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
97 cards matching “preregistered-real-expectations”.
A 10 s acceptance episode left 6-7 s of standing to observe - a narrow stance held for that window and split on hardware; a gate cannot see instability slower than its own horizon
episode-length-bounds-what-a-gate-seesSize the standing phase of an acceptance episode, and its disturbances and floor friction, to what deployment will impose; a pass on a short static window certifies only that window.
Symptom
v2_6 passed every simulation gate (success 99.6%, re-falls 0-1%) and then, on the real robot, stood up and slid into the splits several times; prone starts stood and then fell backwards.
Context
Acceptance ran 10 s episodes; a ~1-2 s get-up left roughly 6-7 s of static standing on a nominal floor with no disturbance. The narrow stance's lateral margin and the straight-knee stance's lack of any flex buffer are both failure modes that need time, disturbance or lower friction to show.
Change
The gap was booked as a known blind spot of the gate ("long-duration standing stability") alongside the task-space stance criterion; later rungs added MuJoCo friction sweeps at mu 0.4 to every checkpoint scan.
Outcome
The spec through §50 records the blind spot but no longer standing window or disturbance row in the recovery acceptance itself.
Mechanism
An acceptance episode observes only the dynamics that unfold within its horizon under its conditions; slow drifts and disturbance-triggered failures are outside it by construction.
Applies when
- a policy passes sim gates and fails on hardware after a delay
- acceptance episodes are short relative to deployment use
- stability is judged without pushes or friction variation
“**sim 门为什么没逮住**:10 s episode 起身后只站 ~6-7 s,静态窗口内窄站距 撑得住;真机站立时长/扰动谱在门口径之外 —— 长时站立稳定性记为口径缺口。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §43 判读:sim 门为什么没逮住 Guessed joint friction was 2.5x low and damping 5x high - measure, then DR around nominal
friction-measured-not-guessedMeasure frictionloss and damping separately (they need different rigs), put the measured value at DR center, and express DR as an additive band around that nominal - a DR range around a guessed value can exclude the real robot entirely.
Symptom
Old MJCF friction values were invented, not measured; when finally measured, every guessed value was wrong by a large factor in some direction.
Context
Joint friction split into Coulomb (frictionloss, tau_c) and viscous (damping b). Measured with the robot hung from a crane (吊机测) while armature was measured no-load; the two measurements are deliberately separated. Old MJCF: frictionloss 0.05, damping 0.1, DR joint_friction range [0, 0.1] "凭空拍的" (made up out of thin air).
Change
Replace guessed values with measured ones - frictionloss: RS06 0.15 / RS02 0.12 / RS00 0.13 N*m (old 0.05, i.e. 2.5x too low); damping: 0.02 N*m*s/rad on all three motor types (old 0.1, i.e. 5x too high). DR reshaped from an absolute made-up range [0, 0.1] to an additive band around measured nominal: joint_friction_add [-0.05, +0.10].
Outcome
"摩擦定稿(与 armature 一起, plant 参数第一次全部来自实测)" - friction frozen as part of the first fully-measured plant; DR now brackets a measured truth instead of spanning an invented interval.
Mechanism
Coulomb friction and viscous damping have opposite behavioral signatures (constant-torque threshold vs velocity-proportional drag); guessing both wrong in opposite directions gives a plant that is simultaneously too easy to start moving and too hard to move fast. DR centered on a wrong nominal makes the policy robust to a family of plants that does not contain the real one.
Applies when
- plant friction/damping values have no measurement provenance
- DR ranges are absolute intervals rather than bands around a nominal
- policy is over- or under-damped on hardware relative to sim
“测关节摩擦。吊机测，而armature应该空机测试。… frictionloss τ_c (N·m) │ 0.15 │ 0.12 │ 0.13 │ 0.05(低 2.5×) … damping b (N·m·s/rad) │ 0.02 │ 0.02 │ 0.02 │ 0.1(高 5×) … DR │ joint_friction_add: [−0.05, +0.10] 叠标称 │ 旧 [0, 0.1] 凭空拍的”
Experience.md § 摩擦定稿表 (lines 12-25) Three times a joint-angle stand-in for a foot-level quantity was gamed or lied - the absolute ankle roll sold stance width to buy flat feet, 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
joint-space-proxy-for-task-space-quantityExpress foot-level (task-space) goals and acceptance criteria in task space - link attitude and lateral spacing from world poses - never through joint angles that assume other joints are at zero, and measure the task-space value before trusting a joint-space estimate of it.
Symptom
The line's first real-robot get-up (v2_6, 2026-08-11) was "fairly stable", but after standing the feet were too close and the robot slid into the splits and fell several times; later reports added that it also got up through a split posture.
Context
(1) flat_feet penalized sum |q_ankle_roll|, but a flat foot is ankle roll compensating hip roll; the proxy taxed the compensated wide solution, and the untaxed combination was hips straight plus ankles at zero - flat and narrow. On hardware the lateral support shrank to hip width plus centimetres, lateral balance rested on 11 N*m ankle motors, and the feet slid apart. (2) The next rung's acceptance criterion "hip roll >= 20 deg" assumed zero hip yaw; at 50 deg of yaw the lateral contribution is x cos 50 ~ 0.64 - the same substitution again, inside a criterion. (3) A new task-space diagnostic reading the foot links' world poses measured v2_6c's stance at 0.159 m where the kinematic audit from joint angles had said 0.271 m (0.271 x cos 47 ~ 0.17).
Change
Rule written into the spec: task-space quantities are never expressed through joint-space proxies. V3.1's stance terms were all task-space: flat_feet_task from the foot links' world orientation, lateral foot spacing in metres, stand_pose stripped of both roll joints.
Outcome
From scratch with task-space terms (V3.1 P1c): lateral stance 0.355 m, foot residual tilt median 0 deg / P75 2.0 deg, all six criteria passing, mu 1.0-0.4 all 100%.
Mechanism
A joint proxy bundles the goal with everything else those joints do; the optimizer finds the combination the proxy does not tax, and a joint-based criterion silently assumes the other joints sit at their nominal.
Applies when
- rewarding flat feet, stance width, foot placement or end-effector pose
- an acceptance criterion is written in joint angles for a geometric goal
- joints with large yaw or coupled axes are involved
“**病根 = 关节空间代理**:`flat_feet` 罚 Σ|q_ankle_roll|(§41 取的简易口径)。 "脚掌平"的运动学正解是 **踝滚补偿髋滚**(q_ankle_roll ≈ −q_hip_roll) … 代理把"脚平"和"站距"绑死在一起卖了。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §43 真机首试入账(2026-08-11)判读:flat_feet 的代理口径错误 A get-up policy righted itself and sat - three terms paid the seated pose 84% of the return, and the only shaping term that could tell sitting from standing was an exp kernel outputting 5e-5
seated-basin-dead-exp-kernelWhen a policy parks in a degenerate posture, tabulate what each reward term pays that posture against the target (watch contact terms that reward touching rather than bearing load) and evaluate every exp kernel at the error actually observed; a kernel narrower than the real error is switched off, and widening it is a one-variable repair that adds nothing new.
Symptom
R0 converged by iteration 700 and gained 1.7% over the next 2,300; success 0.0% in all four fall categories. Three of four success conditions passed (tilt median 1.0 deg, both feet in contact 99.6%, angular rate low); height passed 0.6% (median 0.204 m against 0.326). The robot knelt in a W-sit: hip yaw +/-47 deg, knees folded to 92% of the hard limit, shins flat, pelvis on the ground, torso vertical.
Context
Minimal reward table: upright (1-g_z)/2 +2.0, base_height linear progress +1.5, stand_pose exp(-||q-q_stand||^2/std^2) x upright gate +1.0 with std 1.0, still +0.5 and feet_on_ground +0.5 both x the upright gate, plus regularizers. The upright gate is a hinge that opens below 30 deg of tilt. The pre-registered fallbacks were then checked against the measured state: tightening the tilt gate was falsified (tilt was already 1.0 deg); a success bonus contradicted the spec's own no-cliff-bounty rule; narrowing the categories was useless (all four converged to the same pose); raising init noise was too weak for a basin this deep. Only a half-rise intermediate state addressed it, and a cheaper repair existed.
Change
R0.1 (user decision, single variable): stand_pose std 1.0 -> 3.0. Not a new term and not a bounty - repairing a declared term that was numerically dead. The two runs' logged env.yaml differ in log_dir and std only.
Outcome
R0.1 58.2% overall (R0 0.0%): supine 91.5%, side 82.2%, mid 55.9%, prone 0/156; knees fully straight; ||q-q_stand||^2 9.99 -> 0.91 and the stand_pose term 4.6e-5 -> 0.90; get-up ~1 s, no re-falls, the curve still rising at the 3,000-iteration cap. Prone stayed at zero and needed a different fix (see prone-dead-end-is-foot-placement).
Mechanism
Sitting earned upright 1.98/2.0, still 0.43/0.5 and feet_on_ground 0.46/0.5 - 3.0 of a 3.57 per-second return - because feet_on_ground asked for contact, not load. The only terms separating sitting from standing were base_height (+0.70/s for standing) and stand_pose, whose kernel at the real 9.99 rad^2 error (75% of it in the two knees) was exp(-9.99) = 4.6e-5 with a gradient near 1e-4. Standing up meant risking 3.0/s to gain 0.70/s while unfolding knees at 92% of their limit under load. With std 3 the same term is exp(-9.99/9) = 0.33 - a live gradient, three quarters of it on the folded knees.
Applies when
- a policy converges early to an upright but low, seated or kneeling pose
- a posture-matching exp term reads ~0 in the training logs
- contact-based rewards saturate while the task metric does not move
“**关键:`feet_on_ground` 只问"触地"不问"承重", 跪坐时双脚确实贴地,照样满分。** 三项 3.0/s = 总回报 3.57/s 的 84%。 … **exp(−9.99) = 4.6e-5** —— 权重 1.0 的项实际输出 5e-5、梯度 ~1e-4, **不是"还没学会",是数值上根本不存在**。 … **R0.1 决定(用户 2026-08-09 定,单变量)**:`stand_pose` 的 `std` **1.0 → 3.0**。 不是加新奖励、不是悬崖悬赏,而是**修复一个已声明但数值失效的项**”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §11 R0 首跑(recovery_r0, 2026-08-09):FAIL —— 翻正了但坐着 A binary reward band on the swing knee had zero gradient everywhere below it, so the one-leg policy parked in an unloaded "fake touchdown" that Isaac's 5 N threshold scored as success and MuJoCo showed as real pressing - a capped constant-gradient ramp, retrained from scratch, passed 40/40
binary-band-reward-fake-touchdownShape approach-to-target rewards as capped ramps with gradient from the starting posture, never as bands or indicators; and compare contact-based terms across simulators, because a policy riding just under a force threshold looks perfect in one and wrong in the other.
Symptom
At iteration 1,000 of the first one-leg run the swing foot never lifted: the policy stood with the "raised" foot resting lightly on the ground. In Isaac the contact-match term paid 96% of full marks; the same policy in MuJoCo pressed that foot on the ground for 450 frames.
Context
The swing-leg goal was "shank folded fully back" (knee 1.5-1.95 rad), rewarded as a binary band: +0.8 inside [1.5, 1.95], zero elsewhere. From knee 0.05 to 1.5 rad the term was flat. Contact is judged at a 5 N force threshold, so a foot carrying less than 5 N counts as lifted. The walk line had hit the same disease with a binary indicator (v4) and fixed it with a capped ramp (knee_swing_amplitude).
Change
swing_knee_fold changed from the binary band to a ramp clamp(|q|/1.5, 0, 1) - a constant gradient capped near 86 deg - and the policy was retrained from scratch (V0r1). After the first real-robot try showed the fold still too low, its weight went 0.8 -> 2.0 (V0.1).
Outcome
V0r1 model_2300 passed the full acceptance 40/40 (swing knee 1.72 rad, about 98.5 deg) and was stamped as oneleg_v0.onnx; the cross-simulator disagreement is recorded as the thing that caught the cheat.
Mechanism
A reward that is flat until the target is reached gives no gradient to approach it, so the policy settles for the nearest state other terms reward - here, a foot that satisfies the contact threshold without lifting; a second simulator with different contact force resolution exposes such threshold-riding.
Applies when
- rewarding a posture target with an in-band / out-of-band indicator
- a contact threshold decides whether a foot counts as lifted
- trainer-side contact terms are near full marks while the video looks wrong
“初版二值带 [1.5,1.95] 在膝 0.05→1.5 全程零梯度，策略停在"卸力虚点地"（Isaac 5N 阈下 contact_match 96% 满分 / MuJoCo 同策略 450 帧实压——跨仿真器互证抓作弊）；v4 二值指示同型病，按 knee_swing_amplitude 判例改常数梯度封顶 ramp，从零重训 … **oneleg_v0.onnx = V0r1 model_2300, 40/40 PASS**”
git:Lucen V2@origin/oneleg-line:train/ONELEG_V0_SPEC.md § §4 奖励表 swing_knee_fold 行 / §8 核查单 5 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) 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) 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) Brief the operator on the lineage's measured zero-command and untrained-axis behavior before handing over the joystick
know-zero-command-behaviorBefore any teleop/demo, measure and write down the policy's zero-command behavior and per-axis competence, label untrained axes explicitly as not-bugs, and set the floor/procedure to accommodate the known drift.
Symptom
A teleop session was about to start on a policy that does not stand still at zero command and has never been trained on lateral commands - behaviors an unbriefed operator would report as bugs or emergencies.
Context
Three measured facts were written into the teleop instructions ("都有 实测依据, 不是猜"): (1) A/D (lateral) keys will get essentially no response - probe-measured sidewalk tracking ~3%, an untrained axis: "这正是 C4 要解决的事, 不是 bug"; (2) no keypress = cmd 0, and this lineage does not stand still at zero command - a three-generation lineage property: paces in place, drifts right ~5 cm/s, net rotation -30 deg/20 s; sim survival is 20/20 (it will not fall) but it walks away slowly, so leave floor margin especially on the right; (3) S (backward) WILL respond - probe-measured 20/20 survival, 67% tracking untrained, which is also why this root was chosen for the C ladder. Plus a keybinding dry-run while suspended before touching down.
Change
Operator briefing became part of the deployment artifact: expected response per key, expected idle behavior with magnitudes and directions, and the distinction between untrained (expected, not a bug) and abnormal.
Outcome
The session proceeded with correct interpretations available in advance; the known zero-command wander was handled by floor margin and start-with-command procedure rather than misdiagnosed on the spot.
Mechanism
A learned policy's off-nominal behaviors (idle drift, untrained axes) are lineage properties, stable and measurable in sim beforehand; operator surprise converts known properties into false incident reports and unsafe reactions. A briefing transfers the measured behavior model to the person holding the controller.
Applies when
- handing a learned policy to an operator or demo audience
- the policy idles in a non-stationary way at zero command
- some command axes are untrained in the current lineage
“A/D 基本不会有反应 —— s1e 从未训过非零 vy, 选根探针实测侧走跟踪率 ~3% … 这正是 C4 要解决的事, 不是 bug。… 不按键 = cmd 0, 而 s1e 在零指令下不站定 —— 血统属性, 三代实录: 原地踏步 + 右漂 ~5 cm/s + 净旋 −30°/20s。”
train/REAL_RUN_S2.md § 附: WSAD 遥控 上机前必须知道的三条 When a contract default changes, old policies must run under a pinned legacy profile - a silent clock swap is out-of-distribution on hardware
legacy-profile-pinningTreat every trained policy as bound to the contract values of its training era: version the deployment profiles, pin old policies to their era's profile in every command, and never let a changed default silently apply to an old artifact.
Symptom
The walk profile's gait clock moved from 0.40 s to 0.50 s for new training, but versions v5-v9 were all trained at 0.40 s - running them under the updated default would silently feed a 25% slower phase clock to policies that never saw one.
Context
The re-test runbook hard-codes --policy-profile legacy_walk_040 into every command for the old versions, with the warning not to omit the flag: the mismatch is invisible (no error, no crash) but puts the policy out of distribution on hardware, where the same file had already documented that off-clock operation collapses gait quality.
Change
Deployment profiles versioned per training era; historical policies permanently associated with their era's profile; runbooks write the profile flag explicitly rather than relying on defaults.
Outcome
Old policies stayed runnable and comparable after the contract moved on; the silent-mismatch failure mode was closed by convention.
Mechanism
Changing a shared default rebinds every old artifact to a contract it was not trained under; unlike a schema break, a value change produces no error - only degraded, unexplainable behavior. Version-pinned profiles make the binding explicit and permanent.
Applies when
- changing any default in the deployment contract (clock, scales, gains) while old policies remain in use
- writing runbooks that mix policy generations
- a re-tested old policy behaves worse than its era's records
“2026-08-02 起 walk profile 的时钟改为 0.50(WALK_V10_SPEC §3)。v5~v9 全是 0.40 训的,本文件所有命令已改带 --policy-profile legacy_walk_040 ——不要省掉这个 flag,否则是拿慢 25% 的相位时钟静默喂旧策略(分布外,真机危险)。”
train/REAL_SWEEP_V5_V8.md § 1. 预检 ⚠️ 时钟改为 0.50 Every power cycle starts with the same read-only pre-flight - read the buses, check the torque limits against 12/17/11, verify the IMU axes, check the ports after any new USB device - and any reassembly re-measures the joint zeros
power-cycle-preflightStart every powered session with a fixed, read-only pre-flight - bus responses, torque limits equal to the simulated ones, IMU axes, device identities - and re-measure joint zeros after any mechanical reassembly before running a policy.
Symptom
Hardware state drifts between sessions in ways no policy can see: a motor that stops answering after a power cycle, a torque limit that differs from the one simulated, an IMU axis flipped, two USB devices swapping identities, a joint zero moved by reassembly.
Context
The runbook's session order before any policy runs: read every motor on both CAN buses without enabling them (the first command after every power cycle); set_torque --check, all twelve motors must read 12/17/11 N*m, and any difference is written back; imu_reader --verify-axes, where the operator tilts the robot forward and to the right and every check must pass before continuing; check_ports after plugging in any new USB device (the IMU and a CAN adapter once collided on USB identity). After re-mounting motors: read the buses, then re-measure the calibration offsets (three repeats, written back) - "skipping it means running everything on the wrong zero". Hanging checklists repeat the torque-limit check (the deploy script also self-checks at start).
Change
A fixed, read-only pre-flight run in the same order every session.
Outcome
The runbook records one earlier hardware check in the same spirit: all 12 motors' implied kp fell within 18.4-22.0 for a commanded 20, inside the kp randomization range used in training.
Mechanism
A policy transfers only if the plant matches the one it was evaluated on; the pre-flight turns silent hardware drift into a failed check before the robot moves.
Applies when
- the first command after powering a robot on
- after swapping adapters, cables or motors
- a policy that worked last session suddenly behaves differently
“python tools/set_torque.py --check # 12 颗应全对 12/17/11, 有 diff 就 --write … 插任何新 USB 设备后都先跑一次 check_ports.py(IMU 和 CANable 的 USB 身份撞过车) … python tools/calib_stance.py --repeat 3 --write # 重标 offset —— 8/9/10 重新装, 机械零位变了”
RL系统/FOLLOW THIS copy 2.md § WALK / STAND 每次开始前 / 换CAN / 装回后必做两件 A field experiment is allowed when it is pre-scripted, single-variable, and self-reversing (RAM-only writes)
reversible-single-variable-field-experimentsPermit hardware-side experiments only when scripted in advance with one variable, a log, and automatic reversion (volatile writes, git restore); keep every config mirror (yaml vs firmware) changed and restored as a unit.
Symptom
A hypothesis needed a hardware test - v5's "wild kicking" might trace to the RS00 torque cap being deployed at 11 N*m vs its trained 14 (-21%), on exactly the ankle-roll/hip-yaw joints doing lateral-yaw work - but changing limits in the field is the classic way to lose track of robot state.
Context
The experiment was written to be safe by construction: change exactly one number (robot.yaml RS00 tau_limit 11.0 -> 14.0), write to firmware RAM only (--write without --save, so a power cycle automatically rolls back to the saved 12/17/11), run the single logged trial, then restore both yaml (git checkout) and RAM immediately. The consistency requirement is explicit: the deploy tool's torque self-check compares against robot.yaml, so yaml and firmware must change and restore together; and the hypothesis scoping is itself single-variable - RS06's 67% cut was measured irrelevant (gait uses only 16% of rated) and hip torque was left alone for safety.
Change
Field experimentation policy refined: not "never touch hardware settings" but "only pre-scripted, one-variable, logged, auto-reverting changes with config/firmware kept consistent".
Outcome
The sub-experiment could answer the torque-cap hypothesis without any risk of the robot persisting in an undocumented state - forgetting to restore costs nothing but a git checkout.
Mechanism
The danger of field changes is state divergence (robot config drifting from the repo's record), not the change itself; volatile (RAM-only) writes bound the divergence lifetime to one power cycle, and single-variable scoping preserves attributability even in a field setting.
Applies when
- a hypothesis requires changing firmware limits or gains on the robot
- field debugging tempts persistent config writes
- designing safe escape hatches for deployment tooling
“程序(--write 不带 --save = 只写 RAM,断电自动回滚)… deploy 的限扭自检是对 robot.yaml 比对的,所以 yaml 和固件必须同改同还原;忘了还原也没事,断电重启即回 12/17/11(上次 --save 的值),但 yaml 要 git checkout。”
train/REAL_SWEEP_V5_V8.md § 4. 限扭子实验(可选二期,只对 v5,单变量) A proposal in the runbook - torque and action limits as versioned safety tiers (classroom / research / expert) written to motor RAM and read back, separate from the reward's effort penalty - recorded as a proposal, its implementation unrecorded
safety-limits-are-a-layer-not-a-rewardKeep hardware limits as an explicit, versioned safety layer (tiers written and read back at start, the persisted default the safest one) and the effort penalty as a behaviour layer; when a skill needs more torque, change tier deliberately rather than trading one layer against the other.
Symptom
Running and jumping need more torque than the deployed limits allow, and the temptation is to trade the training-side effort penalty against the hardware limit, or to hand a new user a robot "tuned however the last person left it".
Context
A message pasted into the operator runbook (undated, citing Berkeley's practice of storing the full motor configuration as JSON with write and read-back scripts) proposes: configuration is a versioned artifact, not a verbal agreement; three safety tiers in robot.yaml beside the gain and policy profiles - classroom (RS06 limited to 10 N*m, lateral joints clamped: "however bad the policy, it only moves awkwardly"), research (14 N*m, clamps at twice the measured need, the default) and expert (the 36 N*m rating, joint limits only, requiring an explicit flag); deploy writes the tier to motor RAM at start and reads it back, while the stored copy stays classroom so a power cut returns to the safest state. It frames limits as the safety layer and the effort penalty as the behaviour layer - more torque for running means switching tier, not weakening the penalty.
Change
None recorded: the message ends by asking which to do first, a rollback or the tiers.
Outcome
The sources do not record the tiers being implemented; the deployed limits stayed at 12/17/11 N*m through the recovery and one-leg lines (the one-leg spec treats raising the RS06 limit as a separate, unapproved hardware decision). Related and recorded elsewhere: torque limits were written to RAM only in a scripted, self-reversing field experiment.
Mechanism
Hardware limits bound the damage any policy can do; reward terms shape what a policy prefers. Mixing them either weakens safety to buy behaviour or distorts behaviour to buy safety.
Applies when
- a new skill needs more torque than the deployed limits
- robots are handed to students or new users
- motor configuration lives in people's heads or in the firmware only
“配置是版本化的产物,不是口头约定。 … deploy_policy 启动时按档写进电机 RAM 并读回校验(落盘的那份永远保持 classroom,断电自动回到最安全状态)。 … 限幅是安全层,dof_torques_l2 是行为塑造层,它们在不同的层,不冲突。跑步要更大力矩就换档,而不是去动训练里的省力惩罚。”
RL系统/FOLLOW THIS copy 2.md § 面向 developer / 教育机构该怎么做 (pasted proposal, undated) A 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 Teleop fed the sidewalk axis a command beyond its training band - feet clipped; give each axis its own speed setting
teleop-command-band-per-axisGive every command axis its own teleop scale, clamped to that axis's training band, and reproduce any hardware incident in sim with the exact deployed command values before touching training.
Symptom
Robot stepped on its own foot when sidewalking left under teleop - and only when going left.
Context
The teleop tool used one speed setting for all axes: --teleop-speed 0.20 applied to A/D sent cmd_vy = 0.20, above the training band's top (0.08-0.18) where foot-spacing margin is thinnest. Sim reproduction of the incident (product policy, pw0.8, 5 seeds x 20 s, true collision threshold = single foot width 104 mm): at vy 0.20 the minimum foot distance was 111-115 mm - 7-11 mm from self-collision - vs 147 mm at vy 0.10. Left was 4x more dangerous than right (25% vs 6% of time inside the 160 mm soft wall at vy 0.10), matching the left-only symptom; the margin did not degrade over time (pressing more just lengthened exposure).
Change
deploy_policy gained --teleop-side (default 0.10), separating the lateral speed from the forward speed so each axis's teleop command sits inside its own trained band.
Outcome
Command now inside the band with 43 mm margin at default; the incident became a quantified, reproduced, closed account rather than a mystery.
Mechanism
The policy's competence envelope is the training command distribution per axis; teleop mappings that share one scalar across axes silently command out-of-band inputs on the weakest axis. Asymmetric risk (left vs right) came from the policy's own chirality bias, so a symmetric command produced an asymmetric hazard.
Applies when
- wiring a joystick/teleop layer over a learned policy
- a hardware incident occurs on one command direction only
- training bands differ across command axes
“A/D 一直与 W/S 共用速度档，所以按 A 下发的是 vy = 0.20 —— 既超训练带（0.08~0.18）上沿 … 0.20（遥控实际值）| 111~115 mm | 7~11 mm … 且左比右危险 4 倍 … 处置：deploy_policy 新增 --teleop-side（默认 0.10），侧移与前进档分开。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3p. 一 向左走踩到自己 → --teleop-speed 0.20 同时喂给了 vy The deploy-side walk/recovery switch - into recovery at tilt > 65 deg held 0.3 s, back at tilt < 15 deg with angular rate < 1 rad/s and straight knees held 1 s, a 15 s timeout, last action cleared both ways - and the handoff steps the design required are only partly implemented
walk-recovery-fsm-handoffSpecify a deploy-time controller switch as hysteretic, time-filtered predicates the robot can measure (proxy what it cannot, e.g. straight knees for height), a timeout that ends in a safe stop, and a complete handoff (history, clock, last action, command ramp) - then test that the code performs every handoff step, because the design document is not the implementation.
Symptom
With a recovery policy and a locomotion policy as separate networks, the robot needs a switch: when is it "fallen", when is it "up", and what state must be reset so the next policy does not act on the previous one's history.
Context
The 08-09 design: enter recovery when fallen (tilt > 55 deg or height < 0.60 x 0.384 m) for 150 ms, leave for a stand-hold when upright (tilt < 12 deg, height > 0.85 x 0.384 m, feet steady, |omega| < 0.8) for 400 ms - wide entry, strict exit, hysteresis - then a mandatory handoff trio before walking resumes (reset the walking policy's observation history, restart its phase clock at 0, clear its previous action and latency buffer) and a command ramp instead of a jump. The 08-14 implementation in deploy_policy (--recovery-policy): each policy under its own manifest contract (walk: nominal + scale; recovery: beta-anchored), the same rl_default gains, the tilt cutoff disabled; RECOVERY at tilt > 65 deg for 0.3 s; LOCO again at tilt < 15 deg and |omega| < 1 and knees straight (< 0.35 rad) for 1 s - the robot's computer has no height estimate, and straight knees stand in for height so a V3.0-style upright kneel cannot pass as standing; RECOVERY longer than 15 s ends in a safe stop; last_action cleared on both switches; command forced to 0 during RECOVERY; power scaling applies to LOCO only.
Change
An open account was written down with it: the recovery end state (0.355 m stance, hip yaw -/+27 deg) is outside the walking policy's training start distribution, so the first test must use stand / zero command as LOCO, and the long-term fix is to widen the walking policy's initial states rather than bend recovery's stance to suit walking.
Outcome
The spec records only a successful compile (py_compile); the hang test was left to be done on site. The operator runbook carries the three-step procedure (hang with stand as LOCO, mat and push, then omni walk as LOCO) but no outcome.
Mechanism
Two policies trained separately each assume their own history, clock and last action; a switch that carries any of them across feeds the next policy a state it never saw - the design called this "the walking policy seeing a ghost history".
Conflicts
The 08-09 design requires resetting history, clock and previous action plus a command ramp; the 08-14 implementation records last_action clearing and a zero command during recovery; the one-leg spec of 2026-09-14 lists the handoff hygiene as specified but not implemented - reset_history() is called by nothing (a 215-dim policy would carry four frames of pre-fall history), the phase clock is not zeroed, and there is no command ramp back to LOCO. No hardware run of the FSM is recorded in either source.
Applies when
- switching between separately trained policies on hardware
- a policy with history or phase observations is re-enabled mid-run
- the robot lacks a sensor the switching criterion was designed around
“**判据**:进 RECOVERY = 倾角 >65°(`--fall-tilt-deg`)持续 0.3 s;回 LOCO = §5 真机可测子集:倾角 <15° ∧ |ω|<1 ∧ **膝直 <0.35 rad(NX 无高度观测, 高度门用膝直代理 —— 防 V3.0 型"跪坐但直立"误判)** 持续 1 s (`--recover-hold`);RECOVERY 单次 >15 s(`--recovery-max-time`)安全停。 … **切换卫生**:两向切换 last_action 清零;RECOVERY 态 cmd 强制 0”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §50 FSM 双策略调度(2026-08-14,用户令):deploy_policy --recovery-policy The advisor's "runtime five-stage state machine + per-stage reference poses + RL residual" appeared in none of the three papers it cited - reading the originals changed the plan and downgraded two widely repeated industry claims
advisor-paraphrase-vs-paperRead the primary source behind any piece of advice before adopting its architecture; record where the paraphrase and the original differ, downgrade claims the originals do not support to speculation, and adopt what the verified sources actually share.
Symptom
After the violent first real run, an advisor proposed re-architecting recovery as a runtime staged state machine with reference poses and an RL residual, citing HoST, HumanUP and StableMimic.
Context
The three papers were read in full on 2026-08-09 and tabulated (deployment form, what the "stages" really are, hard constraints, references). HoST: one end-to-end policy, height-gated rewards in training, action anchored as q + beta*a with a beta curriculum. HumanUP: two training stages with the same observation/action; the vendor's three-stage state machine is the baseline it beats (41.7% vs 78.3%); Stage II tracks an 8x slowed Stage I trajectory (4x too violent, 10x does not converge). StableMimic: a learned soft gate. On 08-10 more sources were checked the same way: the Agility page does not say Digit's self-righting was learned in simulation (only step recovery is stated as RL), so the claim was downgraded to speculation; HoST's support for the 12-DoF armless Mini Pi exists in its code repository, not in the paper text.
Change
Adopted only what the originals share: a hard action bound or anchored action space, strong smoothing including a second-difference term, a slowed hidden reference, heavy DR and real fallen states. The staged runtime state machine was not adopted.
Outcome
The next re-rooting candidates came straight from the verified material, and the beta-anchored action space (HoST, with the Mini Pi configuration as the nearest real-robot precedent) became V2, the lineage that later stood up on hardware.
Mechanism
A paraphrase compresses a paper into the advisor's own architecture; only the original shows what was actually deployed, what was a baseline, and which numbers came with which ablation.
Applies when
- an advisor, agent or summary proposes an architecture with citations
- an industry claim ("X learned it in sim") is about to justify a design
- several papers are cited for one combined recipe
“⇒ **顾问的核心形态"runtime 五阶段状态机 + 每阶段参考姿态 + RL residual"在三篇引文 里均不存在**,其中 HumanUP 还点名 state machine 是局限。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §26 三篇引文精读判决(2026-08-09 全文核对;顾问转述与原文有出入) 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 DR tail the robot never has is pure cost - stage deterministic plant levels instead of one wide uniform
dr-tail-plant-continuationSet every DR range from the measured deployment distribution and cut tails that hardware cannot produce; when an axis changes the controller's character (delay, major gain regimes), prefer staged deterministic levels with gates over one wide uniform.
Symptom
Two consecutive lineages (s1e, s1f) trained under uniform latency DR (0, 0.06 s = 0-3 frames) both converged to drag-glide gaits - buying survival under heavy delay by giving up swing (3.6 mm) - even though the real pipeline never exceeds ~2 frames.
Context
The account: roughly 1/3 of training quality was spent on the >2 frame tail that hardware never presents ("uniform 尾部 ~1/3 训练质量 花在真机不出现的 >2 帧上"). The deeper reading came from the user: uniform 0-3 frames is not merely tail-heavy - it "把性质不同的控制系统 混进同一 PPO batch" (mixes qualitatively different control systems into one PPO batch); a 0-frame and a 3-frame plant demand different controllers, and one policy trained on the mixture serves neither. The S2 v2 ladder therefore redefined latency "从「随机化参数」重新定 义为 actuator/control plant 的一部分": deterministic FIFO levels, staged 1 frame then 2 frames (lo=hi so fractional interpolation degenerates to exact N frames, synonymous with the harness --delay N), each level gated by the fixed acceptance battery - a plant continuation, not a randomization.
Change
Latency DR replaced by staged deterministic levels covering the measured 1-2 tick reality with no tail; each stage a separate continuation rung with the standard gate and rollback.
Outcome
The s2_lag1 rung showed the clean-signal benefit immediately (survival 20/20, heading 6x recovery) with the swing cost booked honestly (21 -> 12 mm, half-pass, ladder paused for adjudication); the drag-glide attractor from uniform tails did not recur.
Mechanism
DR asks one policy to cover a plant family; when part of the family is fictitious, the policy pays real capability for fictitious robustness, and when family members demand structurally different controllers, gradient averaging produces a compromise controller optimal for none. A measured, discrete plant set matches the actual deployment support and keeps each rung's training signal coherent.
Applies when
- policies converge to degenerate gaits that buy worst-case survival
- a DR range extends well past the measured hardware range
- choosing between wide randomization and a staged ladder on an axis
“两轮实证(s1e/s1f)宽尾延迟 DR 逼出拖地滑行 … uniform 0~3 帧不止尾重,而是把性质不同的 控制系统混进同一 PPO batch;1→2 帧确定性分级 = plant continuation,训练信号干净得多—— latency 从「随机化参数」重新定义为 actuator/control plant 的一部分。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 4. v2 阶梯 (2026-08-07 用户定) Three hardware accounts locked the run design point - and the knee's real speed ceiling is tau_limit/kd, not the firmware limit
feasibility-accounts-lock-design-pointBefore opening a dynamic-gait training line, compute the full account set - tau_limit/kd effective speed ceilings, joint ROM under the intended reference geometry, and thermal RMS at the duty cycle - and let the accounts lock the design point; move only to pre-registered in-table alternates, re-running the accounts first.
Symptom
The run line was believed to require a firmware raise of the RS06 speed limit (10 rad/s) as a hard precondition, and the feasibility script's motor-envelope scan had marked 80/100 mm foot-lift cells "physically feasible".
Context
Three added accounts re-decided everything. (1) Damping tax: in MIT mode tau = kp*(q_des-q) - kd*qd, so sustained rotation is capped at tau_limit/kd = 12/1.5 = 8 rad/s - below the firmware's 10; at peak speeds 6.7-7.9 rad/s the damping term alone eats 10.1-11.9 N*m (84-99% of the torque limit). "提固件 limit_spd 越不过这道税 —— 它是 kd 与限扭的比,不是固件旋钮." (2) Joint ROM: the feasibility script had checked motor envelopes but NOT joint range - the ankle-pitch ROM caps 1:2:1 leg-shortening lift at 62 mm (soft) / 77 mm (hard), so the 80/100 mm "feasible" cells were voided; also firmware-independent. (3) Ankle thermal: duty 0.40 puts ankle RMS at 87% of continuous rating (0.35 -> 93%); long-period big-stride cells hit both ankle torque peak and heat. Verdict: firmware raise DEQUEUED (50 mm design point needs knee 6.7-7.3 < the 8 rad/s effective ceiling < firmware 10); vel_limit stays 10 so sim == robot. The three accounts uniquely lock the design point - 50 mm lift / T 0.60 s / duty 0.40 - "三笔账 唯一锁定,不是调参空间", with pre-registered alternates allowed only inside the table and only after re-running the accounts.
Change
Design point frozen from accounts; hardware precondition reversed by arithmetic rather than by test; reference amplitude (0.84 rad = FK inverse of 50 mm) derived, per-joint action scales sized to the required travel (knee 0.9, hip_pitch 0.6, ankle deliberately NOT amplified - hard limit is adjacent).
Outcome
A firmware work item left the critical path; an infeasible region of the design space was closed before any training; the remaining risk (knee tracking lag from the damping tax) was pre-registered with its own criterion and in-table fallback (duty 0.35) - "这不是'奖励没调好', 是 plant 账".
Mechanism
PD actuators in MIT mode pay kd*velocity out of the same torque budget that tracks position, so the effective speed ceiling is a ratio of configuration constants, invisible to firmware settings; and feasibility is the intersection of ALL constraint families (torque envelope, joint ROM, thermal RMS) - a scan that omits one family certifies impossible cells.
Applies when
- planning running/jumping or any high-rate gait on PD actuators
- a firmware or hardware upgrade is assumed as a training precondition
- a feasibility scan covers motor limits but not ROM or heat
“膝的有效速度顶 = τ_limit/kd = 12/1.5 = 8 rad/s,不是固件的 10。… 提固件 limit_spd 越不过这道税 —— 它是 kd 与限扭的比,不是固件旋钮。… 可行性脚本只查了电机包络没查关节 ROM —— 其 80/100mm 的"物理可行"格作废。… 判决:RS06 提固件对 run v0 不是前置,出队”
train/RUN_V0_SPEC.md § 1. 硬件账判决 / 2. 步态设计点 The latency DR range must cover the measured deployment pipeline - 0-20 ms could not even reach the real 1-2 control steps
latency-dr-covers-measured-pipelineMeasure end-to-end action latency in control steps on your own stack (including cross-process queue boundaries), set the DR range to cover it with margin, and never import a delay count without its control frequency.
Symptom
Action latency was randomized over 0-20 ms (0-1 control step at 50 Hz), but the measured deployment path is 1-2 steps: the deploy process writes the target, an independently running BusWorker picks it up on its NEXT cycle, plus CAN round-trip - the training range could not cover the robot's actual latency at all.
Context
Fix: widen action_latency_s to 0-0.06 (0-3 steps). The external reference's "uniform 6 steps" was explicitly NOT copied - that number depends on his unknown control frequency; locally, a sweep at 0/1/2/3 steps showed walk_v5 survives all with insensitive metrics, so 6 steps "在我们这里没有依据" (has no local basis). The range was set from the measured pipeline with margin, not from a foreign constant.
Change
action_latency_s (0, 0.02) -> (0, 0.06), justified by pipeline analysis (writer/worker cycle boundary + bus time) and bounded by the local latency sweep.
Outcome
The DR band now brackets the true deployment latency; the policy trains against the delay it will actually face instead of a fictional sub-step world.
Mechanism
Latency DR only immunizes against delays inside its support; a range below the physical pipeline guarantees an untrained distribution shift at deployment. The correct range comes from tracing the pipeline's worst case (queueing boundaries + transport), and foreign step-counts are meaningless without the control rate they were measured at.
Applies when
- setting or auditing action-delay randomization
- deployment uses a separate bus/worker process from the policy loop
- importing delay-modeling numbers from other projects
“现行 0~20 ms = 0~1 个 50Hz 控制步, 而实测部署链路是 1~2 步(deploy 写 STATE.target 后, 独立跑的 BusWorker 下一轮才取走下发, 再加 CAN 往返)——现在的区间覆盖不到真机的实际延迟。… 不照抄参考来源的"统一 6 步": 那取决于他的控制频率(未知), 而我们扫过 0/1/2/3 步 … 6 步在我们这里没有依据。”
train/WALK_V7_SPEC.md § ⑤ action_latency_s 0~0.02 → 0~0.06 When training fails repeatedly, inject the target behavior open-loop - stop tuning rewards for an unverified behavior
open-loop-probe-before-reward-tuningAfter two failed training attempts at a skill, stop training: demonstrate the behavior open-loop on the real plant/sim first, and only resume training once you hold a measured, safe, sign-verified target trajectory.
Symptom
Three sidewalk training rounds failed; hypotheses multiplied (exploration failure / wrong reference waveform / insufficient authority) with no way to pick between them by running more training.
Context
Instead of a fourth reward guess, the team wrote probe_side_ref.py: the candidate reference is injected open-loop on top of a frozen policy's output (bypassing PPO entirely), directly measuring "what happens if the robot literally does this waveform" - separating all three hypotheses in one experiment (5 seeds x 8 s per condition, several waveform families and gains). The probe immediately eliminated the authority hypothesis (full-amplitude execution, 5/5 survival) and localized the problem to the waveform/measurement side. The closing principle was written down after the saga: without a verified target behavior, tuning rewards is "在黑暗里试钥匙" (trying keys in the dark).
Change
Standing method: before opening another training rung on a failing skill, build an open-loop (or task-space) generator of the intended behavior, measure whether the physical system can express it and what it looks like - then train toward a verified, quantified target.
Outcome
The probe chain produced the verified waveform (reversed-sign triangle, half gain), quantified safe amplitude (tilt 8.2 deg at band top, foot distance clear of the wall), exposed the metric bug when probe and training disagreed, and ultimately supplied the feed-forward that made C4 pass in +100 iters.
Mechanism
Training couples exploration, reward design, and feasibility into one opaque outcome; open-loop injection cuts the loop and tests feasibility and waveform alone. A behavior demonstrated open-loop converts the remaining failure into a pure credit-assignment/reward question - and its measured trajectory becomes the reference itself.
Applies when
- repeated training failures on one skill with multiple live hypotheses
- uncertainty whether the platform can physically express the behavior
- a reference trajectory's shape/sign/amplitude is guessed, not measured
“三轮 FAIL 之后不再猜，写 train/probe_side_ref.py 把参考开环注入到策略输出之上（绕过 PPO），直接量「照这个波形做会怎样」，一次分开三个假说：甲 探索 / 乙 波形 / 丙 权限。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3f. C4 真因定谳（开环探针） / 3k. 建议的下一步 Four consecutive fixes were each continued from the previous fix's degraded state until the user stopped the ladder - "change parameters, don't stack errors" - rolled back to the last good checkpoint and audited the target geometry first
stop-stacking-roll-back-and-auditWhen successive rungs each start from the previous rung's output and the target symptom does not move, stop, roll back to the last good checkpoint and re-derive the next change from an audit; keep the measurements, discard the stacked remedies.
Symptom
After the real-robot splits, the V2.7 ladder tried to widen the stance: a term swap (A), a new stance knife (b), more iterations (甲), a doubled weight (乙). Stance barely moved while hip yaw ratcheted 46.7 -> 49.9 -> 52.5 deg toward its 60 deg limit.
Context
Each rung started from the previous rung's output. The user ruled on 2026-08-11 that things had gone wrong from V2.7-A: go back to v2_6 and rethink which parameters to change instead of stacking errors.
Change
乙 was killed at start and not counted; the product baseline rolled back to v2_6c model_29399; every measurement and law learned on the ladder was kept ("the data is real; what stacked was the treatment"). Before any new training, a zero-training kinematic audit of the stance targets was run.
Outcome
The audit found the stand_pose target itself rewarding the narrow stance (pose-target-geometric-audit) and showed geometrically why the yawed stance could not be widened with flat feet - so 乙 was proven unnecessary without running it. The next in-lineage attempts still failed, which is what established that the stance is set by the get-up path.
Mechanism
A rung continued from a degraded state inherits its compensations, so each new fix answers the previous fix's side effects; the yaw ratchet was the visible trace of that stacking.
Applies when
- three or more corrective rungs in a row without progress on the target metric
- a side-effect metric ratchets in one direction across rungs
- a new rung is being planned from the latest (not the best) checkpoint
“用户裁:"从 V2.7-A 开始就出问题了,应该回到 2.6 再思考如何改变参数而不是 错误叠加。"认账:A 的补丁 → b 的新刀 → 甲的加时 → 乙的加权,每级都从上级 的**退化状态**续(yaw 46.7→52.5° 的棘轮就是叠加痕迹)。 … 数据是真的,叠加的是处置。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §44 方法论裁定(2026-08-11,用户):V2.7 全阶梯叫停,回滚 v2_6 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) 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) Push DR helped one lineage and hurt another at the same dose - robustness budget is conserved and gets borrowed, not created
push-dr-conditional-budget-conservationBefore opening a disturbance-DR rung, measure whether the untrained policy already meets the spec; if training it anyway, expect the benefit to be conditional on the lineage's existing DR load, grade the intensity, and audit retained margins - budget spent elsewhere will be borrowed back.
Symptom
The push rung's outcome flipped with the lineage: direct +/-0.6 m/s push failed outright on first attempt (base walking collapsed - kd1.2 scan 0/3 from iter 3300, sim2sim self-falls with pushes OFF - no PASS point existed); staged +/-0.3 then gave the narrow-kd single-working-point lineage real gains (push survival 1/5 -> 4/5) while the SAME dose made the dual-working-point balanced-band lineage WORSE (20-seed survival 18 -> 12/20 plus across-the-board push regression).
Context
The four-ladder verdict ("四梯定案", s2e/s2f at both intensities) named the pattern: "push DR 收益条件性" - the benefit is conditional on how much robustness budget the lineage has already spent. The law candidate: "DR 总预算守恒, 平衡带鲁棒性从抗扰余量借" - total DR budget is conserved; a lineage already covering a wide plant band pays for push tolerance out of its disturbance margin. Both S2 ladders therefore closed at the friction rung, with the decisive numerator: untrained push tolerance already met the 4-6 N*s requirement, so the rung was not needed at all ("⑥ push 不训(收益条件性,免训 ±0.6 已达 标)"). The same accounting later justified the C-before-S2 ordering ("push/μ 两轮已实证 DR 预算有限且会被重分配") and trimmed the second S2 pass to three rungs.
Change
Push removed from the standing ladder; graded intensity retained as the method IF a lineage ever needs push training; "does the untrained policy already meet the disturbance spec" instituted as the first check before opening any disturbance rung.
Outcome
Two rungs (push, ground mu) deleted from the second S2 pass on measured grounds; the ladder's real yield was re-stated honestly as precision, not robustness (speed gate 0 -> 20/20, zero-command drift 0.98 -> 0.06 m, but push 159 -> 125/160).
Mechanism
A fixed-capacity policy allocates representation and margin across the training distribution; adding a disturbance axis to a lineage that already spans a wide plant family forces reallocation - the new tolerance is bought with existing margins. Lineages with narrow plant coverage have free budget, so the identical DR dose lands as gain. Benefit is a property of (dose x lineage state), never of the dose alone.
Applies when
- proposing push/perturbation training on a hardened lineage
- the same DR rung helped one lineage and hurt another
- accounting where a ladder's robustness gains actually came from
“push DR 收益条件性 —— s2e⑥a (单工作点血统 kd 窄带) ±0.3 得抗推 1/5→4/5; s2f⑥ (双工作点平衡带血统) 同档反而 20-seed 存活 18→12/20 且抗推全面倒退。规律候选: DR 总预算守恒, 平衡带鲁棒性从抗扰余量借。两阶梯均以 ⑤ 摩擦级收官 … 抗推 4~6 N·s 免训已达标。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 4. ⑥ push 四梯定案 (2026-08-07) 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 Every acceptance run records video of the very rollout that produced the numbers - the seated basin, edge-standing feet, tangled legs and the narrow stance were all seen on video before, or instead of, a metric catching them
video-as-acceptance-recordMake video a default output of every acceptance run, rendered from the same rollout the metrics come from (fixed views including the feet), and watch it - posture failures are visible before any gate row exists for them; never let video replace or override the numeric gate.
Symptom
Posture failures in the recovery line kept arriving as things the numbers had no row for: a kneeling W-sit, feet standing on their outer edges, crossed legs, a stance too narrow to hold on hardware.
Context
From 2026-08-09 (user decision) accept_recovery renders offscreen by default, following one env for the whole episode and archiving the clip. The MuJoCo gate's --video renders three views (side, front, feet) of the same rollout the metrics come from, with all plant modelling (delay, push); the older replay-based renderer produced an independent trajectory without delay and was not used for acceptance. Video never gates: if rendering breaks, --no-video keeps the numeric gate running.
Change
Video as a default acceptance artifact, named per policy, category and view, reviewed by the user.
Outcome
The R0.1 prone clip showed the same kneel-sit as R0; the R3.1 failure clip showed the crossed legs; the v2_5 feet view showed edge standing and led to V2.6; the v2_6 videos led the user to order a real-robot A/B between v2_5b and v2_6. Once, the recorder did not start (P1c final acceptance) and the visual material had to be produced separately.
Mechanism
Metrics exist only for failure modes someone anticipated; video shows the unanticipated ones, and rendering the metric rollout itself guarantees the picture and the numbers describe the same episode.
Applies when
- setting up an acceptance pipeline for posture-sensitive skills
- numbers pass but a human reviewer is uneasy
- sim videos are rendered by a separate replay tool
“**验收存视频(用户定 2026-08-09)**:`accept_recovery.py` 默认开 Isaac 离屏 渲染,跟拍一个 env 的整局并归档 … 跪坐这类盆地在数字表出现前肉眼先看见,视频是验收的 定性存档,数字门不受它影响”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §5 R0 验收门(预注册)验收存视频(用户定 2026-08-09) Continuing a converged policy on a change that carried no new gradient drifted its transfer from 100/98% to 80/28% over 3,000 iterations while every Isaac gate stayed perfect - scan every checkpoint on the second simulator's friction axis
converged-continuation-is-poisonBefore continuing a converged policy, check that the change creates a live gradient; if it does not, cap the budget at a few hundred iterations, and in every continuation scan each checkpoint on the second simulator's transfer axis (for example low friction) - trainer-side gates can stay perfect while transfer decays.
Symptom
V2.7-A (swap the flat_feet term for a compensated version, continue from v2_6c) finished with the line's best Isaac score (100%) and a MuJoCo transfer collapse: mu 1.0 98 -> 80%, mu 0.4 98 -> 28%; the stance it was meant to widen had not moved.
Context
The new term's calibration run showed a near-zero tax from the start: the policy already satisfied it, so the reward landscape offered nothing new. A checkpoint scan on MuJoCo mu {1.0, 0.4} located the damage: +100 iterations 100/98% (better than the baseline), then 86/54, 60/38, 80/28 - monotonic decay with training length, while entropy and action noise rose (7.77 -> 8.18, 0.588 -> 0.612): drift, not sharpening.
Change
Rule written in: with no new gradient, a continuation budget is short (at most a few hundred iterations) and the MuJoCo transfer axis enters every checkpoint scan. The next rung (V2.7b, a live stance-width gradient) was budgeted at 1,000 iterations with mu {1.0, 0.4} scans every 100 and a stop-on-signal rule.
Outcome
V2.7b kept transfer at the same depth (mu 1.0 98% / mu 0.4 92% at +1,000, where A had already rotted to 86/54) and at +3,000 (100/96%): a live gradient preserved transfer. V2.8 then broke that pattern (mu 0.4 2%): the gradient must also be compatible with the policy's existing form.
Mechanism
On a converged reward landscape PPO keeps updating without a signal to follow, and the random walk is pulled toward whatever the training plant rewards idiosyncratically - invisible in the trainer's own gates.
Conflicts
The drift mechanism is the spec's reading of one decay series plus one contrasting run; V2.8 is recorded as an exception to "live gradient keeps transfer".
Applies when
- fine-tuning a converged policy with a small reward change
- a continuation run's trainer-side metrics improve while real or cross-sim results worsen
- choosing which checkpoint of a continuation to ship
“**checkpoint 扫定死因**(μ1.0/μ0.4):**29500(+100 iter)= 100/98%** (优于基线!)→ 30400 = 86/54 → 31400 = 60/38 → 32398 = 80/28 —— **迁移随续训长度单调衰减**。 … **教训入库:收敛均衡上的长续训是毒药 —— 无新梯度时 续训预算须短(≲数百 iter),且 MuJoCo 迁移轴必须进 checkpoint 扫描。**”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §43 结果:V2.7-A 判 FAIL —— 换刀本身无罪,毒在续训预算 Train with self-collisions ON (filtering nested-link ghost pairs) - the reward wall prevents, the physics makes cheating impossible
self-collision-physics-plus-reward-wallNever train a contact-risk behavior with self-collisions disabled; enable them with an audited filter list for nested/overlapping pairs (zero contacts across a pose sweep), record the fps cost, and keep a calibrated distance penalty as the preventive layer on top.
Symptom
walk_v8 logged 107 frames of leg-on-leg contact while still earning 0.751 tracking score - because training-side self-collisions were OFF, leg clipping was literally imperceptible to the policy ("碰腿在训练里 根本感知不到").
Context
Enabling self-collisions naively is its own trap: an Isaac audit had shown PhysX auto-filters adjacent bodies (base-hip clean for free) but nested links generate ghost forces - calf and ankle_roll overlap 65 mm at the zero pose, producing 12x body-weight phantom forces. The v10 recipe: enable self-collisions, explicitly filter only the two nested pairs (l/r calf-ankle_roll), then run a zero-contact audit at three poses (nominal stand, walk crouch, swing-extreme) requiring contact count = 0, adding any residual pair to the filter and re-auditing; a 500-iter sanity run for NaN and an fps-cost record (measured -8.8%). Redundancy with the reward-side foot-distance wall was argued, not assumed: "N2 离得远(奖励侧预防),SC 碰了疼(物理侧兜底)" - the reward keeps distance at range, the physics makes contact hurt - so the v8-style "clip legs and still score" outcome becomes physically impossible.
Change
enabled_self_collisions=True + 2-pair filter + three-pose zero-contact audit (re-verified at 0.00 N after the later mass update) + fps budget recorded.
Outcome
Leg contact entered the training signal; the audit protocol caught the nested-pair ghost-force hazard before it corrupted training; combined with the calibrated distance wall, later versions held contact = 0 on hardware and in sim.
Mechanism
A hazard absent from the training physics cannot be learned about, no matter the reward; but collision meshes that interpenetrate at rest inject large fictitious forces if enabled blindly. Filtered enabling plus a pose-swept zero-contact audit gives true contact physics with no phantom energy - and layering prevention (reward) with consequence (physics) covers both learning and enforcement.
Applies when
- real robot self-contacts while training scored it healthy
- enabling self-collisions on a model with nested collision meshes
- deciding between reward-side and physics-side fixes for clipping
“PhysX 自动过滤相邻体(base↔hip_pitch 免费干净),幽灵力只在 calf↔ankle_roll(零位嵌套 65mm,12 倍体重)。… 与 N2 互补不冗余:N2 离得远(奖励侧预防),SC 碰了疼(物理侧兜底)—— v8 那种 107 帧互碰拿 0.751 跟踪分的事从此物理上不可能。”
train/WALK_V10_SPEC.md § 4. SC —— 训练侧自碰撞(范围已探明,比想象便宜) Two machines, one configuration - every gain, offset and torque limit changes only in robot.yaml, whoever edits pushes at once, both checkouts show the same commit before the robot moves, and a pulled policy file is size-checked and synced before power-off
two-machine-config-disciplineTreat the robot's configuration as a versioned artifact with one source of truth, push every change immediately, verify identical commits on every machine before a hardware session, keep hardware limits in the repo and the firmware in sync in both directions, and verify transferred model files (size, digest) before running them.
Symptom
The robot's onboard computer runs the bridge and deploy scripts from its own checkout while training and analysis happen on other machines; a hot fix left on one side, or a half-written file, silently makes the robot run something other than what was evaluated.
Context
The operator runbook's "wall version" of the two-machine discipline: configuration changes only in robot.yaml (calibration offset/sign, gains, torque limits), committed and pushed from the Mac, pulled on the robot, bridge restarted; code is not edited on the robot, and if it is, it is committed and pushed on the spot - nothing unpushed overnight; 30 seconds before every real-robot session both checkouts must show a clean status and the same last commit hash; changing tau_max requires writing the motor's limit_torque too (and the reverse); re-zeroed motors require re-measuring offsets. The recovery line added: after pulling on the robot, check the ONNX is not zero bytes (a lesson from a corruption incident on 08-12) and sync before cutting power; the recovery and main lines are separate worktrees, each pulled with --ff-only.
Change
Operating rules, pinned on the wall and repeated in the hanging checklists ("git pull, both machines on the same commit").
Outcome
The sources record the rules and the incident that produced the size check; they do not record a count of sessions the rules caught.
Mechanism
A policy is evaluated against one configuration; any divergence between the machines, or a truncated file, turns a hardware result into a result about an unknown configuration.
Applies when
- a robot's onboard computer and a workstation both hold the configuration
- someone hot-fixes code or gains on the robot
- model files are copied or pulled to the robot before a session
“改配置只改 robot.yaml(标定 offset/sign、增益、限扭全在里面)→ Mac git commit + push → NX git pull → 重启桥。 … 谁改完谁立刻推,永远不留未推送的改动过夜。 … 每次上真机前 30 秒检查:两边 git status 干净、git log -1 哈希一致。 … 铁律不变:改 tau_max 必须同步写电机 limit_torque(反之亦然);电机重新标零后 offset 必须重测回填 yaml。”
RL系统/FOLLOW THIS copy 2.md § ② 双机维护纪律(贴墙版) Calibrate a wall penalty by measuring healthy and sick policies - healthy pays ~0, the disease pays a wall
calibrate-threshold-between-healthy-and-sickCalibrate every threshold penalty by evaluating its exact formula on replays of at least one healthy and one sick policy: place the threshold between their distributions, size the weight so the sick policy pays a decisive fraction of tracking while the healthy one pays ~0, and pre-compute neighboring thresholds for cheap adjustment.
Symptom
Real walk_v7 occasionally clipped its own legs (stance narrowed to 133 mm mean vs nominal 214.5); a foot-distance penalty was needed, but an uncalibrated threshold/weight risked either doing nothing or becoming a reverse barrier.
Context
The term (relu(d_min - lateral foot distance), measured in the base yaw frame because world-frame y is meaningless after turning) was calibrated before training by replaying three known policies through the exact reward formula at the acceptance operating point: healthy v5 (183 mm) pays 0.6% of tracking - effectively free; narrowed v7 (133 mm) pays 22% - effective widening pressure; collapsed v8 (93 mm) pays 55% - a wall. d_min 0.16 was placed deliberately between healthy and sick, with alternative thresholds (0.14/0.18) pre-computed in the tool output for later adjustment. The shape self-check was named as a standing question: "先问'零代价的选项是什么'" - the zero-cost region must be exactly the desired behavior.
Change
feet_lateral_distance added at d_min 0.16 / weight -10, with telemetry expectation pre-registered (should decay toward 0 as stance learns >160 mm; if bow-legged over-widening >214 appears, only then discuss an upper bound).
Outcome
v9_probe on hardware: no leg contact ("没碰腿(N2 兑现)"), stance min 145/126 mm green; the term's zero-cost design left healthy gait untaxed.
Mechanism
A relu threshold penalty defines a free region and a priced region; its correctness is entirely in where the boundary sits relative to the healthy and pathological distributions. Replaying known-good and known-bad policies through the exact formula measures both distributions in the term's own currency, making the threshold and weight a placement decision instead of a guess.
Applies when
- adding any relu/threshold-style wall penalty
- a safety margin (foot distance, joint limit, clearance) needs enforcement without taxing normal behavior
- choosing between candidate thresholds for a new term
“形状自检 (v6 横向组/v8-B 的教训 —— 先问"零代价的选项是什么"): 标称站距付 0, 健康步态付 ~0, 收窄才付费 … v5(健康) 183 mm … 0.6% ≈ 免费 | v7(收窄) 133 mm … 22% —— 有效推宽 | v8(塌陷) 93 mm … 55% —— 墙 … d_min=0.16 恰在 v5(183)与 v7(133)之间”
train/WALK_V9_SPEC.md § 2. N2 —— 脚距惩罚(已完成权重预标定) 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) Four in-lineage attempts to widen the standing stance failed - remove a tax, add a joint-space knife, change the target, add a task-space metric penalty - because the stance was the end state of the get-up path; trained from scratch with the right terms it grew right from day one
stance-decided-by-get-up-pathA posture a skill ends in is shaped by the path the policy takes to reach it; if several single-variable edits to the terminal-phase reward cannot move it, stop editing that phase and retrain with the terminal constraint present from the start.
Symptom
v2_6c stood with its feet 0.159 m apart (task-space) and its hips yawed 45-47 deg the same way, which split on the real robot. Standing-phase reward edits did not move it.
Context
V2.7-A removed the flat-feet tax on compensated stances (stance unchanged); V2.7b added a hip-roll lower-bound hinge (+5 deg in 3,000 iterations, yaw ratchet); V2.8 changed the stand_pose target to a wide flat stance (stance unchanged, yaw not unwound, feet nearly overlapping, mu 0.4 transfer 2%); V2.9 penalized lateral spacing in metres (the policy parked just outside the penalty's gate in a lunge, 0% success). The v2_6c get-up goes through a split and closes the feet together as it rises.
Change
In-lineage stance surgery was formally closed. V3.1 trained from scratch with task-space stance terms present from the first iteration (and, after P1, a positive width band instead of a penalty).
Outcome
V3.1 P1b: lateral stance 0.364 m, foot tilt 0.0 deg, all four categories 100%, MuJoCo mu 1.0 and 0.4 both 100% - with a symmetric toe-out the kinematic audit had not enumerated. P1c (with a yaw guard): 0.355 m, all six acceptance criteria passing, mu 1.0-0.4 all 100%; it became the product.
Mechanism
A converged policy does not rebuild the path that produced its terminal posture; a standing-phase gradient only finds the nearest hack around the posture the get-up delivers.
Applies when
- the final posture of a transition skill is wrong and resists terminal-phase shaping
- repeated continuation rungs produce hacks instead of the intended posture
- deciding between another in-lineage fix and a from-scratch retrain
“窄站距 + yaw 扭是 v2_6c 起身策略(劈叉起身 → 双脚并拢收势)的**结构性 终态**,不是站立段的孤立参数 —— 站立形态由起身路径决定,在血统内只动 站立段奖励改不动它。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §44 结果:V2.8 判 FAIL —— 血统内站姿手术第三次证伪 Low-friction robustness traced to kd DR bandwidth, not friction training - by digging resolved params across 8 lineages, 3840 cells
kd-bandwidth-mu-law-attributionAttribute capability differences by tabulating every lineage's resolved training params and eliminating zero-variance and non-aligned columns first; never let an eval-side override knob serve as the explanation axis, and never write a mechanism into a law before it survives a targeted test.
Symptom
Lineages differed wildly in low-ground-friction survival, and the intuitive explanation - "some trained ground friction, some didn't" - was about to steer the ladder toward a ground-mu training rung.
Context
The attribution ran as a full parameter-vs-result cross: 8 lineages x 4 eval kd levels x 6 mu levels x 20 seeds = 3840 cells, with each lineage's RESOLVED training params dug out and compared item by item. First kill: all 8 lineages had ground mu pinned at (1.0,1.0) - zero variance - so low-mu differences cannot come from friction training at all. The only training parameter aligned with the mu score was kd DR bandwidth: narrow (<=0.24) lineages scored 19.9/19.5/19.5, wide (>=0.40) scored 17.1/15.2/14.6/14.2/12.8 - the two groups completely non-overlapping. Every rival was excluded item by item (kd center no; kp band no; COM small-beneficial non-driving; friction rung a clean double null 19.5->19.5 and 15.2->14.6; iteration count non-monotonic), and the one clean single-variable causal link confirmed it: the s2e-3 kd surgery (0.7,1.3)->(1.08,1.32) moved the score 17.1->19.5. Counter-proof against "each best at its own operating point": the narrow-band lineage evaluated OUT of band (18.2) still beat the wide-band lineage at its own band center (9.2). Two axes were ordered never to be conflated (the first attribution's own error): training kd bandwidth is a parameter axis / lineage property; the eval-side --kd-scale knob is a plant axis (more damping physically helps on slippery floors for ALL policies) - "plant 轴只能当部署缓解,不能当 归因". A tempting mechanism story ("drag vs step attractor") was tested and falsified, and explicitly kept OUT of the law: "机制未定, 不入定律".
Change
The planned ground-mu training rung was recommended closed ("建议 不开") in favor of a kd band-narrowing rung (0.8,1.2)->(0.9,1.1) centered on the deployed value - with a pre-registered risk that the law demands "bandwidth = measured dispersion" and the real robot's kd dispersion was not yet measured; if it exceeds +/-10%, narrowing sacrifices real coverage and the rung must yield.
Outcome
A whole training rung was deleted from the ladder by attribution alone (the second S2 pass dropped mu and push, 5 rungs -> 3); floor material became a deployment-selection input (mu <~0.6 -> deploy the kd1.2 gain profile) rather than a training target.
Mechanism
Cross-lineage performance differences must be attributed over the actual training-parameter table, not over eval knobs or plausible stories: eval knobs act on the plant for every policy (a physical effect), while lineage properties come only from training-time parameters. Zero-variance columns are free eliminations, and one clean single-variable rung is worth more than any correlation.
Applies when
- explaining why lineages differ on a robustness axis
- an eval-side knob (gain scale, power) changes results and invites misattribution
- deciding whether to open a DR rung for an axis never actually varied in training
“8 血统地面 μ 训练带全部钉 (1.0,1.0) 零方差,低 μ 差异与「训没训地面摩擦」无关,是 kd DR 带宽的副产物 … 宽 ≤0.24 → 19.9/19.5/19.5;宽 ≥0.40 → 17.1/15.2/14.6/14.2/12.8, 两组完全不重叠。… 训练 kd 带宽 = 参数轴/血统属性;评测部署 --kd-scale = plant 轴 … plant 轴只能当部署缓解, 不能当归因。… 机制未定, 不入定律。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 4. 地面 μ 鲁棒性 = kd DR 带宽的副产物 (2026-08-08) A policy's gain profile is part of its contract - the one-leg policy needs per-joint gains the default profile lacks, and the manifest refused an evaluation under the default once; the recovery contract's beta was never stamped, a known gap not to repeat
gain-profile-belongs-in-the-stampStamp everything that defines the closed loop a policy was trained in - gains included - into its manifest, and make every consumer refuse a mismatch; a profile field that is not in the stamp is a silent misconfiguration waiting for an operator to forget a flag.
Symptom
A policy trained with hip_roll kp 80 and ankle_roll kp 60 behaves differently, or falls, under the default kp 20/12 profile - and the gain profile is a command-line flag an operator can forget.
Context
The one-leg line added a gain_profile field to the contract so the stamped manifest carries it; the spec's deployment note says the manifest guard blocks rl_default and that it had already bitten once in simulation (an evaluation run without the one-leg profile). The same spec states the general rule - any new profile field must be synced into the manifest builder - and names the counter-example: the recovery line's beta was never put into the manifest. The recovery line itself had decided that its anchored authority is computed from the base rl gains and written into the contract so it cannot drift with the gain flag, and that the older kp x 0.9 profile chosen in the V0 era does not match the beta contract and must not be used.
Change
Gain profile as a contract field checked at load; per-contract gain choices written into the run sheets.
Outcome
Evaluations and hardware runs of the one-leg policy run under rl_oneleg or are refused; the recovery beta gap stayed recorded as known.
Mechanism
A policy is trained against a closed loop whose gains are part of the plant; running it under other gains is an out-of-distribution plant, exactly like a wrong observation scale.
Applies when
- a skill introduces per-joint or skill-specific gains
- deployment gains are chosen by a command-line flag
- adding any new field to a policy profile
“增益档 `--profile rl_oneleg` 必须给 —— manifest 防线会拦 `rl_default`（sim 已咬合一次） … （recovery 的 β 未进 manifest 是已知缺口，不再复制）”
git:Lucen V2@origin/oneleg-line:train/ONELEG_V0_SPEC.md § §9b AGX 真机手顺 要点 / §3 契约 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 Prove an armless get-up exists before training it - a connected static domain, 25% torque on the cheapest path, an 8 mm hand-over gap, a static roll-over - and write down what each scan cannot represent
get-up-feasibility-accounts-before-trainingBefore training a get-up or any multi-contact skill, compute the quasi-static accounts - connectivity of the static domain, torque along the cheapest path, hand-over gaps, COM shift available for rolling - and state which configurations each scan cannot represent; when a policy gets stuck in one of those, extend the scan before blaming the reward.
Symptom
A torso-and-legs robot has no arms to push off the ground; whether it can get up from the floor at all was unknown when the line opened.
Context
recovery_feasibility.py ran three accounts before any training (the run line's "hard accounts first" discipline): a sagittal quasi-static scan (0.05 rad grid, 44,520 configurations, MuJoCo FK, flat-foot assumption). (1) The static standing domain (COM over the feet, torques in limit) has 29,586 cells, flood-fill connected with no islands, from a 0.097 m deepest squat to the 0.384 m stand. (2) The minimum-torque path peaks at 25% of the limits (knee 2.9/12, ankle 3.7/17 N*m) - a 4x margin. (3) All 508 ground-contact configurations have the contact behind the COM; the smallest gap to pure foot support is 8 mm. A roll-over account: swinging both straight legs to one side shifts the COM 96 mm against a 62 mm torso half-width - 1.6x, so rolling needs no momentum. Three conclusions were written down for later attribution: the legs are 80% of the mass (swinging them moves the COM), prone has no flat-foot hand-over face (merge into a supine/side sit first), and supine needs no sit-up (hip flexion is limited to 75 deg).
Change
The accounts gated opening the line and were cited in every later argument about what the robot can physically do.
Outcome
They held where they applied: in V1.0 every fall category was righted under a hard rate limit, which the spec records as the quasi-static roll-over account verified by training, and the 25% torque path was the basis for pursuing a slow get-up. They also misled once: account (3) is sagittal, and on 08-09 the spec corrected its scope - it cannot represent the splayed W-sit where the policy actually stalled. A follow-up prone hip-ROM scan (471,625 cells) found 3,912 two-foot-contact cells and none with both soles within 25 deg of level (best 40.2 deg): a flat-footed push-up from prone is infeasible on this robot, so the fix became where the feet go after sitting up.
Mechanism
A get-up needs a connected path through statically feasible configurations and enough torque along it; quasi-static accounts bound both cheaply, and momentum can only make the real problem easier. A reduced-dimensional scan, though, only speaks for the configurations it can express.
Conflicts
In R0.1-R0.2 the spec read account (3)'s "prone has no front hand-over" as "prone lacks the roll-over skill"; R0.3's confusion matrix showed prone had righted its torso 159/159, and the spec then restricted account (3) to the sagittal configurations it models.
Applies when
- opening a get-up, recovery or climbing skill on a new robot
- a robot lacks arms or other obvious contact options
- a policy stalls in a configuration a feasibility scan never modelled
“本机 **torso + legs、无手臂可撑地**,开训前先证明存在不依赖手臂的物理解 … 双腿同侧直腿摆最大横移 **96 mm = 1.6×** … **静态摆腿即可翻身,无需动量**”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §1 机械可行性判决(2026-08-09,recovery_feasibility.py 三笔账) Model CAN polling skew - joint observations are 6-9 ms stale by read order
can-timing-skew-modelingIf joints are read sequentially over a shared bus, reproduce the per-group observation staleness in sim (or randomize it over the measured range) - synchronous observations are a privileged fiction.
Symptom
Policies trained with synchronous joint observations degrade on hardware where motors are polled sequentially over CAN - hip data is already 6-9 ms old by the time ankle data arrives.
Context
Menlo's core sim2real finding on a leg platform of almost identical mass to Lucen's. CAN is a sequential bus: one poll cycle reads motors in a fixed order, so the observation vector mixes timestamps. Lucen runs 6:6 motors on a dual CAN split, so the problem transfers one-to-one.
Change
Explicitly model CAN timing skew in sim: give the joint groups different observation delays matching physical read order. Menlo went further - running real firmware in the loop with a motor simulator between MuJoCo and firmware injecting 0.4-2 ms uniformly distributed delay.
Outcome
Reported by the reference team as their core sim2real enabler on a same-scale platform; recorded in Lucen's experience log as directly applicable ("这个问题一模一样").
Mechanism
A policy exploits any cross-joint temporal coherence present in training observations; when hardware breaks that coherence per bus position, the learned feedback acts on inconsistent state estimates, injecting phase error exactly at the control bandwidth.
Conflicts
Second-hand episode: outcome numbers are the reference team's report, not a Lucen-run experiment; Lucen adopted the requirement but the corpus has no Lucen A/B of skew-on vs skew-off.
Applies when
- robot polls actuators sequentially over CAN/RS485 or similar shared bus
- sim2real degradation appears as jitter or oscillation not seen in sim
- designing the observation/delay model before a training run
“电机走 CAN 是顺序轮询的，髋部电机的数据到踝部电机上报时已经陈旧了 6-9 ms，他们直接在仿真里显式建模了 CAN 时序偏斜，按读取顺序给三组关节不同的观测延迟。… 注入 0.4–2 ms 的均匀分布延迟。你们是 6:6 双 CAN 分总线，这个问题一模一样”
Experience.md § 执行器 + 时序建模 (line 6) The fallen-state reset was designed, not sampled from SO(3) - fixed category shares with jitter, a low drop that settles physically, equal left/right shares for mirror augmentation, and a numeric check before training
fallen-pose-reset-distributionBuild a fallen-start distribution from named, physically plausible categories with jitter and a settle phase, keep mirrored categories at equal probability, and check the realized shares and penetration numerically before spending a training run on it.
Symptom
A get-up policy can only learn from the fallen states its resets produce; uniformly random orientations produce ground-penetrating and limit-jammed states the robot can never be in.
Context
R0 reset_root_fallen: supine 30%, prone 30%, side_l 15%, side_r 15%, mid (random axis 50-125 deg) 10%, +/-15 deg jitter, full yaw, dropped from 0.28-0.40 m and left to settle under physics, joints uniform inside the soft limits with a 5% margin plus small random velocities. Random SO(3) was rejected (the advisor agreed). side_l and side_r must have equal probability because mirror augmentation turns a left fall into a right fall. The advisor had proposed supine and prone only for R0; the spec included side and mid because the feasibility accounts showed physical solutions for all of them, and wrote "narrow back to supine+prone" down as the first fallback. With no display on the training box the reset was checked numerically instead of by eye.
Change
Category mix as above; realized shares, settle height and penetration measured over 512 envs before the first run. A fallen-state bank (real falls, settled and stored) was pre-registered for R2.
Outcome
Realized shares 29.3/31.6/16.4/17.8% against the config, settle +0.262 m, final penetration 0/512 (a 0.10 m peak at the write instant, ankle links only, pushed out within 80 ms because the 0.28 m drop floor is shorter than a fully extended leg). R0's failure was a reward basin, not a reset artifact. The fallen-state bank stayed unbuilt through V3.1 (checklist item open); R0.3 later re-sliced the prone share into roll_l/roll_r bands, which is what forced the acceptance distribution to be frozen separately.
Mechanism
A category-structured, physically settled start distribution keeps training on states the robot can actually occupy, and equal mirrored shares keep mirror augmentation a pure doubling of data rather than a bias.
Applies when
- designing reset distributions for get-up, recovery or multi-contact skills
- mirror/symmetry augmentation is on and the task has chiral start states
- no viewport is available to inspect resets on the training machine
“角度 jitter ±15°、yaw 全域、0.28~0.40 m 低空放下由物理沉降,关节软限位内 均匀(留 5% 余量)+ 小随机速度。**不用 random SO(3)**(会采出穿地/极限卡死 等现实不可能状态,顾问同判) … side_l/side_r **概率必须相等**(镜像增强的样本同分布前提)”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §3 R0 任务定义 / §9 核查单