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
64 cards tagged process.
Pre-register the ladder's risks and how each future result will be read - before training
preregister-risks-and-fork-readingsBefore a training ladder or risky rung, write the risks, the stop rules, and how every plausible outcome will be interpreted - then do not edit them after seeing results.
Symptom
Without pre-registration, ladder results get rationalized after the fact; the team had already seen post-hoc reads go wrong and adopted written pre-commitment.
Context
The C-ladder execution sheet opens with three numbered pre-registered risks: (1) S2 plant robustness will not carry into omni - a full S2 redo is budgeted from the start; (2) the s1e recipe has a collapse valley at iter 1500+ (recorded twice), so every rung runs a watch_ckpt --every 100 smoke loop with stop-on-degradation; (3) the root's OOD survival edge may partly be "it is slower / commits less" - with the reading fixed in advance: if C1 training raises tracking while survival drops, the edge was bought with slowness, and root selection reopens. Later rungs went further, pre-registering a full result-to-conclusion table for the A/B arms ("预注册读法（事后不改）") and even pre-registering the author's own doubt that a level would fail and what its failure would prove.
Change
Standing practice: before each rung, write down (a) known risks with their mitigations, (b) the interpretation of each possible outcome, (c) stop criteria - all frozen before the run starts ("开训前写死，事后不许改").
Outcome
When arm-A/arm-B and redo results arrived, conclusions were read off the pre-registered table instead of argued; a predicted-likely-FAIL level (C4-redo3) was still run because its pre-registered value was eliminating the regularization hypothesis - which it did.
Mechanism
Pre-commitment converts each training run into a decisive experiment: outcomes falsify or confirm named hypotheses instead of being absorbed into a story; it also makes negative results valuable (a FAIL that eliminates a hypothesis advances the search).
Applies when
- launching a multi-rung training ladder
- running an A/B fork whose outcome will drive a fork/root decision
- a rung is expected to fail but is run for its diagnostic value
“三条预注册风险 … 若 C1 训后跟踪提上去而存活掉下来，说明这条优势是速度买的、不是通用性 → 那时重开选根。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 0. 三条预注册风险 Write each config's expected hardware signature before the session - and if reality disagrees, change the books, not the conclusion
preregistered-real-expectationsBefore hardware runs, write per-config expected signatures and the disagreement rule (hardware outranks sim; discrepancies get recorded, not reconciled); validate the harness by checking it reproduces at least one known real behavior.
Symptom
Hardware impressions are easily narrated after the fact; without written expectations, any real-robot outcome can be made to "match" the sim story.
Context
The S2 acceptance sheet carried a section titled "sim 侧预注册预期 (事后核对, 不许事后改)" - per-configuration behavioral signatures written before the session: s1e@0.8 the disturbance king (push 159/160, zero chirality, all-mu 20/20) at the cost of speed gates 0/20 and zero-command wander ~0.98 m with -29.5 deg/20 s rotation; fric-3000 "walks accurately but is easier to push over"; fric-2400 neither. Credibility check included: the sim harness had reproduced the already-recorded real behavior (pace in place + right drift + net rotation -30 deg/20 s), which "提高本单全部预期的可信度". The anomaly clause fixed the epistemics in advance: if results systematically disagree with sim, "不改结论改账" - don't massage the conclusion, write the discrepancy into the books, and per the earlier zero-warning lesson, hardware wins.
Change
Every hardware session ships with a pre-registered expectation table (signature per config), a baseline-match credibility check, and a written precedence rule for disagreement.
Outcome
The A/B session became falsifiable: agreement confirms the proxy, disagreement is booked as a proxy-bias finding rather than argued away.
Mechanism
Pre-registration converts qualitative hardware sessions into tests of the sim-to-real mapping itself; a reproduced known behavior calibrates trust in the remaining predictions; and fixing "who wins on disagreement" beforehand prevents authority from drifting to whichever source flatters the plan.
Applies when
- planning any hardware acceptance or A/B session
- the sim harness's credibility in this regime is unestablished
- post-session write-ups tempt narrative fitting
“⚠️ sim 复现了真机已记录的「原地踏步 + 右漂 + 净旋 −30°/20s」—— harness 与真机行为对得上, 提高本单全部预期的可信度。… 结果与 sim 系统性不符 → 不改结论改账: 写进 README 该节, 按 「Isaac 指标三次零预警」的教训, 以真机为准。”
train/REAL_RUN_S2.md § 2. sim 侧预注册预期 (事后核对, 不许事后改) / 4. 异常处置 Every rung gets written stop criteria - hit any one, stop; tightened when priors say results should come fast
preregistered-stop-criteria-per-rungFreeze per-rung stop criteria (old-skill floors, new-skill deadline, oscillation signature, known pathology signatures) before training, stop on first hit - and shorten the deadline in proportion to how fast your mechanism says results should appear.
Symptom
Continued training past the point of degradation had previously destroyed capabilities (C1 trained away the root's backward skill); without hard stop rules, sunk-cost reasoning keeps runs alive too long.
Context
Standard rung protocol - eval_c_matrix every 100 iters at 5 seeds with a fixed criteria list, frozen before training ("开训前写死，事后不许改"): (1) stand or vx+0.15 at <=3/5 for two consecutive points; (2) vx+0.15 tracking <70% for two consecutive points (vs recorded root baseline); (3) oscillation signature - survival repeatedly crossing zero between adjacent checkpoints, stop on first occurrence, do not wait for confirmation; (4) new-skill-no-progress deadline (e.g. wz tracking <30% or still same-signed after iter 400); (5) a known lineage pathology signature (s1c arm-B: scatter -> half-recover -> collapse).
Change
Stop budgets scale with prior knowledge: when C4-redo4's feed-forward was already proven open-loop, the no-progress deadline was tightened from +500 to +100 iters ("前馈是开环就给 71~96% 的 … 若 +100 还没有 … 不值得再烧").
Outcome
Multiple rungs were stopped exactly on criterion (C4-redo criterion 4 at iter 1200; redo2/redo3 at absolute 900), converting each into a clean hypothesis test instead of a drifting run; no rung burned its full cap on a dead hypothesis.
Mechanism
Degradation of retained skills is a lineage-level injury that later training often cannot undo, so detection latency is capital loss; and a stop rule written before the run cannot be bent by hope. Tightening deadlines when priors predict immediate results converts "no result yet" into evidence against the mechanism.
Applies when
- starting any resumed/curriculum training rung
- deciding whether to keep training a run that shows early regression
- a mechanism-backed change should produce results immediately
“每 100 iter eval_c_matrix.py --seeds 5，命中任一即停 … 存活在相邻 checkpoint 间反复跨越 0（出现即停）… 收紧版：绝对 iter 900（= +200）时 vy±0.10 跟踪仍 <30% 即停”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3h. 预注册停梯判据（开训前写死，事后不许改） 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 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) Fall recovery was defined as the whole chain - any fallen pose, a stable stand, a clean hand-back to walking - and built as a second policy behind a deploy-side switch, not folded into the walking PPO
recovery-two-policies-and-a-state-machineDefine a recovery skill by the whole chain it must complete, including the hand-back to the next controller; if it is built as a separate policy, make the switching logic and its handoff contract a deliverable of their own, and keep the recovery observation contract a subset of the locomotion one so a unified policy stays possible later.
Symptom
A walking robot that falls needs a human to stand it back up. The design question on 2026-08-09 was whether to teach getting up inside the existing omni walking policy or beside it.
Context
The user set the goal as "any fallen pose -> stand up alone -> stand stably", and the spec named the real difficulty as the full chain fall -> recovery -> stable stand -> correctly initialised walking history and clock -> walking, making the deploy state machine a first-class deliverable. A unified single policy had a real-robot precedent (arXiv:2605.18611, a state-dependent gate near 37 deg tilt) but was deferred until a recovery policy and an omni policy were each reliable. The line ran on its own branch and worktree with every walk/stand/omni/run config path untouched. The development path copied the G1 learned get-up logic (arXiv:2502.12152): first find any feasible get-up (ugly accepted), then add smoothing, torque and real-robot constraints. The recovery contract kept the base 45-dim observation (command slice held at 0, no gait phase, no frame history - their reasons do not apply to a skill without a clock or a velocity task), so it stays a prefix of the 215-dim omni contract and a later merge is not foreclosed.
Change
Two policies and a deploy-side switch instead of one retrained walking policy; recovery got its own minimal contract (45 dims, full-range action, later the beta-anchored profile) and its own acceptance battery.
Outcome
The split held for the whole line: on 08-14 deploy_policy gained a second (PolicyIO, ONNX) pair behind --recovery-policy, each loaded under its own manifest contract, and the runbook runs stand_v1b or omni_c4_ff800 as the locomotion side with recovery_v3_1p1c. The literature scan of 08-10 found that every verified get-up implementation deploys one end-to-end policy (or softly gated experts) and stages only on the training side - so the runtime state machine here is the walk/recovery switch, not a staged get-up.
Mechanism
A separate policy keeps each reward table single-purpose and lets a proven walking lineage stay byte-frozen; the cost moves to the handoff, where every piece of state one policy leaves behind (history, clock, last action, command) must be reset for the other.
Applies when
- adding fall recovery or get-up to a robot that already walks
- choosing between one unified policy and a switched pair of policies
- designing the observation/action contract of a secondary skill
“先做 recovery policy + omni policy 两个策略,部署侧状态机切换;不把 recovery 硬塞进现有 omni PPO。 … 任务定义:**任意跌倒姿态 → 自己站起来 → 稳定站立**。真正的难点不只是"起身", … omni walk**(§6 部署状态机是本 spec 的一等公民,不是附录)”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §0 目标口径与架构判决(用户 2026-08-09 定) 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） 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 A field experiment is allowed when it is pre-scripted, single-variable, and self-reversing (RAM-only writes)
reversible-single-variable-field-experimentsPermit hardware-side experiments only when scripted in advance with one variable, a log, and automatic reversion (volatile writes, git restore); keep every config mirror (yaml vs firmware) changed and restored as a unit.
Symptom
A hypothesis needed a hardware test - v5's "wild kicking" might trace to the RS00 torque cap being deployed at 11 N*m vs its trained 14 (-21%), on exactly the ankle-roll/hip-yaw joints doing lateral-yaw work - but changing limits in the field is the classic way to lose track of robot state.
Context
The experiment was written to be safe by construction: change exactly one number (robot.yaml RS00 tau_limit 11.0 -> 14.0), write to firmware RAM only (--write without --save, so a power cycle automatically rolls back to the saved 12/17/11), run the single logged trial, then restore both yaml (git checkout) and RAM immediately. The consistency requirement is explicit: the deploy tool's torque self-check compares against robot.yaml, so yaml and firmware must change and restore together; and the hypothesis scoping is itself single-variable - RS06's 67% cut was measured irrelevant (gait uses only 16% of rated) and hip torque was left alone for safety.
Change
Field experimentation policy refined: not "never touch hardware settings" but "only pre-scripted, one-variable, logged, auto-reverting changes with config/firmware kept consistent".
Outcome
The sub-experiment could answer the torque-cap hypothesis without any risk of the robot persisting in an undocumented state - forgetting to restore costs nothing but a git checkout.
Mechanism
The danger of field changes is state divergence (robot config drifting from the repo's record), not the change itself; volatile (RAM-only) writes bound the divergence lifetime to one power cycle, and single-variable scoping preserves attributability even in a field setting.
Applies when
- a hypothesis requires changing firmware limits or gains on the robot
- field debugging tempts persistent config writes
- designing safe escape hatches for deployment tooling
“程序(--write 不带 --save = 只写 RAM,断电自动回滚)… deploy 的限扭自检是对 robot.yaml 比对的,所以 yaml 和固件必须同改同还原;忘了还原也没事,断电重启即回 12/17/11(上次 --save 的值),但 yaml 要 git checkout。”
train/REAL_SWEEP_V5_V8.md § 4. 限扭子实验(可选二期,只对 v5,单变量) Order hardware runs by sim risk, gate each stage on the last, and put the fragile cell last with a spotter
risk-ordered-real-deploymentScript hardware sessions as a risk ladder: baseline first, sim-riskiest last with a spotter, suspended smoke before ground, each stage gated on the previous, environment (floor mu) recorded as a selection input - and stop at the stage that misbehaves.
Symptom
Five policy-x-gain combinations had to go on hardware in one session, with sim survival ranging from 20/20 down to 17/20 (and zero-command survival down to 2/20) - an unordered session risks breaking the robot on an avoidable run.
Context
The execution sheet fixed the order as sim-risk low to high, control baseline first (current SOTA establishes the floor reference), the fragile cell (fric-2400@kd1.0) last with a person spotting throughout. Stage gating: suspended smoke (feet off ground, 10 s each, all five pass before anything touches down) -> suspended with IMU and forward command (gait forms in the air) -> grounded runs -> speed raise only for combos that survived the previous stage -> zero-command tests only with a spotter, ordered by sim zero-cmd survival, with the 2/20 cell skipped by default. Preconditions include recording the floor material and estimating mu (if mu <~0.6, sim says pick the kd1.2 gain as main), port/CAN self-check, calibration frozen. Any stage failing stops the session at that stage: "任一段出问题就停在那一段, 不要跳到下一段".
Change
Session structured as a risk ladder with per-stage gates instead of a flat checklist; per-combo sim survival numbers written into the run table as the ordering key.
Outcome
The session design localized any failure to the cheapest stage that could reveal it, kept the robot safe for the informative fragile run, and made the control baseline available before any comparison run.
Mechanism
Hardware sessions consume a shared budget (robot integrity, battery, floor time); ordering by predicted risk means information is bought cheapest-first, and stage gates convert an expensive failure into a cheap earlier one. Baselines run first because every later reading is relative to them.
Applies when
- taking multiple policies/configs to hardware in one session
- a candidate is known-fragile in sim but must be measured
- writing a deployment runbook for a new robot
“跑序 = sim 风险从低到高, 最险的放最后 (依据 = 存活门/零指令存活) … ⑤ 是 sim 里最脆的一格 … 放最后跑, 全程留人扶, 起步即给 cmd, 零指令不做。… 任一段出问题就停在那一段, 不要跳到下一段。”
train/REAL_RUN_S2.md § 上机名单 / 全部命令 A proposal in the runbook - torque and action limits as versioned safety tiers (classroom / research / expert) written to motor RAM and read back, separate from the reward's effort penalty - recorded as a proposal, its implementation unrecorded
safety-limits-are-a-layer-not-a-rewardKeep hardware limits as an explicit, versioned safety layer (tiers written and read back at start, the persisted default the safest one) and the effort penalty as a behaviour layer; when a skill needs more torque, change tier deliberately rather than trading one layer against the other.
Symptom
Running and jumping need more torque than the deployed limits allow, and the temptation is to trade the training-side effort penalty against the hardware limit, or to hand a new user a robot "tuned however the last person left it".
Context
A message pasted into the operator runbook (undated, citing Berkeley's practice of storing the full motor configuration as JSON with write and read-back scripts) proposes: configuration is a versioned artifact, not a verbal agreement; three safety tiers in robot.yaml beside the gain and policy profiles - classroom (RS06 limited to 10 N*m, lateral joints clamped: "however bad the policy, it only moves awkwardly"), research (14 N*m, clamps at twice the measured need, the default) and expert (the 36 N*m rating, joint limits only, requiring an explicit flag); deploy writes the tier to motor RAM at start and reads it back, while the stored copy stays classroom so a power cut returns to the safest state. It frames limits as the safety layer and the effort penalty as the behaviour layer - more torque for running means switching tier, not weakening the penalty.
Change
None recorded: the message ends by asking which to do first, a rollback or the tiers.
Outcome
The sources do not record the tiers being implemented; the deployed limits stayed at 12/17/11 N*m through the recovery and one-leg lines (the one-leg spec treats raising the RS06 limit as a separate, unapproved hardware decision). Related and recorded elsewhere: torque limits were written to RAM only in a scripted, self-reversing field experiment.
Mechanism
Hardware limits bound the damage any policy can do; reward terms shape what a policy prefers. Mixing them either weakens safety to buy behaviour or distorts behaviour to buy safety.
Applies when
- a new skill needs more torque than the deployed limits
- robots are handed to students or new users
- motor configuration lives in people's heads or in the firmware only
“配置是版本化的产物,不是口头约定。 … deploy_policy 启动时按档写进电机 RAM 并读回校验(落盘的那份永远保持 classroom,断电自动回到最安全状态)。 … 限幅是安全层,dof_torques_l2 是行为塑造层,它们在不同的层,不冲突。跑步要更大力矩就换档,而不是去动训练里的省力惩罚。”
RL系统/FOLLOW THIS copy 2.md § 面向 developer / 教育机构该怎么做 (pasted proposal, undated) Training-log reward values and fixed-command eval values live on different distributions - comparing them once claimed a 44% improvement that was really 6-10%
same-distribution-reward-comparisonQuote reward-term values only with their distribution attached (command range, DR on/off, environment), and compare across runs only when those match; re-measure in a common environment before claiming any improvement percentage.
Symptom
A v6-era analysis concluded slip had dropped 44% by comparing the training log's Episode_Reward against values calibrated in a fixed-command play environment; a same-condition re-measurement showed the true improvement was 6-10%.
Context
The training log's reward is an expectation over the training command distribution (vx 0.15-0.5, yaw +/-0.6, with pushes and domain randomization); play-environment calibrations are taken at a single fixed command with DR off. Subtracting one from the other compares apples to oranges - the warning was written into the v7 pre-flight: "奖励数值只能在同一指令分布下比较 … 拿它和固定 cmd 的 play 环境标定值相减会得出错误结论(v6 那轮已经栽过一次)".
Change
Rule adopted: any before/after reward-term comparison must hold the command distribution, DR state, and evaluation environment fixed; training-log values compare only against training-log values of runs with identical command/DR configs.
Outcome
The phantom 44% improvement was retracted; later term-level accounting (e.g. the C4 ignore-floor work) consistently specified its distribution before quoting numbers.
Mechanism
A reward term's expectation depends on the visited-state distribution as much as on the policy; changing the command distribution or DR moves every term's baseline. Cross-distribution differences therefore measure the distributions, not the policy change.
Applies when
- comparing reward telemetry across training runs or vs play evals
- claiming improvement percentages from training logs
- term-level reward accounting for diagnosis
“奖励数值只能在同一指令分布下比较。训练日志的 Episode_Reward 是在训练指令分布上算的(vx 0.15~0.5 / 偏航 ±0.6 / 带推力与域随机化), 拿它和固定 cmd 的 play 环境标定值相减会得出错误结论(v6 那轮已经栽过一次: 据此以为滑移降了 44%, 同条件对拍只有 6~10%)。”
train/WALK_V7_SPEC.md § 3. 开训自查 ⚠️ A sim veto needs real confirmation too - the worst sim cell was scheduled as the most informative hardware run
sim-veto-needs-real-confirmationNever let sim alone both condemn a purpose-built configuration and escape audit: spend one cheap, safeguarded hardware run on the condemned cell, pre-registering what agreement and disagreement would each imply about the proxy.
Symptom
The fric-2400@kd1.0 combination was sim's worst cell across the board (survival 17/20 - the only miss, mu0.4 1/20, push 103/160, zero-cmd 2/20), yet it was the only product specifically trained for the kd1.0 deployment gain - discarding it on sim evidence alone would leave the sim's own validity untested exactly where it mattered.
Context
The team had been burned in the other direction before ("Isaac 指标三次 零预警" - training-side metrics gave zero warning three times), so the symmetric rule was written: sim's rejection also needs hardware confirmation ("sim 判被支配 ≠ 真机被支配 … sim 的否决也要真机确认"). The run was pre-registered with a dual reading: real matches sim -> the S2f ladder closes and the fork root is settled; real clearly better than sim -> the MuJoCo proxy has a systematic bias in the kd1.0/low-margin region, "那比选型本身重要得多" - and every S2f sim acceptance would need re-scoring.
Change
The condemned configuration was kept on the hardware roster (last, spotted, minimal exposure) explicitly as a proxy-validation probe, not as a deployment candidate.
Outcome
Session design captured either result as progress: selection confirmed, or a proxy bias discovered that would re-price the whole ladder's verdicts.
Mechanism
Every sim verdict is a joint statement about the policy AND the proxy; cells where a policy was purpose-trained for the exact condition sim condemns are where proxy error is most likely and most costly. Testing the veto converts a selection decision into a calibration measurement of the evaluator itself.
Applies when
- sim rejects the configuration that targets the actual deployment condition
- the eval proxy's calibration has never been checked in that regime
- deciding which hardware runs are worth their risk
“但它也是唯一为 kd1.0 部署档专门训的产物 —— sim 判被支配 ≠ 真机被支配, 「Isaac 指标三次零预警」的教训反过来同样成立: sim 的否决也要真机确认。… 若真机明显好于 sim → MuJoCo 代理在 kd1.0/低裕度区有系统性偏差, 那比选型本身重要得多。”
train/REAL_RUN_S2.md § 上机名单 note / 2. sim 侧预注册预期 ⑤ Cross-simulator gate (Isaac Lab to MuJoCo) comes before any hardware attempt
sim2sim-gate-before-sim2realGate every policy through a second simulator with an independently built plant before hardware; treat sim2sim failure as a contract or overfitting bug, and sim2real failure after a sim2sim pass as a plant/actuator gap.
Symptom
A policy that only ever ran in its training simulator carries untested dependencies on that simulator's solver, contact model, and defaults; the first place those dependencies surface should not be the real robot.
Context
Standing order of operations for the whole Lucen program, recorded as the opening line of the experience log: train in Isaac Lab, gate in MuJoCo, only then go to hardware. The MuJoCo side is the same plant used for evaluation batteries, so a sim2sim pass also validates the exported policy + contract (obs ordering, scales, defaults) outside the training stack.
Change
Pipeline rule adopted - every checkpoint must pass the MuJoCo evaluation battery (sim2sim) before it is considered for real deployment (sim2real).
Outcome
Used generation after generation as the cheap filter; hardware sessions only ever received policies that had already survived a second simulator.
Mechanism
Two simulators disagree exactly where a policy is overfit to simulator-specific artifacts (contact softness, integrator, default parameters, obs conventions); a cross-sim transfer catches contract bugs and solver overfitting at zero hardware risk, so real-robot failures that remain are attributable to genuine plant/actuator gaps.
Applies when
- planning the path from training to first hardware trial
- exported policy behaves differently outside the training framework
- triaging whether a real-robot failure is contract vs plant
“先sim2sim - 从isaaclab 到mujoco / 再sim2real”
Experience.md § opening lines (1-2) The smoke watcher panicked at the wrong operating point and its score goes blind when gates saturate - treat it as a survival sentinel, not a judge
smoke-watcher-operating-pointConfigure every automated evaluator at the lineage's declared deployment operating point, give it graded metrics that cannot saturate, and until then scope its authority to catastrophe-detection - never let a mis-configured watcher stop or rank a rung on its own.
Symptom
Two watcher misfires in one ladder: (1) during the friction rung the watcher (evaluating at kd 1.0) reported panic-level 1/3 survival from iter 3300 - falsified by the official kd 1.2 scan, because the lineage's design operating point was kd 1.2 and the watcher lacked the --kd-scale passthrough; (2) during the PD rung the watcher's early-stop score froze at iter 1050 despite ongoing drift improvements, because with all eight gates passing (constant 0/3 failures) the score has no gradient left - "八门全过恒 0/3 时 score 对漂移改善盲, s1f 课文三现".
Context
Both are the same category: the in-training smoke loop is an instrument with its own configuration (operating point, score design), and its verdicts are only as aligned as that configuration. The booked doctrine: "冒烟只当存活哨兵" - until the watcher evaluates at the deployment operating point with graded metrics, its role is detecting catastrophes, not ranking checkpoints; ranking belongs to the full battery at the design operating point (and the watcher's scoring was separately patched to weight survival 3x so recoveries during hard phases are not early-stopped away).
Change
Watcher debt booked (--kd-scale passthrough); score saturation acknowledged with graded columns planned; selection authority kept with 20-seed batteries at the declared operating point.
Outcome
A false panic did not abort a rung that was actually passing at its design point; a frozen score did not hide real drift gains; the instrument's authority was scoped to what its configuration can actually see.
Mechanism
An evaluator is itself configured (gain profile, delay, metrics); evaluating a policy away from its design operating point measures a counterfactual robot, and bounded scores saturate once binary gates pass, losing all sensitivity. Instruments need the same operating-point discipline as deployments and graded outputs to retain gradient.
Applies when
- an automated smoke loop contradicts the official battery
- early-stop scores freeze while graded metrics still improve
- lineages with non-default deployment gain/delay profiles
“watcher (kd1.0 口径) 3300 起 1/3 恐慌被 kd1.2 正式扫描证伪为考纲外假象 —— 工作点评测口径教训: watch_ckpt 缺 --kd-scale 透传 (待补), 冒烟只当存活哨兵。… watcher score 饱和误停 @1050(八门全过恒 0/3 时 score 对漂移改善盲, s1f 课文三现)”
train/README.md § omni_s2e_fric (watcher 恐慌被证伪) / omni_s2e_pd (500 臂) Real-robot trials of a new skill were staged by risk - a hanging dry run with the robot posed by hand, then one short try per category on a mat with the hardest last, then the composed behaviour (switch + walking) last - with the user present and a log every time
staged-hang-mat-floor-for-get-upStage a new skill's hardware trials by risk - hanging dry run posed by hand, one short try on a mat per start category with the hardest last, the composed behaviour last - with an operator ready to cut enable and a log for every try; relax a safety ban only for short, attended runs and say so in writing.
Symptom
A get-up policy acts violently near the ground by design, and the first unstaged real run of the line was stopped as dangerous.
Context
The hanging checklist written with the first stamped recovery product (v2_5, 2026-08-11), to be ticked item by item with the user present: both machines on the same commit and firmware torque limits checked; the robot hung from a single point about 0.1 m off the ground; a dry run with the robot posed by hand into supine and prone to watch that the target stream is gentle (the beta contract keeps targets within +/-0.25 rad of the measured pose, so enabling causes no homing fling); the first floor try is supine only, on a mat, once, with torque and joint logs; categories are added one at a time, prone last; any kicking or oscillation cuts enable immediately. For the switch (08-14) the runbook orders: hang with the standing policy as the locomotion side, then on a mat push the robot over and let it recover, and only last swap in the walking policy. An exemption was also written: edge-standing policies stay banned from long or unattended runs, but a short single A/B with the user present, hung or on a mat, is allowed. The one-leg line reused the same order (hang, then floor with a spotter, 60 s segments with a temperature check).
Change
Real trials as a checklist of stages, each gated on the previous one, with the composed behaviour last.
Outcome
The line's first real get-up (v2_6, 08-11) came through this protocol and was reported "fairly stable"; no further hardware outcomes of the switch are recorded in the spec.
Mechanism
Each stage exposes one new risk (commanded targets without contact, a single category with contact, harder categories, then the interaction of two policies), so a failure is attributable and cheap.
Applies when
- first hardware trial of a recovery, jumping or other high-impact skill
- switching between two policies on hardware for the first time
- a policy with a known posture defect needs a comparison run
“吊挂空跑: 手动摆到 supine/prone 姿态, 看目标流是否温和 (β 帽 7.5 N·m, 目标永远贴着当前 q ±0.25 rad —— 使能瞬间无归位甩动, 这是 β 契约附带保证) … 落地首试: supine 一类, 垫子, 单次; τ/q --log 全程记录 … 逐类别扩展 (prone 最后), 每类先单次”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §40 吊挂执行单(真机首试;需用户在场,逐项打勾) A real-robot verdict is (policy x deployment stack) - when the stack changes materially, old verdicts expire
stale-verdicts-under-old-stackDate every hardware verdict with the deployment-stack version it was measured under; after any material stack change, re-test before trusting old condemnations or old praises - with the interpretation of each possible result written down first.
Symptom
walk_v5 stood condemned as "kicks wildly" and walk_v6 as "cannot walk unassisted" - but those verdicts were issued under an earlier deployment stack (--heading did not exist yet, several fixes had just landed); only v7 had ever run under the current unified stack.
Context
New sim evidence sharpened the doubt: a same-harness four-version sweep showed v6 was the HEALTHIEST archive at the real operating point (cmd 0.15: dominant frequency locked at 2.50, steps 35:35 perfectly symmetric, foot distance 203/190 mm best of four, mean tilt 4.2 deg, saturation 15%). A full re-test under the unified stack was scheduled with per-version questions and a pre-filled interpretation table ("判读表(预填假设,回来对号)"): e.g. v6 walks + frequency ~2.5 -> old verdict was the stack's fault, v6 becomes the comparison champion; v6 walks but at ~1.25 -> period-doubling on hardware = confirmed plant gap, actuator fitting promoted to mainline; v5 no longer kicks -> the kicking was an old-stack artifact.
Change
All four versions re-queued on hardware under one stack (same torque limits, slew profile, heading loop, logging), with the version-specific legacy profile pinned; verdicts held provisional until re-issued.
Outcome
The re-test design separated policy properties from stack artifacts before any policy was permanently written off - and turned each outcome into a specific conclusion via the pre-filled table.
Mechanism
A deployed behavior is produced by the policy plus everything between it and the motors (heading loop, slew limits, torque caps, clock); verdicts implicitly condition on that whole stack. Fixing the stack invalidates the conditioning, so old failures may be stack artifacts and old successes may not survive either.
Applies when
- deployment tooling (limits, filters, loops) changed since a policy was last judged
- deciding which historical policy is the rightful baseline
- a sim sweep contradicts an old hardware verdict
“只有 v7 在完整的今日部署栈下上过真机 … v5"左右乱踢"、v6"未能自主"的判决全部来自更早的栈(--heading 尚不存在, 部分修复刚落地)——判决已过期。且 2026-08-02 四代同机仿真横测翻出了新证据:v6 在真机工况(cmd 0.15)下是四代里最健康的仿真档案”
train/REAL_SWEEP_V5_V8.md § 0. 为什么重测 Four consecutive fixes were each continued from the previous fix's degraded state until the user stopped the ladder - "change parameters, don't stack errors" - rolled back to the last good checkpoint and audited the target geometry first
stop-stacking-roll-back-and-auditWhen successive rungs each start from the previous rung's output and the target symptom does not move, stop, roll back to the last good checkpoint and re-derive the next change from an audit; keep the measurements, discard the stacked remedies.
Symptom
After the real-robot splits, the V2.7 ladder tried to widen the stance: a term swap (A), a new stance knife (b), more iterations (甲), a doubled weight (乙). Stance barely moved while hip yaw ratcheted 46.7 -> 49.9 -> 52.5 deg toward its 60 deg limit.
Context
Each rung started from the previous rung's output. The user ruled on 2026-08-11 that things had gone wrong from V2.7-A: go back to v2_6 and rethink which parameters to change instead of stacking errors.
Change
乙 was killed at start and not counted; the product baseline rolled back to v2_6c model_29399; every measurement and law learned on the ladder was kept ("the data is real; what stacked was the treatment"). Before any new training, a zero-training kinematic audit of the stance targets was run.
Outcome
The audit found the stand_pose target itself rewarding the narrow stance (pose-target-geometric-audit) and showed geometrically why the yawed stance could not be widened with flat feet - so 乙 was proven unnecessary without running it. The next in-lineage attempts still failed, which is what established that the stance is set by the get-up path.
Mechanism
A rung continued from a degraded state inherits its compensations, so each new fix answers the previous fix's side effects; the yaw ratchet was the visible trace of that stacking.
Applies when
- three or more corrective rungs in a row without progress on the target metric
- a side-effect metric ratchets in one direction across rungs
- a new rung is being planned from the latest (not the best) checkpoint
“用户裁:"从 V2.7-A 开始就出问题了,应该回到 2.6 再思考如何改变参数而不是 错误叠加。"认账:A 的补丁 → b 的新刀 → 甲的加时 → 乙的加权,每级都从上级 的**退化状态**续(yaw 46.7→52.5° 的棘轮就是叠加痕迹)。 … 数据是真的,叠加的是处置。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §44 方法论裁定(2026-08-11,用户):V2.7 全阶梯叫停,回滚 v2_6 Fix the task first, harden the plant second - DR budget spent on a dying task is wasted
task-shaping-before-plant-hardeningFreeze the task/command distribution before spending DR budget on plant robustness; if the task will still change, schedule plant hardening as a final pass and book the interim robustness gap explicitly.
Symptom
Tempting default ordering was to keep the plant-hardened (S2) lineage and teach it new commands; but the S2 plant adaptation had been earned on the straight-walk task, and the new omni tasks (sidewalk, in-place turn) use completely different contact patterns.
Context
The team had direct evidence that DR robustness is a budget that gets reallocated when the data distribution changes ("push/μ 两轮已实证 DR 预算有限且会被重分配") - robustness trained under one task/command distribution does not persist when training continues under another.
Change
Ladder order set to: first C (task shaping - add command modes until the task family is final), then a second S2 pass (plant hardening) on the C product. The plant-robustness gap this creates mid-ladder is accepted and booked explicitly ("此处不欠账" - the debt is assigned to the second S2 pass, not denied).
Outcome
The first S2 pass was not wasted: its laws (kd bandwidth <-> low mu, push need not be trained, ground mu need not be trained, bistability) let the second pass drop from five rungs to three. The C ladder itself ran on the softer plant band without incident.
Mechanism
DR robustness is carried by the policy's visited-state distribution; changing the task changes that distribution, so robustness bought under the old task partially dissolves. Hardening before the task is final means paying for robustness on states that will no longer be visited - "给一个即将不存在的任务花预算" (spending budget on a soon-to-not-exist task).
Applies when
- deciding ordering between skill/command expansion and DR hardening
- a hardened lineage is proposed as the root for a task change
- robustness regressions appear after adding new command modes
“S2 的 plant 适应是为直行步态调的，C4 侧走/C3 原地转是完全不同的接触模式，先硬化再改任务 = 给一个即将不存在的任务花预算（push/μ 两轮已实证 DR 预算有限且会被重分配）。故顺序改为 先 C（任务定型）→ 再 S2（plant 硬化）。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 0. 决策逻辑 = 短板可不可恢复 (末段) Borrow reward values from other robots as ratios (to tracking weight, to leg length) - never as absolute numbers
transfer-ratios-not-absolutesWhen importing any numeric from another robot's config or paper, identify its natural normalizer (tracking weight, leg length, sqrt(g*L), body mass) and transfer the dimensionless ratio; sanity-check against a same-scale robot when one exists.
Symptom
Published configs offered tempting absolute values (swing height target 0.06-0.08 m, weight -20) that would have been wrong for a robot with half the leg length and a different tracking weight.
Context
The cross-check normalized before transferring: G1's feet_swing_height weight -20 against tracking +1.0 is a 20x ratio, so with local tracking at 1.5 the equivalent is -30, not -20. G1's 0.06 m target on a ~0.70 m leg scales to ~28 mm on the local 0.325 m leg (Humanoid-Gym converts to ~23 mm), confirming the locally chosen 0.03 m and explicitly rejecting copying 0.05-0.08 absolutes. A same-class robot (Menlo's 16 kg) was used to sanity-check feet_air_time (+0.5 vs the local 2.0, flagged over-high). A nondimensional check of the same kind later validated the sidewalk speed target (v/sqrt(gL) = 0.081 vs hardware-verified 0.101 - 0.104 - inside the envelope, conservative).
Change
All borrowed values converted through ratios (weight/tracking-weight, height/leg-length, dimensionless speed) before entering the config.
Outcome
The scaled values worked (0.03 m target matched both the scaling law and measured 22-23 mm baseline); no cross-robot absolute was ever copied raw.
Mechanism
Reward economies are scale-relative (only ratios to the tracking term matter to the optimum) and kinematic quantities are morphology-relative (clearance scales with leg length, speed with sqrt(g*L)); absolutes encode the source robot's scale, ratios encode the design intent.
Applies when
- copying reward weights/targets from open-source configs or papers
- setting clearance heights, speed targets, or impact thresholds
- comparing your weights to published tables
“G1 的 feet_swing_height 是 tracking 的 20 倍(−20 vs +1.0)。我们 tracking 是 1.5,按同比例应为 −30 … G1 目标 0.06 m / 腿长 ~0.70 m,换算到我们 0.325 m 腿长约 28 mm;Humanoid-Gym 换算约 23 mm。故 target 取 0.03 m 是对的 … 不必抄 0.05~0.08 的绝对值。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § 修正 ②(权重放大) / 修正 ③(目标高度按腿长缩放) Two machines, one configuration - every gain, offset and torque limit changes only in robot.yaml, whoever edits pushes at once, both checkouts show the same commit before the robot moves, and a pulled policy file is size-checked and synced before power-off
two-machine-config-disciplineTreat the robot's configuration as a versioned artifact with one source of truth, push every change immediately, verify identical commits on every machine before a hardware session, keep hardware limits in the repo and the firmware in sync in both directions, and verify transferred model files (size, digest) before running them.
Symptom
The robot's onboard computer runs the bridge and deploy scripts from its own checkout while training and analysis happen on other machines; a hot fix left on one side, or a half-written file, silently makes the robot run something other than what was evaluated.
Context
The operator runbook's "wall version" of the two-machine discipline: configuration changes only in robot.yaml (calibration offset/sign, gains, torque limits), committed and pushed from the Mac, pulled on the robot, bridge restarted; code is not edited on the robot, and if it is, it is committed and pushed on the spot - nothing unpushed overnight; 30 seconds before every real-robot session both checkouts must show a clean status and the same last commit hash; changing tau_max requires writing the motor's limit_torque too (and the reverse); re-zeroed motors require re-measuring offsets. The recovery line added: after pulling on the robot, check the ONNX is not zero bytes (a lesson from a corruption incident on 08-12) and sync before cutting power; the recovery and main lines are separate worktrees, each pulled with --ff-only.
Change
Operating rules, pinned on the wall and repeated in the hanging checklists ("git pull, both machines on the same commit").
Outcome
The sources record the rules and the incident that produced the size check; they do not record a count of sessions the rules caught.
Mechanism
A policy is evaluated against one configuration; any divergence between the machines, or a truncated file, turns a hardware result into a result about an unknown configuration.
Applies when
- a robot's onboard computer and a workstation both hold the configuration
- someone hot-fixes code or gains on the robot
- model files are copied or pulled to the robot before a session
“改配置只改 robot.yaml(标定 offset/sign、增益、限扭全在里面)→ Mac git commit + push → NX git pull → 重启桥。 … 谁改完谁立刻推,永远不留未推送的改动过夜。 … 每次上真机前 30 秒检查:两边 git status 干净、git log -1 哈希一致。 … 铁律不变:改 tau_max 必须同步写电机 limit_torque(反之亦然);电机重新标零后 offset 必须重测回填 yaml。”
RL系统/FOLLOW THIS copy 2.md § ② 双机维护纪律(贴墙版) Export every CAD part in the whole-machine frame so URDF rotations are zero and inertia is exact
urdf-shared-origin-exportGenerate the model so that correctness is structural: shared-origin STL export, zero rotations, subtraction-only origins, and an explicit 1e-9 g*mm^2 -> kg*m^2 conversion - never hand-rotate inertia tensors.
Symptom
Hand-assembled URDFs accumulate per-link rotation/origin errors and unit-conversion mistakes in inertia tensors - silent plant corruption that no later calibration can cleanly fix.
Context
Documented CAD -> URDF -> USD procedure from a successful Isaac Lab deployment, kept as the recipe if Lucen regenerates its model.
Change
(1) In CAD, align the whole robot to Z-up, X-forward (Isaac Lab convention) and ground the assembly; (2) export each STL with other parts hidden but the machine's shared origin kept, so all parts share one origin, every URDF rotation is 0, and inertia matrices equal CAD values directly; (3) units: Fusion 360 gives g*mm^2, URDF wants kg*m^2 - multiply by 1e-9; (4) link origin = negative of the joint position; link COM = CAD COM minus joint position; joint origin = difference of the two joint positions; (5) after URDF -> USD import, open the USD separately and set it instanceable before saving.
Outcome
A URDF whose rotations are all zero and whose inertia tensors are CAD-exact, eliminating an entire class of hand-transcription plant errors.
Mechanism
Keeping one shared origin turns every frame transform into a pure translation computable by subtraction, and leaves inertia tensors in the frame CAD already computed them in - no rotation of inertia tensors, the most error-prone manual step, is ever needed.
Applies when
- building or regenerating URDF/MJCF from CAD
- inertia or frame bugs suspected in the plant model
- importing URDF into Isaac Lab / USD
“导出 STL 时隐藏其他零件但导出整机——这样所有零件共享同一原点，URDF 里所有 rotation 全是 0，惯量矩阵直接等于 CAD 值 / 单位：Fusion 360 给 g·mm²，URDF 要 kg·m²，乘 1e-9 / link origin = 该关节坐标取负 … URDF → USD 导入后必须单独打开 USD 设成 instanceable 再存”
Experience.md § URDF 制作流程 (lines 87-92) The deploy-side walk/recovery switch - into recovery at tilt > 65 deg held 0.3 s, back at tilt < 15 deg with angular rate < 1 rad/s and straight knees held 1 s, a 15 s timeout, last action cleared both ways - and the handoff steps the design required are only partly implemented
walk-recovery-fsm-handoffSpecify a deploy-time controller switch as hysteretic, time-filtered predicates the robot can measure (proxy what it cannot, e.g. straight knees for height), a timeout that ends in a safe stop, and a complete handoff (history, clock, last action, command ramp) - then test that the code performs every handoff step, because the design document is not the implementation.
Symptom
With a recovery policy and a locomotion policy as separate networks, the robot needs a switch: when is it "fallen", when is it "up", and what state must be reset so the next policy does not act on the previous one's history.
Context
The 08-09 design: enter recovery when fallen (tilt > 55 deg or height < 0.60 x 0.384 m) for 150 ms, leave for a stand-hold when upright (tilt < 12 deg, height > 0.85 x 0.384 m, feet steady, |omega| < 0.8) for 400 ms - wide entry, strict exit, hysteresis - then a mandatory handoff trio before walking resumes (reset the walking policy's observation history, restart its phase clock at 0, clear its previous action and latency buffer) and a command ramp instead of a jump. The 08-14 implementation in deploy_policy (--recovery-policy): each policy under its own manifest contract (walk: nominal + scale; recovery: beta-anchored), the same rl_default gains, the tilt cutoff disabled; RECOVERY at tilt > 65 deg for 0.3 s; LOCO again at tilt < 15 deg and |omega| < 1 and knees straight (< 0.35 rad) for 1 s - the robot's computer has no height estimate, and straight knees stand in for height so a V3.0-style upright kneel cannot pass as standing; RECOVERY longer than 15 s ends in a safe stop; last_action cleared on both switches; command forced to 0 during RECOVERY; power scaling applies to LOCO only.
Change
An open account was written down with it: the recovery end state (0.355 m stance, hip yaw -/+27 deg) is outside the walking policy's training start distribution, so the first test must use stand / zero command as LOCO, and the long-term fix is to widen the walking policy's initial states rather than bend recovery's stance to suit walking.
Outcome
The spec records only a successful compile (py_compile); the hang test was left to be done on site. The operator runbook carries the three-step procedure (hang with stand as LOCO, mat and push, then omni walk as LOCO) but no outcome.
Mechanism
Two policies trained separately each assume their own history, clock and last action; a switch that carries any of them across feeds the next policy a state it never saw - the design called this "the walking policy seeing a ghost history".
Conflicts
The 08-09 design requires resetting history, clock and previous action plus a command ramp; the 08-14 implementation records last_action clearing and a zero command during recovery; the one-leg spec of 2026-09-14 lists the handoff hygiene as specified but not implemented - reset_history() is called by nothing (a 215-dim policy would carry four frames of pre-fall history), the phase clock is not zeroed, and there is no command ramp back to LOCO. No hardware run of the FSM is recorded in either source.
Applies when
- switching between separately trained policies on hardware
- a policy with history or phase observations is re-enabled mid-run
- the robot lacks a sensor the switching criterion was designed around
“**判据**:进 RECOVERY = 倾角 >65°(`--fall-tilt-deg`)持续 0.3 s;回 LOCO = §5 真机可测子集:倾角 <15° ∧ |ω|<1 ∧ **膝直 <0.35 rad(NX 无高度观测, 高度门用膝直代理 —— 防 V3.0 型"跪坐但直立"误判)** 持续 1 s (`--recover-hold`);RECOVERY 单次 >15 s(`--recovery-max-time`)安全停。 … **切换卫生**:两向切换 last_action 清零;RECOVERY 态 cmd 强制 0”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §50 FSM 双策略调度(2026-08-14,用户令):deploy_policy --recovery-policy The recovery line's real-robot verdicts live in three places that disagree - the spec's "fairly stable, first real stand-up" for v2_6, an undated runbook note that only v3_1p1c works, and a first run whose details were never recorded
write-hardware-verdicts-backA hardware verdict is a dated entry in the authoritative ledger - policy file and stamp, gain profile, floor, battery, tries, log file, what was seen - written back the same day; a note in a command file is a pointer, not a verdict, and a newer verdict that contradicts an older one must say so.
Symptom
Asked "which recovery policy works on the real robot", the sources give different answers, and none of them carries the conditions of the test.
Context
08-09: the first real run was stopped as violent and dangerous; which ONNX, which gain profile and whether a log existed were marked "to be recorded" and never were. 08-11: v2_6 was "fairly stable", the line's first real get-up, with splits after standing; v2_5b's result and both CSVs were "to be reported". 08-14: v3_1p1c was stamped and pushed, with "the real first test still needs the user present"; the spec records no hardware result for it. The operator runbook (undated) puts above the v2_6 and v2_5b floor commands the note that none of the recovery policies below work, only recovery_v3_1p1c - a verdict never written back into the spec, with no date, floor, battery, number of tries or log attached.
Change
None recorded in the sources; this card records the gap.
Outcome
The line's authoritative record ends with v3_1p1c as the product awaiting its first real test, while the operator's note implies it is the only one that works and that v2_6 (recorded as a success) does not.
Mechanism
Verdicts given at the robot travel by word of mouth and command-file comments; without a record carrying the conditions, a later reader cannot tell a changed verdict from a changed floor, battery or stack.
Conflicts
§43 (2026-08-11) records v2_6 as the first successful real get-up ("fairly stable"); the undated runbook says every recovery policy except recovery_v3_1p1c does not work; §49 (2026-08-14) says v3_1p1c's first real test was still pending. The runbook's claim has no date and was never written back to the spec, so it cannot be ordered against §43.
Applies when
- choosing which policy to deploy from an operator's notes
- a hardware session ends without a written result
- two documents disagree about what worked on the robot
“下面的recovery都不行 只有recovery_v3_1p1c.onnx”
RL系统/FOLLOW THIS copy 2.md § #### Recovery Policy (operator runbook, undated)