Training Coach
Doctrine
A report may cite any of these as doctrine-N.
doctrine-1Contract freeze and fingerprint disciplineThe policy I/O contract (observation layout, scales, history semantics, action pipeline) is frozen and fingerprinted; every exported policy is stamped and verified; contract changes ship as new versioned profiles that leave old artifacts bit-identical, and old policies run forever under their era's pinned profile.
Case. The 215-dim omni contract was frozen with a three-machine digest; the one contract-level extension (lateral feed-forward) went in as a new `omni_ff` profile with the old profile provably untouched, and the contract checker caught two real wiring bugs before any training (`contract-freeze-and-checker`). A silently changed gait-clock default would have fed old policies a 25% slower clock - closed by pinned legacy profiles (`legacy-profile-pinning`). A stale derived USD forked plant mass 2.2% until an automated source-vs-derived instrument gated it (`derived-asset-staleness-check`). A gain profile is part of the closed loop a policy was trained in and belongs in its stamp; the recovery line's anchored authority was left out of its manifest and recorded as the gap not to repeat (`gain-profile-belongs-in-the-stamp`), and a second policy behind a deploy-side switch made the handoff state itself a contract (`recovery-two-policies-and-a-state-machine`, `walk-recovery-fsm-handoff`).
Coach application. On any proposal touching obs/action semantics, defaults, or derived assets: demand the version/profile plan, the fingerprint update, and the checker extension in the same change; flag any old artifact that would run under new defaults.
doctrine-2Attribution by resolved training params - never eval-override knobsCapability differences between lineages are explained only by digging each lineage's *resolved* training configuration and eliminating columns; evaluation-side override knobs (kd-scale, power-scale, cycle-time) act on the plant for *every* policy and may serve as deployment mitigations but never as explanations.
Case. Low-friction robustness across 8 lineages x 3840 cells was traced to kd DR *bandwidth* - every lineage had ground friction pinned to (1.0,1.0), so "trained friction" could not be the axis; the parameter axis and the plant axis were explicitly separated after the first attribution conflated them (`kd-bandwidth-mu-law-attribution`). "Weak turning" on hardware was a power-scale plant effect, not a training gap (`deploy-knob-attribution-before-retraining`); slowing the deploy clock was out-of-distribution, not a feature (`cycle-time-override-is-ood`). The ground truth for what a run trained under is the logged per-run config, not the source tree (`resolved-config-is-source-of-truth`).
Coach application. Whenever asked "why is lineage A better", require the resolved-param table first; kill zero-variance columns; refuse explanations phrased in eval-knob terms; when a knob helps, label it deployment mitigation.
doctrine-3PASS gates become constraints; FAIL gates become objectivesOnce a skill passes its gate, that gate converts into a standing regression constraint (budget <= 2/20 against the parent baseline) for all later training; gates currently failing are the only legitimate objectives of the next rung.
Case. The C ladder ran one frozen 13-cell x 20-seed matrix at every rung with promotion = "new skill PASS and old skills within regression budget"; C1 was stopped and re-rooted precisely because it trained away the root's backward PASS (`fixed-acceptance-matrix-per-rung`, `preregistered-stop-criteria-per-rung`). The C4 product shipped only at 260/260 cells with zero regression.
Coach application. Keep the ledger: every PASS adds a constraint row; propose rungs only against FAIL rows; treat any constraint violation as stop-and-attribute, never "the next rung might win it back".
doctrine-4One variable per ladder rung - counted against what the checkpoint sawA rung changes one variable, where "one" is counted against the checkpoint's actual training state, not against the current config's diff; batching is allowed only when each change owns a disjoint symptom space with a pre-registered ablation order.
Case. Two rungs failed identically because resuming s1e-500 under the evolved config silently added four plant variables the checkpoint had never seen ("单变量纪律不只看「我改了什么」,还要看「checkpoint 见过什么」" - `resume-state-dr-audit`). v8 legally batched four orthogonal fixes with a written ablation order (`orthogonal-batch-with-ablation-order`); v9 spent one run completing a 2x2 factorial so either outcome convicted a factor (`fill-the-missing-factorial-cell`); v10b's three-way ablation wrongfully convicted the clock and had to be retried fairly.
Coach application. Before any resume: diff cfg against the checkpoint's logged training state. Before any batch: require the symptom-ownership map and ablation order in writing.
doctrine-5Pre-register risks, readings, and stop criteria before the ladderBefore a ladder or risky rung, write down the known risks, the interpretation of every plausible outcome, and hit-any-one stop criteria - frozen before training, tightened when priors say results should come fast.
Case. The C ladder opened with three numbered risks including the exact falsification condition for its own root choice; A/B arms carried "预注册读法(事后不改)" tables; a level expected to fail was run anyway for its pre-registered diagnostic value (`preregister-risks-and-fork-readings`). Stop criteria caught C4-redo rungs at +200 instead of full caps (`preregistered-stop-criteria-per-rung`); hardware sessions pre-registered per-config expected signatures and the disagreement rule "不改结论改账" (`preregistered-real-expectations`, `feasibility-accounts-lock-design-point`).
Coach application. Refuse to open a rung without the written risk/reading/ stop block; after results, read conclusions off the pre-registered table and flag any post-hoc reinterpretation.
doctrine-6Plant parameters are measured, never inventedEvery plant number carries measurement provenance: armature = N^2 x rotor inertia from no-load tests, friction split by rig and by API column, torque limits shaped by per-joint gait peaks, latency traced through the real pipeline, masses weighed - and DR bands are additive around the measured nominal, sized to the measured dispersion.
Case. Guessed friction was 2.5x low and guessed damping 5x high (`friction-measured-not-guessed`); armature had been 0 with a 9:1 gearbox (81x reflected inertia, `armature-n2-rotor-inertia`); a uniform torque derating was "the wrong shape" vs measured peaks (`torque-limit-shape-by-measured-peaks`); the delay implementation itself was a wrong plant for a whole lineage (`latency-lerp-reverse-extrapolation`); the run design point was locked by three accounts including the tau_limit/kd speed ceiling (`feasibility-accounts-lock-design-point`); identified friction had to land in the right simulator API columns to act at all (`sim-api-friction-columns`). The recovery and one-leg lines opened with the same kind of accounts before any reward existed - a connected static path and the torque along it for an armless get-up, and the gains single support needs to be holdable at all (`get-up-feasibility-accounts-before-training`, `single-support-gain-authority-probe`).
Coach application. For any plant value in a config review, ask "measured how?"; reject absolute ranges with no nominal; check API column mapping and derived-asset regeneration whenever measured values land.
doctrine-7Sim2sim gate before sim2real - under deployment conditionsEvery checkpoint passes a second, independently built simulator before hardware, and both the gate and the smoke loop run under the measured deployment conditions (real pipeline delay, honest contact parameters, the deployment gain/power profile).
Case. The standing order "先sim2sim 再sim2real" (`sim2sim-gate-before-sim2real`); acceptance flipped to match hardware only under measured condim/torsional friction (`eval-plant-honesty-contact-params`); gates moved permanently to `--delay 2` after the kicking incident (`pipeline-latency-is-plant-not-dr`); and the harness itself must be audited - a frame-convention bug in the cross-sim evaluator invalidated a whole line of verdicts (`body-frame-velocity-api-audit`). The recovery line's second simulator caught a torque penalty paid for by bracing the legs together (`torque-penalty-bought-by-leg-bracing`), and a 1.8x torque disagreement between the two plants stayed binding because its one surviving explanation was never tested (`torque-disagreement-between-simulators-unresolved`).
Coach application. Block any hardware request lacking a second-sim PASS at deployment conditions; when sim2sim and training-side metrics disagree, treat the evaluator as a suspect too.
doctrine-8Observation honesty - the actor's inputs are a hardware contractThe actor observes only signals the real robot produces with realistic noise; privileged truths go to the critic; history windows are estimators and must train under plant variation; rewards on quantities the actor cannot observe buy only average suppression, never closed-loop correction.
Case. Ground-truth velocity/forces went critic-only (`observation-honesty-critic-only`); frame_hist under zero DR memorized the trainer's plant fingerprint - 0/20 transfer (`history-obs-needs-plant-variation`); world-frame yaw rewards could not teach pull-back because heading is unobservable to the actor - correction was routed to the deploy outer loop instead of breaking the contract (`reward-observability-limit`, `deploy-heading-loop-and-align-training`).
Coach application. Audit every actor-obs element for hardware existence; require minimal plant jitter whenever history/recurrence exists; for each reward, ask "can the actor see this error?" and route correction tasks to outer loops.
doctrine-9Reward economics are audited in realized currencyReward design decisions are made on realized per-step magnitudes under the actual policy and command distribution: price the do-nothing optimum before adding a mode, compare achieved values to the computed ignore-floor, calibrate thresholds between measured healthy and sick distributions, and ship every new penalty with a withdrawal clause.
Case. feet_air_time at weight 2.0 realized 0.038 vs tracking 1.2 - drag was rational (`realized-contribution-audit`); ignoring a vy command cost 28-180x less than ignoring vx until a gated tracking term was added (`reward-cost-of-ignoring-audit`, `gate-new-reward-terms-by-command`); achieved-vs-floor separated "never learned" from "priced out" (`ignore-floor-diagnosis`); the foot-distance wall was placed between measured healthy (0.6% tax) and sick (55%) policies (`calibrate-threshold-between-healthy-and-sick`); the landing penalty carried a pre-registered stand-down condition and actually stood down (`calibration-threshold-with-withdrawal-clause`); two clearance terms were inert until zero-points and gate occupancy were checked (`inert-reward-term-audit`). A get-up policy sat because three gated terms paid the seated pose 84% of the return and the one term that could tell sitting from standing was an exp kernel reading 4.6e-5 at the real error (`seated-basin-dead-exp-kernel`); a torque-tail term was weighted by its measured steady value beside a peer term after the estimate proved 12x off (`tail-torque-needs-hinge-on-computed-demand`).
Coach application. Never discuss weights in the abstract: demand the realized-contribution table, the ignore-floor number, and the healthy-pay calibration before any reward edit is approved.
doctrine-10The zero-cost option must be the desired behaviorFor every penalty, name what the zero-cost option is; penalize failure events (slip, saturation excess, contact in flight windows), never the motion or joints that healthy behavior uses; make degenerate strategies fatal via termination where penalties cannot price them out.
Case. Joint-usage penalties for drift taxed a 1.4%-of-momentum channel 2.7/step and collapsed training; the slip penalty costs a non-slipping gait exactly zero (`penalize-the-slip-not-the-joint`). A frozen-at-clamp joint pays zero action-rate forever - only a pre-clip saturation penalty flips the cheat economics (`saturation-cheating-zero-rate-cost`). Ungated phase shaping made standing 42x more expensive than stepping and cooked the hip motors (`moving-gate-42x-stand-tax`); crouch-shuffling lived until a height termination deleted it (`termination-closes-degenerate-basin`). A gated penalty is an exit: the policy parked just outside an uprightness gate, then just under a height gate, to stop paying a stance tax, and only a positive band plus an always-on guard closed both (`penalty-gate-is-an-escape-hatch`); a soft-limit penalty that charged the standing pose itself bought a 4.1 deg lean (`soft-limit-penalty-charges-nominal-pose`); an unpriced foot attitude was spent on edge-standing (`unpriced-foot-attitude-is-a-free-variable`); and the one-leg line listed its cheapest cheats before training and still met one through a zero-gradient band (`enumerate-cheapest-cheats-before-training`, `binary-band-reward-fake-touchdown`).
Coach application. Run the "零代价的选项是什么" audit on every proposed term; convert motion taxes into event-conditional penalties; check the termination set against each known degenerate strategy.
doctrine-11Measurement discipline: independent referees, signs, distributionsA disputed measurement is adjudicated only by an independent algorithm from raw state; directional ability requires sign-antisymmetry under command reversal; bimodal metrics are reported as mode shares (never medians, never 3 seeds); ratios are not comparable when totals change; reward values compare only within one command distribution; single chaotic events never cross machines.
Case. The triple reversal - a good metric was "refuted" by a sibling metric that shared the disease (`independent-referee-for-metric-disputes`, `body-frame-velocity-api-audit`); same-signed +/- responses were bias, not turning (`same-sign-response-is-yaw-bias`); the swing median sat in a bimodal gap (`median-hides-bimodal-distribution`); "v6 is jitterier" died on absolute energies (`ratio-metrics-need-absolute-check`); yaw gain measured 15x wrong in an oscillating frame (`heading-integral-not-body-rate`); a 44% improvement evaporated under same-distribution comparison (`same-distribution-reward-comparison`); drift direction was a limit cycle (`multiseed-sign-test-for-drift`); a cross-machine push cliff was chaos (`single-impulse-recovery-is-chaotic`).
Coach application. Before accepting any surprising number: ask for the independent recomputation, the sign pair, the distribution shape, and the comparison conditions. Retract in writing when a metric falls.
doctrine-12The deployment pipeline is plantIrreducible pipeline properties - action latency, rate limits, power/torque scaling, teleop command mappings - are part of the nominal plant, modeled from day one and reproduced in every gate; deploy-side scalings are crutches that flag unmodeled plant, and they cannot be algebraically folded into training constants.
Case. Right-leg kicking was over-trained-delay x loop gain; power 0.8 was a gain-reduction crutch that retired when the delay was modeled (`pipeline-latency-is-plant-not-dr`); power derating damages non-forward axes first (`power-scale-hurts-nonforward-axes`); training at 0.4 scale as the "twin" of deploying 0.5 x 0.8 collapsed 0/20 (`deploy-scaling-not-training-equivalent`); one shared teleop speed sent an out-of-band lateral command and the robot clipped its own foot (`teleop-command-band-per-axis`); the latency DR range had not even covered the measured pipeline (`latency-dr-covers-measured-pipeline`). A rate limiter added at deployment only clipped a policy that kept commanding (`deploy-rate-limiter-windup`); moved into training and anchored on the last command it became an integrator in the balance loop (`slew-anchor-is-an-integrator`); anchored on the measured angle it bounded torque and kept the bandwidth (`beta-anchored-action-target`). The walking lines' safe setting, power-scale 0.8, cut the ends of the recovery policy's full-range travel and left its spikes alone; a gain inside the trained band did the job (`power-derating-cuts-full-range-contract`).
Coach application. Demand the measured pipeline latency/limits in the plant model and in gate conditions; treat every deploy-side derating as a question ("what is this compensating?"); block per-axis command sources that exceed training bands.
doctrine-13DR budget is finite; its distribution is the measured supportRobustness is a conserved budget: disturbance training on an already-hardened lineage borrows from existing margins; DR ranges span the measured deployment support - no fictitious tails (they buy degenerate gaits), no single constants (they allow thin-margin specialization); harden the plant only after the task distribution is final.
Case. The same push dose helped a narrow lineage and damaged a balanced one - budget conservation (`push-dr-conditional-budget-conservation`); wide latency tails bought drag-glide, constant values shipped 60% thinner tilt margins - the answer is a narrow band on the measured support (`dr-tail-plant-continuation`, `constant-value-dr-overfits-margin`); task-first ordering because hardening a soon-to-change task wastes budget (`task-shaping-before-plant-hardening`); COM randomization used deliberately as a behavior-shaping tool, and rolled back on symptom per its own contract (`com-randomization-forces-leg-spread`, `com-dr-rollback-on-symptom`). DR that is switched on can still be thin: the run policy fell in the frontal plane its gain-and-latency randomization never touched (`thin-dr-judged-by-channel-coverage`), and a friction priority settled under one action contract had to be re-measured under the next (`friction-priority-re-measured-after-plant-change`).
Coach application. Before any DR rung: check the untrained policy against the spec, the lineage's current DR load, and the measured real-world range; after it: audit retained margins, not just the new tolerance.
doctrine-14Gates measure what hardware feels: posture, margins, stripped assistsAcceptance batteries carry posture-class rows (tilt max median, per-joint L/R asymmetry, temperature) beside task rows, graded margin columns beside binary gates, chirality scored per side, at least one condition that removes the environment's free stabilization, and validated predictive scalars promoted into the gate.
Case. Three same-shaped judging errors - survival, displacement, wz-difference - all missed what the operator felt; posture metrics had the predictive power (`task-metrics-vs-posture-metrics`, `stand-gate-posture-not-survival`); binary survival saturated and hid a 60% margin gap (`constant-value-dr-overfits-margin`); v5 passed everything on the ground and failed suspended (`suspension-probe-removes-free-stabilizer`); the hip_roll (l+r) scalar predicted real drift direction and ordering and entered the battery (`hip-roll-sum-predicts-lateral-drift`); averages hide chirality (`chirality-scored-separately`); gait-quality gates are judged at speeds that demand a gait (`low-speed-commands-reward-dragging`). The recovery line added the rest of the kit: where failed episodes end, not only where they started (`end-state-confusion-matrix`); a frozen acceptance distribution with a pinned seed (`frozen-acceptance-distribution-and-pinned-seed`); video of the metric rollout itself (`video-as-acceptance-record`); and the admission that a 10 s episode cannot see a stance that fails after a minute (`episode-length-bounds-what-a-gate-sees`). The one-leg line removed a foot-spacing wall that no gate measured, and the feet met on hardware (`removed-wall-returns-on-hardware`).
Coach application. Review every battery for posture rows, margin columns, per-side scoring, and an assist-stripped condition; when operator feel and gates disagree, suspect the metric class first.
doctrine-15Fork and root selection: recoverability, maturity, frozen rewardsChoose fork roots by which candidate's deficits the coming training can pay back (precision is recoverable; lost plasticity, symmetry, and margins are not); prefer mature checkpoints as roots even when younger ones score better as products; never fine-tune through a reward change - continuation is legal only with the reward frozen and plant/DR widening one rung at a time.
Case. s1e-500 beat higher-precision candidates because its exclusive strengths were unrecoverable (`fork-root-recoverable-shortfall`); the b300 arm proved maturity is capital against adaptation shock (`root-maturity-vs-product-quality`); the B-arm scatter/half-recover/collapse signature falsified reward-change fine-tuning and drew the legal boundary for S2 continuation (`fine-tune-reward-change-falsified`).
Coach application. For root debates, build the exclusive-strengths table and ask "which side can be trained back?"; require dual-arm evidence for maturity claims; classify any proposed continuation as reward-frozen or not before approving.
doctrine-16Curricula: verified engagement, lineage counters, disease-phase gatingAutomatic curricula must prove they engage (a saturated ratchet is constant DR wearing a curriculum's name); every ramp counts lineage-cumulative progress, not per-process steps; penalties aimed at late-stage pathologies ramp in after exploration noise decays; difficulty rises on measured per-stratum success, never on schedule.
Case. The s1f ratchet capped at iter 248 and never engaged (`auto-curriculum-engagement-check`); the saturation ramp re-fired at +600 after every resume and no shipped product ever saw the penalty (`curriculum-counter-lineage-steps`); the same penalty worked once gated to the disease phase and became an untouchable mechanism (`gate-penalties-to-the-disease-phase`); record-high aggregate reward hid a fully-failing delay stratum (`aggregate-metrics-mask-subgroup-failure`); bucket share is not a gradient lever (`bucket-share-is-not-a-gradient-lever`). An assist curriculum keyed to a pooled success share was withdrawn on the strength of the categories that already worked (`curriculum-criterion-conditioned-on-lagging-category`); a pace set by per-step income moved only when that income was time-gated (`per-step-income-drives-speed-time-gate`), and the same gate had to be retired in a lineage without the disease (`time-gate-vs-wide-stance-retire-the-fix`).
Coach application. Ask every curriculum three questions: does it engage (show the internal state)? what does it count (process or lineage)? when is it present (against the pathology's phase)? Check where shipped checkpoints sit relative to every ramp.
doctrine-17Probe before training: feasibility first, hypotheses in tablesAfter two failed training attempts at a skill, stop training: demonstrate the behavior open-loop, enumerate hypotheses in a written table audited against actual configs cheapest-first, race one probe per side of the sim2real boundary for hardware-only pathologies, and use suspended tests to acquit or convict actuators before blaming authority.
Case. "在黑暗里试钥匙" - four sidewalk rungs failed until an open-loop probe separated exploration/waveform/authority in one experiment (`open-loop-probe-before-reward-tuning`); the foot-drag mystery fell to a seven-hypothesis config audit (`hypothesis-table-code-audit`); the period-doubling was resolved by racing a reward-side and a plant-side evidence line - and both paid off, one per sub-case (`period-doubling-evidence-race`); the suspended test acquitted the roll actuator in one measurement (`suspended-test-isolates-actuator-authority`). A read-only configuration probe told a wall from a slope in the recovery line's seated basin (`configuration-probe-wall-not-slope`), and the fix it pointed to - where the feet are - took prone from 0/159 to 158/159 (`prone-dead-end-is-foot-placement`); a knob that did not move its variable was recorded as no test of the idea (`dof-vel-penalty-is-not-a-pacing-knob`).
Coach application. When a skill resists training, prescribe the probe before any further reward edits; require verified target trajectories before imitation terms; keep a falsified-fixes list so closed roads stay closed (`amplitude-cut-falsified-yaw-fix`).
doctrine-18External advice is recomputed locally; values transfer as ratiosEvery external suggestion is classified adopt / already-have / modify / trap by recomputing its claim on the local reward table and probe data; numeric values transfer only as dimensionless ratios (to tracking weight, leg length, sqrt(gL), control rate); citations are verified to exist.
Case. "Start vy very small" would have destroyed sidewalk learning on this reward table - the gradient scales quadratically (`external-advice-audit-against-own-arithmetic`); swing-height targets and weights transferred correctly only through leg-length and tracking-ratio scaling (`transfer-ratios-not-absolutes`); the "6-step delay" was refused for lacking a control rate (`latency-dr-covers-measured-pipeline`); a borrowed reference's structure was FK-verified and its amplitude re-derived from the division of labor (`reference-structure-fk-amplitude-division`); retrieval agents fabricated verbatim arXiv quotes - only source-verifiable material was used; and one dismissed suggestion later proved right for a different mechanism, and was credited (`cycle-average-tracking-for-gait-quantities`). An advisor's staged state machine turned out to exist in none of the three papers it cited, and reading them changed the plan (`advisor-paraphrase-vs-paper`).
Coach application. Intercept every "paper X does Y" with the local recomputation; convert absolutes to ratios before comparison; verify quotes; revisit dismissed advice when new mechanisms appear.
doctrine-19Hardware sessions are scripted experiments, not tuning sessionsReal-robot time executes a pre-registered matrix: risk-ordered (baseline first, fragile last with a spotter), stage-gated (suspended smoke before ground), A/B sessions bracketed by a repeated reference run, operators briefed on measured zero-command and untrained-axis behavior, chirality-aware disturbance protocols, no field tuning - the only legal field changes are scripted, single-variable, and self-reversing.
Case. The S2 acceptance sheet (`risk-ordered-real-deployment`, `battery-bracketed-real-ab`, `know-zero-command-behavior`, `push-test-chirality-protocol`, `no-field-tuning-protocol`); the RAM-only torque experiment with automatic power-cycle rollback (`reversible-single-variable-field-experiments`); and the sim-veto rule - even sim's condemnations get one safeguarded hardware check when they judge the purpose-built configuration (`sim-veto-needs-real-confirmation`). The recovery line's first real run went ahead with its preconditions unmet and was stopped as dangerous (`first-real-get-up-violent-stage-one-policy`); after it: a staged hang, mat and floor protocol (`staged-hang-mat-floor-for-get-up`), a fixed power-cycle pre-flight and two-machine discipline (`power-cycle-preflight`, `two-machine-config-discipline`), a fall guard replaced rather than switched off (`fall-guard-becomes-a-state`), and logs that are part of the run (`hardware-log-is-the-attribution-input`).
Coach application. Turn every hardware request into a runbook with order, gates, brackets, briefing, and anomaly plays; refuse improvised parameter changes on the floor.
doctrine-20Close questions in writing; restart when the debt is structuralAudited questions get frozen verdicts with citable wording and an explicit reopening bar; hardware verdicts are dated by deployment-stack and calibration state and expire when those change; and when successive rungs shuffle symptoms without net progress, freeze the lineage as regression baselines, pay the structural debts, and retrain minimal - carrying laws and instruments, not weights.
Case. The chirality and COM questions were closed with frozen wording and "no reopening without new hard evidence" (`frozen-verdicts-semantic-boundaries`); v5/v6's condemnations expired with the deploy stack (`stale-verdicts-under-old-stack`); a 2-degree calibration fix moved the whole runnable envelope (`zero-offset-calibration-shifts-envelope`); plant upgrades are era boundaries with paired re-baselining (`plant-swap-invariants-vs-shifts`); and the 2026-08-05 reset froze v5-v11, fixed the latency FIFO / manifest / sampling / reward-table debts, and restarted - producing the lineage that reached hardware SOTA (`freeze-lineage-fix-structure-restart`, `minimal-reward-table-with-provenance`). The recovery line's real-robot verdicts ended up in three places that disagree, one of them an undated note in a command file (`write-hardware-verdicts-back`).
Coach application. Maintain the closed-questions ledger and quote it when symptoms recur; stamp verdicts with stack/calibration versions; when a team is three rungs into symptom-shuffling, raise the restart question explicitly with the freeze-fix-restart pattern.
doctrine-21Name the quantity in the space it lives inA goal, reward term or acceptance criterion about the feet, the base or the contact state is computed from the quantity itself - world poses, forces, per-category outcomes - never through a joint-angle, single-signal or pooled stand-in that assumes everything else sits at nominal; and every detector is validated on a behaviour known not to contain the event before it becomes a gate.
Case. The recovery line was caught three times: |ankle roll| as "flat feet" sold stance width and the real robot slid into the splits, a hip-roll criterion was confounded by 50 deg of yaw, and the joint table said 0.271 m where the feet were 0.159 m apart; task-space terms produced the first flat, wide stance (`joint-space-proxy-for-task-space-quantity`). Flight detection lied in both directions across two lines - foot height flagged 40% false flight on a walking gait, contact force alone flagged slip chatter as hops (`contact-detector-single-signal-lies`). A pooled height average described a robot that did not exist - six in ten standing, four in ten sitting (`zero-partial-credit-is-not-an-iteration-problem`) - and the walking line had learned the same lesson on yaw rate (`heading-integral-not-body-rate`).
Coach application. For every reward term and gate row, ask what physical quantity it stands for and whether it is measured directly; flag joint-space or single-signal stand-ins for task-space goals, ask for a detector validated on a negative control, and split pooled metrics by category before reading them.
doctrine-22Continuation needs a live gradient; a release is chosen by a scanContinue a converged policy only on a change that creates a live gradient, on a short budget, with every checkpoint scanned on the transfer axis; choose a release by running the full battery over a band of checkpoints and stop on signals, never by taking the last one; and when edits to the terminal phase cannot move a behaviour, roll back and retrain with the constraint present from the start, keeping the order in which the lineage acquired its mechanisms as explicit curriculum phases.
Case. A continuation with no new gradient drifted MuJoCo transfer from 100/98% to 80/28% while every Isaac gate stayed perfect, and a live-gradient continuation at the same depth kept it (`converged-continuation-is-poison`). One-leg checkpoints 100 iterations apart failed 1 and 38 of 40 cells, and late ones degraded (`checkpoint-choice-is-a-full-gate-scan`). Four in-lineage stance fixes failed because the stance was the end of the get-up path, and from scratch it grew right (`stance-decided-by-get-up-path`); fixes stacked on degraded states were rolled back by the user (`stop-stacking-roll-back-and-audit`); and the lineage's final recipe, trained from scratch in one run, sat at 0% because the order of its curriculum was part of the product (`curriculum-history-is-part-of-the-product`). The omni line's short adaptation budgets and mature roots are the same law seen from the other side (`continuation-budget-not-from-zero`, `root-maturity-vs-product-quality`).
Coach application. Before approving a continuation, ask for the new gradient, the budget and the transfer axis in the scan; before approving a release, ask for the scan; after three rungs without progress on the target, propose rolling back to the last good checkpoint and a from-scratch phase plan instead of a fourth patch.
Experience cards
119 cards matching “fixed-acceptance-matrix-per-rung”.
Before training a one-leg stand the spec named the cheapest cheats - hopping on the support foot, a raised foot resting unloaded, a leg tripod - and gave each a countermeasure and a gate; one still appeared and was caught by exactly those gates
enumerate-cheapest-cheats-before-trainingBefore training, list the cheapest behaviours that would satisfy each reward term without doing the task, give each a countermeasure in the reward and a gate in acceptance, and prove the intended behaviour is reachable with a probe - then treat any gate the policy games as evidence about the reward, not the gate.
Symptom
The literature's single-leg benchmark reports eight state-of-the-art general policies holding a clean one-leg stand 0 times out of 90 - they survive by sneaking steps and hops - so the task's first adversary was the policy's own cheating.
Context
The spec's shape self-check ("what is the zero-cost option?") listed, for the one-foot bucket: the cheapest cheat, a foot resting on the ground without load, countered by a 5 N contact threshold plus positive swing income; the second cheapest, small hops on the support foot to reset balance, countered by a continuous support-air penalty plus a gate of zero support-foot flight segments. The probe that preceded training had already seen a third: early low-lift postures "survived" by pressing the swing foot at 78-95 N, a leg tripod, removed by folding the shank back. The two-foot bucket was checked too: its zero-cost behaviour is ordinary standing, with no odd base state.
Change
Countermeasures and gates written before training: swing-contact and support-air penalties, gate 2 (zero swing-foot contact frames above 5 N), gate 3 (zero support-foot flight segments).
Outcome
The first run still found the unloaded-foot cheat (a binary reward band gave it no gradient to lift) - and it was caught, by the contact gates and the cross-simulator comparison, not discovered on hardware. The retrained V0 passed all gates 40/40, including zero support-foot flight after the flight detector was corrected.
Mechanism
A policy optimizes the reward, not the intent; the cheapest behaviours that satisfy the reward are predictable from the reward's structure, and a gate written for each before training turns a silent cheat into a failed row.
Applies when
- designing rewards for balance, contact or "hold still" tasks
- benchmark policies are known to cheat the task
- writing acceptance gates for a new skill
“文献里 8 个 SOTA 通用策略在单脚站基准上 0/90 干净保持， 全靠偷步偷跳活命，这是本任务的第一反作弊对象 … 单脚桶下最便宜的作弊是"脚虚放地上不受力"——接触判定 >5 N 力阈（沿用），配 swing_height_band 正收入拉开。 … 第二便宜是"支撑脚小跳重置"——support_air_penalty 连续罚 + 验收门支撑脚腾空段=0 双保险。”
git:Lucen V2@origin/oneleg-line:train/ONELEG_V0_SPEC.md § §0 目标口径 / §5 形状自检(零成本选项是什么) Every new penalty ships with a pre-registered withdrawal clause - if healthy gait must pay above the cap, the term stands down
calibration-threshold-with-withdrawal-clauseIntroduce every new penalty with: the zero-cost-option audit, a replay-calibrated weight formula (healthy pays a fixed small fraction of tracking), and a pre-registered withdrawal condition - and let the clause fire without argument when the calibration says the term cannot be afforded.
Symptom
Three same-shaped crashes had established a failure archetype: v4's clearance, v8a's landing window (weight off by 58x uncalibrated), and v6a's bare hip_yaw suppression all combined a zero-cost "don't move" option with a fee on any motion - a reverse barrier that pushes policies toward standing still.
Context
The v11 landing-window penalty was therefore introduced under a calibration-threshold protocol: (1) shape chosen with the window tightened (h_gate 0.03 -> 0.02, because 0.03 equaled the clearance target and priced the entire descent); (2) weight from a FORMULA, not judgment: measure the term's raw value on healthy replays (v5/v10b), set w = -(0.10-0.15 x tracking reward) / raw_healthy; (3) withdrawal clause pre-registered: if healthy gait must pay >15% of tracking no matter the tuning, the term is withdrawn to the next version rather than forced in - "不硬上". The companion hip_yaw quieting term ran the same protocol (calibrate on replays, healthy pays <=5%) and was later retired entirely when a structural fix (zero action scale) made its shaping tax unnecessary.
Change
Penalty introduction protocol: shape audit (what is the zero-cost option?), replay-based weight formula, healthy-pay cap with a written stand-down condition - all before training.
Outcome
The landing term was in fact withdrawn under its clause (v12 records "P5 落地窗口罚 已撤 … 维持撤下"), demonstrating the protocol firing as designed instead of the fourth same-type crash.
Mechanism
A penalty's damage mode is mispricing healthy behavior; since the healthy price is measurable in advance on replays, both the weight and the go/no-go decision can be computed rather than discovered by a ruined training run. The withdrawal clause converts "make it work" pressure into a clean deferral.
Applies when
- adding any motion-taxing penalty to a working gait
- a proposed term's weight has no measurement behind it
- a previous same-shaped term crashed training
“权重公式而非拍脑袋:先在 v5/v10b 回放上量 h_gate=0.02 的原始值,w = −(0.10~0.15 × 跟踪奖励) / raw_健康;标定门槛:若健康步态无论如何要付 >15% 跟踪,本项撤下留 v12,不硬上 (v4 clearance/v8a-B/v6a 三次同型翻车的教训:代价为零的"不动"选项 + 一动就收费 = 反向壁垒)。”
train/WALK_V11_SPEC.md § 6. P5 —— 落地窗口罚(三代欠账,标定门槛制) Late training leaned on sampling noise as a stability crutch - deterministic play collapsed while training metrics stayed green
noise-crutch-deterministic-collapseEvaluate the deterministic policy in an external harness on a fixed cadence during training (not just at the end), select checkpoints on that curve, and treat a collapsing noise_std with rising training reward as a warning that noise is load-bearing.
Symptom
omni_s1's final checkpoint (model_5999) fell at 4 s even in Isaac's OWN deterministic play, while checkpoints from iter 1700-4000 were fine - and no training metric flagged anything. Policy noise_std had collapsed to 0.045 by iter ~990 (final 0.033).
Context
Diagnosis: the policy had learned to use its exploration noise as a dither/stabilizer - "策略把采样噪声当稳定拐杆,训练指标看不见" (the training metrics cannot see it, because training always runs with noise on). Countermeasures: entropy_coef 0.005 -> 0.01 to slow the std collapse, and - the structural fix - an in-training smoke loop (watch_ckpt.py): every 500 iters, export ONNX directly, run 3-seed MuJoCo evaluation, log CSV/TensorBoard curves plus three-view videos. The doctrine line was written in bold: "训练指标全绿不再是发育健康的 证据,冒烟曲线才是" - green training metrics are no longer evidence of healthy development; the smoke curve is. The follow-up run s1b showed the drift metric follow a U-shape (73 -> 8.6 at iter 3500 -> 76), making checkpoint selection BY the smoke curve (early stop at 3500) the shipping mechanism, with terminal re-degradation booked as known and unresolved.
Change
entropy floor raised; watch_ckpt smoke loop instituted as standing infrastructure; checkpoint selection moved from "last iteration" to "best point on the deterministic smoke curve".
Outcome
s1b shipped from iter 3500 (the U-bottom) instead of a degraded terminus; every later lineage (s1c/s1e, the C ladder's --every 100 loops) inherited the watcher as the standard guardrail.
Mechanism
PPO evaluates and improves the stochastic policy; if noise itself stabilizes the gait (dither smoothing a marginal limit cycle), the deterministic mean policy is a different, worse controller that training never measures. External deterministic evaluation on an independent simulator is the only readout of what will actually be deployed.
Applies when
- final checkpoints underperform mid-training ones
- noise_std collapses early while training reward climbs
- deciding which checkpoint to export and ship
“训练后期确定性脆化——noise_std iter~990 收到 0.045(终 0.033),model_5999 连 Isaac 确定性 play 都 4 s 摔(1700~4000 正常):策略把采样噪声当稳定拐杖,训练指标看不见。对策:entropy_coef 0.005→0.01 + train/watch_ckpt.py 训练中冒烟曲线 … 训练指标全绿不再是发育健康的证据,冒烟曲线才是。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 3. S1.1 修订记录 ② Anchoring the action on the measured joint angle (target = q + beta*a), with a beta curriculum down to tau_limit/kp, bounded torque by construction, removed the re-falls and later stood the robot up on hardware
beta-anchored-action-targetFor large-motion skills on position-controlled actuators, bound the action relative to the measured joint angle with a per-joint authority of tau_limit/kp, curriculum the authority down from full range, keep the curriculum state out of the observation and pin acceptance at the deployed authority - and make the deployment code refuse to run the anchored contract without a measured q.
Symptom
The V0 full-range absolute action produced violent targets; the V1 command-anchored rate limit made standing oscillate. Both failure modes came from how the action becomes a target.
Context
V2.0 (user approved, from scratch): BetaAnchorJointPositionAction, target = q_measured + beta_j(m)*a, memoryless per step. beta_j(m) = floor + m*(beta0 - floor), beta0 = the contract half-range (m = 1 reproduces V0 authority), floor = min(tau_limit/kp, beta0): hip_pitch 1.309 -> 0.40, knee 1.047 -> 0.40, hip_yaw -> 0.917, the other joints unchanged - the tightening lands exactly on the joints the V0 torque account convicted. m drops 0.1 per step when a standing-share EMA exceeds 0.35. beta is NOT in the observation, so the 45-dim contract is untouched; acceptance is pinned at m = 0 because the Python curriculum state is not saved in the checkpoint. The deployment chain got a new profile (recovery_v2: action_anchor current_q, explicit per-joint beta written into the contract, independent of the gain profile), and policy_io raises if q is missing rather than silently falling back to the absolute contract; the old profile's check reproduced its pre-change deviation bit for bit.
Change
New action term and beta curriculum; later the RS06 floor was lowered 0.40 -> 0.30 -> 0.25 (kp*beta 7.5 N*m) and the stamped deployment profile was synced to 0.25.
Outcome
First acceptance at m = 0 (v2_0b): re-falls 0% in every category, the torque gate passed for the first time on the line (worst 69.9%), knee jitter 0.004; supine 98.8 / side 88.8% with prone and mid still failing (fixed by the conditional pull curriculum). MuJoCo showed demand at or under the limits (hip_pitch 11.7/12 against V0's 26.8). Lowering beta cut impact (hip_pitch demand 9.7 -> 8.5 N*m) but barely slowed the get-up - it had become coordination-limited. Enabling the policy moves the target only +/-beta around the current pose, so there is no homing fling; the 08-11 real get-up and the later v3_1p1c both run on this contract.
Mechanism
kp*beta caps the proportional torque in a single step with no build-up delay and no memory, giving both a hard impact bound and full balance bandwidth.
Applies when
- a skill needs full joint range but hardware torque limits are low
- absolute position targets cause impacts or saturation
- changing the action semantics of a contract that deployed policies share
“**动作项** `BetaAnchorJointPositionAction`:`target = q_实测 + β_j(m)·a`, 逐步无记忆 … **Play/验收钉 m=0(= floor = 部署档)**:python 课程状态不进 checkpoint, Play cfg 显式 `beta_m_start=0` … 判读:**结构赌注兑现** —— 站姿零再摔 + 力矩账首过(kp·β 封顶按构造)”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §33 V2.0 预注册(2026-08-10,用户点头开工):β 锚定动作空间,从零训 Deployment power derating damages non-forward axes far more than forward - sweep it in sim before deploying
power-scale-hurts-nonforward-axesTreat deployment power/torque scaling as a plant parameter: evaluate the policy in sim at the exact deployment scale, expect non-dominant axes to degrade first under derating, and either deploy at the training power or train with power randomization.
Symptom
Policies deployed at power-scale 0.8 (a safety derating of commanded torque) looked fine walking forward but were weak at backward and turning, inviting the wrong diagnosis "the skill was not trained well".
Context
Measured repeatedly: on s1e, going 1.0 -> 0.8 cost forward 18% but backward 58%; on C4-ff800, turn tracking was +25%/+40% at pw0.8 vs +75%/+58% at pw1.0, backward 51-52% vs 97-103%, while forward stayed 96-98% at both. Sim evaluation numbers in the plan were all pw1.0, but the robot was being run at 0.8.
Change
Pre-deploy protocol added: sweep the exported policy across power in sim (for PW in 0.8 0.9 1.0: eval_c_matrix --power $PW --seeds 20) and deploy at the first level where both turn directions reach >=50%. For C4 the recommendation was raise the robot to pw1.0 - the sweep showed it nearly free (saturation 47%->33%, left foot-clipping danger zone 25%->6%, cost only tilt 6.7->8.3 deg).
Outcome
Turning "weakness" resolved without any retraining; the sim sweep correctly predicted the real-robot signature at both power levels.
Mechanism
Forward walking is the reward-dominant, torque-cheapest skill with the most margin; backward/turn/sidewalk live closer to the torque envelope, so a uniform torque derating consumes their margin first. Training ran at power 1.0 (the trainer does no power scaling), so deploying at 0.8 is a systematic underactuation the policy never experienced.
Applies when
- deploying with any torque/power derating or safety scale
- secondary skills (backward, turn, lateral) underperform on hardware while forward walking looks fine
- choosing the deployment power level for a new policy
“power 衰减对非前进轴的伤害远大于前进轴（s1e：前进 1.0→0.8 掉 18%，后退掉 58%）。转向是非前进轴，0.8 下很可能明显跟不动。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3c. A-2 上机前先定部署力度档 / 3p. 二 Fine-tuning through a reward-table change was falsified (scatter, half-recover, collapse) - continuation training is legal only with the reward frozen
fine-tune-reward-change-falsifiedNever fine-tune through a reward-table change - retrain from zero; reserve checkpoint continuation for frozen-reward plant/DR widening, reset noise_std when branching, and watch for the scatter/half-recover/collapse signature as the abort trigger.
Symptom
The s1c A/B experiment: arm B fine-tuned from an existing checkpoint under the revised reward (same contract, same network, changed reward + small DR) and failed with a characteristic signature - scatter, half-recover, fall back ("打散→半恢复→摔回"); arm A trained from zero under the same config won decisively (full shaping lifted swing to 21.6 mm within 500 iters; shipped at 5500).
Context
Verdict recorded: "从零 + 强塑形是本机唯一验证过的发育路径" (from-zero plus strong shaping is this machine's only validated development path). The signature became a standing stop criterion in every later rung that touched a reward ("s1c B 臂签名,出现即停"). Crucially the boundary of the law was drawn explicitly when S2 continuation training was proposed: "当年证伪的是「奖励表中途改版的 fine-tune」… S2 续训奖励表全程冻结、只逐级加宽 plant/DR,属另一类" - continuing a checkpoint with the reward FROZEN while widening plant/DR one rung at a time is a different class and was allowed (and then worked, powering the whole S2/C lineage) - with the honest fallback that if frozen-reward continuation ever collapses, that rung retrains from zero and the doctrine gets re-examined with data. Fine-tune arms also need mechanical care: reset the checkpoint's collapsed noise_std (terminal 0.033 "会杀死探索") and account for iteration counters re-zeroing (curriculum gates fire immediately).
Change
Reward changes and lineage continuation permanently separated: reward revisions -> from-zero retrain; plant/DR widening -> frozen-reward continuation with per-rung gates; the B-arm signature promoted to a universal tripwire.
Outcome
No later reward revision was attempted by fine-tune; frozen-reward continuation carried S2 (PD/COM/friction rungs) and the C command ladder successfully from the s1e root.
Mechanism
A trained policy sits in an optimum of its reward's geometry; changing the reward moves the optimum but leaves the policy's exploration noise near-zero and its value function calibrated to the old returns - it disassembles the old solution faster than it can assemble the new one. Widening DR under a frozen reward instead keeps the optimum's identity and asks only for local robustification.
Applies when
- proposing to fine-tune an existing policy under a revised reward
- planning a robustification ladder from a validated checkpoint
- a continued run scatters then partially recovers then collapses
“B 臂 fine-tune 证伪(打散→半恢复→摔回——从零 + 强塑形是本机唯一验证过的发育路径)。… 当年证伪的是「奖励表中途改版的 fine-tune」(B 臂,塑形突变致终盘摔回);S2 续训奖励表全程冻结、只逐级加宽 plant/DR,属另一类;若 s2_lag1 续训本身塌方,回退方案 = 该级从零重训,续训教义再议(拿数据说话)。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 3. S1.3 / 4. 与 s1c fine-tune 证伪的关系 Friction DR was demoted after a measurement (94% success at mu 0.4 with no friction randomization) and promoted again when the action contract changed and mu 0.4 fell to 76% - DR priorities belong to a plant and contract, not to a task
friction-priority-re-measured-after-plant-changeRe-measure transfer along the friction axis for every new action contract or plant, not once per task; a DR priority settled under one action parameterization does not carry to the next.
Symptom
Getting up is all scraping and pushing against the ground, and training pinned friction at 1.0, so friction looked like the first thing to randomize.
Context
The MuJoCo gate on R0.5 (5 categories x 10 seeds x 4 friction levels) measured 100/100/98/94% at mu 1.0/0.8/0.6/0.4: degradation showed first as time (prone 3.2 -> 5.3 s), not failure, so friction DR was demoted and the DR budget earmarked for mass/COM. After the switch to the beta-anchored action space, V2.2 read 90/94/90/76%: mu 0.4 was now the weak row.
Change
V2.3 (single variable): friction DR static (1.0, 1.0) -> (0.2, 2.0), dynamic (0.15, 1.6), the HiFAR range keeping the base dynamic/static ratio; restitution untouched. Continued from v2_2.
Outcome
Isaac nominal 99.8% (DR did not hurt the nominal plant); MuJoCo 98/98/96/92% - mu 0.4 76 -> 92%, mu 1.0 back to R3.1's 98% with bounded torque.
Mechanism
How much a policy leans on friction depends on how it moves; the spec records that the sensitivity rose after the action contract changed but does not establish why.
Applies when
- changing the action space, gains or authority of an existing skill
- deciding which DR axis to spend the next rung on
- an earlier sweep justified leaving an axis unrandomized
“**μ 砍到 0.4(训练值的 40%)仍有 94%**,退化先体现在**用时**(prone 3.2→5.3 s) 而不是成败。μ≥0.8 完全无损。→ **§17 曾把"摩擦随机化提到 R4 第一项"当作优先 事项,这条实测把它降级了**”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §21 MuJoCo 复核门 ② 摩擦依赖 Compare the achieved reward to the computed ignore-floor to tell "never learned" from "learned but unprofitable"
ignore-floor-diagnosisFor any skill that trains flat, compute the reward the null policy would earn on that term; achieved==floor means the behavior never paid out (find why: exploration, reward observability, or feasibility) - do not tune weights first.
Symptom
C4 sidewalk failed on both arms; the question was whether the policy had found sidewalk and rejected it as unprofitable, or never found it at all - two diagnoses with opposite fixes.
Context
The theoretical value of the sidewalk tracking term for a policy that completely ignores the command was computable from the command distribution: 0.189. Trained final values landed at 0.187 (arm A) and 0.204 (arm B) - sitting exactly on the ignore-floor - while the honest balance at the optimum actually favored sidewalking (net +0.88/step inside the side bucket). Later the same arithmetic closed the whole saga: for the true reward landscape, doing real sidewalk scored 0.153 vs 0.944 for ignoring - the policy's refusal "是理性最优，不是探索失败" (rational optimum, not exploration failure) under one hypothesis, and under the final measurement-corrected account the policy had "每一次都在 做理性选择" (made the rational choice every time).
Change
Diagnostic rule adopted: compute the ignore-floor for the new term; if the achieved value sits on it, the behavior was never expressed in useful volume (or the reward cannot distinguish it - check both); if the achieved value is above floor but the behavior is absent at deployment, the policy sampled it and priced it out - then the reward balance, not exploration, is the lever.
Outcome
Correctly identified that PPO had not merely under-valued sidewalk; each subsequent hypothesis (waveform sign, regularization cage, exploration form, reward kernel) was tested against this floor arithmetic, which kept the search honest through three reversals.
Mechanism
Every reward term has a computable value under the null behavior; the achieved-vs-floor gap is a one-number audit of whether the optimizer ever monetized the target behavior. It converts "training failed" into one of two mechanistically distinct states with different fixes.
Applies when
- a new skill's tracking reward plateaus early
- deciding between exploration fixes and reward-weight fixes
- post-mortem of a failed curriculum rung
“track_lin_vel_y_exp 训练终值恰好坐在「完全无视指令」的底分上（A 0.187 / B 0.204，理论值 0.189），而终点 balance 明明有利（side 桶内净 +0.88/步）。不是学会了不划算，是根本没学到。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3e. 为什么首战 FAIL Verify changes in the run's resolved config (and checkpoint md5), never in the source you edited
resolved-config-is-source-of-truthAttribution and single-variable claims must be made on the resolved per-run config (and checkpoint hashes), not on source diffs; verify every intended variable landed before burning compute, and verify every rollback byte-level against the historical resolved config.
Symptom
An intended arm-B config change never reached the training run - the run was grid-identical (117/117 cells) to its C2 predecessor - and the burn was only understood afterwards.
Context
The repo's discipline hardened around the logged resolved config (logs/<run>/params/env.yaml) as the only source of truth: (1) the C2 root-cause analysis was performed against the checkpoint's logged env.yaml, not the code ("以真相源 23-19-25/params/env.yaml 核实"); (2) C4 added a pre-flight: grep the landed env.yaml for the new keys, and compare the first checkpoints of the two arms - identical md5 means the variable did not land, stop immediately; (3) the C4 full rollback was accepted only after starting a 1-iter run and byte-comparing its resolved env.yaml against the historical 700-era file (identical except 4 dormant schema fields, each verified to be at its no-op default).
Change
Standing pre-flight and post-change verification: dump/diff the resolved config that the run actually consumed; use checkpoint hash equality as a cheap "variable landed" detector between arms.
Outcome
Caught the not-landed variable class of failure; made the rollback provably equivalent to the historical training state rather than believed-equivalent.
Mechanism
Between edited source and the running experiment sit layered overrides, env-var switches, and registration logic; only the resolved, serialized config reflects their composition. Diffing at that level tests the actual experiment; diffing source tests intent.
Applies when
- launching an A/B pair or any single-variable rung
- rolling back to a historical training state
- a run behaves as if a change was never applied
“开训前先验落盘 cfg（上一轮臂B 的改动没进 run，与 C2 逐格 117/117 相同）：grep -E "base_com|joint_friction|push_robot|track_lin_vel_y_exp" logs/<run>/params/env.yaml 另：两臂第一个 checkpoint 的 md5 若相同 = 变量没进去，立刻停。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3d. ⚠️ 开训前先验落盘 cfg / 3l. 回退清单（验证） The 1.5 Hz step-frequency gate was retracted - the author had misread his own actuator data, and the limit fought pendulum dynamics
gate-threshold-retracted-frequencyEvery gate threshold must cite its measurement and survive a first-principles sanity check; when a gate keeps failing otherwise healthy behavior, re-derive the threshold from the raw data before enforcing it again - and retract wrong gates in writing.
Symptom
An acceptance criterion "step frequency <= 1.5 Hz" kept failing healthy policies (walk_v4 at 2.33 Hz), and an earlier attempt to force slower stepping (v3) had killed stepping altogether.
Context
The threshold had been derived from the author's own actuator frequency-response measurements - but re-reading the raw table showed the misread: amplitude ratio at 2.0 Hz is 0.88 (knee) / 0.83 (ankle), acceptable; the genuinely bad point was walk_v2's 3.8 Hz at 0.58. Mechanism check agreed: the leg as a compound pendulum (L ~ 0.30 m) has a natural frequency ~1.1 Hz, swing half-period 0.45 s - the observed 2.1-2.4 Hz sits near where the leg wants to swing, and forcing 1.5 Hz "是跟摆动动力学对着干" (fights the swing dynamics). The frequency definition itself was pinned by two independent methods (contact-event counting 2.39 Hz vs FFT 2.33 Hz, agreeing): reported numbers are cycle frequency = steps per leg per second.
Change
Gate retracted in writing: "步频 ≤1.5 Hz 应删除或放宽到 ≤2.5 Hz"; frequency definition standardized before entering any config.
Outcome
walk_v4/v6's 2.1-2.4 Hz reclassified from disease to normal; the v3 failure got its probable explanation (suppressing stepping to meet a wrong gate).
Mechanism
A gate is only as good as the measurement and the reading behind it; thresholds inherited from a misread plot become invisible design constraints that later training obeys at real cost. Cross-checking a threshold against first-principles dynamics (pendulum frequency) is a cheap way to catch such misreads.
Applies when
- an acceptance threshold repeatedly fails policies that look healthy
- thresholds were set from a single person's reading of raw data
- a forced compliance with a gate degrades the behavior it guards
“我当初依据自己测的执行器频响定的,但看错了区间。… 2.0~2.4 Hz 的幅值比 0.83~0.88 是可接受的;真正不行的是 walk_v2 的 3.8 Hz。… 腿按复摆算(L≈0.30 m)自然频率约 1.1 Hz … 把它压到 1.5 Hz 是跟摆动动力学对着干(walk_v3 把迈步压没了,可能正是这个原因)。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § ② 撤回"步频 ≤1.5 Hz"这条验收标准 —— 是我定错了 The get-up kept getting faster because standing earlier paid more every step - lowering torque authority barely slowed it, and only zeroing the standing income for the first 3 s moved the pace into the design band
per-step-income-drives-speed-time-gateWhen a skill is too fast, find the term that pays for finishing early and gate that income by time; keep the "get into position" term ungated so the policy does not learn to wait, use a ramp instead of a cliff, and confirm with a paired same-level experiment that the drift is motivational before changing it.
Symptom
The user judged the get-up too fast (Isaac medians about 0.7-1.6 s) and suspected path dependence: the policy seemed to get faster the longer it trained.
Context
Lowering the beta authority 0.40 -> 0.30 cut impact but moved supine only 1.70 -> 2.00 s: coordination-limited, not torque-limited. A paired experiment inside one beta level (checkpoint 15,600 vs 18,499, +2,900 iterations, same ruler) measured the drift: get-up medians -7 to -10%. The spec concluded the motive, not the path, was the cause - per-step standing income pays for every early step, and any lineage (even one from scratch) races toward the fastest solution inside its constraints.
Change
V2.5: the standing income (base_height, stand_pose, still, feet_on_ground) multiplied by w(t) = clamp(t/3 s, 0, 1); upright deliberately NOT gated, so righting and sitting up early still pay and the policy is not taught to lie flat and wait; a ramp, not a step. V2.5b: zero before t0 = 3 s, then a 1 s ramp.
Outcome
V2.5: Isaac 100%, get-up +17-43% slower, MuJoCo 100/100/98/100% (the best cross-simulator reading yet), still short of the 3.5-4.5 s design band - a linear ramp only discounts early income. V2.5b: MuJoCo supine 2.04 -> 4.10 s and prone 3.18 -> 4.04 s, inside the band; the Isaac pace barely moved (a lineage habit on a gradient-free plateau). Later the zero gate proved harmful when trained from scratch (curriculum-history-is-part-of-the-product) and in the V3.1 lineage (time-gate-vs-wide-stance-retire-the-fix).
Mechanism
Constraints on authority or velocity change how the fastest solution looks; the time structure of the task income decides how fast the fastest solution is.
Applies when
- a policy is faster or more aggressive than wanted and constraints do not slow it
- progress-style rewards pay every step spent at the goal
- performance drifts faster with more training at fixed settings
“**V2.5 机制(唯一)**:站立收入(base_height/stand_pose/still/feet_on_ground) 乘时间斜坡 w(t)=clamp(t/T_gate,0,1),T_gate=3.0 s;**upright 刻意不门控** (翻正/坐直早期照常拿钱,防"躺平等门开" … **用户假设量化 证实:逐步计酬动机在 β 包络内持续压缩时间,约束挡不住动机 —— V2.5 动机层 修法为正解。**”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §39 V2.5 预注册 / §39 补 配对实验 The +/-50 mm lateral COM randomization meant to spread the legs coincided with legs pulling IN - rolled back per its own pre-registered contract
com-dr-rollback-on-symptomWhen adopting a DR value that covers no local measurement, write its intent and rollback trigger into the config at adoption time; roll it back as the control arm the moment the symptom contradicts the intent, and promote the symptom's metric into the acceptance battery.
Symptom
After v7 adopted the reference developer's oversized lateral COM randomization (+/-50 mm) explicitly to force leg spread, the real robot's legs narrowed instead - lateral mean 154 mm / closest 107 mm in sim (nominal 214.5), narrower still on hardware with occasional leg contact.
Context
The rollback was clean because the adoption had been honest: the robot.yaml comment recorded the intent AND that the +/-50 value covered no local measurement (only a 16/7 mm measured offset existed; even the prior widening to +/-20 was subjective), plus the reference's own reported side effect (base sway) and the note "这一项要单独跑、 单独归因". When the opposite symptom appeared, v8 returned y to +/-20 mm as the control arm ("要么没起作用、要么帮了倒忙 … 按约定退回做 对照"), kept x/z untouched (a noise-level difference not worth another variable), and named the second suspect: the landing penalty itself, via the reference's own three-link chain (landing penalty -> stance narrows -> spacing penalty needed). A gate lesson was booked in the same table: v7's sim numbers had ALREADY crossed the line (154/107 vs v5's 182/147) - "这个指标本可拦下 v7" - so foot-distance became a standing acceptance row (min >120 mm, zero leg-leg contacts).
Change
base_com_offset_m y: 0.050 -> 0.020 (x/z kept), regenerated through the export tool rather than hand-editing derived files; foot-distance acceptance row added.
Outcome
A borrowed DR lever with no local measurement basis was retired the moment its symptom contradicted its purpose, at single-variable cost; the metric that would have caught it pre-hardware entered the gate.
Mechanism
DR ranges shape behavior through the policy's robustness strategy, which is jointly determined with every reward term; a lever that forces stance width on one robot can be dominated by a stronger narrowing pressure (landing softness) on another. Levers adopted without local measurement must carry their own rollback trigger, because there is no nominal to argue from when they misbehave.
Conflicts
Causality is not fully closed in the source: the narrowing may come from the landing penalty rather than the COM lever ("腿距的第二嫌疑人是 ④ 本身"); the rollback is the pre-agreed control experiment, not a verdict that the lever caused the narrowing.
Applies when
- importing DR ranges or behavioral-forcing randomizations from references
- a DR lever's observed effect contradicts its documented purpose
- a sim metric existed that would have caught a shipped regression
“⑥ 的本意 … 是逼策略把脚分开;真机结果是脚向内收且偶发相碰——要么没起作用、要么帮了倒忙。… 注释当时就写了"这一项要单独跑、单独归因"。现在症状出现了,按约定退回做对照。”
train/WALK_V8_SPEC.md § 3. 改动 C — 质心随机化退回(撤销 v7-⑥ 的 y 项) Foot dragging is an attractor, not a low amplitude - and joint damping is the mode switch, adjustable at deploy time
swing-bistability-damping-switchWhen 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。”
train/README.md § swing 双稳态定性 + kd 部署杠杆 (2026-08-07, 用户设计 Test A/B) Never referee a suspect metric with another metric from the same code - they can share the disease
independent-referee-for-metric-disputesTo adjudicate a disputed measurement, compute the quantity by an independent method from raw state; never accept a sibling column from the same pipeline as the tiebreaker.
Symptom
A triple reversal on one question: sidewalk sign diagnosis (correct) was retracted using a second metric from the same script, then the retraction itself had to be retracted when that second metric turned out to be the buggy one - two opposite-direction errors on the same problem in one day, both written into the execution sheet.
Context
The probe's net-displacement metric suggested the sidewalk reference sign was inverted. Worried about yaw-drift pollution of net displacement, the author checked the same table's body-frame vy_mean column (~0.003 everywhere, 20-50x smaller) and retracted the sign diagnosis. But vy_mean came from mj_objectVelocity, which was silently reporting vertical velocity due to a frame bug - the "referee" was the diseased measurement. Re-measured with a truly independent computation (xmat.T @ qvel, world trajectory), the original diagnosis was confirmed: saw -0.5 gave vy +0.058/-0.130 (76%/106%), consistent with the net-displacement values all along (yaw pollution was real but only 10-21 deg, nowhere near reversal-sized).
Change
Lesson written twice, verbatim, as a hard rule: when questioning a measurement, the referee must be an independent algorithm (different code path, different physical derivation), e.g. rotate qvel by the body matrix directly, or inspect the raw world trajectory.
Outcome
With the independent referee in place the frame bug was confirmed, fixed, and the whole C4 line re-scored - revealing sidewalk had been working (see body-frame-velocity-api-audit).
Mechanism
Metrics sharing a code path (or an upstream API) share failure modes; agreement between them is evidence about the code, not the world. Only a measurement with an independent derivation can break the tie, because its errors are uncorrelated with the suspect's.
Applies when
- two metrics of the same quantity disagree
- about to retract a conclusion based on a second readout
- auditing evaluation code after a surprising result
“我用一个坏指标去质疑一个好指标，并把撤回写进了执行单。教训（写死）：质疑一个测量时，不能用同一份代码里的另一个测量当裁判 —— 它们可能同源同病。裁判必须是独立算法（这次的裁判应该一开始就是 xmat.T · qvel[:3]，或直接看世界轨迹）。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3m. 二 我今天犯了两个方向相反的错 / 3n. 五 元教训 A sim veto needs real confirmation too - the worst sim cell was scheduled as the most informative hardware run
sim-veto-needs-real-confirmationNever let sim alone both condemn a purpose-built configuration and escape audit: spend one cheap, safeguarded hardware run on the condemned cell, pre-registering what agreement and disagreement would each imply about the proxy.
Symptom
The fric-2400@kd1.0 combination was sim's worst cell across the board (survival 17/20 - the only miss, mu0.4 1/20, push 103/160, zero-cmd 2/20), yet it was the only product specifically trained for the kd1.0 deployment gain - discarding it on sim evidence alone would leave the sim's own validity untested exactly where it mattered.
Context
The team had been burned in the other direction before ("Isaac 指标三次 零预警" - training-side metrics gave zero warning three times), so the symmetric rule was written: sim's rejection also needs hardware confirmation ("sim 判被支配 ≠ 真机被支配 … sim 的否决也要真机确认"). The run was pre-registered with a dual reading: real matches sim -> the S2f ladder closes and the fork root is settled; real clearly better than sim -> the MuJoCo proxy has a systematic bias in the kd1.0/low-margin region, "那比选型本身重要得多" - and every S2f sim acceptance would need re-scoring.
Change
The condemned configuration was kept on the hardware roster (last, spotted, minimal exposure) explicitly as a proxy-validation probe, not as a deployment candidate.
Outcome
Session design captured either result as progress: selection confirmed, or a proxy bias discovered that would re-price the whole ladder's verdicts.
Mechanism
Every sim verdict is a joint statement about the policy AND the proxy; cells where a policy was purpose-trained for the exact condition sim condemns are where proxy error is most likely and most costly. Testing the veto converts a selection decision into a calibration measurement of the evaluator itself.
Applies when
- sim rejects the configuration that targets the actual deployment condition
- the eval proxy's calibration has never been checked in that regime
- deciding which hardware runs are worth their risk
“但它也是唯一为 kd1.0 部署档专门训的产物 —— sim 判被支配 ≠ 真机被支配, 「Isaac 指标三次零预警」的教训反过来同样成立: sim 的否决也要真机确认。… 若真机明显好于 sim → MuJoCo 代理在 kd1.0/低裕度区有系统性偏差, 那比选型本身重要得多。”
train/REAL_RUN_S2.md § 上机名单 note / 2. sim 侧预注册预期 ⑤ A joint frozen at the action clamp pays zero action_rate forever - penalize pre-clip saturation to make the cheat cost money
saturation-cheating-zero-rate-costWhenever actions are clipped and any smoothness/rate penalty exists, add a pre-clip saturation penalty so living at the clamp costs more than oscillating - and audit for frozen-at-clamp joints (action std ~0, |a| at exactly the clip value) as a standing acceptance row.
Symptom
With action_rate_l2 raised to -0.2, walk_v7's hip_pitch actions froze at exactly +/-1.000 (the clamp), reproduced bit-for-bit on hardware (splits frozen at +/-0.35 rad); the gait-shaping term joint_pos_ref collapsed to 0.026-0.035. The repo had died in the same trap once before (walk_v0: four joints pinned at +/-1.0).
Context
Mechanism: a joint pinned at the clamp has action-rate cost exactly zero and forever zero - under a strong smoothness tax, "push to the clamp and freeze" becomes the dominant optimum. Lowering the weight (-0.2 -> -0.1) only reduces temptation; the frozen state still costs nothing, so the structural fix adds action_saturation = sum(relu( |a_raw| - 0.9)) at weight -1.0, computed on the PRE-clip network output - post-clip, |a|=1.01 and |a|=3 punish identically and the out-of-range gradient dies (v0's old disease: mean |a| 1.71 soaked in saturation). Economics: freezing at |a|=1.0 now pays 0.1/joint/step (two hips = 40% of alive) vs ~0.0004/step for the healthy reference oscillation - the cheat flips from free to ~250x negative. Honest limits were recorded: A1 does not forbid freezing at 0.89 (the anti-freeze pressure must come from the oscillation demand of joint_pos_ref), and the alternative "rate on post-clip target" was rejected as 换汤不换药 - a pinned target also has zero rate.
Change
v8-A: add action_saturation (-1.0, thresh 0.9, pre-clip) AND halve action_rate_l2 (-0.2 -> -0.1, still 3.3x the v5 value); success criterion pre-declared (joint_pos_ref telemetry returns to v6 scale).
Outcome
Booked as the structural repair of the v7 freeze; also fixed a config hygiene trap discovered on the way - action_rate was assigned twice in __post_init__ (v5 comment line then v7 line), merged to one assignment "别再留两处赋值给下次审计埋雷".
Mechanism
Clipping creates a zero-gradient, zero-cost absorbing region in action space; any penalty on action derivatives makes that region strictly optimal once entered. Only a penalty on clamp proximity itself (measured pre-clip so depth of violation is visible) restores a slope out of the absorbing region.
Applies when
- joints sit at exactly the action clip with near-zero variance
- raising a smoothness penalty degrades gait amplitude
- shaped-oscillation terms collapse after a rate-weight increase
“钉死在钳位的关节 action_rate 代价精确为零且永远为零;−0.2 之下"推到钳位冻起来"成了压倒性最优 … 本仓第二次栽在同一坑(walk_v0 死于四关节钉死 ±1.0)。回调权重(−0.2→−0.1)只降低诱惑不消除作弊 … 算在 clip 前的原始网络输出上 … 作弊收支从"白赚"变成"倒贴 ~250 倍"。”
train/WALK_V8_SPEC.md § 1. 改动 A — 治饱和作弊 IMU observation age cut 52-68 ms to ~4 ms by moving AHRS onto the MCU - as a single variable
imu-age-move-fusion-downstreamAudit observation age end-to-end and move time-critical fusion as close to the sensor as possible - and when you fix a latency, change only that one variable so the gain is attributable.
Symptom
IMU-derived observations reaching the policy were 52-68 ms old because attitude fusion ran in Python on the loaded host computer - stale attitude is a direct feedback-loop delay the policy was not trained with.
Context
The fix was scoped deliberately narrowly: move the AHRS computation from Python to the STM32 H7 (MC02). CAN topology explicitly unchanged, so the change is a clean single variable.
Change
AHRS fusion relocated Python -> H7. Before/after - IMU age: 52-68 ms -> ~4 ms; CAN timing: unchanged; Python load: high -> ~0.
Outcome
IMU age reduced by an order of magnitude with no confound; host CPU headroom recovered ("把计算单元搬在stm32上, 这样imu有剩余").
Mechanism
Sensor age is pipeline latency, not sensor quality: fusing on the MCU next to the sensor removes host scheduling jitter and interpreter overhead from the critical path. Keeping the bus topology fixed makes the improvement attributable to the relocation alone.
Applies when
- measured sensor-to-policy age far exceeds sensor sample period
- attitude fusion or filtering runs on a loaded host CPU in an interpreted runtime
- planning infrastructure changes during a sim2real campaign
“AHRS 搬到 H7——这个不改 CAN 拓扑，只是把一段计算从 Python 挪到 MC02，单变量：IMU age 52–68 ms → ~4 ms / CAN 时序 不变 / Python 负载 高 → ≈0”
Experience.md § AHRS 搬到 H7 (lines 28-35) Single-impulse push recovery is a binary chaotic quantity - cross-machine floating-point divergence can flip the outcome
single-impulse-recovery-is-chaoticNever gate or compare single-event recovery outcomes across machines or domains: evaluate disturbances as survival distributions over phases and seeds, compare longitudinally on one machine, and treat any single-point cliff as unconfirmed until it survives the statistical protocol.
Symptom
Mac evaluation found a hard "0.8 N*s cliff" (0/3 survival) that the training machine flatly contradicted: the identical protocol (0.8 impulse at 8 s, cmd 0.2) survived 3/3 there, and a 0.6/0.8/2/4 cross sweep survived everything.
Context
The verdict became a named lesson ("跨机混沌课文"): whether one specific push at one specific phase is survived depends on a trajectory that diverges across machines from floating-point differences alone - "单次冲量恢复是二值混沌量, 跨机浮点发散可翻结局". The boundary was drawn precisely: the 20-seed statistical gates DO agree across machines (established precedent), but that agreement cannot be extrapolated to single-point recovery tests. Protocol amended: disturbance evaluation uses multiple push phases (8/10/12 s), >=10 seeds, and only same-machine longitudinal comparisons; the Mac-side recommendation built on the unreproducible cliff was not adopted, while its directionally-consistent small-impulse data was kept.
Change
Push evaluation redefined from single-event pass/fail to multi-phase multi-seed statistics, with cross-machine comparison banned for event-level results and allowed for distribution-level ones.
Outcome
A false hardware-relevant "cliff" was prevented from steering the ladder (the s2e push rung decisions were made on same-machine statistics); the chaos lesson was cited again when real push tests were restricted to qualitative cross-domain use.
Mechanism
Perturbation recovery near the viability boundary has sensitive dependence on initial conditions; different BLAS/GPU reduction orders yield different trajectories from identical configs, so a binary outcome at one phase is machine-specific noise. Averaging over phases and seeds restores a quantity whose expectation is machine-stable.
Applies when
- a push/disturbance result differs between machines or sim and real
- designing push-recovery acceptance tests
- a sharp pass/fail cliff appears in a chaotic-regime evaluation
“训练机上 Mac 原协议 (0.8 @8s cmd0.2) 3/3 全活 … 与 Mac 的 +0.8 0/3 直接矛盾。定性: 单次冲量恢复是二值混沌量, 跨机浮点发散可翻结局;统计门 (20-seed 八门) 跨机吻合的先例不能外推到单点恢复测试。协议改判: 抗推评测多相位 (push 时刻 8/10/12s) + ≥10 seed + 只做同机纵向比”
train/README.md § s2e 支线终章 (跨机混沌课文) A soft joint-limit penalty charged the standing pose itself - the geometric-zero knee sat on its hard limit, so stand_v1 bent its knees to dodge 0.419 per step and leaned 4.1 deg forward; excluding the knee gave 0.24 deg
soft-limit-penalty-charges-nominal-poseBefore training, evaluate every penalty at the nominal pose; if a joint's soft limit sits inside the pose the task requires (a straight knee on its hard stop), exclude that joint from the soft-limit penalty and let the action clip enforce the hard limit.
Symptom
stand_v1 (retrained after the default pose moved to the CAD geometric zero and mirror augmentation was added) fixed left/right asymmetry (6.8 -> 0.0 deg) but settled at a 4.1 deg forward lean, where pure PD at the same default settled at 0.1 deg - the policy was actively pushing itself forward, which is exactly the real robot's failure direction.
Context
soft_joint_pos_limit_factor = 0.9 shrank the knee's soft limit to -/+0.1047 rad, while the geometric-zero default has the knee at q = 0, exactly on the hard limit. Standing in the nominal pose therefore paid 0.2094 x 2.0 = 0.419 per step in dof_pos_limits (alive earned only 0.5). The policy's way out was to bend the knees to -/+0.1013 rad, and the cost was the forward lean.
Change
stand_v1b: the knees excluded from dof_pos_limits (a straight knee IS the standing pose; the hard limit is still enforced by the action clip). No other change.
Outcome
stand_v1b: max tilt 0.3 deg, steady tilt 0.24 deg, asymmetry 0.1 deg, height 0.384 m - exactly nominal - with knees at -0.0007 / +0.0005 rad. It became the standing release used on the real robot, and later the standing side of the recovery switch. The same exclusion was carried into the recovery contract (knee at the clip in the standing pose) and the one-leg reward table.
Mechanism
A limit penalty whose soft boundary lies inside the nominal pose turns the nominal into a taxed state, and the policy buys its way out with whatever posture change is cheapest - here a knee bend paid for with lean.
Applies when
- a standing or default pose has a joint at or near its hard limit
- a policy settles in a small steady tilt that pure PD does not show
- soft-limit factors shrink limits uniformly across joints
“`soft_joint_pos_limit_factor=0.9` 把膝软限位内缩到 ∓0.1047,而几何零位 default **膝盖 q=0 正好压在硬限位上** ⇒ 站在标称姿态每步白扣 `0.2094 × 2.0 = 0.419` (alive 才 +0.5)。策略只能屈膝到 ∓0.1013 躲罚,代价是躯干前倾 —— 恰好是真机的 失效方向。 … 修掉"软限位罚标称姿态"后重训(`dof_pos_limits` 排除膝盖)。**前倾问题彻底消失** … 不再屈膝躲惩罚,高度正好落回标称 0.3840。”
train/README.md § 三期: 镜像对称增强 + 站立 v1 (2026-07-28) / stand_v1b (2026-07-28): 站立定版 An auto-curriculum ratchet capped out at iter 248 and never engaged - stage difficulty manually or verify engagement
auto-curriculum-engagement-checkPrefer manually staged difficulty with gated transitions; if you use an automatic curriculum, instrument its internal state and alarm when it stops engaging - a saturated curriculum is constant DR wearing a curriculum's name.
Symptom
A curriculum mechanism intended to grow difficulty adaptively (s1f's ratchet) hit its cap at iteration 248 and never bit again - for 96% of the run its effect was equivalent to constant DR, i.e. the curriculum existed in name only.
Context
When external advice suggested graded wz bands (start ±0.15, then ±0.30), the team agreed with grading but explicitly rejected automatic curriculum, citing the s1f episode. The same logic had already been paid for with push grading: ±0.6 failed twice, ±0.3 was feasible - grading matters, but the grade transitions were made by hand at verified checkpoints.
Change
Ladder policy: difficulty staged manually, one band per rung, each transition gated by the acceptance battery; automatic ratchets not used unless their engagement is monitored and demonstrated.
Outcome
Every C-ladder band change (wz ±0.12-0.25 first, wider later) was an explicit, attributable rung; no silent constant-DR-in-disguise runs recurred.
Mechanism
Adaptive curricula couple their own state machine to noisy training metrics; a ratchet that saturates early stops adapting but keeps its name, so the operator believes difficulty is progressing when it is frozen. Manual staging costs more decisions but each decision is observable and reversible.
Applies when
- choosing between auto-curriculum and staged bands for a new skill
- a curriculum's difficulty parameter plateaus early in training
- post-hoc attribution of what difficulty a lineage actually saw
“C2 的 wz 分级（±0.15 → ±0.30，不要一上来 ±0.6）—— 与我们付过学费的 push 分级同形（±0.6 两轮 FAIL，±0.3 才可行）。但必须手动分级，不做自动课程 —— s1f 的课程化棘轮 iter 248 封顶未咬合，96% 时长等价常量 DR”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 1. 采纳 3 条 (C2 的 wz 分级) Bracket a real-robot A/B with a repeated reference run - battery drain is the confound
battery-bracketed-real-abOrder hardware A/B sessions as A-B-A: repeat the first condition at the end, and void the comparison if the bracket runs disagree - never let battery or venue drift ride on the second condition.
Symptom
In a two-policy teleop A/B on hardware, the second policy is measured on a lower battery voltage than the first - a systematic bias that would be read as a policy difference.
Context
C2 real A/B (checkpoint 700 vs A800, same floor, same day) was scripted as 700 -> A800 -> 700-rerun, with the explicit note that a teleop session drains the pack and the trailing policy "naturally suffers".
Change
Protocol: run the reference policy first AND last; if the two reference runs differ noticeably, declare the whole session battery/floor-polluted and void the A/B ("结论作废重来"). Also log electricity per run.
Outcome
Called out as the round's only systematic confound, closed by one extra command ("这是本轮唯一的系统性混淆源，一条命令就能堵掉").
Mechanism
Battery voltage scales available torque, and torque loss hits behavior asymmetrically (see power-scale-hurts-nonforward-axes), so drain masquerades as policy regression; a head/tail reference pair converts the unobserved drift into a measured control.
Applies when
- comparing two policies or settings on hardware in one session
- any sequential hardware evaluation where the plant drifts (battery, temperature, floor wear)
“为什么要 700 复跑：一次遥控 session 下来电池会掉压，第二枚天然吃亏。头尾各跑一次 700，若两次 700 明显不同，说明这轮 A/B 被电量污染，结论作废重来。这是本轮唯一的系统性混淆源，一条命令就能堵掉。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3c. A-3 真机 A/B（同一段地板、同一天、电量记账） Push-test protocol - positive side first, fragile side spotted, axes aligned in the log, and cross-machine push counts stay qualitative
push-test-chirality-protocolOrder disturbance tests from the robust side to the fragile side with protection scaled to sim-measured asymmetry, align and log frame conventions before testing, and treat cross-domain disturbance counts as qualitative evidence only.
Symptom
Hand-push testing on hardware risked falls on a side sim had already flagged as fragile, and push counts invited apples-to-oranges comparison with sim numbers.
Context
Sim chirality was explicit: descendants were far more fragile in -y (fric-3000@kd1.2: +6 N*s survived 15/20 vs -6 N*s only 3-9/20) while the s1e control was perfectly symmetric (40/40). The protocol therefore: push the positive direction first, keep a spotter for the negative side; before any push, record which real-robot side corresponds to sim's +y in the log ("上机前对一次坐标"); and - citing the chaos lesson ("混沌课文") - real push results are used only as qualitative corroboration, never compared numerically with sim survival counts across machines.
Change
Push testing became a scripted, chirality-aware protocol with frame alignment as a logged precondition and an explicit epistemic limit on cross-domain count comparison.
Outcome
The fragile side was tested with protection informed by sim's quantified asymmetry; logs stayed interpretable because the frame correspondence was recorded before the first push.
Mechanism
Disturbance-response chirality is a real, quantifiable lineage property, so test order should follow measured fragility; and perturbation outcomes are chaotic in the details (divergent trajectories from tiny differences), so counts do not transfer across domains even when qualitative rankings do.
Applies when
- planning push/disturbance tests on hardware
- sim shows directional asymmetry in disturbance survival
- someone proposes comparing real push counts to sim counts
“先正向后负向, 负向留人扶 —— sim 手性明确: 后代在负 y 向显著更脆 (fric-3000 @kd1.2: +6 N·s 15/20 vs −6 N·s 3~9/20), 而 s1e@0.8 两向 40/40 完全对称。上机前对一次坐标 … 跨机不做二值结论 (混沌课文): 真机推力只作定性对照, 不与 sim 计数对比。”
train/REAL_RUN_S2.md § 3. 抗推 (可选, 人手推; 做则按此协议) A real-robot verdict is (policy x deployment stack) - when the stack changes materially, old verdicts expire
stale-verdicts-under-old-stackDate 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”
train/REAL_SWEEP_V5_V8.md § 0. 为什么重测 A suspended (no-load) test acquits or convicts the actuator before you blame authority
suspended-test-isolates-actuator-authorityBefore attributing a failure to actuator authority, measure no-load tracking error and steady-state torque fraction; blame authority only if the task fails while the error grows with demanded force - and then fix gains or targets, not training.
Symptom
hip_roll sagged 0.21 rad on the ground and saturation questions loomed over the sidewalk plan - was the roll axis physically too weak (authority), or was something else limiting it?
Context
Before C4, the roll-authority question was settled by measurement triage: suspended test (--suspend, feet off ground) showed hip_roll tracking error 0.0008 rad - actuator acquitted; the entire 0.21 rad ground sag is load-induced. Steady-state torque was 25% of limit - 75% margin remains. Since sidewalk needs lateral force, not exact angles, authority was ruled "not a hard limit", with a pre-registered criterion for when it WOULD become one: sidewalk fails to track AND roll error keeps growing - then the fix is raising hip_roll kp or lowering the vy target, not more training.
Change
Hypothesis "roll authority insufficient" demoted from blocker to a monitored branch with an explicit trigger condition; C4 proceeded.
Outcome
Later open-loop probes confirmed the actuator could produce the behavior (sidewalk feed-forward ran at full amplitude, 5/5 survival), and the eventual C4 failure causes were measurement and reward, never authority.
Mechanism
Suspended vs loaded comparison separates the actuator's closed-loop competence from the load path: tiny no-load tracking error means the motor/controller is fine and any loaded deviation is statics (gravity / stiffness budget, kp trading error for force). Torque-fraction measurement then bounds how much force headroom actually remains.
Applies when
- suspecting an axis is "too weak" for a new skill
- large position sag on a loaded joint
- deciding between hardware fix, gain change, and more training
“吊挂（--suspend）实测 hip_roll 跟踪误差 0.0008 rad → 执行器无罪，地面下垂 0.21 rad 全是负载所致；稳态占限扭 25% → 仍有 75% 扭矩余量。… 判据：若 C4 出现「侧走跟不动且 roll 误差继续变大」，那才是权限账 … 解法是提 hip_roll 的 kp 或降 vy 目标，不是硬训。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3d. roll 权限：已部分澄清，不是硬上限 Narrowing the speed range to stop high-speed falls entrenched crouch-shuffling - judge gait quality at the speed that demands a gait
low-speed-commands-reward-draggingSet command ranges to include speeds that physically demand the target behavior, and evaluate behavior-quality gates at those speeds; when a restriction is added to suppress a failure, check what new optimum it creates at the remaining commands.
Symptom
After the command range was narrowed to (0.15, 0.35) m/s (to treat walk_v1's 134% overspeed and 8.3 s fall at 0.5), the policy settled into crouched foot-dragging; tracking rose monotonically with speed (63% at cmd 0.2, 76% at 0.3, 87% at 0.45), showing low speeds were where the degenerate gait was optimal.
Context
The narrowing advice was the author's own and is retracted in the file: it treated the symptom (falls at speed) while reinforcing the root cause (at 0.15-0.35 m/s, shuffling in a crouch is globally optimal - the Froude number is so low that even humans would not lift their feet). A zero-cost experiment confirmed the flip side: at cmd 0.5 the same policy met BOTH tracking (81%) and clearance (23.0/23.2 mm) standards.
Change
Speed range widened back toward (0.15, 0.5) - upper bound deliberately slightly above the mechanically feasible ~0.44 m/s so the policy finds the boundary itself; acceptance re-pointed: gait-quality criteria (tracking, clearance) judged at 0.45-0.5 m/s, low speed kept only as a survival check.
Outcome
v4 -> v6 progression under the widened range delivered 87% tracking with 34 mm clearance; the "low command = drag" account was confirmed by the monotone tracking-vs-speed curve.
Mechanism
Command distribution is part of the reward: physics prices gaits per speed, and at very low speed the energetic optimum is no swing phase at all. Restricting training to that regime makes the degenerate gait the correct answer to the posed problem - and grading a gait at a speed that does not require stepping measures nothing.
Applies when
- a gait degenerates after a command-range restriction
- quality metrics improve monotonically toward the range boundary
- writing acceptance criteria for gait quality vs survival
“现在看那个建议可能起了反作用:0.15~0.35 m/s 下蹲着蹭就是全局最优,抬腿反而亏。收窄治的是"高速摔倒"的症状,却强化了拖地的病根。… 验收标准里的 cmd 0.2 本身就是拖地速度(Froude 数极低,人在那个速度下也不抬脚)。accept_v2 应把速度跟踪与 clearance 的判定点改到 0.45~0.5 m/s”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § ② 放宽速度区间 / ① 零成本实验 A plateau in a training curve was a population mix, not a half-learned skill - 60% standing at 0.372 m and 40% sitting at 0.19 m - and a category at hard zero stayed at zero through 3,000 more iterations
zero-partial-credit-is-not-an-iteration-problemBefore buying iterations for a plateau, split the metric by category and check whether it is bimodal; a category at hard zero with no partial credit is missing a capability or a reachable state, and more iterations under an unchanged config will only polish the categories that already work.
Symptom
After R0.1 the training-side base_height sat near 0.29 m and the curve was still climbing at the iteration cap, which read as "train it longer".
Context
Candidate A (user decision) was a child-run from R0.1's last checkpoint with zero config change - the logged env.yaml files differ only in log_dir - for 3,000 more iterations (R0.2). The per-category acceptance split was already available: prone had scored 0/156 with no partial credit.
Change
Continue training unchanged, then read the result by category rather than by the pooled curve.
Outcome
supine 91.5 -> 96.4%, side 82.2 -> 87.9%, get-up 0.96 -> 0.84 s, pose error 0.91 -> 0.54 - all improvements to categories that already stood. Prone stayed 0/153; mid 55.9 -> 41.2% was within noise (n=34). Height by category was binary - standing groups 0.372/0.373 m, seated groups 0.187/0.194 m, nothing between - so the pooled 0.29 was 0.61 x 0.372 + 0.39 x 0.19 = 0.30 (measured 0.307): six in ten standing, four in ten sitting. The rendered prone episode was still kneel-sitting at t = 8 s.
Mechanism
The pooled mean of a binary outcome only moves when the mix moves; PPO kept polishing the subpopulation that already succeeded while the failing one produced no advantage signal to follow.
Conflicts
R0.2 recorded the missing capability as "prone lacks rolling over"; R0.3's end-state confusion matrix retracted that - prone had righted its torso in 159/159 episodes and was failing to stand from the W-sit. The lesson that iterations could not fix it holds; the named cause was wrong.
Applies when
- a training curve plateaus while acceptance shows one category at zero
- deciding between "train longer" and "change something"
- pooled training metrics are read as the typical episode
“**分类别 h 中位把"平台 = 人口混合"钉死了**:数值是**二值**的 —— 站立组 0.372/0.373,坐姿组 0.187/0.194,**中间没有过渡态**。 … **这也是本仓此后读该指标的通用告诫:全体混合的期望会把 双峰分布平均成一个不存在的中间值,必须分类别看。** … **结论:A 不能过门,原因确定为 prone 缺"翻身"这一技能,不是迭代不够。**”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §13 R0.2(recovery_r0_2,child-run 续训):A 走完了 —— 推不动 prone Order hardware runs by sim risk, gate each stage on the last, and put the fragile cell last with a spotter
risk-ordered-real-deploymentScript hardware sessions as a risk ladder: baseline first, sim-riskiest last with a spotter, suspended smoke before ground, each stage gated on the previous, environment (floor mu) recorded as a selection input - and stop at the stage that misbehaves.
Symptom
Five policy-x-gain combinations had to go on hardware in one session, with sim survival ranging from 20/20 down to 17/20 (and zero-command survival down to 2/20) - an unordered session risks breaking the robot on an avoidable run.
Context
The execution sheet fixed the order as sim-risk low to high, control baseline first (current SOTA establishes the floor reference), the fragile cell (fric-2400@kd1.0) last with a person spotting throughout. Stage gating: suspended smoke (feet off ground, 10 s each, all five pass before anything touches down) -> suspended with IMU and forward command (gait forms in the air) -> grounded runs -> speed raise only for combos that survived the previous stage -> zero-command tests only with a spotter, ordered by sim zero-cmd survival, with the 2/20 cell skipped by default. Preconditions include recording the floor material and estimating mu (if mu <~0.6, sim says pick the kd1.2 gain as main), port/CAN self-check, calibration frozen. Any stage failing stops the session at that stage: "任一段出问题就停在那一段, 不要跳到下一段".
Change
Session structured as a risk ladder with per-stage gates instead of a flat checklist; per-combo sim survival numbers written into the run table as the ordering key.
Outcome
The session design localized any failure to the cheapest stage that could reveal it, kept the robot safe for the informative fragile run, and made the control baseline available before any comparison run.
Mechanism
Hardware sessions consume a shared budget (robot integrity, battery, floor time); ordering by predicted risk means information is bought cheapest-first, and stage gates convert an expensive failure into a cheap earlier one. Baselines run first because every later reading is relative to them.
Applies when
- taking multiple policies/configs to hardware in one session
- a candidate is known-fragile in sim but must be measured
- writing a deployment runbook for a new robot
“跑序 = sim 风险从低到高, 最险的放最后 (依据 = 存活门/零指令存活) … ⑤ 是 sim 里最脆的一格 … 放最后跑, 全程留人扶, 起步即给 cmd, 零指令不做。… 任一段出问题就停在那一段, 不要跳到下一段。”
train/REAL_RUN_S2.md § 上机名单 / 全部命令 A 2-degree joint-zero calibration fix moved the whole runnable envelope - re-test old "cannot run" verdicts after recalibration
zero-offset-calibration-shifts-envelopeDate every hardware verdict with the calibration state; after any zero/mount recalibration, re-test previously condemned policy-power combinations and previously "unexplainable" posture offsets before attributing either to training or model.
Symptom
s1d was on record as "only runs at power 0.7" (kicked wildly at 0.8); after a calibration pass, the same policy ran 12 s at 0.8 with no kicking at all.
Context
The calibration had fixed a 2.08 deg zero offset on r_hip_roll - exactly the constant error source on the dominant joint of the kicking oscillation loop ("恰是乱踢振荡环主导关节的常值误差源"). The three-generation post-calibration hardware sweep also closed a second case: the robot's mysterious "backward lean" disappeared after calibration, and the sim-real posture difference collapsed from opposite-sign 5+ deg to same-sign ~2 deg ("后仰案实质了结") - the lean had been a sensing/zero artifact, not a mass-model error. Booked consequence: if the s1d recovery re-verifies, "真机可跑档整体 上移" - every policy's runnable power envelope shifts up, and downstream lineages' hardware expectations get revised.
Change
Joint-zero and mount calibration promoted from setup chore to a variable that dates hardware verdicts: verdicts about which power/scale levels a policy can run are conditioned on the calibration state they were measured under.
Outcome
One policy rehabilitated at a higher power level; one standing sim-real posture discrepancy closed without touching model or training; a pending re-verification booked rather than asserted.
Mechanism
A constant joint-zero error acts as a persistent disturbance injected at the feedback loop's most-loaded joint; near an oscillation threshold, removing a 2-degree bias is the difference between a stable and an unstable loop. Since the error is additive and machine-side, it shifts every policy's stability envelope simultaneously - which is why verdicts must carry their calibration date.
Conflicts
The s1d rehabilitation awaited one confirming re-run at the time of writing ("待复核一跑坐实") - the offset-as-cause reading is the head suspect, not a closed verdict.
Applies when
- a policy oscillates at a power level others tolerate
- sim and real disagree on a constant posture offset
- deciding whether to re-test old hardware verdicts after maintenance/calibration
“发现①:s1d@0.8 能跑了(旧账「只有 0.7 能跑」)——12s 无乱踢。头号嫌疑 = 标定修正:r_hip_roll offset 修 2.08°,恰是乱踢振荡环主导关节的常值误差源。… 发现②:「后仰」标定后消失 … sim-real 姿态差从反号 5°+ 收敛到同号 2°,后仰案实质了结。”
train/README.md § 真机 @0.8 三代横评(2026-08-07 标定后) 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 PPO
recovery-two-policies-and-a-state-machineDefine 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)”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §0 目标口径与架构判决(用户 2026-08-09 定) An outer heading P-loop at deploy cut drift 10x because its output stays inside the trained command band - then training was aligned to it
deploy-heading-loop-and-align-trainingFix drift-class problems first with an outer loop whose output provably stays inside the trained command band; when adopting it permanently, align the training command generator to the deployment's actual command mixture (feedback-driven AND constant), matching law, gain, and clip exactly.
Symptom
Persistent heading drift on straight-line walking (v6 net yaw 60.3 deg over 15 s) that reward-side fixes had only partially tamed.
Context
The deploy stack added --heading: an external P loop wz = clip(0.5 * wrap_to_pi(theta0 - theta), +/-0.6), recomputed each frame and fed into the policy's ordinary wz command slot. Measured: net yaw walk_v6 60.3 -> 5.8 deg, walk_v5 17.4 -> 4.2 deg. A run-level audit later corrected the mechanism story: training had heading_command=False since v1 - the policy had NEVER seen heading-error feedback, so the loop works purely because its output lands inside the trained command distribution wz ~ U(+/-0.6): "收益真实,当时的机理解释写错了" (the benefit is real; the mechanism explanation had been wrong). v8 then closed the loop properly: training-side heading command enabled with rel_heading_envs=0.5 - half the envs get heading-error-driven wz, half get explicit constant wz, because deployment feeds wz BOTH ways (straight-line = heading feedback, turning = constant command) and rel=1.0 would have made constant-wz turning out-of-distribution. The law, gain, and clip were aligned item-by-item between trainer and deploy tool.
Change
Deploy-side outer loop first (no retrain needed); then v8-D enabled the matching training-side heading command at rel=0.5 with identical gain (0.5) and clip (+/-0.6), contract unchanged (wz slot carries the computed value).
Outcome
Drift handled at deploy (5.8 deg) generations before training caught up; the alignment removed the residual train/deploy distribution mismatch, with the accepted cost booked (open-loop straight walking becomes more OOD for heading-envs - irrelevant since acceptance and deployment always run the loop).
Mechanism
A learned velocity-tracking policy is a valid inner loop for any outer controller whose commands stay within the trained command distribution - the policy needs no knowledge of the outer objective. Full alignment then requires training on the same mixture of command sources the deployment actually uses, in the observed proportions.
Applies when
- heading/position drift on a velocity-tracking policy
- designing outer loops over learned locomotion controllers
- training command distribution differs from how deployment feeds commands
“审计更正(2026-08-02,run 级 env.yaml):训练侧自 v1 复盘起就是 heading_command=False … 策略从未见过航向误差反馈。--heading 是评估/部署侧外加的航向 P 环(wz=clip(0.5·err,±0.6), 落在训练分布 wz~U(±0.6) 内)。实测净偏航 walk_v6 60.3° → 5.8° … 收益真实,当时的机理解释写错了”
train/WALK_V7_SPEC.md § 0. 本轮之前已经改掉 (航向闭环, 含审计更正) Removing a hand trim re-exposed the plant offset it had been silently compensating - and a slope scan told bias from sensitivity
hand-trims-hide-plant-offsetsTreat hand-tuned trims as undocumented plant measurements: before deleting one, find what it compensates and re-house that knowledge in the model or the reward budget; diagnose posture errors with a sensitivity sweep to distinguish constant bias from gain problems.
Symptom
After switching from the old hand-trimmed default to the clean geometric zero, the retrained stand policy's only regression was torso lean: 1.8 deg -> 4.1 deg backward.
Context
The old default's ankle-pitch trim (-0.0489/+0.0628) had been pre-compensating a fore-aft COM mismatch; removing the trim removed the hidden compensation, and the posture reward alone was too weak to win it back. A COM sensitivity scan settled what kind of problem this was: sweeping base COM offset -50 to +50 mm gave nearly identical slopes for old and new policies (~0.026 deg/mm) - "不是质心敏感度问题, 是恒定偏置" (not a sensitivity problem, a constant bias). Fix landed in stand_v1b: posture corrected to +0.24 deg while keeping symmetry (<=0.1 deg) and low effort (0.259), disturbance rejection better than both predecessors. Model credibility was checked the honest way: v0's sim prediction at the real COM position (-22 mm) was -2.31 deg lean vs real measured 2.2-3.1 deg - "预测精准命中" - which is what licensed trusting v1b's -0.52 deg prediction. (Side flag from the same file: a sign convention had been documented wrongly in early comments - gravity_base[0] > 0 is forward lean.)
Change
Trims retired in favor of explicit modeling: symmetric geometric default plus a posture-reward budget sized to carry the real COM offset; the offset itself known (real COM ~22 mm behind model).
Outcome
stand_v1b passed acceptance as the standing lineage's final version; the walk-line requirement "加大躯干姿态惩罚权重" was upgraded from suggestion to mandatory, since walking amplifies what standing tolerates (real walk_v1 hit 26 deg lean vs sim 7.4).
Mechanism
Hand trims are plant knowledge stored in the wrong place - invisible, asymmetric, and stale after recalibration; removing them re-exposes the raw plant error. A sensitivity sweep separates the two possible diagnoses (slope change = control problem; parallel offset = constant plant bias), each with a different fix.
Applies when
- cleaning up hand-tuned offsets/trims in defaults or calibration
- a posture bias appears after a default or calibration change
- deciding whether a lean is a COM-sensitivity or constant-offset issue
“两者斜率几乎相同(≈0.026°/mm),v1 只是整体多后仰约 2.4° —— 不是质心敏感度问题,是恒定偏置。成因:旧 default 的踝俯仰 trim(−0.0489/+0.0628)本就预补偿了前后质心偏差,换成零位 default 后这份补偿没了 … v0 在真机质心处(−22 mm)的 sim 预测为 −2.31° 后仰,真机实测 2.2~3.1° 后仰 —— 预测精准命中。”
train/RETRAIN_v2.md § 4b. stand_v1 独立验证结果 / 4c. stand_v1b 验收结果 Removing a foot-spacing wall passed every simulated gate and made the feet collide on the real robot - nothing priced stance width in the two-foot phase, the policy narrowed to the simulator's self-collision floor, and real calibration offsets closed the last millimetres; the wall came back with a gate
removed-wall-returns-on-hardwareWhen a constraint is removed, name what will govern that quantity instead and add a gate for it; never let a simulator's collision floor be the margin, and when a gate is exceeded by a hair, record the exact numbers and hand the release decision to a person instead of quietly passing it.
Symptom
On the first real-robot try of oneleg_v0 (2026-09-16) the two feet collided; the user also judged the folded foot not high enough.
Context
The V0 reward table had dropped the feet_lateral_distance wall because it seemed to conflict with the hip adduction single support needs. In the two-foot command bucket no remaining term governed stance width, so the policy drifted narrower until the simulator's self-collision stopped it; the sim acceptance had no foot-spacing gate, so 40/40 said nothing about it. On the robot, calibration offsets consumed the margin.
Change
V0.1: the wall restored (-10, minimum 0.16 m), re-checked against measured numbers (a swing-phase lateral spacing of ~148 mm costs 0.12 per step, acceptable); fold weight 0.8 -> 2.0; a ninth gate: minimum foot spacing >= 100 mm and zero leg-contact frames. The removal was kept on record.
Outcome
oneleg_v0_1 (V0r2 model_2200) passed 39/40 with the spacing gate 40/40. The single miss (a 15.4 deg tilt transient against a < 15 deg limit during a side switch, steady 6.9 deg, everything else green) was recorded with its numbers and released for the user to overrule.
Mechanism
An unpriced degree of freedom drifts to wherever the simulator stops it; if that stop is the simulator's own collision model, the policy's margin on hardware is whatever the calibration error leaves.
Applies when
- dropping a reward term that looked redundant or conflicting
- hardware shows a failure no simulated gate measures
- a release candidate misses one gate row by a small amount
“V0 撤墙被真机证伪（2026-09-16）：双脚桶没有任何项管站宽，策略贴 sim 自碰撞底线收窄，真机标定偏差一吃**双脚相碰**。 … min ≥ 100 mm 且腿碰 0 帧（eval_straight 同判据）—— … V0 真机双脚相碰暴露 sim 门未看脚距的缺口 … L s2 标称 tilt 瞬态 15.4°（门限 <15, 超 0.4°, 稳态 6.9°, 该跑其余全绿）——换侧瞬态蹭线, 判定放行留档, 用户可否决。”
git:Lucen V2@origin/oneleg-line:train/ONELEG_V0_SPEC.md § §4 feet_lateral_distance 行 / §6 验收门 ⑨ / §8 核查单 7 Prove a new penalty actually fires - two ways a clearance term silently did nothing
inert-reward-term-auditBefore 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。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § walk_v4 独立验收 — 本文档给的两处代码/建议是错的 Training at scale 0.4 is NOT the twin of deploying 0.5 at power 0.8 - the algebra matches, the learned policy does not
deploy-scaling-not-training-equivalentNever assume deploy-side scalings can be folded into training-time constants ("burning the crutch into training"): the learned optimum depends on the training-time authority, so treat such conversions as full experiments with pre-registered expectations and a sim2sim gate before any hardware.
Symptom
s1g (S1.6) trained from zero at action_scale 0.4 - meant as the "training twin" of the hardware-proven s1c-at-power-0.8 (0.8 x 0.5 = 0.4) - was all green in Isaac (zero falls, reward 117) yet scored 0/3 across all eight checkpoints and 0/20 at 20 seeds in the MuJoCo gate, falling forward at median 1.57 s with a 2.9x speed overshoot.
Context
The pre-registered expectation (survival gate should pass, since the conviction matrix showed s1c@0.8+delay2 all-survive) was cleanly falsified, and the harness was acquitted by controls: --delay 0 fell identically (not a delay fragility), check_contract all green, and s1c through the same harness survived 2/3. The verdict: "「s1c@0.8 = 0.4 训练孪生」的代数等价不成立" - a policy deployed with a derated output still LIVES in the 0.5 internal model it trained under (its value function, its expectations of its own authority), while a policy that starts training with reduced authority learns a different, clip-hugging gait with zero margin for plant differences ("部署端打折的策略活在 0.5 的内模里,训练起点收权限学出的是贴 clip 的 另一套步态,对 plant 差异零余量"). Result: the policy was withdrawn before hardware ("撤回——不上真机"), the lineage root moved back to the 0.5-contract s1c-5500, and this became the C ladder's cited fact-check ("s1g 是 0/20 证伪出局的那一代").
Change
The amplitude-surgery route abandoned; contract kept at scale 0.5; the deploy-side 0.8 crutch later retired on its own merits when the delay-complete s1e generation ran at full power.
Outcome
One training run bought a clean falsification of a plausible algebraic identity; no hardware time was spent on it because the sim2sim gate caught it.
Mechanism
Output scaling commutes with the network arithmetic but not with learning: the training-time scale shapes which gait solutions are reachable and how much clip headroom the optimum keeps. A derated mature policy retains the wide-authority solution executed softly; a from-zero narrow-authority policy finds a different optimum that saturates its smaller envelope - the two are not the same controller in different units.
Applies when
- proposing to move a deployment derating into a training constant
- a scaled-down contract policy hugs the action clip
- Isaac-green / cross-sim-zero results on a re-scaled lineage
“预注册 a) 证伪——Isaac 全绿(零摔/reward 117)但 MuJoCo --delay 2 八档 checkpoint 扫描全数 0/3、iter6500 20-seed 0/20 … 「s1c@0.8 = 0.4 训练孪生」的代数等价不成立: 部署端打折的策略活在 0.5 的内模里,训练起点收权限学出的是贴 clip 的另一套步态,对 plant 差异零余量。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 3. S1.6 判决(2026-08-07 验收) Raising a command bucket's share does not strengthen its per-state gradient - it only starves the other modes
bucket-share-is-not-a-gradient-leverWhen a skill is not learning, first prove its per-state signal is nonzero (ignore-floor and probe checks); only rebalance sampling shares to fix genuine sample starvation, and account the regression risk to the diluted modes before doing it.
Symptom
Sidewalk was not learning, and the reflex proposal was to give the side bucket a larger share of sampled commands.
Context
The C4-redo3 rung explicitly kept the 20/40/20/20 bucket (stand/forward/turn/side) with the reasoning written out: PPO computes advantages per state, so bucket proportion does not change the per-state gradient of side states; at 4096 envs x 20% x 24 steps the rollout already contained ~19.7k sidewalk states - sample count was not the bottleneck. And the cost side was already measured: cutting forward from 60% to 40% had made vx+0.30 die at +400 in an earlier run - more cuts would only collapse it sooner.
Change
Bucket proportions held constant across the entire C4 redo series; the actual bottlenecks (metric frame bug, reward variance penalty, exploration form) were pursued instead.
Outcome
Sidewalk was eventually fixed with zero bucket changes (feed-forward delivery, +100 iters); forward/turn skills never suffered starvation-induced regressions during the redo series.
Mechanism
Policy-gradient credit is assigned per visited state; oversampling a mode multiplies its states in the batch but not the informativeness of each, so if the per-state gradient is ~0 (behavior unreachable or reward indifferent), N times zero is still zero - while the displaced modes genuinely lose data and regress.
Applies when
- proposing to oversample a failing task/command mode
- a majority mode regresses after share rebalancing
- budgeting env count vs mode share for a multi-skill policy
“比例不动：PPO 逐状态算优势，桶占比不改变单状态梯度；4096 env × 20% × 24 = 每 rollout 已有 1.97 万个侧走状态，样本数不是瓶颈；而 forward 60%→40% 已实测让 f30 在 +400 处死掉，再加码只会更早塌。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3i. 桶 20/40/20/20 不动（比例不动） Score left and right separately - averages hide chirality breaking that mirror augmentation does not prevent
chirality-scored-separatelyReport every mirrored skill as two numbers with an explicit gap budget; never accept an average, and never assume augmentation guarantees symmetry - measure it per lineage and treat breakage as hard to reverse.
Symptom
Policies developed quantified left/right asymmetry (e.g. C2-700 turned right at 82% but left at 67% - a 15 pp gap; push tolerance 40/40 symmetric on the root vs 17/40 on a deep-trained descendant), and averaged metrics would have reported healthy midpoints.
Context
The repo had policy-level symmetry-breaking evidence strong enough to make separate scoring a battery rule: "左右必须分开打分 … 平均 vy 跟踪会把它掩盖". Notably, chirality broke and never recovered even though mirror augmentation (command-level mirror_prob 0.5) was on the whole time - augmentation reduced but did not prevent asymmetry, and once broken it stayed broken through subsequent rungs. PASS conditions therefore carried explicit symmetry budgets (left/right tracking gap <=10 pp), and sim's predicted asymmetry (700: right faster than left) was flagged for direct real-robot timing confirmation.
Change
Battery rule: every directional skill reports left and right (CW/CCW) as separate rows with a max-gap budget; mirror augmentation treated as mitigation, not proof of symmetry.
Outcome
The 700-vs-A800 asymmetry gap (15 pp vs 7 pp) became a first-class selection criterion; C4 product shipped with a measured 5 pp gap.
Mechanism
Averaging over mirrored conditions cancels antisymmetric error exactly where it matters; and symmetry lost during training is a lineage injury (like plasticity loss) that later rungs do not spontaneously heal, so it must be gated, not assumed.
Applies when
- evaluating turn/sidewalk/push-recovery or any mirrored skill
- relying on mirror/symmetry augmentation
- selecting between checkpoints with similar average scores
“左右必须分开打分（left/right lateral、CW/CCW turn 各自一行）—— 本仓已有 policy-level symmetry breaking 的量化证据，平均 vy 跟踪会把它掩盖。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 5. 固定验收矩阵 (左右分开打分) Slowing the gait clock at deployment is out-of-distribution and backfires - lower the commanded speed instead, or train the knob
cycle-time-override-is-oodAny 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。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § 2026-08-01 追加: 调慢步态时钟(--cycle-time)在仿真里是反效果 When hardware underperforms, audit deployment knobs before prescribing retraining
deploy-knob-attribution-before-retrainingBefore any "retrain it" decision, reproduce the symptom in sim under the exact deployment configuration; if the symptom follows the deployment knob rather than the checkpoint, fix the knob or randomize it in training - never top-up-train the skill.
Symptom
Real-robot feedback after the C4 deployment - "turning is weak" - with two retraining options on the table: top up turn training, or restart from the s1e root.
Context
The sim account showed the policy turned well (75-81% at pw1.0); the robot was deployed at power-scale 0.8. The 3-6 pp difference between C2 and C4 policies at the same power was noise; the 40-50 pp difference between power levels was the entire effect. Both proposed retraining paths would have burned budget on a non-existent training gap, and restarting from s1e would additionally have discarded the sidewalk skill that took four rungs and a coordinate-bug hunt to obtain.
Change
Decision: retrain nothing. (1) Try pw1.0 on hardware first - sim says net gain; (2) only if 1.0 is unacceptable (heat/feel), the correct training fix is power/torque randomization in the S2 plant line (one variable, fixes turn and backward together) - not skill top-up; (3) restart-from-root explicitly ranked worst.
Outcome
The "weakness" was fully explained by the deployment knob; the sim/real signatures matched the earlier power-derating law verbatim ("与 C2 时代 power 衰减主要伤非前进轴 逐字吻合").
Mechanism
The policy's competence is defined under its training plant; deployment knobs (power scale, teleop mapping, command bands) silently define a different plant. Attributing a deploy-plant effect to a training gap produces exactly the wrong fix - more training on the wrong variable.
Applies when
- real robot underperforms a skill that sim says is fine
- proposals on the table include retraining or re-rooting
- deployment uses any override the trainer never saw (power scale, remapped commands, different control rate)
“正确的训练修法不是补训转向，而是训练时加 power/力矩随机化让策略在 0.8 下自己补偿 —— 单变量，属 S2 plant 线，一次同时修好转向与后退；从 s1e 重训是最差选项：丢掉四轮 + 一个指标 bug 才换来的侧走，而 C2 的转向本来就没问题。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3p. 三 处置顺序（回答「补训转向 还是 回 s1e 重训」：都不该） 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 cure
deploy-rate-limiter-windupA 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**。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §26 探针:收紧桥层 slew,r3_1 不重训直接测 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 limits
fall-guard-becomes-a-stateWhen 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)”
RL系统/FOLLOW THIS copy 2.md § FSM 吊挂首测 ② 落地测 / #### Recovery Policy (operator runbook, undated)