave 104% tracking, 6.7 deg tilt, minimum slip - the most stable operating point. The file distinguishes the two "slows" explicitly: lower command = smaller steps at the same 2.5 Hz rhythm; a slower rhythm itself requires retraining - randomize cycle_time (e.g. 0.40-0.65 s) during training and expose it as an observation, and only then does --cycle-time become a field-adjustable knob.

  Change

  Deployment guidance: never ship a cycle-time override the policy was not trained under; respond to "too fast/unstable" with lower commands; schedule clock variability as a training-time (contract-level) change if a field knob is wanted.

  Outcome

  The sweep quantified the trap before hardware paid for it (dragging and 2.2x landing force at slowed clocks); cmd 0.1 documented as the stable demo point.

  Mechanism

  The policy is a function fitted around the training distribution; a deploy-side override moves an input (phase rate) to values never seen, so behavior degrades unpredictably - the knob LOOKS like a capability because it exists in the code, but capability lives in the training distribution, not the interface.

  Applies when

  • a deploy tool exposes overrides (clock, scale, gains) beyond the training distribution
  • hardware feels "too fast/aggressive" and a quick knob exists
  • deciding between a deploy-side tweak and a retrain

  “0.80s | 1.25Hz | 0.165 | 3mm(拖地) | 20.0° … 慢一半直接崩 … 策略按 0.40 训练, 别的周期属分布外。… 降指令速度才是有效杠杆 … cmd 0.1 是最稳的工作点。… 要节奏本身变慢必须重训 —— 训练期把 cycle_time 随机化(如 0.40~0.65s)并作为观测的一维, 部署时 --cycle-time 就成了现场可调的旋钮。”

• Knee swing collapsed because it directly trades against the slip penalty - price the conflict explicitly and clamp what reward cannot holdknee-swing-vs-slip-pricing

  Mechanism understoodwalkreward-shapingreward-shapingattribution

  When 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”

• A single run's drift direction may be a limit cycle, not a policy bias - check the sign distribution across seedsmultiseed-sign-test-for-drift

  Mechanism understoodwalksim-evalmeasurementattributiongate-battery

  Distinguish "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。”

• Size each joint's action authority to its measured working range - lock a channel to zero only when its job is provably elsewhereper-joint-action-scale-lockdown

  Observed oncewalkobservation-designobservation-honestyreward-shapingcontract-freeze

  Set per-joint action scales from measured target ranges and momentum decompositions: full authority for working channels, working-range authority for balance channels, zero for channels whose contribution is measured negligible - and prefer this structural quieting over perpetual reward penalties, keeping the contract dimensions intact.

  Symptom

  "Walks crooked" - roll and yaw channels wandered; hip_yaw peak-to-peak reached 22.3 deg in v11 while contributing essentially nothing to locomotion; a uniform action scale of 0.5 gave every joint the same authority regardless of its actual job.

  Context

  The v12 design replaced the scalar action scale with per-joint scales justified by measurements: pitch-class 0.5 (the gait's entire working channel - untouched); hip_yaw 0.0 - lossless because it carries only 1.4% of yaw momentum (v6 decomposition) and straight-line targets use merely +/-0.006-0.03 ("乱动纯属浪费"); roll 0.2 - NOT zero, because lateral balance and weight transfer are roll's unique job (locking it would degenerate into foot-edge rocking, "比现在更歪"), and 0.2 covers the measured working range +/-0.06-0.19 while "0.5 的另一半全是 '歪歪扭扭'的来源". Costs were accepted consciously: turning demoted to an observation row with a fallback (yaw 0 -> 0.1 in v13). Contract preserved: the 12-dim action interface unchanged, yaw values simply neutralized. The structural lockdown also RETIRED the reward-side hip_yaw_quiet penalty - "A 的 yaw=0 结构性取代,不再付奖励塑形成本".

  Change

  action_scale_joint pitch 0.5 / roll 0.2 / yaw 0.0 wired through robot.yaml -> policy_io (verified: all-ones action gives hip_yaw target exactly 0) -> Isaac action term, guarded by the contract checker ("它就是抓这种双侧不一致的").

  Outcome

  Designed and verified on the shared side before the lineage freeze; stands as the pattern for authority sizing: structure replaces reward shaping wherever a channel should simply not act.

  Mechanism

  Action scale is a per-channel authority budget; uniform budgets give noise channels the same voice as working channels, and reward-side quieting then pays a permanent shaping tax for what a zero scale provides for free. But zeroing is only lossless when decomposition proves the channel's contribution negligible AND no unique function (balance) lives there.

  Conflicts

  Wired and verified on the config/deploy side but never trained - the 2026-08-05 reset suspended v12 before the Isaac-side run.

  Applies when

  • some joints wander without contributing to the task
  • a quieting penalty (deviation/L1) taxes every step forever
  • deciding action-space authority for a new task or robot

  “yaw=0 是无损的:实测它只贡献 1.4% 偏航动量、直行目标只 ±0.006~0.03,乱动纯属浪费。… roll 不能为 0:横向平衡/重心换脚是它的独有职责,锁死会退化成脚缘摇摆(比现在更歪)。0.2 的依据:各代实测 roll 目标只用 ±0.06~0.19,0.5 的另一半全是"歪歪扭扭"的来源。”

Next page