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
106 cards matching “write-hardware-verdicts-back”.
Add a single-point-suspension test to acceptance - the ground is a free stabilizer that hides divergence
suspension-probe-removes-free-stabilizerInclude at least one acceptance condition that strips the environment's free stabilization (suspension, or equivalent) - the sim-passing policy that fails on hardware is often failing a condition the battery never posed.
Symptom
walk_v5 looked healthy in every on-ground sim test yet diverged on the real robot - the acceptance battery had never measured a condition that would have revealed it.
Context
The battery gained a single-point-suspension probe (robot hung, feet free): measure torso tilt while the policy runs without ground contact. v5 scored 45.9 deg mean tilt suspended - wildly unstable - which the file calls "最灵敏的失稳探针(拿掉地面这个免费稳定器)": ground reaction forces passively stabilize a marginal policy, so on-ground metrics saturate long before the policy's internal balance is actually sound. v6 halved it (23.0 deg, target <10 deg) - progress visible on a scale where on-ground numbers showed nothing.
Change
Suspended-tilt added as a standing acceptance row; run under the honest contact parameters battery (accept_v2 with measured condim 4 / torsional friction 0.035), under which v5 correctly FAILS in agreement with the real robot.
Outcome
The sim battery's verdict on v5 flipped from pass to fail, matching hardware; suspended tilt became the discriminating metric between v5 and v6 (45.9 vs 23.0 deg) when ground metrics differed little.
Mechanism
Contact with the ground closes a stabilizing feedback loop the policy gets for free; removing it exposes the policy's own attitude control authority. A metric measured only in the assisted condition cannot rank policies by the unassisted quantity that hardware will actually demand during perturbations and flight phases.
Applies when
- sim acceptance passes but hardware diverges
- designing an acceptance battery for a legged robot
- two candidates tie on ground metrics
“单点吊那条是最灵敏的失稳探针(拿掉地面这个"免费稳定器"), v5 在地上一切正常却在真机发散, 就是因为验收从没测过这个工况。”
train/WALK_V6_MINIMAL.md § 5. 验收 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） Privileged signals (true velocity, foot force, foot height) go to the critic only
observation-honesty-critic-onlyTreat the actor observation vector as a hardware contract: every element must exist on the real robot with realistic noise; privileged simulator truths belong in the critic only.
Symptom
Policies trained on ground-truth base linear velocity work in sim and fail on hardware, where only a drifting IMU and encoders exist - the policy has learned to depend on a signal that does not survive deployment.
Context
Many open-source locomotion stacks feed simulator ground-truth linear velocity to the actor. The reference team refused: the real robot has no ground-truth velocity. Asymmetric actor-critic keeps the training benefit of privileged information without deploying the dependency.
Change
Route ground-truth velocity, foot contact forces, and foot heights to the critic only; the actor observes exclusively signals that exist on hardware (IMU-derived quantities, encoders, commands, previous actions).
Outcome
Recorded as adopted doctrine in Lucen's experience log; the trained actor's input contract matches what the real robot can actually produce.
Mechanism
The critic is discarded at deployment, so it may consume any privileged state to reduce value-estimation variance; the actor's observation set is a deployment contract - anything in it that hardware cannot supply (or supplies with different noise/drift) becomes a train/deploy distribution shift the policy was never trained to handle.
Applies when
- designing actor/critic observation spaces
- reviewing a config where the actor sees base_lin_vel or contact forces
- sim policy is strong but real robot drifts, oscillates, or falls without obvious actuator cause
“很多开源代码库把真值线速度喂给策略，Asimov 团队没有，因为真机上没有真值速度，只有会漂的 IMU 和编码器；用完美速度训练出来的策略会依赖它，然后在硬件上失效。真值速度、足底力、足高统统只给 critic”
Experience.md § 观测空间的诚实性 (line 7) 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 A DR tail the robot never has is pure cost - stage deterministic plant levels instead of one wide uniform
dr-tail-plant-continuationSet every DR range from the measured deployment distribution and cut tails that hardware cannot produce; when an axis changes the controller's character (delay, major gain regimes), prefer staged deterministic levels with gates over one wide uniform.
Symptom
Two consecutive lineages (s1e, s1f) trained under uniform latency DR (0, 0.06 s = 0-3 frames) both converged to drag-glide gaits - buying survival under heavy delay by giving up swing (3.6 mm) - even though the real pipeline never exceeds ~2 frames.
Context
The account: roughly 1/3 of training quality was spent on the >2 frame tail that hardware never presents ("uniform 尾部 ~1/3 训练质量 花在真机不出现的 >2 帧上"). The deeper reading came from the user: uniform 0-3 frames is not merely tail-heavy - it "把性质不同的控制系统 混进同一 PPO batch" (mixes qualitatively different control systems into one PPO batch); a 0-frame and a 3-frame plant demand different controllers, and one policy trained on the mixture serves neither. The S2 v2 ladder therefore redefined latency "从「随机化参数」重新定 义为 actuator/control plant 的一部分": deterministic FIFO levels, staged 1 frame then 2 frames (lo=hi so fractional interpolation degenerates to exact N frames, synonymous with the harness --delay N), each level gated by the fixed acceptance battery - a plant continuation, not a randomization.
Change
Latency DR replaced by staged deterministic levels covering the measured 1-2 tick reality with no tail; each stage a separate continuation rung with the standard gate and rollback.
Outcome
The s2_lag1 rung showed the clean-signal benefit immediately (survival 20/20, heading 6x recovery) with the swing cost booked honestly (21 -> 12 mm, half-pass, ladder paused for adjudication); the drag-glide attractor from uniform tails did not recur.
Mechanism
DR asks one policy to cover a plant family; when part of the family is fictitious, the policy pays real capability for fictitious robustness, and when family members demand structurally different controllers, gradient averaging produces a compromise controller optimal for none. A measured, discrete plant set matches the actual deployment support and keeps each rung's training signal coherent.
Applies when
- policies converge to degenerate gaits that buy worst-case survival
- a DR range extends well past the measured hardware range
- choosing between wide randomization and a staged ladder on an axis
“两轮实证(s1e/s1f)宽尾延迟 DR 逼出拖地滑行 … uniform 0~3 帧不止尾重,而是把性质不同的 控制系统混进同一 PPO batch;1→2 帧确定性分级 = plant continuation,训练信号干净得多—— latency 从「随机化参数」重新定义为 actuator/control plant 的一部分。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 4. v2 阶梯 (2026-08-07 用户定) 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 The walking lines' safety setting, power-scale 0.8, broke the recovery policy's full-range contract - it cut the ends of the joint travel (4/50 could not get up) and left the torque spikes untouched; a kp x 0.9 gain profile inside the trained kp band did the job
power-derating-cuts-full-range-contractA deployment derating knob means something only relative to the action contract: before reusing a line's "safe setting" on a new skill, check what it does to that skill's reachable range and to the term that makes the spikes, prefer a gain change inside the band the policy was randomized over, verify it in simulation, and re-decide when the contract changes.
Symptom
After the violent first real get-up (2026-08-09), the recovery policy needed a gentler setting for its next hardware test, and the walking and omni lines' standard derating - deploying at power-scale 0.8 - was the obvious candidate.
Context
The V0 recovery contract maps actions to absolute targets over the full joint range: a = +/-1 lands exactly on the URDF limits, and standing puts the knee at the clip. Candidates were compared on R3.1 in MuJoCo (5 categories x 10 seeds) on 2026-08-10 before any hardware time was spent.
Change
A new gain profile, rl_kp090 (kp x 0.9, kd unchanged), recorded in robot.yaml as the recovery hardware-test setting, with power-scale 0.8 explicitly banned for recovery.
Outcome
kp x 0.9: 48/50 got up; median torque demand on hip_pitch/knee fell from 120-125% to 100-104% of the deployment limit; leg-leg contact frames 2,152 -> 1,095; the change sits inside the +/-10% kp randomization the policy trained with. power-scale 0.8: 4/50 could not get up, because under the full-range contract it removes the ends of the travel (the deep squat's tucked legs, the straight standing knee), and the torque spikes (kp x error) did not fall at all. When the line moved to the beta-anchored contract, rl_kp090 was declared a V0-era choice that does not fit (beta is calibrated at kp 30) and deployment returned to rl_default; the deploy switch applies power scaling to the walking side only.
Mechanism
A power scale multiplies the action, which under an absolute full-range mapping shrinks the reachable workspace instead of softening the actuator; the spikes come from the proportional term on large errors, which only a gain change reduces - and a gain change inside the trained randomization band stays in distribution.
Conflicts
The undated operator runbook still carries an R3.1 "B comparison" command at power-scale 0.8 beside the rl_default baseline; the sources do not say whether it was written before the ban or was ever run.
Applies when
- reusing a power, torque or action scale from one skill on another
- a policy whose actions map to absolute targets over the full joint range
- choosing a gentler setting for a first or second hardware trial
“kp×0.9 / kd 不动 —— recovery_r3_1 成功 48/50, τ 需求中位 hip_pitch/knee 120~125% -> 100~104% 部署限, 腿-腿接触 2152 -> 1095 帧; ±10% 在训练 kp DR 带内. ⚠️ power-scale 0.8 对 recovery **禁用**: 全 ROM 契约下 0.8 砍的是行程 端点 (深蹲收腿/站直够不到), 实测 4/50 起不来, 且尖峰 (kp·err) 一点不降 —— 它是 walk/omni 的安全档, 不是 recovery 的.”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:robot.yaml § gain_profiles 注释: recovery 真机测试安全档 (2026-08-10) / rl_kp090 A 10 s acceptance episode left 6-7 s of standing to observe - a narrow stance held for that window and split on hardware; a gate cannot see instability slower than its own horizon
episode-length-bounds-what-a-gate-seesSize the standing phase of an acceptance episode, and its disturbances and floor friction, to what deployment will impose; a pass on a short static window certifies only that window.
Symptom
v2_6 passed every simulation gate (success 99.6%, re-falls 0-1%) and then, on the real robot, stood up and slid into the splits several times; prone starts stood and then fell backwards.
Context
Acceptance ran 10 s episodes; a ~1-2 s get-up left roughly 6-7 s of static standing on a nominal floor with no disturbance. The narrow stance's lateral margin and the straight-knee stance's lack of any flex buffer are both failure modes that need time, disturbance or lower friction to show.
Change
The gap was booked as a known blind spot of the gate ("long-duration standing stability") alongside the task-space stance criterion; later rungs added MuJoCo friction sweeps at mu 0.4 to every checkpoint scan.
Outcome
The spec through §50 records the blind spot but no longer standing window or disturbance row in the recovery acceptance itself.
Mechanism
An acceptance episode observes only the dynamics that unfold within its horizon under its conditions; slow drifts and disturbance-triggered failures are outside it by construction.
Applies when
- a policy passes sim gates and fails on hardware after a delay
- acceptance episodes are short relative to deployment use
- stability is judged without pushes or friction variation
“**sim 门为什么没逮住**:10 s episode 起身后只站 ~6-7 s,静态窗口内窄站距 撑得住;真机站立时长/扰动谱在门口径之外 —— 长时站立稳定性记为口径缺口。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §43 判读:sim 门为什么没逮住 Two simulators disagreed 1.8x on one policy's torque demand - four explanations were eliminated with numbers, the surviving suspect was never tested, and neither reading was allowed to cancel the other
torque-disagreement-between-simulators-unresolvedWhen two simulators disagree on a safety-relevant quantity, eliminate the measurement explanations one at a time with numbers, name the survivor as a hypothesis, keep the pessimistic reading binding, and run the direct test (replay one action sequence open-loop through both plants) before the quantity is used to pass a gate for hardware.
Symptom
For R3.0, Isaac read hip_pitch torque demand at 75-80% of the limit (PASS); MuJoCo read the same policy at 148-152% (1.5x over the limit).
Context
Candidates were eliminated one by one: PD gains (identical, RS06 kp 30 / kd 1.5), the settle window (both skip the first 0.5 s), the statistic (worse-of-two-legs vs per-joint - explains ~15%), self-collision (the no-contact subset still read 152%), sampling (500 Hz peak vs 50 Hz sample - ~9%). About 1.8x remained. The prime suspect - Isaac's implicit actuator (PD solved inside the PhysX integration, chosen to mimic kHz firmware PD) against MuJoCo's 500 Hz explicit PD - was named but untested.
Change
The Isaac PASS was recorded as valid for the Isaac plant only; the prescribed decider was an open-loop replay of one action sequence through both plants, compared step by step, needing no training. It was upgraded to a precondition of R3.1.
Outcome
R3.1 ran in parallel with, not after, the replay, and the replay never appears as done. By §40 it was "the oldest open account" on the line, to be fed by real-robot logs - which the spec also never records. Meanwhile the 50 Hz sample under-read the peak by 34% as smoothing narrowed the spikes, so Isaac-side readings grew more optimistic exactly when the comparison mattered more.
Mechanism
Each measurement artifact explained a slice of the gap; what remained is a plant difference, and an untested plant hypothesis cannot license discarding the pessimistic simulator on a safety-relevant quantity.
Conflicts
The spec prescribes the open-loop replay (§23), upgrades it to an R3.1 precondition, then records that R3.1 ran in parallel without it (§24), and lists it as the oldest open account before hardware (§40); nothing through §50 (2026-08-14) records a result. Every later "torque gate PASS" on this line is an Isaac-plant reading plus a MuJoCo check, never a reconciled one.
Applies when
- Isaac and MuJoCo (or sim and hardware) report different torques, contacts or slips
- implicit vs explicit actuator models are in play
- a gate passes on one simulator only
“**同一个策略,一侧判 PASS 一侧判超限 1.5 倍。** … 口径项全部扣掉后仍剩 **~1.8×** 没有解释。 … 但**这条没有验证,不能拿它当结论去抵消 MuJoCo 的读数**。 … (做法:拿同一条 动作序列在两边开环回放,逐拍比 τ —— 不需要重训)”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §23 MuJoCo 复核门:成功率更稳,但 τ 与 Isaac 差 ~1.8× 没收敛 Push DR helped one lineage and hurt another at the same dose - robustness budget is conserved and gets borrowed, not created
push-dr-conditional-budget-conservationBefore opening a disturbance-DR rung, measure whether the untrained policy already meets the spec; if training it anyway, expect the benefit to be conditional on the lineage's existing DR load, grade the intensity, and audit retained margins - budget spent elsewhere will be borrowed back.
Symptom
The push rung's outcome flipped with the lineage: direct +/-0.6 m/s push failed outright on first attempt (base walking collapsed - kd1.2 scan 0/3 from iter 3300, sim2sim self-falls with pushes OFF - no PASS point existed); staged +/-0.3 then gave the narrow-kd single-working-point lineage real gains (push survival 1/5 -> 4/5) while the SAME dose made the dual-working-point balanced-band lineage WORSE (20-seed survival 18 -> 12/20 plus across-the-board push regression).
Context
The four-ladder verdict ("四梯定案", s2e/s2f at both intensities) named the pattern: "push DR 收益条件性" - the benefit is conditional on how much robustness budget the lineage has already spent. The law candidate: "DR 总预算守恒, 平衡带鲁棒性从抗扰余量借" - total DR budget is conserved; a lineage already covering a wide plant band pays for push tolerance out of its disturbance margin. Both S2 ladders therefore closed at the friction rung, with the decisive numerator: untrained push tolerance already met the 4-6 N*s requirement, so the rung was not needed at all ("⑥ push 不训(收益条件性,免训 ±0.6 已达 标)"). The same accounting later justified the C-before-S2 ordering ("push/μ 两轮已实证 DR 预算有限且会被重分配") and trimmed the second S2 pass to three rungs.
Change
Push removed from the standing ladder; graded intensity retained as the method IF a lineage ever needs push training; "does the untrained policy already meet the disturbance spec" instituted as the first check before opening any disturbance rung.
Outcome
Two rungs (push, ground mu) deleted from the second S2 pass on measured grounds; the ladder's real yield was re-stated honestly as precision, not robustness (speed gate 0 -> 20/20, zero-command drift 0.98 -> 0.06 m, but push 159 -> 125/160).
Mechanism
A fixed-capacity policy allocates representation and margin across the training distribution; adding a disturbance axis to a lineage that already spans a wide plant family forces reallocation - the new tolerance is bought with existing margins. Lineages with narrow plant coverage have free budget, so the identical DR dose lands as gain. Benefit is a property of (dose x lineage state), never of the dose alone.
Applies when
- proposing push/perturbation training on a hardened lineage
- the same DR rung helped one lineage and hurt another
- accounting where a ladder's robustness gains actually came from
“push DR 收益条件性 —— s2e⑥a (单工作点血统 kd 窄带) ±0.3 得抗推 1/5→4/5; s2f⑥ (双工作点平衡带血统) 同档反而 20-seed 存活 18→12/20 且抗推全面倒退。规律候选: DR 总预算守恒, 平衡带鲁棒性从抗扰余量借。两阶梯均以 ⑤ 摩擦级收官 … 抗推 4~6 N·s 免训已达标。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 4. ⑥ push 四梯定案 (2026-08-07) A stronger action_rate penalty cut the median torque demand under the gate and left the p99 at 4x the limit - only a hinge on the pre-clip (computed) torque, weighted by comparison with a peer term, collapsed the tail
tail-torque-needs-hinge-on-computed-demandJudge actuator demand against the deployed limit, read the pre-clip demand (applied torque is censored and gives no gradient on the excess), use an L2 rate penalty for the median and a thresholded hinge on computed demand for the tail, and set a new term's weight from its measured steady magnitude next to a peer term rather than from a back-of-envelope estimate.
Symptom
After R0.5 hip_pitch delivered torque sat at its 12 N*m limit in a typical get-up (demand 119-125% of the limit, p99 4.2x) - zero control margin at exactly the moment modelling error matters.
Context
The 12/17/11 N*m limits are deployment limits written into robot.yaml by set_torque (RS06 at 33% of rated), and simulation uses the same effort_limit - so the gate is judged against them, not the 36 N*m rating (an early reading against the rating was retracted). Applied torque is clipped at the limit - censored data - so demand must be read from computed_torque. With the full-range action contract (hip_pitch scale 1.309, kp 30) a single-step action change of 0.306 already saturates hip_pitch, and action_rate penalizes exactly that change.
Change
R3.0: action_rate_l2 -0.01 -> -0.03 (child-run). R3.1: new torque_headroom = sum relu(|tau_computed|/limit - 0.9)^2, normalized so three motor types share a scale. Its weight was first estimated at -0.1, measured in a 12-iteration run at an effective -0.019 (12x smaller - the estimate had mixed a per-episode-peak p99 with a per-step p99, and at 1% of upright it would have been numerically absent), and set to -0.5 so its steady value (-0.095) matched action_rate's (-0.097).
Outcome
R3.0: sum |da|^2 -64%, success 99.6 -> 100%, delivered median = demand median (the clamp no longer fired in a typical episode), gate PASS at worst 79.9% - but p99 unchanged (hip_pitch 419-432% -> 427-436%). R3.1: p99 hip_pitch -> 148-189% (-57 to -65%), knee 422-439% -> 233-234%, saturation duty -60%, success 100%; the worst joint became hip_roll at 67.7%. Its cost appears in torque-penalty-bought-by-leg-bracing.
Mechanism
A squared-rate penalty presses the whole-episode sum and moves the typical step, not rare spikes; the spikes came from the kp term (large targets while a limb is blocked by the ground - velocity alone could not reach them under vel_limit), and a penalty on applied torque cannot see demand above the clip because every excess sample reads as exactly the limit.
Applies when
- torque demand saturates actuator limits in high-effort skills
- a smoothness penalty improves medians but not peaks
- a new reward term's weight is set by estimate alone
“**必须用 `computed_torque` 而不是 `applied_torque`**:后者被 `effort_limit` 削平, 是删失数据,超限样本全被压成"恰好等于限",对超限部分梯度恒为 0。 … 改按同侪定标取 **−0.5**(稳态 ≈ −0.095,与 `action_rate_l2` 的 −0.097 等量)。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §24 R3.1(torque_headroom 力矩需求越限罚) 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 Model CAN polling skew - joint observations are 6-9 ms stale by read order
can-timing-skew-modelingIf joints are read sequentially over a shared bus, reproduce the per-group observation staleness in sim (or randomize it over the measured range) - synchronous observations are a privileged fiction.
Symptom
Policies trained with synchronous joint observations degrade on hardware where motors are polled sequentially over CAN - hip data is already 6-9 ms old by the time ankle data arrives.
Context
Menlo's core sim2real finding on a leg platform of almost identical mass to Lucen's. CAN is a sequential bus: one poll cycle reads motors in a fixed order, so the observation vector mixes timestamps. Lucen runs 6:6 motors on a dual CAN split, so the problem transfers one-to-one.
Change
Explicitly model CAN timing skew in sim: give the joint groups different observation delays matching physical read order. Menlo went further - running real firmware in the loop with a motor simulator between MuJoCo and firmware injecting 0.4-2 ms uniformly distributed delay.
Outcome
Reported by the reference team as their core sim2real enabler on a same-scale platform; recorded in Lucen's experience log as directly applicable ("这个问题一模一样").
Mechanism
A policy exploits any cross-joint temporal coherence present in training observations; when hardware breaks that coherence per bus position, the learned feedback acts on inconsistent state estimates, injecting phase error exactly at the control bandwidth.
Conflicts
Second-hand episode: outcome numbers are the reference team's report, not a Lucen-run experiment; Lucen adopted the requirement but the corpus has no Lucen A/B of skew-on vs skew-off.
Applies when
- robot polls actuators sequentially over CAN/RS485 or similar shared bus
- sim2real degradation appears as jitter or oscillation not seen in sim
- designing the observation/delay model before a training run
“电机走 CAN 是顺序轮询的，髋部电机的数据到踝部电机上报时已经陈旧了 6-9 ms，他们直接在仿真里显式建模了 CAN 时序偏斜，按读取顺序给三组关节不同的观测延迟。… 注入 0.4–2 ms 的均匀分布延迟。你们是 6:6 双 CAN 分总线，这个问题一模一样”
Experience.md § 执行器 + 时序建模 (line 6) Adapting a lineage to one plant increment needs hundreds of iterations, not thousands - long runs only buy specialization
continuation-budget-not-from-zeroBudget continuation rungs by increment class (hundreds of iterations for plant pins and smooth shifts, ~1000-1500 only for behavior-demanding changes like push), enforce a hard cap with frequent evaluation, and treat remaining budget as a reason to stop, not to continue.
Symptom
The default "6000 iterations per rung" (a from-zero-scale budget) was about to be applied to continuation rungs whose only change is one plant/DR increment - overspending compute and, worse, giving each rung thousands of iterations to specialize away retained skills.
Context
The 2026-08-07 budget table replaced the default with "最低适应窗口 + 每 100 iter 验收 + hard cap" scaled to the increment's difficulty: fixed-latency levels 300-500 (cap 500-800; the base has already seen in-band values, this only pins the plant); PD full-band 700 (cap 1000; kp+/-20%/kd+/-30% clearly widens the actuator family); COM +/-20 mm 500 (cap 800; a smooth dynamics shift); friction DR 700 (cap 1000; contact and actuator friction change the gait/contact solution together); push 1000 (cap 1500; a non-static plant change requiring recovery behavior - hardest). Rationale: "续训适应一个 plant 增量不需要从零量级的预算,跑长了只是给特化时间". The C ladder reused the scheme (per-rung caps 500-2000 by increment type), and the deep-training hazard got its own name when long runs sold quality ("深适应卖质量" - deep adaptation sells quality).
Change
Per-rung iteration budgets set by increment class with hard caps and 100-iter watch loops; checkpoint selection inside the window by the smoke curve, never "run to cap because budget remains".
Outcome
S2/C rungs completed in 300-1500 iterations each; the recurring late-run degradations (collapse valleys at 1500+, vx+0.30 decay) fell outside most rungs' caps instead of inside their runs.
Mechanism
A continuation rung's learning problem is local robustification around an existing optimum - low sample complexity; iterations past adaptation are spent sharpening onto the current distribution, which is exactly how retained skills and margins erode. Budgets sized to the increment bound both compute and the specialization damage window.
Applies when
- planning iteration budgets for a robustification or command ladder
- a continuation run keeps improving its training metric late
- retained skills decay in the back half of long continuation runs
“「最低适应窗口 + 每 100 iter 验收(watch_ckpt --every 100)+ hard cap」—— 续训适应一个 plant 增量不需要从零量级的预算,跑长了只是给特化时间 … ⑥ push | 1000 | 1500 | 非静态 plant 变化,要学 recovery 行为,最难”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 4. 每级 iter 预算(2026-08-07 用户定) Verify changes in the run's resolved config (and checkpoint md5), never in the source you edited
resolved-config-is-source-of-truthAttribution and single-variable claims must be made on the resolved per-run config (and checkpoint hashes), not on source diffs; verify every intended variable landed before burning compute, and verify every rollback byte-level against the historical resolved config.
Symptom
An intended arm-B config change never reached the training run - the run was grid-identical (117/117 cells) to its C2 predecessor - and the burn was only understood afterwards.
Context
The repo's discipline hardened around the logged resolved config (logs/<run>/params/env.yaml) as the only source of truth: (1) the C2 root-cause analysis was performed against the checkpoint's logged env.yaml, not the code ("以真相源 23-19-25/params/env.yaml 核实"); (2) C4 added a pre-flight: grep the landed env.yaml for the new keys, and compare the first checkpoints of the two arms - identical md5 means the variable did not land, stop immediately; (3) the C4 full rollback was accepted only after starting a 1-iter run and byte-comparing its resolved env.yaml against the historical 700-era file (identical except 4 dormant schema fields, each verified to be at its no-op default).
Change
Standing pre-flight and post-change verification: dump/diff the resolved config that the run actually consumed; use checkpoint hash equality as a cheap "variable landed" detector between arms.
Outcome
Caught the not-landed variable class of failure; made the rollback provably equivalent to the historical training state rather than believed-equivalent.
Mechanism
Between edited source and the running experiment sit layered overrides, env-var switches, and registration logic; only the resolved, serialized config reflects their composition. Diffing at that level tests the actual experiment; diffing source tests intent.
Applies when
- launching an A/B pair or any single-variable rung
- rolling back to a historical training state
- a run behaves as if a change was never applied
“开训前先验落盘 cfg（上一轮臂B 的改动没进 run，与 C2 逐格 117/117 相同）：grep -E "base_com|joint_friction|push_robot|track_lin_vel_y_exp" logs/<run>/params/env.yaml 另：两臂第一个 checkpoint 的 md5 若相同 = 变量没进去，立刻停。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3d. ⚠️ 开训前先验落盘 cfg / 3l. 回退清单（验证） Push-test protocol - positive side first, fragile side spotted, axes aligned in the log, and cross-machine push counts stay qualitative
push-test-chirality-protocolOrder disturbance tests from the robust side to the fragile side with protection scaled to sim-measured asymmetry, align and log frame conventions before testing, and treat cross-domain disturbance counts as qualitative evidence only.
Symptom
Hand-push testing on hardware risked falls on a side sim had already flagged as fragile, and push counts invited apples-to-oranges comparison with sim numbers.
Context
Sim chirality was explicit: descendants were far more fragile in -y (fric-3000@kd1.2: +6 N*s survived 15/20 vs -6 N*s only 3-9/20) while the s1e control was perfectly symmetric (40/40). The protocol therefore: push the positive direction first, keep a spotter for the negative side; before any push, record which real-robot side corresponds to sim's +y in the log ("上机前对一次坐标"); and - citing the chaos lesson ("混沌课文") - real push results are used only as qualitative corroboration, never compared numerically with sim survival counts across machines.
Change
Push testing became a scripted, chirality-aware protocol with frame alignment as a logged precondition and an explicit epistemic limit on cross-domain count comparison.
Outcome
The fragile side was tested with protection informed by sim's quantified asymmetry; logs stayed interpretable because the frame correspondence was recorded before the first push.
Mechanism
Disturbance-response chirality is a real, quantifiable lineage property, so test order should follow measured fragility; and perturbation outcomes are chaotic in the details (divergent trajectories from tiny differences), so counts do not transfer across domains even when qualitative rankings do.
Applies when
- planning push/disturbance tests on hardware
- sim shows directional asymmetry in disturbance survival
- someone proposes comparing real push counts to sim counts
“先正向后负向, 负向留人扶 —— sim 手性明确: 后代在负 y 向显著更脆 (fric-3000 @kd1.2: +6 N·s 15/20 vs −6 N·s 3~9/20), 而 s1e@0.8 两向 40/40 完全对称。上机前对一次坐标 … 跨机不做二值结论 (混沌课文): 真机推力只作定性对照, 不与 sim 计数对比。”
train/REAL_RUN_S2.md § 3. 抗推 (可选, 人手推; 做则按此协议) A suspended (no-load) test acquits or convicts the actuator before you blame authority
suspended-test-isolates-actuator-authorityBefore attributing a failure to actuator authority, measure no-load tracking error and steady-state torque fraction; blame authority only if the task fails while the error grows with demanded force - and then fix gains or targets, not training.
Symptom
hip_roll sagged 0.21 rad on the ground and saturation questions loomed over the sidewalk plan - was the roll axis physically too weak (authority), or was something else limiting it?
Context
Before C4, the roll-authority question was settled by measurement triage: suspended test (--suspend, feet off ground) showed hip_roll tracking error 0.0008 rad - actuator acquitted; the entire 0.21 rad ground sag is load-induced. Steady-state torque was 25% of limit - 75% margin remains. Since sidewalk needs lateral force, not exact angles, authority was ruled "not a hard limit", with a pre-registered criterion for when it WOULD become one: sidewalk fails to track AND roll error keeps growing - then the fix is raising hip_roll kp or lowering the vy target, not more training.
Change
Hypothesis "roll authority insufficient" demoted from blocker to a monitored branch with an explicit trigger condition; C4 proceeded.
Outcome
Later open-loop probes confirmed the actuator could produce the behavior (sidewalk feed-forward ran at full amplitude, 5/5 survival), and the eventual C4 failure causes were measurement and reward, never authority.
Mechanism
Suspended vs loaded comparison separates the actuator's closed-loop competence from the load path: tiny no-load tracking error means the motor/controller is fine and any loaded deviation is statics (gravity / stiffness budget, kp trading error for force). Torque-fraction measurement then bounds how much force headroom actually remains.
Applies when
- suspecting an axis is "too weak" for a new skill
- large position sag on a loaded joint
- deciding between hardware fix, gain change, and more training
“吊挂（--suspend）实测 hip_roll 跟踪误差 0.0008 rad → 执行器无罪，地面下垂 0.21 rad 全是负载所致；稳态占限扭 25% → 仍有 75% 扭矩余量。… 判据：若 C4 出现「侧走跟不动且 roll 误差继续变大」，那才是权限账 … 解法是提 hip_roll 的 kp 或降 vy 目标，不是硬训。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3d. roll 权限：已部分澄清，不是硬上限 Three same-shaped judging errors - task metrics (survival, tracking, displacement) cannot stand in for posture metrics
task-metrics-vs-posture-metricsKeep validated posture-class rows (tilt, per-joint L/R asymmetry, temperature) in every acceptance battery alongside task rows; when operator feel contradicts the gates, suspect the metric class before the operator - and never build a new skill on what is actually an asymmetry defect.
Symptom
The C2 product judged "full pass" on task metrics (A800: turn-gap 7 pp, vx+0.30 19/20) felt WORSE in the operator's hands than the half-pass 700: A800 tilted up to 12.90 deg (700: 6.64), drifted left while standing, showed larger per-joint asymmetries, and ran its hip_rolls 5 degC hotter.
Context
The re-judgment catalogued three same-type metric errors in one campaign: (1) stand judged by SURVIVAL - missed 0.5-1.4 m wandering; (2) stand ranked by DISPLACEMENT - ordering was opposite to real feel (tilt ordering matched); (3) chirality judged by wz-tracking GAP - measured turning symmetry while the robot's actual disease was postural left/right asymmetry, "两个不同的东西,且结论相反". Common pattern named: "我一直用「任务指标」当判据,而真机手感对应的是「姿态 指标」… 任务类指标不能替代它". The fix was already in the data: the per-joint left/right asymmetry table (printed identically by sim2sim and deploy) agreed with hardware in direction on every row - "判据可用、有预测力,我只是没把它写进 PASS 条件". Shipping decision followed the posture read: product reverted to 700 ("又一次「买到 精度、卖掉别的」"), and the C4 root moved to 700 as well, with the sharpest line of the episode: A800's left-drift "like sidewalking" is probably its frontal-plane asymmetry defect, not a capability - "在缺陷上建能力是危险的".
Change
Two posture quantities with demonstrated real-robot predictive power promoted into every PASS battery: tilt-max median and per-joint left/right asymmetry (both sim-computable, deploy-homologous); motor-temperature readout added to session close-out.
Outcome
Deployment flipped to the posture-better checkpoint; the hip_roll temperature table (43-48 degC vs 25-28) confirmed the earlier 90%-of-heat account; the run-line acceptance battery inherited the posture rows from birth ("任务类替代不了姿态类").
Mechanism
Task metrics measure goal attainment under the evaluator's episode definition; posture metrics measure the body state trajectory that operators, motors, and downstream skills actually experience. The two can rank candidates oppositely because task success tolerates postural pathology - so a battery without posture rows is blind to exactly what hardware feel reports first.
Applies when
- hardware feel disagrees with a green acceptance table
- choosing between checkpoints that split task vs posture metrics
- selecting the root for a skill that resembles an existing defect
“共同模式:我一直用「任务指标」(存活 / 跟踪率 / 位移)当判据,而真机手感对应的是「姿态指标」(倾角、逐关节左右不对称)。→ 验收判据里必须有姿态类指标,任务类指标不能替代它。… A800 的「左飘像 side walk」很可能 … 是它更大的额平面不对称的表现 —— 在缺陷上建能力是危险的。”
train/README.md § C2 选点改判 (2026-08-09): 手性判据第三次选错指标 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） 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 The standing-pose reward had been pulling toward the narrow stance the whole line was fighting - a zero-training kinematic audit of the target vector found it, after first auditing the wrong nominal
pose-target-geometric-auditBefore training on a pose target, audit it with forward kinematics - is it geometrically consistent (feet flat, intended stance, intended width) and is it the frame you think it is (action nominal vs standing default)? A posture term's target may itself be the attractor you are fighting.
Symptom
Several rungs aimed at widening the stance failed; the stance stayed narrow as if something kept pulling it back.
Context
The audit (MuJoCo forward kinematics, no training): every 5 deg of hip roll widens the stance ~5.5 cm (0.271 m at 5 deg, 0.383 m at 15 deg); at 47 deg of hip yaw a wide stance cannot be flat-footed (residual foot tilt ~0.7 x hip roll), which explained the stalled rungs. The first report also said the stand_pose nominal (hip roll 25, knee 60) has a 63 deg residual foot tilt - but that was the action frame's nominal (the limit-midpoint squat), which stand_pose never used, despite a docstring warning not to mix them. stand_pose's real target was DEFAULT_JOINT_POS: the contract's all-zero pose, legs parallel, ~0.22 m apart.
Change
The disease statement was corrected in writing: the narrow stance was not an accidental by-product of proxy traps but the target stand_pose had been actively rewarding. A stored "narrow the stance" knife was marked toxic. V2.8 moved the target to a flat 15-deg stance (sigma 3 -> 1.5, flat_feet margin 5 -> 20 deg).
Outcome
V2.8 still failed in-lineage (stance unchanged, feet nearly overlapping, mu 0.4 transfer 2%) - see stance-decided-by-get-up-path - and the from-scratch V3.1 removed both roll joints from stand_pose and put width into a task-space term, which is what finally produced a 0.355 m flat stance. The 63 deg finding was kept as a warning: an action nominal used as a standing target would be a ready-made pit.
Mechanism
A posture term with a sharp kernel around the wrong target is an active attractor; every other term fighting it pays twice.
Applies when
- a posture keeps returning despite penalties against it
- a reward uses a default or nominal pose as its target
- the contract has more than one "nominal" (action frame vs standing pose)
“上文"stand_pose 的 nominal (hip25/knee60) 残倾 63°"**审计错了对象**:那是 **动作参考系 nominal**(限位中点蹲),stand_pose 从未指向它(函数 docstring 原文即警告"两者别混",还是混了 —— 记档)。 … **修正后的病根陈述:窄站距不是代理陷阱的意外副产物,而是 stand_pose 一直在主动奖励的目标本身**”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §44 勘误(实现时抓到):审计混了两个 nominal —— 真病根比误诊的更直白 A training-side rate limit anchored on the last commanded target is an integrator inside the balance loop - two unrelated lineages converged to the same 34-43% re-fall rate, a soft penalty could not fix it, and the bandwidth arithmetic said safety and standing could not coexist
slew-anchor-is-an-integratorIf you constrain actions in training, anchor the constraint on the measured state, not on the previous command - a limiter with memory adds lag inside the balance loop; and when two different lineages converge to the same failure rate, treat the cause as structural and stop adding soft penalties.
Symptom
With the rate limit moved into training (V1), policies either could not stand up or stood up and kept falling again: the stand oscillated, fell and climbed back, 34-43% of the time.
Context
V1.0-B (user decision: explore new postures from scratch, hard constraint in training): target <- prev + clip(target - prev, +/-S*dt) at the TIGHT rates, anchored on the last issued target like the bridge. Four runs: v1_0 from scratch 0.8% - every category righted under the limit, then knelt (the limit also damped the exploration that had escaped the seated basin in V0); v1_0c continued from R3.1 99.8% get-up but 36-43% re-fall and knee jitter 0.604 rad/s; v1_0p with a pull-assist curriculum (56 N -> 0, fully withdrawn) 39.1% unassisted, re-fall 34-42%; v1_0w with a windup-gap penalty 25.4%, re-fall 18-43%. Removing the limiter from v1_0p gave 0.0%: the policy had co-adapted with it.
Change
The rate-limit route was declared dead after four runs and the line was re-rooted on a beta-anchored action space (V2, user approval required).
Outcome
V2.0's first acceptance at full authority already showed re-falls of 0-1% (V1: 34-43%), the structural bet paying off before any tuning.
Mechanism
Anchored on the previous command, a saturated policy becomes a rate controller - one more integrator in the loop - and active balance through that lag oscillates, while a kneeling sit needs no active control and is stable. The arithmetic: kp 30 needs 0.4 rad of error for 12 N*m; at 4 rad/s that takes 0.1 s, half the pendulum time constant sqrt(0.38/9.8) ~ 0.2 s; keeping standing bandwidth needs S of at least ~8 rad/s, within 20% of the 10 rad/s velocity limit - no bound at all. Anchoring on the measured angle (q + beta*a) makes the full kp*beta authority available in one step, with no memory, and caps the impact at the same time.
Applies when
- adding rate limits, slew limits or target filters to a policy's action path
- a policy stands but oscillates and re-falls after a constraint was added
- different lineages or curricula land on the same failure signature
“v1_0p(拉力课程):会站(prone 79.9%),再摔 34~42% —— **两条完全不同 血统、不同学习路径,收敛到同一失败率**。 … 动作饱和时它退化为 速率控制 = 环内多一个积分器;主动站姿平衡穿过该滞后必振荡(v1_0 的跪坐不需 主动控制,所以稳)。对照:**HoST 的 β 锚在当前实测 q,无记忆、无积分器**”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §31 结构病定案:slew 的目标锚 = 控制环里的积分器 Ideal PD is not enough - add a delay buffer and fit armature/friction/delay per joint
actuator-delay-buffer-fittingNever ship ideal PD to hardware: add a measured delay (in control steps) and per-joint armature/friction fitted from step and sine responses, and treat remaining actuator mismatch as your standing largest sim2real residual.
Symptom
Standard ideal PD actuator model transfers poorly; sim assumes targets take effect instantly and joints reach arbitrary acceleration.
Context
A developer with a successful on-hardware Isaac Lab biped modified the actuator model in two ways and calibrated it against the real robot: step-response plus sine-sweep tests (positive step, negative step, sine tracking), overlaying sim curves on measured curves and hand-tuning.
Change
(1) Delay buffer: action targets take effect after a uniform 6 time-step delay on all joints; (2) acceleration limiting so the actuator cannot reach arbitrary acceleration; (3) per-joint fit of armature / friction / delay - different joints genuinely needed different values.
Outcome
Hip joints fit worst, knee best; the developer rated the result "not perfect, the best I could do" and still listed actuator-model improvement as next work - i.e. even the fitted model remained the dominant residual.
Mechanism
Real actuation is a lagged, bandwidth-limited system; a delay buffer and acceleration cap are the two cheapest structures that reproduce its phase and magnitude response. Per-joint differences come from differing load, wiring, and friction states, so a single global constant underfits.
Applies when
- actuator model in sim is ideal PD with no delay
- step-response of real joint visibly lags or overshoots the sim's
- budgeting which sim2real gap to attack first
“标准 ideal PD actuator 不够用，他改了两处：延迟缓冲：目标不是立即生效，全部关节统一 6 个 time step 延迟 / 加速度曲线：执行器不能瞬间达到任意加速度 … 用 armature / friction / delay 三个参数逐关节拟合，标定方法是阶跃响应 + 正弦扫描 … 髋部关节偏差最大，膝关节最好。”
Experience.md § 执行器建模 —— 最值得抄的一条 (lines 50-59) With no term on foot attitude the robot stood on the edges of its feet (ankle roll -26 deg) from R0.5 to V2.5b; pricing it fixed that and turned stance width into the next free variable - the user saw both on video before any metric flagged them
unpriced-foot-attitude-is-a-free-variableList every posture quantity the hardware cares about (foot attitude, stance width, yaw, knee flexion) and make sure each is priced by a term with real gradient at the observed error; pricing one exposes the next, so re-inspect the feet-level video after every change.
Symptom
Watching the v2_5 video the user said the ankle roll after standing looked very strange - the feet were not flat. The feet view showed the right foot standing on its outer edge; median ankle roll at t = 8 s was -/+26 deg (limit +/-35), mirrored. This was the physical form of the ankle_roll saturation criterion that had failed since R0.5.
Context
No term priced foot attitude: feet_contact_upright counts an edge contact as contact, and stand_pose's wide exp kernel (sigma^2 = 9) gives almost no gradient at 0.45 rad. HoST carries an "ankle parallel" term (+20); this table never had one. Edge standing was made a blocking precondition for hardware (continuous ankle load, unstable contact, wear).
Change
V2.6 (single variable): flat_feet = (|q_l_ankle_roll| + |q_r_ankle_roll|) x upright gate x height gate, a linear hinge with a 5 deg margin, weight -2, continued from V2.5b.
Outcome
Ankle roll -/+26 -> 5.3/5.2 deg, ankle_roll saturation 6.6% (< 10%), feet flat on the feet-view video; success 99.6%, re-falls 0-1%. Then the user watched v2_6: hip yaw constantly tense and the legs very close together. The numbers: hip roll -/+4.9/4.8 deg against a nominal 25 - feet flat and hips open 25 deg cannot coexist without ankle compensation, the new term taxed that compensation, and nothing priced stance width. "Foot attitude as a free variable" was fixed and "stance width became the new free variable" - which the real robot then exposed as splits.
Mechanism
An optimizer spends every posture degree of freedom no term prices; closing one reallocates the slack to the next unpriced one.
Applies when
- a standing or landing posture looks wrong on video while gates pass
- a saturation criterion keeps failing on one joint
- a new posture term was just added
“用户看 v2_5 视频:"起身之后 ankle_roll 非常奇怪,脚根本不是平着站立"。 … 机理:奖励表**无任何脚掌姿态项** —— feet_contact_upright 边缘接触也算触地, stand_pose 的 exp 核(σ²=9)对 26°=0.45 rad 梯度≈0。脚掌姿态是自由变量。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §41 预注册 V2.6:flat_feet —— ⑥ 老账的物理形态被用户目视锁定 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) 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 Ungated phase shaping made standing 42x more expensive than stepping - and the stepping was cooking the hip motors
moving-gate-42x-stand-taxGate every phase/clock-driven shaping term on the command that justifies motion, price the cmd=0 case explicitly during design - and when a reward flaw is sim-only, book it with trigger conditions instead of operating immediately on a working lineage.
Symptom
At cmd = 0 the sim policy never stood still - it stepped in place and crept 0.98 m per 20 s; on the real robot the same lineage's stepping made hip_roll motors run 20 degC hotter than every other joint (43-48 degC vs 25-28).
Context
The arithmetic closed it: the three phase-shaping terms (joint_pos_ref 1.6, feet_contact_number 1.2, feet_clearance_swing 1.6) are driven by the gait clock with NO command gating, so standing at cmd=0 forfeits 3.32/step of shaping while honest standing earns only 0.078 of tracking - stepping wins 42x. The heat chain: perpetual stepping = perpetual single support = one hip_roll stalled at ~4.3 N*m (25% of torque limit) carrying the torso's frontal-plane moment - two hip_rolls = 90% of whole-machine steady-state I2R; measured stand-vs-step comparison: total heat -71% when actually standing. The suspended test acquitted the actuator (0.21 rad sag -> 0.0008 rad in air) and mechanics vetoed the easy fix ("降 kp 救不了热" - equilibrium torque equals the external load regardless of kp). The fix (moving_gate: hard-gate the three shaping terms on |cmd| > eps) was designed - then DEFERRED by the user because the real robot at the time stood fine: "真机不表现该问题, 为真机不存在的病改奖励表不划算", with written trigger conditions (C-ladder stand row persistently failing, or real robot starting to step/drift at cmd=0) and the known hazard tag (this is exactly the reward-change class that triggers the B-arm signature). When the real robot later DID step and cook, the booked trigger fired and moving_gate moved from debt to to-do with its benefit re-priced: "停止空烧 hip_roll,稳态发热降 ~71%".
Change
moving_gate designed with the gate_by_cmd convention; deferral, triggers, and expected heat recovery all pre-registered instead of patching the reward for a then-sim-only symptom.
Outcome
The cmd=0 stepping went from mystery to closed arithmetic; the thermal measurement (hip_roll +20 degC) quantitatively confirmed the 90%-of-heat prediction; the reward change waited for real-world justification instead of spending a risky revision early.
Mechanism
Clock-driven shaping terms define a perpetual-motion bounty unless gated by command; the resulting idle gait is not a training bug but the table's optimum. Its cost surfaces on hardware as stall-torque heating set by statics (mass x lateral offset), which no gain change can remove - only removing the motion (gating) or widening the stance can.
Applies when
- the policy steps in place or creeps at zero command
- specific joints run hot in idle behaviors
- deciding when a known reward flaw justifies a risky mid-lineage fix
“塑形合计 −3.32/步 … 净: 站定亏 42 倍 … 两颗 hip_roll 4.29 / 4.09 N·m(各占限扭 25%),占全机稳态 I²R 的 90% … 吊挂实测 hip_roll 跟踪误差 0.21 rad → 0.0008 rad … 降 kp 救不了热 … 真机不表现该问题, 为真机不存在的病改奖励表不划算”
train/README.md § C1 FAIL 节 (cmd=0 的 sim/真机分歧记账) / C2 真机 A/B 三b 发热定性 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 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) Freeze the deployment contract, stamp every export, and let an automated checker catch wiring bugs
contract-freeze-and-checkerFreeze and fingerprint the policy I/O contract; ship contract changes as new versioned profiles that leave old artifacts bit-identical; and extend the automated contract checker with every pipeline change, forcing the new path to execute in the check.
Symptom
Contract-level changes (observation layout, action pipeline) are where silent sim/real divergence is born; two real wiring bugs appeared the one time the action pipeline was extended.
Context
The 215-dim observation contract was frozen ("纪元 3，三机 digest" - an era number plus a digest agreed across three machines); proposals that would break it (e.g. a GRU memory) were rejected on contract grounds. Every exported ONNX is stamped and verified with a manifest (onnx_manifest --stamp / --verify), and deployment refuses mismatched combinations. When C4 added the lateral feed-forward, it went in as a NEW profile (omni_ff) leaving the existing omni profile's behavior bit-identical; the checker (check_contract) was extended to force the feed-forward path to actually execute (cmd_vy=0.13) and promptly caught two genuine bugs: (1) re-clamping with soft_joint_pos_limits after the feed-forward (0.23 rad deviation) instead of reusing the parent's clip; (2) indexing processed actions by asset.joint_names instead of the action term's own contract-ordered _joint_names, which landed the feed-forward on the wrong joints (l_hip_yaw / r_ankle_pitch).
Change
Contract discipline as implemented: frozen dims + digest; manifest stamping and refusal; contract changes only via new versioned profiles; checker updated in the same commit as any pipeline change, with inputs chosen so new code paths are exercised.
Outcome
Both wiring bugs caught before any training or deployment ("两个都是 check_contract 当场抓出来的 —— 这次它值回票价"); old deployments provably unaffected by the new profile.
Mechanism
The contract is the only interface the policy and robot share; freezing plus fingerprinting makes divergence detectable, and an executable checker turns "the contract holds" from a belief into a test - but only if its inputs actually drive the new code path.
Applies when
- modifying the action or observation pipeline of a deployed policy
- exporting policies for hardware
- proposals that would change observation dims or history structure
“契约校验抓到的两个真错误（记账，别再犯）：1. 前馈后误用 soft_joint_pos_limits（URDF 限位 ×0.9）重钳 → 0.23 rad 偏差 … 2. 用 asset.joint_names 索引 _processed_actions → 前馈落到 l_hip_yaw/r_ankle_pitch 上 … 两个都是 check_contract 当场抓出来的 —— 这次它值回票价。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3j. 契约级改动 / 契约校验抓到的两个真错误 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 Guessed joint friction was 2.5x low and damping 5x high - measure, then DR around nominal
friction-measured-not-guessedMeasure frictionloss and damping separately (they need different rigs), put the measured value at DR center, and express DR as an additive band around that nominal - a DR range around a guessed value can exclude the real robot entirely.
Symptom
Old MJCF friction values were invented, not measured; when finally measured, every guessed value was wrong by a large factor in some direction.
Context
Joint friction split into Coulomb (frictionloss, tau_c) and viscous (damping b). Measured with the robot hung from a crane (吊机测) while armature was measured no-load; the two measurements are deliberately separated. Old MJCF: frictionloss 0.05, damping 0.1, DR joint_friction range [0, 0.1] "凭空拍的" (made up out of thin air).
Change
Replace guessed values with measured ones - frictionloss: RS06 0.15 / RS02 0.12 / RS00 0.13 N*m (old 0.05, i.e. 2.5x too low); damping: 0.02 N*m*s/rad on all three motor types (old 0.1, i.e. 5x too high). DR reshaped from an absolute made-up range [0, 0.1] to an additive band around measured nominal: joint_friction_add [-0.05, +0.10].
Outcome
"摩擦定稿(与 armature 一起, plant 参数第一次全部来自实测)" - friction frozen as part of the first fully-measured plant; DR now brackets a measured truth instead of spanning an invented interval.
Mechanism
Coulomb friction and viscous damping have opposite behavioral signatures (constant-torque threshold vs velocity-proportional drag); guessing both wrong in opposite directions gives a plant that is simultaneously too easy to start moving and too hard to move fast. DR centered on a wrong nominal makes the policy robust to a family of plants that does not contain the real one.
Applies when
- plant friction/damping values have no measurement provenance
- DR ranges are absolute intervals rather than bands around a nominal
- policy is over- or under-damped on hardware relative to sim
“测关节摩擦。吊机测，而armature应该空机测试。… frictionloss τ_c (N·m) │ 0.15 │ 0.12 │ 0.13 │ 0.05(低 2.5×) … damping b (N·m·s/rad) │ 0.02 │ 0.02 │ 0.02 │ 0.1(高 5×) … DR │ joint_friction_add: [−0.05, +0.10] 叠标称 │ 旧 [0, 0.1] 凭空拍的”
Experience.md § 摩擦定稿表 (lines 12-25) Deployment power derating damages non-forward axes far more than forward - sweep it in sim before deploying
power-scale-hurts-nonforward-axesTreat deployment power/torque scaling as a plant parameter: evaluate the policy in sim at the exact deployment scale, expect non-dominant axes to degrade first under derating, and either deploy at the training power or train with power randomization.
Symptom
Policies deployed at power-scale 0.8 (a safety derating of commanded torque) looked fine walking forward but were weak at backward and turning, inviting the wrong diagnosis "the skill was not trained well".
Context
Measured repeatedly: on s1e, going 1.0 -> 0.8 cost forward 18% but backward 58%; on C4-ff800, turn tracking was +25%/+40% at pw0.8 vs +75%/+58% at pw1.0, backward 51-52% vs 97-103%, while forward stayed 96-98% at both. Sim evaluation numbers in the plan were all pw1.0, but the robot was being run at 0.8.
Change
Pre-deploy protocol added: sweep the exported policy across power in sim (for PW in 0.8 0.9 1.0: eval_c_matrix --power $PW --seeds 20) and deploy at the first level where both turn directions reach >=50%. For C4 the recommendation was raise the robot to pw1.0 - the sweep showed it nearly free (saturation 47%->33%, left foot-clipping danger zone 25%->6%, cost only tilt 6.7->8.3 deg).
Outcome
Turning "weakness" resolved without any retraining; the sim sweep correctly predicted the real-robot signature at both power levels.
Mechanism
Forward walking is the reward-dominant, torque-cheapest skill with the most margin; backward/turn/sidewalk live closer to the torque envelope, so a uniform torque derating consumes their margin first. Training ran at power 1.0 (the trainer does no power scaling), so deploying at 0.8 is a systematic underactuation the policy never experienced.
Applies when
- deploying with any torque/power derating or safety scale
- secondary skills (backward, turn, lateral) underperform on hardware while forward walking looks fine
- choosing the deployment power level for a new policy
“power 衰减对非前进轴的伤害远大于前进轴（s1e：前进 1.0→0.8 掉 18%，后退掉 58%）。转向是非前进轴，0.8 下很可能明显跟不动。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3c. A-2 上机前先定部署力度档 / 3p. 二 When the eval proxy has a known systematic bias, gate on within-proxy differences, not absolutes
relative-metrics-survive-proxy-biasWhere the evaluator is known-biased, design gates as within-evaluator contrasts (left vs right, A vs B, pre vs post) that cancel common-mode error; reserve absolute thresholds for quantities whose proxy calibration has been checked.
Symptom
MuJoCo systematically overestimated yaw turn gain (1.58/2.45 where Isaac measured 1.04/1.02), and friction alignment recovered only part of the gap (mu 1.0 -> 0.6 pulled it to 1.43/2.27) - so any absolute turn-gain acceptance threshold in MuJoCo would be judging the proxy's bias, not the policy.
Context
The acceptance criterion was rewritten to use only the left/right difference of the turn gain (standard: <20%): both directions pass through the same biased proxy, so the bias largely cancels in the difference while the policy's chirality - the thing being gated - survives. The absolute-gain row was dropped: "转向只判左右差,不判绝对值". A parallel task was still opened to align MuJoCo contact parameters to Isaac's (mu, restitution), since drift proved highly friction-sensitive (straight-line drift -65 deg at mu 1.0 vs +1 deg at mu 0.4) - bias reduction and bias-robust metrics proceeded together.
Change
Gate metric changed from absolute turn gain to left-right gain difference; proxy-alignment work scheduled separately rather than blocking acceptance.
Outcome
Turn acceptance became meaningful across proxy versions (v5 70% -> v6 19% difference measured the real improvement) while the absolute bias question was pursued without holding the ladder hostage.
Mechanism
A systematic multiplicative or additive proxy bias applies to both arms of a mirrored measurement; differencing (or ratioing) mirrored conditions cancels the common-mode bias to first order, leaving the asymmetry signal. Metrics built this way remain valid while the proxy is imperfect - which it always is somewhere.
Applies when
- a sim proxy disagrees with the trainer or hardware in absolute terms
- writing acceptance thresholds for direction-paired skills
- proxy calibration work would otherwise block a ladder
“转向只判左右差,不判绝对值 —— MuJoCo 的偏航增益系统性高估(实测 1.58/2.45 vs Isaac 1.04/1.02),摩擦只能解释一部分(μ 1.0→0.6 仅拉到 1.43/2.27)。差值是相对量。”
train/WALK_V5_SPEC.md § 6. 验收 A stand gate judged by survival passes a robot that wanders a meter - judge posture instead
stand-gate-posture-not-survivalFor every gate, ask what behavior the metric is a proxy for and validate its ordering against real observations; replace metrics whose ordering disagrees with reality, and demote them explicitly rather than silently.
Symptom
Real robot "standing" drifted 0.5-1.4 m across the floor while the sim stand gate scored a clean 20/20 - because the gate's metric was episode survival, which wandering does not violate.
Context
C2's stand condition was originally written as "survival regression <=2/20". A real-robot counter-example on 2026-08-08 forced the re-judgment: wandering robots survive. Cross-checking candidate sim metrics against real-robot feel showed max-tilt median ordering agreed with hands-on ranking, while displacement ordering was actually OPPOSITE to real impressions - so displacement was demoted to a reference quantity, not a gate.
Change
Stand PASS criterion rewritten from survival to posture: "stand tilt max median <= root baseline +1.5 deg"; displacement kept only as reference. Applied to all subsequent rungs (C4 and redo levels inherit it).
Outcome
Later rungs gated stand on tilt (e.g. C4 product: 7.7 deg vs parent 7.1 deg, +0.6 deg PASS); the wandering failure mode became visible to the battery instead of hidden by survival.
Mechanism
A gate metric is a proxy for an intended behavior; survival is a proxy for "did not fall", not "stood still". Metric choice must be validated against ground truth (real-robot feel/measurement), and a proxy whose ordering disagrees with reality on real data is worse than no metric - it steers selection backwards.
Applies when
- writing PASS conditions for stand/idle/hold behaviors
- a gate passes policies that visibly misbehave on hardware
- choosing between candidate metrics for an acceptance battery
“stand 必须用位姿判，不能用存活判（2026-08-08 真机反证改判）：站着乱走 0.5~1.4 m 时存活照样 20/20 —— C2 的 stand 条件原写「存活退化 ≤2/20」，选错了指标。改为: stand 倾角 max 中位 ≤ 根基线 +1.5°（倾角与真机手感排序一致；位移排序与真机相反，降为参考量）”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3b. PASS 条件 ⚠️ stand 必须用位姿判 A ratio metric flipped the verdict - spectral share rose while absolute high-frequency energy fell 16%
ratio-metrics-need-absolute-checkNever compare share/percentage/centroid metrics across conditions whose totals differ; pair every ratio with its absolute numerator before issuing a verdict, and log retracted judgments so they are not re-derived.
Symptom
walk_v6 was provisionally judged "more jittery" than v5 because the joint-velocity spectral centroid rose 2.91 -> 3.62 Hz and the >4 Hz energy share rose 12.6% -> 17.8%.
Context
Absolute measures said the opposite: first differences of actions fell 1.54 -> 1.31, second differences 2.55 -> 2.19, and absolute high-frequency energy fell 16% (0.490 -> 0.413). The shares and centroid rose only because low-frequency content fell even more - the denominator shrank. The interim judgment was retracted in writing so it would not be reused.
Change
Metric discipline noted: "占比类指标在总量变化时不能直接比较" - share/ratio metrics are not comparable across conditions when the total changes; verdicts about smoothness must cite absolute energies or difference norms.
Outcome
v6 correctly classified as smoother, not jitterier; the retracted judgment logged under "被推翻的一个中间判断(记下来免得复用)".
Mechanism
A ratio confounds numerator and denominator; any intervention that removes low-frequency content raises every high-frequency share without adding a single joule of jitter. Only absolute quantities support cross-condition comparison when totals move.
Applies when
- comparing smoothness/jitter/spectral metrics across versions
- any percentage-based metric moves after an intervention
- writing an eval report that includes normalized quantities
“我一度说"v6 动作更抖" … 错了: 动作一阶差 1.54→1.31、二阶差 2.55→2.19 都在降 … 谱质心升高只是因为低频成分掉得更多, 绝对高频能量实际下降 16%(0.490→0.413)。占比类指标在总量变化时不能直接比较。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § 过程中被推翻的一个中间判断(记下来免得复用) 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) IMU observation age cut 52-68 ms to ~4 ms by moving AHRS onto the MCU - as a single variable
imu-age-move-fusion-downstreamAudit observation age end-to-end and move time-critical fusion as close to the sensor as possible - and when you fix a latency, change only that one variable so the gain is attributable.
Symptom
IMU-derived observations reaching the policy were 52-68 ms old because attitude fusion ran in Python on the loaded host computer - stale attitude is a direct feedback-loop delay the policy was not trained with.
Context
The fix was scoped deliberately narrowly: move the AHRS computation from Python to the STM32 H7 (MC02). CAN topology explicitly unchanged, so the change is a clean single variable.
Change
AHRS fusion relocated Python -> H7. Before/after - IMU age: 52-68 ms -> ~4 ms; CAN timing: unchanged; Python load: high -> ~0.
Outcome
IMU age reduced by an order of magnitude with no confound; host CPU headroom recovered ("把计算单元搬在stm32上, 这样imu有剩余").
Mechanism
Sensor age is pipeline latency, not sensor quality: fusing on the MCU next to the sensor removes host scheduling jitter and interpreter overhead from the critical path. Keeping the bus topology fixed makes the improvement attributable to the relocation alone.
Applies when
- measured sensor-to-policy age far exceeds sensor sample period
- attitude fusion or filtering runs on a loaded host CPU in an interpreted runtime
- planning infrastructure changes during a sim2real campaign
“AHRS 搬到 H7——这个不改 CAN 拓扑，只是把一段计算从 Python 挪到 MC02，单变量：IMU age 52–68 ms → ~4 ms / CAN 时序 不变 / Python 负载 高 → ≈0”
Experience.md § AHRS 搬到 H7 (lines 28-35) 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 A joint frozen at the action clamp pays zero action_rate forever - penalize pre-clip saturation to make the cheat cost money
saturation-cheating-zero-rate-costWhenever actions are clipped and any smoothness/rate penalty exists, add a pre-clip saturation penalty so living at the clamp costs more than oscillating - and audit for frozen-at-clamp joints (action std ~0, |a| at exactly the clip value) as a standing acceptance row.
Symptom
With action_rate_l2 raised to -0.2, walk_v7's hip_pitch actions froze at exactly +/-1.000 (the clamp), reproduced bit-for-bit on hardware (splits frozen at +/-0.35 rad); the gait-shaping term joint_pos_ref collapsed to 0.026-0.035. The repo had died in the same trap once before (walk_v0: four joints pinned at +/-1.0).
Context
Mechanism: a joint pinned at the clamp has action-rate cost exactly zero and forever zero - under a strong smoothness tax, "push to the clamp and freeze" becomes the dominant optimum. Lowering the weight (-0.2 -> -0.1) only reduces temptation; the frozen state still costs nothing, so the structural fix adds action_saturation = sum(relu( |a_raw| - 0.9)) at weight -1.0, computed on the PRE-clip network output - post-clip, |a|=1.01 and |a|=3 punish identically and the out-of-range gradient dies (v0's old disease: mean |a| 1.71 soaked in saturation). Economics: freezing at |a|=1.0 now pays 0.1/joint/step (two hips = 40% of alive) vs ~0.0004/step for the healthy reference oscillation - the cheat flips from free to ~250x negative. Honest limits were recorded: A1 does not forbid freezing at 0.89 (the anti-freeze pressure must come from the oscillation demand of joint_pos_ref), and the alternative "rate on post-clip target" was rejected as 换汤不换药 - a pinned target also has zero rate.
Change
v8-A: add action_saturation (-1.0, thresh 0.9, pre-clip) AND halve action_rate_l2 (-0.2 -> -0.1, still 3.3x the v5 value); success criterion pre-declared (joint_pos_ref telemetry returns to v6 scale).
Outcome
Booked as the structural repair of the v7 freeze; also fixed a config hygiene trap discovered on the way - action_rate was assigned twice in __post_init__ (v5 comment line then v7 line), merged to one assignment "别再留两处赋值给下次审计埋雷".
Mechanism
Clipping creates a zero-gradient, zero-cost absorbing region in action space; any penalty on action derivatives makes that region strictly optimal once entered. Only a penalty on clamp proximity itself (measured pre-clip so depth of violation is visible) restores a slope out of the absorbing region.
Applies when
- joints sit at exactly the action clip with near-zero variance
- raising a smoothness penalty degrades gait amplitude
- shaped-oscillation terms collapse after a rate-weight increase
“钉死在钳位的关节 action_rate 代价精确为零且永远为零;−0.2 之下"推到钳位冻起来"成了压倒性最优 … 本仓第二次栽在同一坑(walk_v0 死于四关节钉死 ±1.0)。回调权重(−0.2→−0.1)只降低诱惑不消除作弊 … 算在 clip 前的原始网络输出上 … 作弊收支从"白赚"变成"倒贴 ~250 倍"。”
train/WALK_V8_SPEC.md § 1. 改动 A — 治饱和作弊