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
77 cards matching “teleop-command-band-per-axis”.
The recovery line's real-robot verdicts live in three places that disagree - the spec's "fairly stable, first real stand-up" for v2_6, an undated runbook note that only v3_1p1c works, and a first run whose details were never recorded
write-hardware-verdicts-backA hardware verdict is a dated entry in the authoritative ledger - policy file and stamp, gain profile, floor, battery, tries, log file, what was seen - written back the same day; a note in a command file is a pointer, not a verdict, and a newer verdict that contradicts an older one must say so.
Symptom
Asked "which recovery policy works on the real robot", the sources give different answers, and none of them carries the conditions of the test.
Context
08-09: the first real run was stopped as violent and dangerous; which ONNX, which gain profile and whether a log existed were marked "to be recorded" and never were. 08-11: v2_6 was "fairly stable", the line's first real get-up, with splits after standing; v2_5b's result and both CSVs were "to be reported". 08-14: v3_1p1c was stamped and pushed, with "the real first test still needs the user present"; the spec records no hardware result for it. The operator runbook (undated) puts above the v2_6 and v2_5b floor commands the note that none of the recovery policies below work, only recovery_v3_1p1c - a verdict never written back into the spec, with no date, floor, battery, number of tries or log attached.
Change
None recorded in the sources; this card records the gap.
Outcome
The line's authoritative record ends with v3_1p1c as the product awaiting its first real test, while the operator's note implies it is the only one that works and that v2_6 (recorded as a success) does not.
Mechanism
Verdicts given at the robot travel by word of mouth and command-file comments; without a record carrying the conditions, a later reader cannot tell a changed verdict from a changed floor, battery or stack.
Conflicts
§43 (2026-08-11) records v2_6 as the first successful real get-up ("fairly stable"); the undated runbook says every recovery policy except recovery_v3_1p1c does not work; §49 (2026-08-14) says v3_1p1c's first real test was still pending. The runbook's claim has no date and was never written back to the spec, so it cannot be ordered against §43.
Applies when
- choosing which policy to deploy from an operator's notes
- a hardware session ends without a written result
- two documents disagree about what worked on the robot
“下面的recovery都不行 只有recovery_v3_1p1c.onnx”
RL系统/FOLLOW THIS copy 2.md § #### Recovery Policy (operator runbook, undated) 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) A hardware run without its log is an anecdote - the first real get-up's policy, gain profile and log were never recorded, two CSVs stayed "to be reported", and runbook commands wrote different policies' logs under one copied filename
hardware-log-is-the-attribution-inputMake the log part of the run: name it from the policy and conditions automatically (never by hand-copied filenames), record the policy digest and gain profile inside it, include what the open questions need (torque, joint positions and targets), and treat a session without a collected log as incomplete.
Symptom
The recovery line's oldest open question - whether Isaac or MuJoCo reads torque demand correctly - was waiting on real-robot logs that never arrived, and the verdicts that did arrive could not be tied to files.
Context
deploy_policy writes a CSV per run (--log); the runbook's own analysis snippet reads its joint-position, target and action columns (q_, tgt_, act_), and the recovery hanging checklist asks for torque and joint logs for the whole run, to be compared with simulation. The first real get-up (08-09): policy, gain profile and log "to be recorded later". The first real A/B (08-11): v2_5b's result and both policies' CSVs "to be reported". In the runbook's walking commands, three runs of two different c4 policies log to real_s1e_pw08_teleop_0808.csv, and s1e and s2e_fric runs log to real_c2_700_pw08_teleop_0808.csv - filenames copied from other commands.
Change
None recorded; the spec kept listing the open-loop comparison as waiting for real logs.
Outcome
No real-robot log appears in the recovery spec through §50, so the simulator disagreement stayed unresolved and hardware verdicts stayed unattached to data.
Mechanism
Attribution needs the run's identity (policy digest, profile, conditions) and its signals in one artifact; a filename copied from another command mislabels the file, and a log not collected at the session is rarely collected later.
Applies when
- planning a hardware session whose result should settle a sim question
- log filenames are typed or pasted by hand
- hardware feedback arrives as prose without files
“python tools/deploy_policy.py --policy train/policies/omni_c4_ff800_pj.onnx … --log train/real_logs/real_s1e_pw08_teleop_0808.csv … q,t,a=d[:,c("q_")],d[:,c("tgt_")],d[:,c("act_")]”
RL系统/FOLLOW THIS copy 2.md § Walk 遥控 / S2 / csv 分析片段 (operator runbook, undated) 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 When hardware underperforms, audit deployment knobs before prescribing retraining
deploy-knob-attribution-before-retrainingBefore any "retrain it" decision, reproduce the symptom in sim under the exact deployment configuration; if the symptom follows the deployment knob rather than the checkpoint, fix the knob or randomize it in training - never top-up-train the skill.
Symptom
Real-robot feedback after the C4 deployment - "turning is weak" - with two retraining options on the table: top up turn training, or restart from the s1e root.
Context
The sim account showed the policy turned well (75-81% at pw1.0); the robot was deployed at power-scale 0.8. The 3-6 pp difference between C2 and C4 policies at the same power was noise; the 40-50 pp difference between power levels was the entire effect. Both proposed retraining paths would have burned budget on a non-existent training gap, and restarting from s1e would additionally have discarded the sidewalk skill that took four rungs and a coordinate-bug hunt to obtain.
Change
Decision: retrain nothing. (1) Try pw1.0 on hardware first - sim says net gain; (2) only if 1.0 is unacceptable (heat/feel), the correct training fix is power/torque randomization in the S2 plant line (one variable, fixes turn and backward together) - not skill top-up; (3) restart-from-root explicitly ranked worst.
Outcome
The "weakness" was fully explained by the deployment knob; the sim/real signatures matched the earlier power-derating law verbatim ("与 C2 时代 power 衰减主要伤非前进轴 逐字吻合").
Mechanism
The policy's competence is defined under its training plant; deployment knobs (power scale, teleop mapping, command bands) silently define a different plant. Attributing a deploy-plant effect to a training gap produces exactly the wrong fix - more training on the wrong variable.
Applies when
- real robot underperforms a skill that sim says is fine
- proposals on the table include retraining or re-rooting
- deployment uses any override the trainer never saw (power scale, remapped commands, different control rate)
“正确的训练修法不是补训转向，而是训练时加 power/力矩随机化让策略在 0.8 下自己补偿 —— 单变量，属 S2 plant 线，一次同时修好转向与后退；从 s1e 重训是最差选项：丢掉四轮 + 一个指标 bug 才换来的侧走，而 C2 的转向本来就没问题。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3p. 三 处置顺序（回答「补训转向 还是 回 s1e 重训」：都不该） Order hardware runs by sim risk, gate each stage on the last, and put the fragile cell last with a spotter
risk-ordered-real-deploymentScript hardware sessions as a risk ladder: baseline first, sim-riskiest last with a spotter, suspended smoke before ground, each stage gated on the previous, environment (floor mu) recorded as a selection input - and stop at the stage that misbehaves.
Symptom
Five policy-x-gain combinations had to go on hardware in one session, with sim survival ranging from 20/20 down to 17/20 (and zero-command survival down to 2/20) - an unordered session risks breaking the robot on an avoidable run.
Context
The execution sheet fixed the order as sim-risk low to high, control baseline first (current SOTA establishes the floor reference), the fragile cell (fric-2400@kd1.0) last with a person spotting throughout. Stage gating: suspended smoke (feet off ground, 10 s each, all five pass before anything touches down) -> suspended with IMU and forward command (gait forms in the air) -> grounded runs -> speed raise only for combos that survived the previous stage -> zero-command tests only with a spotter, ordered by sim zero-cmd survival, with the 2/20 cell skipped by default. Preconditions include recording the floor material and estimating mu (if mu <~0.6, sim says pick the kd1.2 gain as main), port/CAN self-check, calibration frozen. Any stage failing stops the session at that stage: "任一段出问题就停在那一段, 不要跳到下一段".
Change
Session structured as a risk ladder with per-stage gates instead of a flat checklist; per-combo sim survival numbers written into the run table as the ordering key.
Outcome
The session design localized any failure to the cheapest stage that could reveal it, kept the robot safe for the informative fragile run, and made the control baseline available before any comparison run.
Mechanism
Hardware sessions consume a shared budget (robot integrity, battery, floor time); ordering by predicted risk means information is bought cheapest-first, and stage gates convert an expensive failure into a cheap earlier one. Baselines run first because every later reading is relative to them.
Applies when
- taking multiple policies/configs to hardware in one session
- a candidate is known-fragile in sim but must be measured
- writing a deployment runbook for a new robot
“跑序 = sim 风险从低到高, 最险的放最后 (依据 = 存活门/零指令存活) … ⑤ 是 sim 里最脆的一格 … 放最后跑, 全程留人扶, 起步即给 cmd, 零指令不做。… 任一段出问题就停在那一段, 不要跳到下一段。”
train/REAL_RUN_S2.md § 上机名单 / 全部命令 action_rate weight is the sim2real bandwidth knob - re-tune it whenever a rate limiter is removed
action-rate-weight-vs-bandwidthSet action_rate weight relative to real actuator bandwidth, and re-tune it any time another smoothing/limiting element (filter, slew limiter, gain) changes - reward weights are load-bearing parts of the actuator model.
Symptom
With a low action_rate_l2 weight the policy learns fast actions; the unmodeled part of the actuator response is then excited hardest, and sim2real "直接崩" (collapses outright). With too high a weight, actions become so slow the robot cannot maintain balance.
Context
The reference developer called action_rate_l2 the single most important reward for transfer, with side-by-side video evidence that the high-penalty, slower policy is clearly better on hardware. Lucen context: the team had just removed the SOFT_SPD=1.0 velocity limiter, which had been an implicit actuator-bandwidth constraint - leaving action_rate as the only remaining constraint on action speed.
Change
Decision recorded: after removing SOFT_SPD, re-evaluate the action_rate weight rather than keep the old value, since its effective role changed from "additional smoother" to "sole bandwidth constraint".
Outcome
Logged as a priority follow-up ("重新评估 action_rate 权重 - 拆掉 SOFT_SPD 之后这一项的作用变了"); the failure mode it guards against is training high-frequency actions the real actuators cannot track.
Mechanism
Slower actions stay inside the frequency band where the ideal-PD sim actuator and the real actuator agree; fast actions probe the band where unmodeled delay, inductance, and bandwidth limits dominate, so model error is amplified in exact proportion to action speed. Any removed external rate limit transfers that constraint's entire job onto the action_rate penalty.
Conflicts
The low/high tradeoff evidence is the external developer's report (with video); the Lucen-side entry is a pre-registered risk and decision, not yet an on-robot A/B at the time of writing.
Applies when
- removing or adding an action filter, slew limiter, or low-level speed cap
- real robot shows high-frequency chatter or overheating absent in sim
- tuning smoothness rewards before a hardware deployment
“权重低 → 动作快 → 执行器模型不准的部分被放大，sim2real 直接崩 / 权重高 → 动作慢 → 好迁移，但可能慢到无法维持平衡 … 我们刚拆掉 SOFT_SPD=1.0 的限速器，等于把执行器带宽约束整个移除了。action_rate 惩罚现在是唯一还在约束动作速率的东西，需要重新评估权重”
Experience.md § action_rate_l2 是他认为最关键的 reward (lines 61-70) Record where every failed episode ends - an end-state confusion matrix showed all failures finishing seated and overturned a "cannot roll over" diagnosis that per-category success rates hide by construction
end-state-confusion-matrixFor any multi-category acceptance, report where each failed episode ends, not only which category it started in; it costs a few lines and no extra simulation, and it separates "cannot reach the goal" from "reaches the wrong basin".
Symptom
Prone scored 0% for three generations; the working diagnosis was "prone lacks the roll-over skill", and R0.3 spent a run adding prone-to-side roll-arc start states. It bought nothing: the 45-deg roll band itself only moved from 24.2% to 26.6% after 3,000 iterations.
Context
Acceptance reported success per starting category. A final-state table (lying prone / on the side / supine / seated / standing for every failed episode) was added to accept_recovery.py at R0.3.
Change
The confusion matrix became a permanent part of the acceptance output, and the prone diagnosis was rewritten from it.
Outcome
The prone, side and supine columns were all zero - every failure ended seated - and prone had righted its torso in 159/159 episodes (tilt under 30 deg in 100%). The missing ability was standing up from one specific seated configuration, not rolling over, which redirected the next rungs to foot placement and to a configuration probe.
Mechanism
Per-category success rates collapse "reached the wrong basin" and "never reached anything" into the same zero; the end state separates them.
Applies when
- a category sits at 0% and the diagnosis rests on its label
- recovery, manipulation or navigation tasks with distinct terminal states
- an intervention aimed at the presumed cause shows no effect
“**① 末态混淆矩阵 —— 固化(已在 `accept_recovery.py`)。** 它给出的 "趴/侧躺/仰躺三列全 0、所有失败都终于坐姿"是本线最改变决策的一个事实, 而**逐类成功率按构造看不见它**。 … 成本十来行、零额外仿真。 … **② prone 病因更正(旧诊断作废)。** 旧:"缺翻身"。新:**prone 159/159 全部 把躯干翻正**”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §15 R0.3 判决 + 三件事的判断 Sort external training advice into adopt / already-have / modify / would-trap by recomputing it on your own config
external-advice-audit-against-own-arithmeticNever apply external tuning advice directly: recompute each claim on your own reward table and probe data, classify it adopt / have / modify / trap, and record why - and verify external citations actually exist.
Symptom
External AI/literature advice for the omni ladder arrived plausible-sounding but was written without knowledge of this robot's actual reward table, contract, and history; following it blindly would have broken single-variable discipline and, in one case, made sidewalk unlearnable.
Context
Before the C ladder, every external suggestion was audited: 3 adopted (ellipsoid command sampling; staged wz bands; command-switch acceptance), 3 already present (unified reward; frame history - the frozen 168-dim 5-frame window; per-100-iter acceptance), 2 modified (stand share kept at 20% to avoid a second variable; back share NOT raised because the probe showed backward works untrained 20/20@67%, so oversampling would only crowd out forward), and 1 flagged as a trap: "start vy very small (0.06-0.15)" - on THIS reward table vy was only an L2 tax, so ignoring a vy=0.06 command costs 0.4% of the vx tracking scale, 28-180x cheaper than ignoring forward, with quadratic shrinkage making small commands weaker still. A separate retrieval-reliability note: two search agents returned fabricated verbatim quotes from arXiv PDFs (2 papers, verified fake and discarded); only HTML/abstract/source-verifiable material was used.
Change
Advice classified only after recomputing each claim with local numbers; the "start small" trap was replaced by adding a gated lateral tracking term (the ladder's only true reward surgery) instead of shrinking the command.
Outcome
The adopted items (ellipsoid modes, staged wz, transition acceptance) entered the ladder; the trap was avoided; one external factual error (calling s1g the mainline start - it was falsified 0/20) was caught. Later, one initially-dismissed item (sigma=0.15 too narrow) turned out right for a different reason than claimed - see cycle-average-tracking-for-gait-quantities.
Mechanism
External advice encodes the advisor's reward table and robot, not yours; the transfer-validity test is whether the claim survives recomputation under your own arithmetic (reward margins, probe baselines, contract freeze). Items that survive become experiments; items that don't become documented traps.
Applies when
- incorporating LLM or literature advice into a training plan
- advice conflicts with locally measured baselines
- an external claim depends on reward-table details the advisor cannot know
“其建议 C4「先很小，vy = ±0.06~0.15」—— 在我们这张奖励表下会让侧走学不起来 … 忽略侧走比忽略前进便宜 28~180 倍，且指令越小激励越弱（平方缩放）—— "先很小"在稳定性上对、在梯度上正好把信号缩没了。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 1. 外部 AI 训练建议的评估（采纳 / 已有 / 要改 / 会踩坑） When the training reset distribution changes, freeze the acceptance distribution separately and pin its seed - the same checkpoint measured twice differed by 3.8 and 10.2 points
frozen-acceptance-distribution-and-pinned-seedAcceptance distributions are frozen artifacts, decoupled from whatever the training distribution becomes and evaluated with a pinned seed, and every gate row carries its sample size so that a small-n row is never read as a regression.
Symptom
R0.3 added easier roll-arc start states to the training resets, and the acceptance script shared the training category table; separately, the same checkpoint scored side 3.8 points and mid 10.2 points differently on two runs of the same script.
Context
Acceptance ran 512 parallel envs drawn from the fall categories. Had it kept following the training table, 15% of acceptance samples would have landed on states easier than prone - inflated scores and generations that could not be compared. The two same-checkpoint runs had identical per-item height medians, so the ruler had not changed; the spread was reset resampling noise (side n ~ 169, sigma 2.3%; mid n ~ 35, sigma 8.3%). The spec's "20 seeds" had always meant controlled seeds.
Change
accept_recovery.ACCEPT_CATEGORIES pinned to the four R0-R0.2 categories and decoupled from the training FALL_CATEGORIES; --seed 20260809 pinned, after which two consecutive runs were bit-identical. The mid row (n ~ 35) was labelled the bluntest gate.
Outcome
Every later generation (R0.3 through V3.1) was scored on the frozen distribution and seed, which is what let R0.3's intermediate state be read as "no measurable gain" (62.7 -> 62.1%) and R0.2's mid drop be booked as noise rather than a regression.
Mechanism
An acceptance set that follows the training distribution measures a moving target, and an unpinned reset draw adds sampling noise that small-n rows cannot absorb.
Applies when
- the training reset or command distribution changes between generations
- repeated evaluations of one checkpoint disagree
- a small category drives a pass/fail decision
“**分布冻结**:`accept_recovery.ACCEPT_CATEGORIES` 钉死 §5 四类 … 与训练侧 `FALL_CATEGORIES` **解耦**。 … **side 差 3.8 点、mid 差 10.2 点**(h 中位逐项一致,证明不是尺子变了)—— 纯 reset 重采样噪声 … 钉死后两次连跑逐位相同。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §14 验收尺子的两处加固(R0.3 起生效,向后兼容) Isaac splits Coulomb friction into static and dynamic columns - wiring only static means zero loss during motion, silently discarding the identified value
sim-api-friction-columnsWhen installing identified actuator parameters, map each measured quantity to the simulator's exact API column for the operative regime (dynamic for moving loss, viscous for damping), verify per joint after landing, and audit how randomization intervals fall on each column's nominal.
Symptom
The hardware-identified Coulomb friction (tau_c) was about to be installed into the trainer through the friction= field alone - which in Isaac 5 populates only STATIC friction, so during motion the joints would lose no torque at all: "只给 static 则运动中不损耗, 辨识的 τ_c 走路时等于没接" (the identified tau_c would effectively not be connected while walking).
Context
The v12 integration wired all three columns deliberately: armature= and friction= from the 2026-08-04 hardware identification, PLUS dynamic_friction= (Isaac 5 splits Coulomb into static/dynamic; the moving-loss column is dynamic) and viscous_friction= (= the measured joint damping 0.02, aligned to MJCF's damping). Each value was re-checked per joint after landing. A DR interaction was audited and booked rather than hidden: randomize_joint_parameters jitters ALL friction columns with ONE interval - the [-0.05, +0.10] band was calibrated against the Coulomb nominal, and landing on the viscous nominal 0.02 it becomes [0, 0.12], "偏宽但保守" (wide but conservative), accepted with the note that pre-viscous behavior was already [0, 0.10] on a base of 0.
Change
Measured actuator parameters installed across all applicable API columns (armature, static, dynamic, viscous), with the DR side effect on shared randomization intervals audited and recorded.
Outcome
The first generation where the identified plant actually acts during motion in the trainer; the silent-column failure mode documented before it cost a training run.
Mechanism
Physics engines decompose "friction" differently (single coefficient vs static/dynamic/viscous columns); a measured parameter is only installed when it reaches the column the solver reads in the regime that matters (motion, not stiction). Randomizers that share one interval across columns rescale the band by each column's nominal - a hidden unit change.
Applies when
- installing identified friction/armature into any trainer
- porting plant parameters between simulators or engine versions
- joint losses in sim do not match bench measurements during motion
“并额外传 dynamic_friction=(Isaac 5 把库仑拆 static/dynamic 两列,只给 static 则运动中不损耗,辨识的 τ_c 走路时等于没接)与 viscous_friction=(= joint_damping 0.02,对齐 MJCF damping)。… randomize_joint_parameters 用同一个 friction 区间抖三列, [-0.05,+0.10] 是按库仑标称标的,落到粘滞标称 0.02 上成了 [0,0.12]”
train/WALK_V12_SPEC.md § 7. 核查单 (Isaac 接 V.ACTUATORS 新字段) Symmetrizing the config made the gait MORE asymmetric - the asymmetry lived in the policy weights
asymmetry-in-weights-not-configLocalize a persistent asymmetry by intervening at the config layer first: if the symptom survives (or worsens), it is in the weights - fix it with symmetry-constrained training, not with trims or offsets.
Symptom
walk_v1 on hardware: straight-line command curved 149 deg in 15 s (9.9 deg/s) with 3.06 m lateral runout; turn gain +31% one way vs +129% the other (75% difference); knee asymmetry 4.4 deg in sim, 9.6 deg on the robot.
Context
The obvious suspect was the asymmetric default pose in the config. The decisive test: symmetrize standing_pose and run the SAME policy in sim - the asymmetry got LARGER (hip_pitch 6.8 -> 9.3 deg). Root cause therefore not in the config but baked into the policy weights: PPO without a symmetry constraint commonly converges one-sided, because splitting the work 50/50 and loading one side yield the same return, and the gradient falls randomly into one of the equivalent optima.
Change
Fix redirected from config trimming to retraining with mirror data augmentation (walk_v2 spec) - a weights-level fix for a weights-level disease.
Outcome
With augmentation (and the symmetric-default precondition), stand_v1 reached 0.0 deg asymmetry on all six joint pairs (from 4.4-7.7 deg), height fluctuation 7 mm -> 1 mm, mean |action| down 33%.
Mechanism
Reward-equivalent solution families (who carries the load) leave the symmetric solution unpreferred; SGD picks an arbitrary member and entrenches it. Config changes move the coordinate frame around the entrenched asymmetric function - they cannot move the function. The counterfactual test (change config, watch symptom) localizes the layer the disease lives in.
Applies when
- a robot veers or loads one side despite a symmetric-looking config
- deciding between config trims and retraining for an asymmetry
- mirrored-turn gains differ by tens of percent
“根因不在配置里:把 standing_pose 对称化后在 sim 里跑同一策略,不对称反而变大(hip_pitch 6.8°→9.3°)—— 说明不对称烙在策略权重里。这是无对称约束的 PPO 的常见收敛结果(左右各担一半与一边多担的回报相同,梯度会随机落进其中一个)。”
train/RETRAIN_v2.md § 1. 为什么是对称增强(证据) Anchoring the action on the measured joint angle (target = q + beta*a), with a beta curriculum down to tau_limit/kp, bounded torque by construction, removed the re-falls and later stood the robot up on hardware
beta-anchored-action-targetFor large-motion skills on position-controlled actuators, bound the action relative to the measured joint angle with a per-joint authority of tau_limit/kp, curriculum the authority down from full range, keep the curriculum state out of the observation and pin acceptance at the deployed authority - and make the deployment code refuse to run the anchored contract without a measured q.
Symptom
The V0 full-range absolute action produced violent targets; the V1 command-anchored rate limit made standing oscillate. Both failure modes came from how the action becomes a target.
Context
V2.0 (user approved, from scratch): BetaAnchorJointPositionAction, target = q_measured + beta_j(m)*a, memoryless per step. beta_j(m) = floor + m*(beta0 - floor), beta0 = the contract half-range (m = 1 reproduces V0 authority), floor = min(tau_limit/kp, beta0): hip_pitch 1.309 -> 0.40, knee 1.047 -> 0.40, hip_yaw -> 0.917, the other joints unchanged - the tightening lands exactly on the joints the V0 torque account convicted. m drops 0.1 per step when a standing-share EMA exceeds 0.35. beta is NOT in the observation, so the 45-dim contract is untouched; acceptance is pinned at m = 0 because the Python curriculum state is not saved in the checkpoint. The deployment chain got a new profile (recovery_v2: action_anchor current_q, explicit per-joint beta written into the contract, independent of the gain profile), and policy_io raises if q is missing rather than silently falling back to the absolute contract; the old profile's check reproduced its pre-change deviation bit for bit.
Change
New action term and beta curriculum; later the RS06 floor was lowered 0.40 -> 0.30 -> 0.25 (kp*beta 7.5 N*m) and the stamped deployment profile was synced to 0.25.
Outcome
First acceptance at m = 0 (v2_0b): re-falls 0% in every category, the torque gate passed for the first time on the line (worst 69.9%), knee jitter 0.004; supine 98.8 / side 88.8% with prone and mid still failing (fixed by the conditional pull curriculum). MuJoCo showed demand at or under the limits (hip_pitch 11.7/12 against V0's 26.8). Lowering beta cut impact (hip_pitch demand 9.7 -> 8.5 N*m) but barely slowed the get-up - it had become coordination-limited. Enabling the policy moves the target only +/-beta around the current pose, so there is no homing fling; the 08-11 real get-up and the later v3_1p1c both run on this contract.
Mechanism
kp*beta caps the proportional torque in a single step with no build-up delay and no memory, giving both a hard impact bound and full balance bandwidth.
Applies when
- a skill needs full joint range but hardware torque limits are low
- absolute position targets cause impacts or saturation
- changing the action semantics of a contract that deployed policies share
“**动作项** `BetaAnchorJointPositionAction`:`target = q_实测 + β_j(m)·a`, 逐步无记忆 … **Play/验收钉 m=0(= floor = 部署档)**:python 课程状态不进 checkpoint, Play cfg 显式 `beta_m_start=0` … 判读:**结构赌注兑现** —— 站姿零再摔 + 力矩账首过(kp·β 封顶按构造)”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §33 V2.0 预注册(2026-08-10,用户点头开工):β 锚定动作空间,从零训 Choose the fork root by which candidate's shortfalls are recoverable, not by headline score
fork-root-recoverable-shortfallWhen picking a checkpoint to fork from, rank candidates by whether their weaknesses are trainable-back, not by current headline metrics; prefer the candidate whose deficits the upcoming training directly pays for.
Symptom
Multiple candidate checkpoints for the omni-command ladder root, each best at something different: fric-3000 had the best tracking precision (vx 88-91%) and hardened plant robustness; s1e-500 had lower precision (vx 82%) but was the only candidate that could still walk backward.
Context
Root selection ran as a data probe, not a preference vote: 6 candidates x 8 out-of-distribution omni commands x 20 seeds = 960 cells (probe_omni_0808.json). s1e-500 @pw1.0 survived 20/20 in all eight conditions including backward at 67% tracking; the deep-trained fric lineage scored backward 0-3/20 despite better forward precision.
Change
Decision criterion made explicit: list what each candidate exclusively wins at, then ask which of those wins the loser could train back. fric-3000's exclusive wins (precision, plant robustness) are both retrainable - precision is directly optimized by the reward, plant hardening is a planned later pass. s1e-500's exclusive wins (backward plasticity 20/20 vs 2/20, disturbance margin 159/160 vs 125/160, push chirality symmetry 40/40 vs 17/40) had all been shown unrecoverable - push-level rungs failed twice, chirality never recovered even with mirror augmentation on. Root = s1e-500.
Outcome
s1e-500 carried the whole C ladder; its backward skill was preserved through C2/C4 gates (regress budget <=2/20 enforced), and the final C4 product passed a 260-cell battery at 20/20 everywhere.
Mechanism
Training can re-earn anything the objective directly pays for, but capabilities that earlier training destroyed and never restored (plasticity, symmetry, robustness margins) are empirically one-way doors. The information-bearing comparison is therefore recoverability of each candidate's deficit, which the team stated as "独占项的可恢复性正好相反 —— 这就是判据" (the exclusive items' recoverability is exactly opposite - that is the criterion).
Applies when
- selecting a resume/fork root among several checkpoints
- one candidate is more precise but another retains a skill the rest lost
- planning a task-extension ladder from an existing lineage
“fric-3000 赢在精度（vx 88~91%…）与 plant 鲁棒性 → 两样都训得回来…；s1e-500 赢在可塑性（C1 20/20 vs 2/20）、抗扰余量（159/160 vs 125/160）、手性对称（推 ±6 N·s 40/40 vs 17/40）→ 三样都训不回来 … 独占项的可恢复性正好相反 —— 这就是判据。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 0. 为什么根是 s1e-500（数据，不是偏好） An auto-curriculum ratchet capped out at iter 248 and never engaged - stage difficulty manually or verify engagement
auto-curriculum-engagement-checkPrefer manually staged difficulty with gated transitions; if you use an automatic curriculum, instrument its internal state and alarm when it stops engaging - a saturated curriculum is constant DR wearing a curriculum's name.
Symptom
A curriculum mechanism intended to grow difficulty adaptively (s1f's ratchet) hit its cap at iteration 248 and never bit again - for 96% of the run its effect was equivalent to constant DR, i.e. the curriculum existed in name only.
Context
When external advice suggested graded wz bands (start ±0.15, then ±0.30), the team agreed with grading but explicitly rejected automatic curriculum, citing the s1f episode. The same logic had already been paid for with push grading: ±0.6 failed twice, ±0.3 was feasible - grading matters, but the grade transitions were made by hand at verified checkpoints.
Change
Ladder policy: difficulty staged manually, one band per rung, each transition gated by the acceptance battery; automatic ratchets not used unless their engagement is monitored and demonstrated.
Outcome
Every C-ladder band change (wz ±0.12-0.25 first, wider later) was an explicit, attributable rung; no silent constant-DR-in-disguise runs recurred.
Mechanism
Adaptive curricula couple their own state machine to noisy training metrics; a ratchet that saturates early stops adapting but keeps its name, so the operator believes difficulty is progressing when it is frozen. Manual staging costs more decisions but each decision is observable and reversible.
Applies when
- choosing between auto-curriculum and staged bands for a new skill
- a curriculum's difficulty parameter plateaus early in training
- post-hoc attribution of what difficulty a lineage actually saw
“C2 的 wz 分级（±0.15 → ±0.30，不要一上来 ±0.6）—— 与我们付过学费的 push 分级同形（±0.6 两轮 FAIL，±0.3 才可行）。但必须手动分级，不做自动课程 —— s1f 的课程化棘轮 iter 248 封顶未咬合，96% 时长等价常量 DR”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 1. 采纳 3 条 (C2 的 wz 分级) The median of a bimodal metric lands in the empty gap - check the distribution, and never judge swing on 3 seeds
median-hides-bimodal-distributionBefore quoting a median or mean, look at the distribution; report suspected-bimodal metrics as mode share plus per-mode ranges, use small-seed smoke runs only to screen trends, and size the seed count for decisions by the share resolution you need (here: 20).
Symptom
Years of "high swing variance" and undecidable 3-seed swing readings turned out to be one fact: the metric was bimodal all along - "历代 swing 高方差与 3-seed 不可判由此定性:一直在测双稳态系统" - and every median reported from it (e.g. 12.1 mm) described a value no seed ever produced.
Context
Concrete instances: s2e_pd-1400's 20 seeds split 2.6-4.9 mm vs 19.3-24.0 mm with zero seeds between; s1e-500 read 3.9 mm on seeds 0-2 but 23.1 mm median over 20 seeds; a 3-seed reading of 19.3 was logged as "double-peak optimism, lesson recurrence #4". The selection re-audit codified the sampling rule: "3-seed 的 swing 读数不可判点, 只能筛带,选点必须 20-seed" - 3 seeds may screen a band, only 20 seeds may pick a point.
Change
Swing (and any suspected multi-modal metric) reported as mode shares plus per-mode ranges instead of a bare median; 3-seed smoke numbers demoted to band-screening; all shipping/selection decisions moved to 20-seed batteries.
Outcome
The "swing debt" bookkeeping was reinterpreted as basin probability (see swing-bistability-damping-switch), and checkpoint selection stopped being whipsawed by which basin the first three seeds happened to fall into.
Mechanism
Central-tendency statistics presuppose unimodality; on a bimodal distribution the median tracks the mode SHARE, not any achievable behavior, and small samples alias the share entirely. Mode-aware reporting (share + per-mode stats) is the only faithful summary, and the needed sample size is set by the share resolution required.
Applies when
- a quality metric shows chronic high variance across seeds
- 3-seed smoke readings contradict 20-seed batteries
- reporting swing height, clearance, or any basin-prone metric
“中位数落在空档里,「swing 债 −11mm」实为「50% 概率掉进拖地吸引子」。历代 swing 高方差与 3-seed 不可判由此定性:一直在测双稳态系统。… swing 跨 seed 双峰 (500 在 seed0~2 只读 3.9mm, 20-seed 中位 23.1) —— 3-seed 的 swing 读数不可判点, 只能筛带, 选点必须 20-seed。”
train/README.md § swing 双稳态定性 / s1e 选点重审 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) A curriculum ramp keyed to the process step counter re-fires on every resume - and shipped policies never saw the penalty
curriculum-counter-lineage-stepsKey every curriculum/ramp schedule to lineage-cumulative progress, not per-process counters; and audit where your shipped checkpoints sit relative to every ramp - a penalty that no product ever experienced is not part of your training.
Symptom
vx+0.30 died at a fixed relative time in every resumed run: resume at 500 -> slide at 1100, zero at 1300; resume at 700 -> slide at 1300, zero at 1500 - absolute depths offset by exactly the resume offset, relative timetable identical.
Context
ramp_reward_weight (the saturation penalty ramp) read env.common_step_counter, which restarts at 0 for every run including --resume. So start_step=600 meant "600 iters after THIS resume", not "lineage iteration 600". The A/B arm pair was the clean proof: their env.yaml differed only in log_dir, only resume point distinguished them, and the omni CurriculumManager had exactly one active term - nothing else could produce that timetable. Second consequence: every shipped checkpoint (s1e-500 at +500, C2-700 at +200, A800 at +100) was selected before its run's +600, so the saturation penalty weight was 0.000 for every product ever shipped - explaining saturation 33% and raw |action| 1.9 against clip 1.0 (hip_roll in bang-bang), i.e. half the heat budget.
Change
Two independent recommendations recorded: (1) make the ramp count lineage steps (add the checkpoint's iteration offset on resume) or pin terminal weights in downstream rungs instead of ramping; (2) give the saturation penalty its own rung - never mixed into a skill-learning rung (that would be two variables again).
Outcome
Explained the recurring +600 death of the highest-amplitude command and the persistent actuator saturation of all shipped products with one root cause; honest caveat booked (at +800 the weight is only -0.086, small, but vx+0.30 is the command demanding the largest action amplitude, so it is squeezed first).
Mechanism
Resumable training splits "the lineage" from "the process"; any schedule keyed to process-local counters silently re-applies its transient to every descendant run, and any product-selection habit that picks checkpoints early systematically samples the pre-ramp regime - the curriculum exists in the config but never in any shipped policy.
Applies when
- resumed/forked training with any scheduled reward or DR ramp
- a metric dies at a fixed offset after each resume
- shipped policies show behavior a late-schedule penalty should prevent
“ramp_reward_weight 读的是 env.common_step_counter，它每个 run 从 0 开始，--resume 也不例外。… 原始 run / 臂B | 500 | 1100 = +600 | 1300 = +800；臂A | 700 | 1300 = +600 | 1500 = +800 … 所有出品其实从没见过饱和罚。… 这解释了 sat_max_pct 33%、raw |a| 最大 1.9（clip 是 1.0）—— hip_roll 一直在 bang-bang，而罚它的那一项权重恒 0。热账的一半在这里。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3g. 系统性问题：saturation_ramp 每次 resume 归零 Compare the achieved reward to the computed ignore-floor to tell "never learned" from "learned but unprofitable"
ignore-floor-diagnosisFor any skill that trains flat, compute the reward the null policy would earn on that term; achieved==floor means the behavior never paid out (find why: exploration, reward observability, or feasibility) - do not tune weights first.
Symptom
C4 sidewalk failed on both arms; the question was whether the policy had found sidewalk and rejected it as unprofitable, or never found it at all - two diagnoses with opposite fixes.
Context
The theoretical value of the sidewalk tracking term for a policy that completely ignores the command was computable from the command distribution: 0.189. Trained final values landed at 0.187 (arm A) and 0.204 (arm B) - sitting exactly on the ignore-floor - while the honest balance at the optimum actually favored sidewalking (net +0.88/step inside the side bucket). Later the same arithmetic closed the whole saga: for the true reward landscape, doing real sidewalk scored 0.153 vs 0.944 for ignoring - the policy's refusal "是理性最优，不是探索失败" (rational optimum, not exploration failure) under one hypothesis, and under the final measurement-corrected account the policy had "每一次都在 做理性选择" (made the rational choice every time).
Change
Diagnostic rule adopted: compute the ignore-floor for the new term; if the achieved value sits on it, the behavior was never expressed in useful volume (or the reward cannot distinguish it - check both); if the achieved value is above floor but the behavior is absent at deployment, the policy sampled it and priced it out - then the reward balance, not exploration, is the lever.
Outcome
Correctly identified that PPO had not merely under-valued sidewalk; each subsequent hypothesis (waveform sign, regularization cage, exploration form, reward kernel) was tested against this floor arithmetic, which kept the search honest through three reversals.
Mechanism
Every reward term has a computable value under the null behavior; the achieved-vs-floor gap is a one-number audit of whether the optimizer ever monetized the target behavior. It converts "training failed" into one of two mechanistically distinct states with different fixes.
Applies when
- a new skill's tracking reward plateaus early
- deciding between exploration fixes and reward-weight fixes
- post-mortem of a failed curriculum rung
“track_lin_vel_y_exp 训练终值恰好坐在「完全无视指令」的底分上（A 0.187 / B 0.204，理论值 0.189），而终点 balance 明明有利（side 桶内净 +0.88/步）。不是学会了不划算，是根本没学到。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3e. 为什么首战 FAIL 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 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 Measure yaw rate by integrating heading, not by averaging body-frame angular velocity - the two differed 15x
heading-integral-not-body-rateFor any secular rate (turn gain, drift), integrate the world-frame angle over the window; never average instantaneous body-frame rates during oscillatory motion - and when code comments warn about a measurement, believe them before re-measuring.
Symptom
Two measurements of the same turn gain disagreed by a factor of ~15: time-averaged body-frame omega_z gave -0.05 while the sim2sim harness's heading-angle integration gave +0.473.
Context
The harness code comment had already documented and predicted the failure: during gait the torso oscillates (body-frame omega_z std up to 0.7); projecting world angular velocity onto a swaying body axis and then averaging biases the estimate systematically - "实测体系均值 −0.04 而实际在以 +0.15 转" (measured body-frame mean -0.04 while actually turning at +0.15). The author's own -0.05 measurement was declared void and the training machine's 1.58/2.45 turn gains confirmed valid.
Change
Measurement doctrine fixed: yaw rate for evaluation = net heading change by integration over the window; instantaneous body-frame rates are unusable for averaged directional statistics during legged gait.
Outcome
Subsequent friction sweeps and turn-gain accounting were all conducted in the heading-integral currency, making cross-simulator comparisons (MuJoCo vs Isaac 1.04/1.02) meaningful.
Mechanism
Averaging a vector quantity expressed in an oscillating frame couples the frame's oscillation into the mean (a rectification bias); the heading integral is computed in the world frame where the gait oscillation integrates to ~zero, leaving the secular component.
Applies when
- measuring turn gain, heading drift, or any secular angular rate
- a body-frame-averaged statistic disagrees with trajectory-level truth
- writing evaluation code for oscillating platforms
“我用体坐标系 ωz 的时间均值测,得 −0.05;sim2sim 用航向角积分,得 +0.473。差 15 倍。… 步态中躯干摇晃(体系 ωz std 可达 0.7),把世界角速度投到摇摆的体轴上再取均值会系统性偏掉 … 结论:偏航率必须用航向积分,体系瞬时角速度取均值不可用。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § ③ 转向增益 —— 我的测法是错的,训练机的 1.58/2.45 成立 A reward on a quantity the actor cannot observe teaches "produce less of it", never "correct it" - closed-loop correction needs an outer loop
reward-observability-limitBefore adding a reward, check the actor can observe (or infer) the quantity: unobservable-error rewards buy only average suppression - route correction tasks to an outer loop whose commands stay in distribution, and do not break a frozen contract to add an observation a deploy-side loop can supply.
Symptom
Heading kept drifting despite world-frame yaw rewards, and a reviewer proposed heading-error rewards - raising the question of what yaw shaping can even teach this actor.
Context
The adopted architectural verdict: the actor's 45-dim base observation cannot see accumulated heading at all - projected_gravity is invariant to rotation about the gravity axis, and omega_z is a rate, not an angle. World-frame yaw-rate rewards are therefore privileged shaping that can only teach "少产生旋转" (generate less rotation), never "偏了以后拉回原线" (pull back to the line after drifting) - the policy cannot represent the error it would need to correct. The S1 gate (<=5 deg / 10 s) demands exactly the former, so the stack is right for its gate; active heading correction is assigned to the deployment outer loop (--heading P-loop converting heading error into in-distribution wz commands) plus small-wz training - and the 215-dim contract is explicitly NOT extended with a heading observation ("契约不加 heading 观测,冻结不动"). The reviewer's companion bias hypothesis was adjudicated with data: drift is bimodal - a basin mechanism decides whether you leave (seeds vary +/-16-46 deg vs -385 to -391 deg), and once out, rotation direction is constant (weight chirality; candidate root: the phase clock always swings left first).
Change
Yaw shaping kept as rate-tracking (three-layer stack); heading correction owned by the deploy outer loop; contract frozen; the "which behaviors need an outer loop" question settled by observability analysis rather than reward tuning.
Outcome
Stopped a contract change and a futile reward direction; drift work split correctly into rate-suppression (trainable) and error correction (outer loop), consistent with the earlier measured 10x drift reduction from the deploy-side loop.
Mechanism
A policy can only condition on its observation sigma-algebra; rewards on functions outside it shift the marginal action distribution (open-loop average effects) but cannot create feedback on the unobserved variable. Whether to add an observation, an outer loop, or accept average-shaping is decided by the task's gate: suppression gates need shaping, correction gates need the variable in some loop's view.
Applies when
- adding rewards on accumulated/世界-frame quantities (heading, position)
- deciding between a new observation, an outer loop, and shaping
- a drift symptom persists across reward-weight changes
“actor 的 45 维基座观测不到累计航向(projected_gravity 对绕重力轴旋转不变,ωz 是速率不是角度)——世界系 yaw 奖励是特权塑形,只能教「少产生旋转」,不能教「偏了以后拉回原线」。… 主动纠偏闭环 = S3 把小 wz 进分布 + deploy --heading 外环 … 215 契约不加 heading 观测,冻结不动。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 3. 评审④判决(2026-08-06,S1.3 开训前) A joint-velocity penalty meant to slow the get-up cut joint speed 16% and left the get-up time unchanged - the knob never moved the variable, so the idea it was meant to test stayed untested
dof-vel-penalty-is-not-a-pacing-knobBefore reading a result as a test of an idea, check that the knob actually moved the independent variable; velocity regularizers smooth a schedule they do not set, and a schedule driven by per-step task income moves only when that income's time structure does.
Symptom
The get-up took 0.6-0.9 s in Isaac with large torque demand; the user proposed getting up more slowly so less torque would be needed.
Context
The idea had support in the accounts: the acceptance bound is an upper bound of 5 s (5-8x margin), the quasi-static squat path peaks at 25% of the limits, and rolling over needs no momentum. R3.2 raised dof_vel from -1e-3 to -5e-3 as the single variable.
Change
dof_vel -1e-3 -> -5e-3 (child-run from R3.1).
Outcome
Get-up medians moved +0.02-0.04 s (noise); raw joint velocity -16%; torque demand median got worse (hip_pitch 46-48% -> 63-67%) as the new term competed with torque_headroom on the same joints; MuJoCo 98 -> 96%. Verdict FAIL on the knob, not on the idea, and the rung was not adopted. When pace was later attacked through the income's time structure (V2.5/V2.5b), the MuJoCo get-up moved into the 3.5-4.5 s design band.
Mechanism
The pace was set by base_height_progress paying for every step spent high (stand earlier, earn more); a velocity regularizer only smooths motion along the same schedule and does not change when the robot stands up.
Applies when
- trying to make a skill slower or gentler with smoothness penalties
- an experiment's primary metric did not move and a verdict is being written
- two penalties act on the same joints
“**关键判读:`dof_vel` 罚只把关节速度压了 16%,而起身用时一点没变。** 也就是说**这一级根本没有把"慢下来"这个自变量推动起来** —— 所以它**不构成对 用户假说的检验** … 起身节奏由 `base_height_progress` 的逐步计酬决定(早站起来就多 拿),速度正则只在同一条时间轨迹上把动作抹匀,不改变何时站起来。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §25 R3.2(dof_vel −1e-3→−5e-3,慢一点起身) Before training a one-leg stand the spec named the cheapest cheats - hopping on the support foot, a raised foot resting unloaded, a leg tripod - and gave each a countermeasure and a gate; one still appeared and was caught by exactly those gates
enumerate-cheapest-cheats-before-trainingBefore training, list the cheapest behaviours that would satisfy each reward term without doing the task, give each a countermeasure in the reward and a gate in acceptance, and prove the intended behaviour is reachable with a probe - then treat any gate the policy games as evidence about the reward, not the gate.
Symptom
The literature's single-leg benchmark reports eight state-of-the-art general policies holding a clean one-leg stand 0 times out of 90 - they survive by sneaking steps and hops - so the task's first adversary was the policy's own cheating.
Context
The spec's shape self-check ("what is the zero-cost option?") listed, for the one-foot bucket: the cheapest cheat, a foot resting on the ground without load, countered by a 5 N contact threshold plus positive swing income; the second cheapest, small hops on the support foot to reset balance, countered by a continuous support-air penalty plus a gate of zero support-foot flight segments. The probe that preceded training had already seen a third: early low-lift postures "survived" by pressing the swing foot at 78-95 N, a leg tripod, removed by folding the shank back. The two-foot bucket was checked too: its zero-cost behaviour is ordinary standing, with no odd base state.
Change
Countermeasures and gates written before training: swing-contact and support-air penalties, gate 2 (zero swing-foot contact frames above 5 N), gate 3 (zero support-foot flight segments).
Outcome
The first run still found the unloaded-foot cheat (a binary reward band gave it no gradient to lift) - and it was caught, by the contact gates and the cross-simulator comparison, not discovered on hardware. The retrained V0 passed all gates 40/40, including zero support-foot flight after the flight detector was corrected.
Mechanism
A policy optimizes the reward, not the intent; the cheapest behaviours that satisfy the reward are predictable from the reward's structure, and a gate written for each before training turns a silent cheat into a failed row.
Applies when
- designing rewards for balance, contact or "hold still" tasks
- benchmark policies are known to cheat the task
- writing acceptance gates for a new skill
“文献里 8 个 SOTA 通用策略在单脚站基准上 0/90 干净保持， 全靠偷步偷跳活命，这是本任务的第一反作弊对象 … 单脚桶下最便宜的作弊是"脚虚放地上不受力"——接触判定 >5 N 力阈（沿用），配 swing_height_band 正收入拉开。 … 第二便宜是"支撑脚小跳重置"——support_air_penalty 连续罚 + 验收门支撑脚腾空段=0 双保险。”
git:Lucen V2@origin/oneleg-line:train/ONELEG_V0_SPEC.md § §0 目标口径 / §5 形状自检(零成本选项是什么) 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 Before resuming a checkpoint, diff the current cfg against what the checkpoint was trained with
resume-state-dr-audit"One variable per rung" counts variables against what the checkpoint actually experienced: audit the checkpoint's logged training config and align every unintended difference before resuming.
Symptom
Two consecutive rungs (C1 back-mode, C2' forward-turn) failed from the same root with the same full-regression signature despite adding different new modes - so the mode was not the cause.
Context
Both runs resumed s1e-500 with the then-current cfg, which carried PD band (0.8,1.2) plus three DR events (base_com, joint_friction, push_robot) accumulated by later lineages. Verified on the training machine from the source of truth (the run's logged params/env.yaml): s1e-500's actual training state was PD +/-10% (0.9,1.1) and all three DR events None. Resuming it under the new cfg meant eating 4 new plant variables plus a new mode at once - the intended "1 variable" was actually 5. A worse variant (c1_redo from s2e_pd-1400) added push +/-0.3 to a root that had never seen it: near-total collapse within +100 iters.
Change
C2 aligned the cfg to the checkpoint's training state before resuming (PD back to (0.9,1.1), three DR events off) - making the new mode the only true variable. Permanent rule recorded: compare the checkpoint's training-time DR with the current cfg before any resume.
Outcome
C2 trained successfully from the same root that had "failed" twice (wz 20/20 with genuine sign-antisymmetric response by iter 700-800); the A/B falsification ("两个不同模式同签名崩") plus the env.yaml verification closed the attribution.
Mechanism
A resumed policy is instantly evaluated (and its value function trained) under whatever plant distribution the cfg specifies; every DR term the checkpoint never adapted to is a distribution shift applied on day one, compounding with the intended change. Single-variable discipline is therefore a property of (cfg diff) x (checkpoint history), not of the cfg diff alone.
Applies when
- resuming or forking any checkpoint under an evolved config
- a resumed run degrades broadly within the first few hundred iterations
- two different changes from the same root fail with the same signature
“A/B 定谳：两个不同模式同签名崩 → 病因不是模式，是「从 s1e-500 续训」。… s1e-500 训练态 = kp/kd ±10% (0.9,1.1)，base_com / joint_friction / push_robot 全 None；而 cfg 里带着 (0.8,1.2) + … 三个 DR —— 从它续训等于一次吃 4 个新 plant 变量 + 新模式 … 永久教训：续训前必须比对 checkpoint 的训练态 DR 与现行 cfg。单变量纪律不只看「我改了什么」，还要看「checkpoint 见过什么」。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3b. 这不是重复实验 —— 前两次的病根已定位并修掉 Score left and right separately - averages hide chirality breaking that mirror augmentation does not prevent
chirality-scored-separatelyReport every mirrored skill as two numbers with an explicit gap budget; never accept an average, and never assume augmentation guarantees symmetry - measure it per lineage and treat breakage as hard to reverse.
Symptom
Policies developed quantified left/right asymmetry (e.g. C2-700 turned right at 82% but left at 67% - a 15 pp gap; push tolerance 40/40 symmetric on the root vs 17/40 on a deep-trained descendant), and averaged metrics would have reported healthy midpoints.
Context
The repo had policy-level symmetry-breaking evidence strong enough to make separate scoring a battery rule: "左右必须分开打分 … 平均 vy 跟踪会把它掩盖". Notably, chirality broke and never recovered even though mirror augmentation (command-level mirror_prob 0.5) was on the whole time - augmentation reduced but did not prevent asymmetry, and once broken it stayed broken through subsequent rungs. PASS conditions therefore carried explicit symmetry budgets (left/right tracking gap <=10 pp), and sim's predicted asymmetry (700: right faster than left) was flagged for direct real-robot timing confirmation.
Change
Battery rule: every directional skill reports left and right (CW/CCW) as separate rows with a max-gap budget; mirror augmentation treated as mitigation, not proof of symmetry.
Outcome
The 700-vs-A800 asymmetry gap (15 pp vs 7 pp) became a first-class selection criterion; C4 product shipped with a measured 5 pp gap.
Mechanism
Averaging over mirrored conditions cancels antisymmetric error exactly where it matters; and symmetry lost during training is a lineage injury (like plasticity loss) that later rungs do not spontaneously heal, so it must be gated, not assumed.
Applies when
- evaluating turn/sidewalk/push-recovery or any mirrored skill
- relying on mirror/symmetry augmentation
- selecting between checkpoints with similar average scores
“左右必须分开打分（left/right lateral、CW/CCW turn 各自一行）—— 本仓已有 policy-level symmetry breaking 的量化证据，平均 vy 跟踪会把它掩盖。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 5. 固定验收矩阵 (左右分开打分) Slowing the gait clock at deployment is out-of-distribution and backfires - lower the commanded speed instead, or train the knob
cycle-time-override-is-oodAny deployment override must correspond to a dimension the policy was trained to handle; to make a parameter field-adjustable, randomize it in training and observe it - otherwise use the levers inside the trained envelope (commands) and leave the knob alone.
Symptom
Real-robot feedback "walks very fast and unstable" suggested slowing the gait; a deploy-side --cycle-time override existed, making "just slow the clock" a one-flag temptation.
Context
A sim sweep of the override on walk_v6 @cmd 0.3 showed monotone degradation away from the trained 0.40 s cycle: at 0.50 s tilt jumped 7.9 -> 13.2 deg and landing force 1.52x -> 2.24x; at 0.80 s (half speed) clearance collapsed to 3 mm - dragging again - with 20 deg tilt. Meanwhile the legitimate lever, lowering the commanded speed with the clock untouched, improved everything monotonically: cmd 0.1 gave 104% tracking, 6.7 deg tilt, minimum slip - the most stable operating point. The file distinguishes the two "slows" explicitly: lower command = smaller steps at the same 2.5 Hz rhythm; a slower rhythm itself requires retraining - randomize cycle_time (e.g. 0.40-0.65 s) during training and expose it as an observation, and only then does --cycle-time become a field-adjustable knob.
Change
Deployment guidance: never ship a cycle-time override the policy was not trained under; respond to "too fast/unstable" with lower commands; schedule clock variability as a training-time (contract-level) change if a field knob is wanted.
Outcome
The sweep quantified the trap before hardware paid for it (dragging and 2.2x landing force at slowed clocks); cmd 0.1 documented as the stable demo point.
Mechanism
The policy is a function fitted around the training distribution; a deploy-side override moves an input (phase rate) to values never seen, so behavior degrades unpredictably - the knob LOOKS like a capability because it exists in the code, but capability lives in the training distribution, not the interface.
Applies when
- a deploy tool exposes overrides (clock, scale, gains) beyond the training distribution
- hardware feels "too fast/aggressive" and a quick knob exists
- deciding between a deploy-side tweak and a retrain
“0.80s | 1.25Hz | 0.165 | 3mm(拖地) | 20.0° … 慢一半直接崩 … 策略按 0.40 训练, 别的周期属分布外。… 降指令速度才是有效杠杆 … cmd 0.1 是最稳的工作点。… 要节奏本身变慢必须重训 —— 训练期把 cycle_time 随机化(如 0.40~0.65s)并作为观测的一维, 部署时 --cycle-time 就成了现场可调的旋钮。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § 2026-08-01 追加: 调慢步态时钟(--cycle-time)在仿真里是反效果 Tightening the bridge's rate limiter under an unchanged policy cut torque peaks 30-50% and made other things worse - the policy cannot see the limiter, keeps commanding and winds up; a deploy-side limiter is a safety net, not a cure
deploy-rate-limiter-windupA rate or torque limiter added at deployment lowers peaks but the policy still commands as if unconstrained (saturation, windup, new contacts); use it as a safety net mirrored in evaluation, and put the constraint where the policy can learn around it.
Symptom
After the violent first real-robot get-up, the cheapest candidate fix was to tighten the bridge's slew (rate) limit for the recovery policy without retraining.
Context
Probe on R3.1 in MuJoCo (5 categories x 3 seeds, mu 1.0), monkeypatching the limiter with no repository change: TIGHT = RS06 4.0 / RS02 3.0 / RS00 2.0 rad/s (about 0.08/0.06/0.04 rad per policy step) against the current vel_limit setting.
Change
The probe decided the role of the limiter rather than a deployment.
Outcome
Success 14/15 -> 12/15; get-up median 2.35 -> 3.53 s (max 9.30); torque demand peak median hip_pitch 164% -> 111%, knee 166% -> 86%; action saturation still 100%; leg-leg contact 558 -> 860 frames. The limiter was kept only as a real-robot safety net (mirrored into sim2sim evaluation); the cure moved into training - where the next lesson was that a limiter anchored on the last command is itself an integrator (slew-anchor-is-an-integrator).
Mechanism
A policy that never trained with the limiter keeps issuing the targets it learned; the limiter clips them, the target window runs ahead (windup), and the robot follows a trajectory the policy never evaluated.
Applies when
- a trained policy is too violent on hardware and a quick deploy-side fix is tempting
- adding slew, torque or velocity limits in a bridge or firmware
- evaluation and deployment use different limiter settings
“判读:**链路侧收紧立等可取地把 τ 峰值砍 30~50%,但成功率掉、饱和率仍 100%、 腿-腿接触反升** —— 策略感知不到限速器,目标窗口继续狂奔。⇒ 收紧 slew 只配当 **真机侧安全网**(必须同步进 sim2sim 口径,基础设施现成),**不配当治法; 治法必须进训练**。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §26 探针:收紧桥层 slew,r3_1 不重训直接测 Fine-tuning through a reward-table change was falsified (scatter, half-recover, collapse) - continuation training is legal only with the reward frozen
fine-tune-reward-change-falsifiedNever fine-tune through a reward-table change - retrain from zero; reserve checkpoint continuation for frozen-reward plant/DR widening, reset noise_std when branching, and watch for the scatter/half-recover/collapse signature as the abort trigger.
Symptom
The s1c A/B experiment: arm B fine-tuned from an existing checkpoint under the revised reward (same contract, same network, changed reward + small DR) and failed with a characteristic signature - scatter, half-recover, fall back ("打散→半恢复→摔回"); arm A trained from zero under the same config won decisively (full shaping lifted swing to 21.6 mm within 500 iters; shipped at 5500).
Context
Verdict recorded: "从零 + 强塑形是本机唯一验证过的发育路径" (from-zero plus strong shaping is this machine's only validated development path). The signature became a standing stop criterion in every later rung that touched a reward ("s1c B 臂签名,出现即停"). Crucially the boundary of the law was drawn explicitly when S2 continuation training was proposed: "当年证伪的是「奖励表中途改版的 fine-tune」… S2 续训奖励表全程冻结、只逐级加宽 plant/DR,属另一类" - continuing a checkpoint with the reward FROZEN while widening plant/DR one rung at a time is a different class and was allowed (and then worked, powering the whole S2/C lineage) - with the honest fallback that if frozen-reward continuation ever collapses, that rung retrains from zero and the doctrine gets re-examined with data. Fine-tune arms also need mechanical care: reset the checkpoint's collapsed noise_std (terminal 0.033 "会杀死探索") and account for iteration counters re-zeroing (curriculum gates fire immediately).
Change
Reward changes and lineage continuation permanently separated: reward revisions -> from-zero retrain; plant/DR widening -> frozen-reward continuation with per-rung gates; the B-arm signature promoted to a universal tripwire.
Outcome
No later reward revision was attempted by fine-tune; frozen-reward continuation carried S2 (PD/COM/friction rungs) and the C command ladder successfully from the s1e root.
Mechanism
A trained policy sits in an optimum of its reward's geometry; changing the reward moves the optimum but leaves the policy's exploration noise near-zero and its value function calibrated to the old returns - it disassembles the old solution faster than it can assemble the new one. Widening DR under a frozen reward instead keeps the optimum's identity and asks only for local robustification.
Applies when
- proposing to fine-tune an existing policy under a revised reward
- planning a robustification ladder from a validated checkpoint
- a continued run scatters then partially recovers then collapses
“B 臂 fine-tune 证伪(打散→半恢复→摔回——从零 + 强塑形是本机唯一验证过的发育路径)。… 当年证伪的是「奖励表中途改版的 fine-tune」(B 臂,塑形突变致终盘摔回);S2 续训奖励表全程冻结、只逐级加宽 plant/DR,属另一类;若 s2_lag1 续训本身塌方,回退方案 = 该级从零重训,续训教义再议(拿数据说话)。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 3. S1.3 / 4. 与 s1c fine-tune 证伪的关系 After seven patch-generations, freeze the lineage as a regression baseline, fix the structural debts, and retrain from zero
freeze-lineage-fix-structure-restartWhen successive rungs keep trading one symptom for another, ask whether the remaining problems are structural (contracts, latency, sampling, reward-table architecture); if so, freeze the lineage as regression baselines, pay the structural debts, and restart minimal - carrying forward laws and instruments, not weights and weights' patches.
Symptom
The v5-v11 walk lineage had accumulated interacting patches (reward terms, gates, clamps, per-joint scales) faster than it converged on the user's goal; v12's spec itself was superseded before training by an external review's verdict that the remaining problems were structural, not parametric.
Context
The 2026-08-05 status banner records the pivot: the walk profile was rolled back wholesale to v10b parameters, the v5-v11 lineage frozen "只作回归对照" (kept only as regression baselines), and four structural debts were named as prerequisites for a from-zero straight-walk baseline: the action-latency FIFO (fixed with its own test), the ONNX manifest contract, discrete command sampling, and a minimal reward table. The v12 spec - fully designed, partially implemented - was suspended: "本规格挂起,不再按此开训".
Change
Strategy switched from "one more patch generation" to freeze-fix-restart: lineage checkpoints retained as comparison anchors, infrastructure hardened first, then a clean retrain with a minimal reward table (this restart produced the s* generation that later became the real-robot SOTA line).
Outcome
A designed-and-ready training generation was deliberately not run - the review's structural findings outranked sunk design cost; the restart line inherited seven generations of laws (calibrations, gate batteries, falsified fixes) without inheriting their entangled reward table.
Mechanism
Patch lineages accumulate coupled terms whose interactions eventually cost more to reason about than a restart costs to train; the knowledge worth keeping is the laws and instruments (measured plant values, calibrated gates, falsified directions), not the entangled weights. A restart on hardened structure converts the lineage's lessons into a clean initial design instead of another delta.
Applies when
- repeated rungs shuffle symptoms without net progress
- an external review flags infrastructure/contract debts
- deciding between another patch generation and a clean retrain
“同日外部评审定调换路线:冻结 v5~v11 血统(只作回归对照),修结构性问题(latency FIFO 已修 tests/test_action_latency.py、ONNX manifest 契约、离散命令采样、最小奖励表)后从零训直行基线。本规格挂起,不再按此开训。”
train/WALK_V12_SPEC.md § ⚠️ 状态 (2026-08-05) Diagnose a behavior failure by enumerating hypotheses and auditing each against the actual config, cheapest first
hypothesis-table-code-auditBefore changing anything, write the full hypothesis list for the symptom and audit each against the resolved config and measured magnitudes, cheapest check first; train only on the survivors.
Symptom
Real robot leaned forward "wanting to walk" but dragged its feet instead of lifting them - a symptom with many plausible causes and no obvious single fix.
Context
Seven hypotheses were listed and each checked against the actual training config files (velocity_env_cfg.py, isaac_values.py), ordered by check cost: missing foot clearance term (CONFIRMED, primary - feet_air_time existed but no swing-height term at all); energy penalties dominating (REJECTED - energy terms total -0.19 vs tracking +1.2, 16%); command range too narrow (CONFIRMED - (0.15,0.35)); nominal pose too crouched / action scale too small (HALF - knee 0.5 rad = 28.6 deg deep, scale fine); mixed PD across motor types (REJECTED - already grouped); missing base-height reward (REJECTED - present at -5.0); height-drop termination (REJECTED - none exists, which itself became finding #4 of the fix list).
Change
The audit produced a ranked fix list (add clearance penalty; widen speed range; reduce nominal crouch) with each rejected hypothesis documented so it would not be re-litigated.
Outcome
Three confirmed causes fixed over v5/v6: swing height went 22-23 mm -> 34 mm, tracking 81% -> 87%; the rejected hypotheses stayed rejected (no wasted rungs on energy weights or PD grouping).
Mechanism
Multi-cause symptoms invite guess-and-train loops; a written hypothesis table forces each candidate to be confirmed or rejected against actual values (not impressions), and cost-ordering the checks means most hypotheses die for the price of reading a config.
Applies when
- a real or sim behavior failure has multiple plausible causes
- the team is about to "try a fix" without an audit
- post-mortems keep re-proposing already-rejected causes
“真机现象:躯干前倾像要走,脚抬不起来(拖着蹭)。按成本从低到高逐条核查 … | 1 | 缺 foot clearance | ✅ 成立,首要 | 有 feet_air_time,无任何摆动足高度项 | | 2 | 能量惩罚压过跟踪 | ❌ 不成立 | 能量类合计 −0.19,跟踪 +1.2,只占 16% |”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § walk 拖地问题 — 七条假设的代码核查结果 Write each config's expected hardware signature before the session - and if reality disagrees, change the books, not the conclusion
preregistered-real-expectationsBefore hardware runs, write per-config expected signatures and the disagreement rule (hardware outranks sim; discrepancies get recorded, not reconciled); validate the harness by checking it reproduces at least one known real behavior.
Symptom
Hardware impressions are easily narrated after the fact; without written expectations, any real-robot outcome can be made to "match" the sim story.
Context
The S2 acceptance sheet carried a section titled "sim 侧预注册预期 (事后核对, 不许事后改)" - per-configuration behavioral signatures written before the session: s1e@0.8 the disturbance king (push 159/160, zero chirality, all-mu 20/20) at the cost of speed gates 0/20 and zero-command wander ~0.98 m with -29.5 deg/20 s rotation; fric-3000 "walks accurately but is easier to push over"; fric-2400 neither. Credibility check included: the sim harness had reproduced the already-recorded real behavior (pace in place + right drift + net rotation -30 deg/20 s), which "提高本单全部预期的可信度". The anomaly clause fixed the epistemics in advance: if results systematically disagree with sim, "不改结论改账" - don't massage the conclusion, write the discrepancy into the books, and per the earlier zero-warning lesson, hardware wins.
Change
Every hardware session ships with a pre-registered expectation table (signature per config), a baseline-match credibility check, and a written precedence rule for disagreement.
Outcome
The A/B session became falsifiable: agreement confirms the proxy, disagreement is booked as a proxy-bias finding rather than argued away.
Mechanism
Pre-registration converts qualitative hardware sessions into tests of the sim-to-real mapping itself; a reproduced known behavior calibrates trust in the remaining predictions; and fixing "who wins on disagreement" beforehand prevents authority from drifting to whichever source flatters the plan.
Applies when
- planning any hardware acceptance or A/B session
- the sim harness's credibility in this regime is unestablished
- post-session write-ups tempt narrative fitting
“⚠️ sim 复现了真机已记录的「原地踏步 + 右漂 + 净旋 −30°/20s」—— harness 与真机行为对得上, 提高本单全部预期的可信度。… 结果与 sim 系统性不符 → 不改结论改账: 写进 README 该节, 按 「Isaac 指标三次零预警」的教训, 以真机为准。”
train/REAL_RUN_S2.md § 2. sim 侧预注册预期 (事后核对, 不许事后改) / 4. 异常处置 Removing a foot-spacing wall passed every simulated gate and made the feet collide on the real robot - nothing priced stance width in the two-foot phase, the policy narrowed to the simulator's self-collision floor, and real calibration offsets closed the last millimetres; the wall came back with a gate
removed-wall-returns-on-hardwareWhen a constraint is removed, name what will govern that quantity instead and add a gate for it; never let a simulator's collision floor be the margin, and when a gate is exceeded by a hair, record the exact numbers and hand the release decision to a person instead of quietly passing it.
Symptom
On the first real-robot try of oneleg_v0 (2026-09-16) the two feet collided; the user also judged the folded foot not high enough.
Context
The V0 reward table had dropped the feet_lateral_distance wall because it seemed to conflict with the hip adduction single support needs. In the two-foot command bucket no remaining term governed stance width, so the policy drifted narrower until the simulator's self-collision stopped it; the sim acceptance had no foot-spacing gate, so 40/40 said nothing about it. On the robot, calibration offsets consumed the margin.
Change
V0.1: the wall restored (-10, minimum 0.16 m), re-checked against measured numbers (a swing-phase lateral spacing of ~148 mm costs 0.12 per step, acceptable); fold weight 0.8 -> 2.0; a ninth gate: minimum foot spacing >= 100 mm and zero leg-contact frames. The removal was kept on record.
Outcome
oneleg_v0_1 (V0r2 model_2200) passed 39/40 with the spacing gate 40/40. The single miss (a 15.4 deg tilt transient against a < 15 deg limit during a side switch, steady 6.9 deg, everything else green) was recorded with its numbers and released for the user to overrule.
Mechanism
An unpriced degree of freedom drifts to wherever the simulator stops it; if that stop is the simulator's own collision model, the policy's margin on hardware is whatever the calibration error leaves.
Applies when
- dropping a reward term that looked redundant or conflicting
- hardware shows a failure no simulated gate measures
- a release candidate misses one gate row by a small amount
“V0 撤墙被真机证伪（2026-09-16）：双脚桶没有任何项管站宽，策略贴 sim 自碰撞底线收窄，真机标定偏差一吃**双脚相碰**。 … min ≥ 100 mm 且腿碰 0 帧（eval_straight 同判据）—— … V0 真机双脚相碰暴露 sim 门未看脚距的缺口 … L s2 标称 tilt 瞬态 15.4°（门限 <15, 超 0.4°, 稳态 6.9°, 该跑其余全绿）——换侧瞬态蹭线, 判定放行留档, 用户可否决。”
git:Lucen V2@origin/oneleg-line:train/ONELEG_V0_SPEC.md § §4 feet_lateral_distance 行 / §6 验收门 ⑨ / §8 核查单 7