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
163 cards matching “converged-continuation-is-poison”.
Multiple changes may share one rung only if their symptom spaces are orthogonal - with the ablation order written in advance
orthogonal-batch-with-ablation-orderBatch changes into one rung only when you can name each change's private symptom space in writing; pre-register the ablation order (numeric before structural) and per-change escalation plans, so a mixed outcome decomposes without new decisions.
Symptom
v8 needed four repairs at once (saturation cheating, landing impact, leg narrowing, heading alignment) - strict one-variable laddering would have cost four training cycles for wounds that were all already diagnosed.
Context
The batch was allowed because each change owns a disjoint symptom space, stated explicitly: "A→形态/饱和, B→落地/步态高度, C→腿距/roll 摇摆, D→偏航/转向" - so a single run can attribute each outcome to its change by which symptom moved. For the failure case, the ablation order was pre-registered (A2 -> A1 -> B -> D -> C, "先撤数 值改动" - retract numeric tweaks before structural ones), and every change carried its own escalation/rollback plan (e.g. A insufficient: joint_pos_ref 1.6->2.0 or widen the exp kernel; B overdone - robot afraid to land: v_ok 0.30->0.45; D unstable: rel 0.5->0.25, not back to 0).
Change
Four-change rung executed as one run with per-change symptom ownership, per-change contingency plans, and a pre-registered global ablation order for unattributable regressions.
Outcome
The rung retained single-run attributability without paying 4x training cost; the contingency table meant no failure mode would require improvising an ablation under pressure.
Mechanism
The one-variable rule exists to keep attribution possible, not as an end in itself; attribution survives batching exactly when the changes' observable effects are separable. Orthogonality is a claim that must be argued per pair in advance - and the pre-registered ablation order is the escape hatch for the case the claim fails.
Applies when
- several diagnosed fixes are queued and ladder time is scarce
- deciding between strict laddering and a combined rung
- a combined rung shows a regression no single change explains
“四个改动症状空间基本正交,可单 run 归因:A→形态/饱和,B→落地/步态高度,C→腿距/roll 摇摆,D→偏航/转向。出现无法归因的整体退化时消融顺序 A2→A1→B→D→C(先撤数值改动)。”
train/WALK_V8_SPEC.md § 8. 风险与归因 Real robot walked at half the sim clock for two generations - resolved by racing a reward-side and a plant-side evidence line, not by guessing
period-doubling-evidence-raceFor a hardware-only pathology, refuse to guess: pre-register one probe per side of the sim2real boundary (can the reward mechanism change it on hardware? can fitted plant parameters reproduce it in sim?) and let the first positive result direct the next version.
Symptom
The number-one sim2real gap: on hardware v6/v7 stepped at 1.23-1.32 Hz - almost exactly half the 2.50 Hz gait clock they were trained and simulated at; sim never reproduced it, two generations running.
Context
Instead of committing training budget to a guess, v8 pre-registered two mutually controlled evidence lines and kept the clock OUT of the training variables: (a) reward-side - if the v8 saturation fix revives joint_pos_ref (the term that pins the gait to the clock), re-run hardware and see whether frequency returns to 2.5 Hz (hypothesis: v7's frozen actions meant NO reward was pinning the gait to the clock, and the real plant - with armature and friction making high frequencies expensive - slid down to the leg's pendulum natural frequency ~1.1 Hz); (b) plant-side - record suspended joint data (fit_actuator), fit armature/friction, load the fitted values into sim2sim and see whether the 1.25 Hz reproduces IN SIM. Decision rule fixed in advance: "谁先给出阳性结果谁定 v9 的方向 (奖励侧 vs plant 侧)" - whichever line goes positive first sets the next version's direction.
Change
Period-doubling excluded from the v8 change set; both diagnostic lines scheduled in parallel as non-blocking work; frequency reported factually in acceptance with no pass/fail attached ("倍周期是否消失 不设判定,它是 §9 的关键证据").
Outcome
The gap was routed into a decisive-experiment structure rather than a speculative retrain; the plant-side line pointed at exactly the unmodeled armature/friction that were later measured and installed as the plant baseline. Resolution (era-2c full-plant retest): the family had TWO causes - v8's low-speed period-doubling vanished once measured armature+friction were installed (1.30 -> 2.50 Hz, bifurcation-edge machine sensitivity), while v7's stood untouched at 1.20 Hz (saturation-freeze-driven policy property) - both evidence lines paid off, one per case.
Mechanism
A behavior appearing only on hardware has candidate causes on both sides of the sim2real boundary; changing training to fix it tests only one side per expensive cycle. Two cheap parallel probes - one intervening on the reward mechanism, one making sim reproduce the real behavior - localize the cause to a side before any training money is spent, and sim-reproduction of a real pathology is itself the strongest form of plant validation.
Applies when
- a gait pathology appears on hardware but never in any simulator
- deciding whether a sim2real gap is reward-side or plant-side
- tempted to change the gait clock/reward to chase a hardware symptom
“倍周期(真机 1.23~1.32 Hz ≈ 时钟一半,v6/v7 连续两代;sim 从不出现):两条证据线互为对照——(a)… 真机重跑看频率是否回 2.5 Hz(假说:v7 没有任何奖励把步态钉在时钟上,真机 plant 有 armature/摩擦、高频贵,自由滑落到复摆自然频率 ~1.1 Hz);(b)真机吊挂录 fit_actuator.py … 看能否在仿真里复现 1.25 Hz。谁先给出阳性结果谁定 v9 的方向。”
train/WALK_V8_SPEC.md § 9. 平行线 (倍周期) 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 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 The hip_roll (l+r) asymmetry scalar predicted real-robot lateral drift - promote validated sim scalars into the gate
hip-roll-sum-predicts-lateral-driftHunt for cheap sim scalars that predict real-robot behaviors, validate them on direction AND ordering across multiple policies, then promote them into the acceptance battery; treat later violations as debt to justify in writing, not noise to ignore.
Symptom
A persistent hip_roll left/right asymmetry row in the sim2sim symmetry table had been dismissed as "calibration or mechanical asymmetry" noise; meanwhile real deployments drifted sideways by policy-dependent amounts.
Context
Forward-kinematics analysis reframed the scalar: both hip_rolls move the feet in +y for positive angle, so a same-signed (l+r) sum IS a lateral translation mode - the scalar is a direct lateral-drift bias estimate. Checked against real deployments: s1e (l+r = -0.0178, smallest magnitude) was the steadiest with least drift; 700 (+0.0253) drifted mildly left; A800 (+0.0267) drifted clearly left with the largest tilt 12.9 deg. Direction correct 3/3, ordering correct 3/3 (the log's heading calls it "四枚四中", four-for-four).
Change
The scalar was promoted into the acceptance battery as a posture-class criterion alongside tilt-max median: "hip_roll 左右不对称 |l+r| 不得比父代大" - doubling as a heat proxy (error ~ torque ~ heating).
Outcome
Used at every later gate; when the C4 product exceeded it by +0.005 rad (~+0.3 deg vs parent), the criterion was not silently waived - it was booked as explicit debt with a mechanism argument (the increment is task-required, far smaller than the sidewalk amplitude +/-2.2 deg) plus a related account (stand saturation 32.4% -> 37.2%).
Mechanism
A policy's static joint-angle bias in a translation-producing mode integrates into real-world drift; sim can measure that bias precisely and cheaply. A sim scalar earns gate status exactly when its predictions are validated against hardware in both direction and ordering - and a validated gate may only be exceeded with a written mechanism-level justification, never silently.
Conflicts
The log's heading says "四枚四中" (4/4) but the evidence table lists three policies and the text says "方向 3/3、排序 3/3"; the fourth instance is not shown in this file.
Applies when
- a real robot drifts or leans in a policy-dependent way
- deciding which sim measurements deserve gate status
- a validated gate criterion is marginally exceeded by a new product
“s1e | −0.0178（绝对值最小）| 微右、最不飘 | 三者中最稳、飘最小 ✓ … A800 | +0.0267 | 左、最飘 | 明显左飘、倾角最大 12.9° ✓ 方向 3/3、排序 3/3。 → 正式纳入验收表（与「倾角 max 中位」并列为姿态类判据）。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3e. 顺带：hip_roll 左右不对称 (l+r) 就是横移偏置 —— 四枚四中 Before training a one-leg stand the spec named the cheapest cheats - hopping on the support foot, a raised foot resting unloaded, a leg tripod - and gave each a countermeasure and a gate; one still appeared and was caught by exactly those gates
enumerate-cheapest-cheats-before-trainingBefore training, list the cheapest behaviours that would satisfy each reward term without doing the task, give each a countermeasure in the reward and a gate in acceptance, and prove the intended behaviour is reachable with a probe - then treat any gate the policy games as evidence about the reward, not the gate.
Symptom
The literature's single-leg benchmark reports eight state-of-the-art general policies holding a clean one-leg stand 0 times out of 90 - they survive by sneaking steps and hops - so the task's first adversary was the policy's own cheating.
Context
The spec's shape self-check ("what is the zero-cost option?") listed, for the one-foot bucket: the cheapest cheat, a foot resting on the ground without load, countered by a 5 N contact threshold plus positive swing income; the second cheapest, small hops on the support foot to reset balance, countered by a continuous support-air penalty plus a gate of zero support-foot flight segments. The probe that preceded training had already seen a third: early low-lift postures "survived" by pressing the swing foot at 78-95 N, a leg tripod, removed by folding the shank back. The two-foot bucket was checked too: its zero-cost behaviour is ordinary standing, with no odd base state.
Change
Countermeasures and gates written before training: swing-contact and support-air penalties, gate 2 (zero swing-foot contact frames above 5 N), gate 3 (zero support-foot flight segments).
Outcome
The first run still found the unloaded-foot cheat (a binary reward band gave it no gradient to lift) - and it was caught, by the contact gates and the cross-simulator comparison, not discovered on hardware. The retrained V0 passed all gates 40/40, including zero support-foot flight after the flight detector was corrected.
Mechanism
A policy optimizes the reward, not the intent; the cheapest behaviours that satisfy the reward are predictable from the reward's structure, and a gate written for each before training turns a silent cheat into a failed row.
Applies when
- designing rewards for balance, contact or "hold still" tasks
- benchmark policies are known to cheat the task
- writing acceptance gates for a new skill
“文献里 8 个 SOTA 通用策略在单脚站基准上 0/90 干净保持， 全靠偷步偷跳活命，这是本任务的第一反作弊对象 … 单脚桶下最便宜的作弊是"脚虚放地上不受力"——接触判定 >5 N 力阈（沿用），配 swing_height_band 正收入拉开。 … 第二便宜是"支撑脚小跳重置"——support_air_penalty 连续罚 + 验收门支撑脚腾空段=0 双保险。”
git:Lucen V2@origin/oneleg-line:train/ONELEG_V0_SPEC.md § §0 目标口径 / §5 形状自检(零成本选项是什么) 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) Under continuous 3-axis uniform sampling, pure straight-line walking is a zero-measure event the policy never trained
zero-measure-commands-need-mode-samplingEnumerate the exact command points users will actually issue (straight, stop, in-place turn) and give each explicit probability mass via mode sampling with off-axes pinned to zero - never assume a continuous sampler covers its measure-zero subsets.
Symptom
"The robot drifts even in sim when told to walk straight" persisted across reward tunings - because with commands drawn as vx in [0.15,0.5] x vy ~ U(+/-0.2) x wz ~ U(+/-0.6), the event vy=0 AND wz=0 has probability zero: pure straight-line walking was never sampled even once.
Context
Restart evidence item #3: "纯直行是零测度点 … 'sim 里直行就漂'是分布的 必然,不是 reward 没调好" - the drift metric was legitimately drowned by commanded turning (v11's own comment self-documented this). The structural fix is discrete mode sampling: a custom ModeVelocityCommand that first draws a mode by share (stand/forward/back/turn/side/mixed), then draws values only on that mode's axes with all others pinned to exact zero - which is also what preserves single-variable discipline in the C ladder (native 3-axis uniform "采不出'离散模式桶' … 把 C1~C4 的单变量纪律直接毁掉"). The mixed mode later got an ellipsoid constraint rather than a cube for the same reason in reverse - corner combinations of a cube are unrepresentative extremes.
Change
Command generation moved from independent per-axis uniforms to mode-bucket sampling with pinned-zero off-axes (plus 20% rel_standing); acceptance likewise evaluates per mode.
Outcome
Straight-line behavior became a trained, testable mode instead of a measure-zero hope; the C ladder could add one mode per rung with provable isolation.
Mechanism
A policy optimizes expected reward under the command distribution; events of probability zero contribute nothing to the objective, so exact-zero-command behaviors (straight walk, stand, in-place turn) are only learned if the sampler gives them mass. Product-of-uniforms distributions concentrate mass on mixtures and give none to the pure behaviors users actually command.
Applies when
- a "simple" command (straight, stop) underperforms mixtures in sim
- designing command distributions for velocity-tracking tasks
- a ladder needs per-mode isolation for attribution
“纯直行是零测度点:最终 command 为 vx∈[0.15,0.5] × vy∈U(±0.2) × wz∈U(±0.6) 连续均匀,vy=0∧wz=0 从未被专门采样 —— "sim 里直行就漂"是分布的必然,不是 reward 没调好 … Isaac 原生 UniformVelocityCommand 是三轴各自 uniform,采不出"离散模式桶"”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 0. 为什么从零 (3) / 三件前置 (1) Torque caps cannot soften footfalls - impact is falling-mass momentum, only the reward can treat it
landing-impact-not-fixed-by-torque-capsClassify each hardware symptom by the physics that sets it: quantities fixed by ballistic momentum at contact must be treated through the policy's trajectory (reward terms on approach velocity/force), never through actuator caps - and size such penalty weights against your own tracking reward, not a lighter robot's.
Symptom
Footfalls slammed at 1.78x body weight in sim baseline (human walking: 1.2-1.5x); the tempting hardware-side fix was cutting actuator torque limits.
Context
Measured directly: scaling torque limits from x1.0 down to x0.4 left peak landing force essentially unchanged (1.75 -> 1.78x body weight) - the impact force comes from the momentum of the falling mass at touchdown, not from motor effort. The fix has to change the trajectory, i.e. the policy, i.e. the reward: feet_contact_forces penalty above a threshold of 113 N (= 1.2x the 9.58 kg robot's weight), clipped, weight -0.005. The weight was sized locally, not copied: the reference robot's -0.001 would amount to 0.9% of tracking reward on this robot ("策略不会理它" - the policy would ignore it); -0.005 gives 4.4%.
Change
Added threshold-type contact-force penalty (-0.005, threshold 1.2x body weight) as one of v6-minimal's three changes; hardware torque cuts explicitly rejected as a footfall treatment.
Outcome
Landing force 1.72x -> 1.55x by v6 (target <1.5x, missed by 3% - progress booked honestly); the torque-cap dead end was documented so it would not be retried.
Mechanism
At touchdown the ground stops a ballistic mass; the impulse is set by approach velocity and effective inertia, which motors can no longer influence in the final instant. Only earlier trajectory choices (approach velocity, timing) reduce it - and those are selected by the reward, not by actuator limits.
Applies when
- footfall impact or landing noise on hardware
- proposals to derate torque as a softness fix
- importing contact-force penalty weights from another robot
“⚠️ 硬件限扭降不了落脚力 —— 砸地力来自下落质量的动量: 实测 tau ×1.0→×0.4, 落脚力 1.75→1.78× 体重纹丝不动。只有这条奖励能治。… ⚠️ 权重不能用 Pi 的 −0.001 —— 实测在我们身上只占跟踪奖励的 0.9%, 策略不会理它 (Pi 6.94 kg 更轻)。−0.005 给到 4.4%。”
train/WALK_V6_MINIMAL.md § ③ 新增 feet_contact_forces 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 FK-verify a borrowed reference's structure, then size its amplitude by the reference's job - it pins phase, the policy adds lift
reference-structure-fk-amplitude-divisionWhen borrowing a reference trajectory: verify its structural claim against your own kinematics (an invariant like flat-foot), assign it the phase-pinning job, and size amplitude low enough that the policy contributes the lift - moving toward a proven foreign value in halves, not jumps.
Symptom
walk_v4 had big knee swing (40-46 deg) but only 18-24 mm foot lift - amplitude without hip/knee/ankle phase coordination; later, walk_v5's real-robot swing ballooned to 73.6 deg (sim 55.7) with violent footfalls - amplitude over-driven by the reference.
Context
Structure first: Humanoid-Gym's 1:2:1 hip:knee:ankle reference was verified on the local model before adoption - the ratio exactly satisfies the locally derived flat-foot constraint hip - knee + ankle = 0, FK-tested at multiple amplitudes with sole pitch 0.00 deg throughout. Amplitude second, and here the first reasoning failed honestly: FK said shorter legs need LARGER reference scale (0.30 for 30 mm lift), and the FK was correct - but the premise was wrong ("FK 没错, 但前提错了"): it assumed foot lift must come from the reference. HighTorque Pi, same scale, uses 0.08 with a 0.02 m foot-height target - proof that lift is added by the policy ON TOP of the reference, whose actual job is pinning the phase relationship. Scale 0.30 made the reference the entire gait: over-constrained and over-driven. The correction went to 0.15, deliberately not Pi's 0.08: "一次只走一半, 留退路" (walk half the distance, keep a retreat).
Change
target_joint_pos_scale 0.30 -> 0.15 as one of v6-minimal's three changes, treating both the footfall force and the lateral kicking (yaw momentum scales with leg swing amplitude).
Outcome
v6 improved landing force 1.72x -> 1.55x, suspended tilt 45.9 -> 23.0 deg, turn-gain asymmetry 70% -> 19%; the later v6-halved-shaping experiment (35 mm -> 4 mm collapse) confirmed the reference still carries the gait's existence on this machine - the division of labor is real but machine-specific.
Mechanism
A joint-space reference plays two separable roles: encoding structure (phase relations that keep the foot flat) and injecting amplitude (energy). Structure transfers across robots and is checkable by FK against an invariant; amplitude is a negotiation with the policy, and over-assigning it to the reference removes the policy's freedom to modulate lift with state.
Applies when
- importing a reference gait / imitation target from another codebase
- reference amplitude reasoning based on leg length alone
- real swing amplitude far exceeds sim's under a strong reference
“FK 没错, 但前提错了。我默认抬脚必须由参考轨迹产生。HighTorque Pi 同尺度机器人 … 用 0.08, 而它 target_feet_height = 0.02 m —— 说明抬脚是策略在参考之上加出来的, 参考只负责钉住髋/膝/踝的相位配合。我们取 0.30 等于让参考本身就是整个步态, 过约束 + 过驱动”
train/WALK_V6_MINIMAL.md § ① target_joint_pos_scale 0.30 → 0.15 Before training a one-leg stand, the accounts and a probe showed the default gains could not hold it at all - kp 20 needs 0.39 rad of error to carry the static roll moment, more than the whole adduction range - so per-joint gains came first, and thermal limits set the session length
single-support-gain-authority-probeBefore training a posture that loads one joint statically, compute the steady tracking error load/kp and the series stiffness against m*g*h, and prove with a simple hand-written controller that the posture can be held under the deployment gains - change the gains first if it cannot; then size session length from the thermal account.
Symptom
The one-leg line (standing on one foot, the other folded back, no hopping) had to decide whether the existing gain profile could hold single support before any reward was designed.
Context
Hardware accounts (9.792 kg, COM 0.234 m high, 170 x 80 mm feet, legs 80% of the mass): moving the COM over one foot needs 107 mm of shift and the 20 deg hip-roll adduction range gives 131 mm - geometrically enough. The static frontal moment is 7.8-9 N*m, within RS02's 17 N*m - torque is enough. But at kp 20 carrying 7.8 N*m needs 0.39 rad of tracking error, more than the entire adduction range, and the real robot had already shown it: commanded +0.17, actual -0.04 (0.21 rad droop) under load, 0.0008 rad hanging - load, not the motor. A probe (probe_oneleg.py) then showed open-loop PD cannot hold single support on physics grounds, so the criterion became "an equilibrium exists and a hand-written 4-gain COM feedback can hold it": single-support roll stiffness is hip and ankle in series and must exceed m*g*h_com = 22.5 N*m/rad; ankle kp 12 in series with hip kp 80 gives only 10.4 (open loop 16/16 fell), ankle 60 with hip 80 gives 34.3 (52% margin).
Change
A per-joint gain profile (rl_oneleg: hip_roll kp 80, ankle_roll kp 60, the rest as rl_default) - which needed per-joint gain support in robot.yaml, the bridge, deploy and the trainer's actuator groups - decided before training. Thermal account: single support makes hip_roll the dominant heat load (about 7.8 N*m against a 7 N*m continuous rating), so acceptance and demos run in segments of at most 60 s with a temperature check.
Outcome
Under rl_oneleg the hand-written feedback held six cells cleanly for 6 s (hip_roll steady torque 2.1-3.4 N*m, half the thermal budget); under rl_default the same feedback on the same cells fell 0/4. The trained V0 policy then passed its 40-cell acceptance.
Mechanism
With PD position control, the steady error needed to carry a static load is load/kp; when that error exceeds the joint's range the posture is unreachable whatever the policy does, and series compliance between joints lowers the effective stiffness below the gravity stiffness that single support demands.
Applies when
- single-support, crouched or one-arm-load postures on PD actuators
- a joint "droops" under load on hardware but tracks well when hanging
- deciding whether a new skill needs its own gain profile
“但 kp=20 时撑住 7.8 N·m 需要 **0.39 rad 跟踪误差 > 整个内收行程**。真机已实测: 命令 +0.17 实际 −0.04（droop 0.21 rad），悬挂时 0.0008 rad——是负载不是电机。 … 单支撑滚转是 hip/ankle **串联**刚度，必须 > m·g·h_com = 22.5 N·m/rad；ankle kp12 串 hip80 只有 10.4（开环 16/16 全摔），60 串 80 = 34.3（裕 52%） … **rl_default 同反馈同格 0/4 全摔**（增益档必要性对照）”
git:Lucen V2@origin/oneleg-line:train/ONELEG_V0_SPEC.md § §1-1 单脚站: 几何可行，卡点是 hip_roll 增益权限 / §2 A 线增益 / §5 probe 定谳 The advisor's "runtime five-stage state machine + per-stage reference poses + RL residual" appeared in none of the three papers it cited - reading the originals changed the plan and downgraded two widely repeated industry claims
advisor-paraphrase-vs-paperRead the primary source behind any piece of advice before adopting its architecture; record where the paraphrase and the original differ, downgrade claims the originals do not support to speculation, and adopt what the verified sources actually share.
Symptom
After the violent first real run, an advisor proposed re-architecting recovery as a runtime staged state machine with reference poses and an RL residual, citing HoST, HumanUP and StableMimic.
Context
The three papers were read in full on 2026-08-09 and tabulated (deployment form, what the "stages" really are, hard constraints, references). HoST: one end-to-end policy, height-gated rewards in training, action anchored as q + beta*a with a beta curriculum. HumanUP: two training stages with the same observation/action; the vendor's three-stage state machine is the baseline it beats (41.7% vs 78.3%); Stage II tracks an 8x slowed Stage I trajectory (4x too violent, 10x does not converge). StableMimic: a learned soft gate. On 08-10 more sources were checked the same way: the Agility page does not say Digit's self-righting was learned in simulation (only step recovery is stated as RL), so the claim was downgraded to speculation; HoST's support for the 12-DoF armless Mini Pi exists in its code repository, not in the paper text.
Change
Adopted only what the originals share: a hard action bound or anchored action space, strong smoothing including a second-difference term, a slowed hidden reference, heavy DR and real fallen states. The staged runtime state machine was not adopted.
Outcome
The next re-rooting candidates came straight from the verified material, and the beta-anchored action space (HoST, with the Mini Pi configuration as the nearest real-robot precedent) became V2, the lineage that later stood up on hardware.
Mechanism
A paraphrase compresses a paper into the advisor's own architecture; only the original shows what was actually deployed, what was a baseline, and which numbers came with which ablation.
Applies when
- an advisor, agent or summary proposes an architecture with citations
- an industry claim ("X learned it in sim") is about to justify a design
- several papers are cited for one combined recipe
“⇒ **顾问的核心形态"runtime 五阶段状态机 + 每阶段参考姿态 + RL residual"在三篇引文 里均不存在**,其中 HumanUP 还点名 state machine 是局限。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §26 三篇引文精读判决(2026-08-09 全文核对;顾问转述与原文有出入) Removing a hand trim re-exposed the plant offset it had been silently compensating - and a slope scan told bias from sensitivity
hand-trims-hide-plant-offsetsTreat hand-tuned trims as undocumented plant measurements: before deleting one, find what it compensates and re-house that knowledge in the model or the reward budget; diagnose posture errors with a sensitivity sweep to distinguish constant bias from gain problems.
Symptom
After switching from the old hand-trimmed default to the clean geometric zero, the retrained stand policy's only regression was torso lean: 1.8 deg -> 4.1 deg backward.
Context
The old default's ankle-pitch trim (-0.0489/+0.0628) had been pre-compensating a fore-aft COM mismatch; removing the trim removed the hidden compensation, and the posture reward alone was too weak to win it back. A COM sensitivity scan settled what kind of problem this was: sweeping base COM offset -50 to +50 mm gave nearly identical slopes for old and new policies (~0.026 deg/mm) - "不是质心敏感度问题, 是恒定偏置" (not a sensitivity problem, a constant bias). Fix landed in stand_v1b: posture corrected to +0.24 deg while keeping symmetry (<=0.1 deg) and low effort (0.259), disturbance rejection better than both predecessors. Model credibility was checked the honest way: v0's sim prediction at the real COM position (-22 mm) was -2.31 deg lean vs real measured 2.2-3.1 deg - "预测精准命中" - which is what licensed trusting v1b's -0.52 deg prediction. (Side flag from the same file: a sign convention had been documented wrongly in early comments - gravity_base[0] > 0 is forward lean.)
Change
Trims retired in favor of explicit modeling: symmetric geometric default plus a posture-reward budget sized to carry the real COM offset; the offset itself known (real COM ~22 mm behind model).
Outcome
stand_v1b passed acceptance as the standing lineage's final version; the walk-line requirement "加大躯干姿态惩罚权重" was upgraded from suggestion to mandatory, since walking amplifies what standing tolerates (real walk_v1 hit 26 deg lean vs sim 7.4).
Mechanism
Hand trims are plant knowledge stored in the wrong place - invisible, asymmetric, and stale after recalibration; removing them re-exposes the raw plant error. A sensitivity sweep separates the two possible diagnoses (slope change = control problem; parallel offset = constant plant bias), each with a different fix.
Applies when
- cleaning up hand-tuned offsets/trims in defaults or calibration
- a posture bias appears after a default or calibration change
- deciding whether a lean is a COM-sensitivity or constant-offset issue
“两者斜率几乎相同(≈0.026°/mm),v1 只是整体多后仰约 2.4° —— 不是质心敏感度问题,是恒定偏置。成因:旧 default 的踝俯仰 trim(−0.0489/+0.0628)本就预补偿了前后质心偏差,换成零位 default 后这份补偿没了 … v0 在真机质心处(−22 mm)的 sim 预测为 −2.31° 后仰,真机实测 2.2~3.1° 后仰 —— 预测精准命中。”
train/RETRAIN_v2.md § 4b. stand_v1 独立验证结果 / 4c. stand_v1b 验收结果 Three times a joint-angle stand-in for a foot-level quantity was gamed or lied - the absolute ankle roll sold stance width to buy flat feet, a hip-roll criterion was confounded by 50 deg of yaw, and the joint table said 0.271 m where the feet were 0.159 m apart
joint-space-proxy-for-task-space-quantityExpress foot-level (task-space) goals and acceptance criteria in task space - link attitude and lateral spacing from world poses - never through joint angles that assume other joints are at zero, and measure the task-space value before trusting a joint-space estimate of it.
Symptom
The line's first real-robot get-up (v2_6, 2026-08-11) was "fairly stable", but after standing the feet were too close and the robot slid into the splits and fell several times; later reports added that it also got up through a split posture.
Context
(1) flat_feet penalized sum |q_ankle_roll|, but a flat foot is ankle roll compensating hip roll; the proxy taxed the compensated wide solution, and the untaxed combination was hips straight plus ankles at zero - flat and narrow. On hardware the lateral support shrank to hip width plus centimetres, lateral balance rested on 11 N*m ankle motors, and the feet slid apart. (2) The next rung's acceptance criterion "hip roll >= 20 deg" assumed zero hip yaw; at 50 deg of yaw the lateral contribution is x cos 50 ~ 0.64 - the same substitution again, inside a criterion. (3) A new task-space diagnostic reading the foot links' world poses measured v2_6c's stance at 0.159 m where the kinematic audit from joint angles had said 0.271 m (0.271 x cos 47 ~ 0.17).
Change
Rule written into the spec: task-space quantities are never expressed through joint-space proxies. V3.1's stance terms were all task-space: flat_feet_task from the foot links' world orientation, lateral foot spacing in metres, stand_pose stripped of both roll joints.
Outcome
From scratch with task-space terms (V3.1 P1c): lateral stance 0.355 m, foot residual tilt median 0 deg / P75 2.0 deg, all six criteria passing, mu 1.0-0.4 all 100%.
Mechanism
A joint proxy bundles the goal with everything else those joints do; the optimizer finds the combination the proxy does not tax, and a joint-based criterion silently assumes the other joints sit at their nominal.
Applies when
- rewarding flat feet, stance width, foot placement or end-effector pose
- an acceptance criterion is written in joint angles for a geometric goal
- joints with large yaw or coupled axes are involved
“**病根 = 关节空间代理**:`flat_feet` 罚 Σ|q_ankle_roll|(§41 取的简易口径)。 "脚掌平"的运动学正解是 **踝滚补偿髋滚**(q_ankle_roll ≈ −q_hip_roll) … 代理把"脚平"和"站距"绑死在一起卖了。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §43 真机首试入账(2026-08-11)判读:flat_feet 的代理口径错误 When training fails repeatedly, inject the target behavior open-loop - stop tuning rewards for an unverified behavior
open-loop-probe-before-reward-tuningAfter two failed training attempts at a skill, stop training: demonstrate the behavior open-loop on the real plant/sim first, and only resume training once you hold a measured, safe, sign-verified target trajectory.
Symptom
Three sidewalk training rounds failed; hypotheses multiplied (exploration failure / wrong reference waveform / insufficient authority) with no way to pick between them by running more training.
Context
Instead of a fourth reward guess, the team wrote probe_side_ref.py: the candidate reference is injected open-loop on top of a frozen policy's output (bypassing PPO entirely), directly measuring "what happens if the robot literally does this waveform" - separating all three hypotheses in one experiment (5 seeds x 8 s per condition, several waveform families and gains). The probe immediately eliminated the authority hypothesis (full-amplitude execution, 5/5 survival) and localized the problem to the waveform/measurement side. The closing principle was written down after the saga: without a verified target behavior, tuning rewards is "在黑暗里试钥匙" (trying keys in the dark).
Change
Standing method: before opening another training rung on a failing skill, build an open-loop (or task-space) generator of the intended behavior, measure whether the physical system can express it and what it looks like - then train toward a verified, quantified target.
Outcome
The probe chain produced the verified waveform (reversed-sign triangle, half gain), quantified safe amplitude (tilt 8.2 deg at band top, foot distance clear of the wall), exposed the metric bug when probe and training disagreed, and ultimately supplied the feed-forward that made C4 pass in +100 iters.
Mechanism
Training couples exploration, reward design, and feasibility into one opaque outcome; open-loop injection cuts the loop and tests feasibility and waveform alone. A behavior demonstrated open-loop converts the remaining failure into a pure credit-assignment/reward question - and its measured trajectory becomes the reference itself.
Applies when
- repeated training failures on one skill with multiple live hypotheses
- uncertainty whether the platform can physically express the behavior
- a reference trajectory's shape/sign/amplitude is guessed, not measured
“三轮 FAIL 之后不再猜，写 train/probe_side_ref.py 把参考开环注入到策略输出之上（绕过 PPO），直接量「照这个波形做会怎样」，一次分开三个假说：甲 探索 / 乙 波形 / 丙 权限。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3f. C4 真因定谳（开环探针） / 3k. 建议的下一步 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 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 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 Exponential tracking kernels go flat exactly when the error is largest - pair them with an L2 term for the far field
exp-kernel-needs-l2-far-fieldNever let an exp/Gaussian kernel be the only tracking pressure on a quantity that can drift far from target: pair it with an unbounded (L2) term sized as the "don't diverge" floor, and check which frame the kernel reads.
Symptom
With only an exp-type yaw tracking term (exp(-err/std^2), std 0.25), a robot whose heading had drifted badly received almost no corrective gradient: at error 0.6 rad/s the term evaluates to exp(-0.36/0.0625) = 0.003 - near zero AND flat.
Context
The exp kernel is excellent for fine tracking near zero error but its gradient vanishes at large error - precisely when correction matters most. Fix: add track_ang_vel_z_err_l2 (-0.5), a plain quadratic on the same quantity: "exp 管精细跟踪、L2 管'别发散', 互补". Both terms deliberately read WORLD-frame wz (matching the exp term's source), because this torso sways enough that body-frame wz means are systematically off (measured -0.039 while actually turning +0.152). The same far-field-gradient argument reappears in the v8 risk list: frozen joints could not climb back because their huge error put them on the exp plateau ("远端梯度消失是冻结自锁的帮凶").
Change
Added the L2 companion term at -0.5 alongside the existing exp term (a term that had been in an earlier draft and was lost in a rewrite - itself worth noticing).
Outcome
Corrective pressure restored across the whole error range; the exp+L2 pairing became the house pattern for tracking terms.
Mechanism
d/de[exp(-e^2/s^2)] -> 0 as e grows: the kernel saturates and cannot distinguish bad from terrible. A quadratic's gradient grows with error, covering the far field; summing the two yields monotone corrective pressure with fine shaping near the target.
Applies when
- tracking rewards use exp/Gaussian kernels alone
- a drifted or frozen state fails to recover during training
- designing tracking terms for quantities with large transient errors
“exp 在误差大时梯度趋零, 恰好在最需要纠正的时候失灵。… 误差 0.6 → exp(-0.36/0.0625) = 0.003, 接近零且平坦。… exp 管精细跟踪、L2 管"别发散", 互补。”
train/WALK_V7_SPEC.md § ② track_ang_vel_z_err_l2 −0.5 —— 补 exp 的梯度洞 When the training reset distribution changes, freeze the acceptance distribution separately and pin its seed - the same checkpoint measured twice differed by 3.8 and 10.2 points
frozen-acceptance-distribution-and-pinned-seedAcceptance distributions are frozen artifacts, decoupled from whatever the training distribution becomes and evaluated with a pinned seed, and every gate row carries its sample size so that a small-n row is never read as a regression.
Symptom
R0.3 added easier roll-arc start states to the training resets, and the acceptance script shared the training category table; separately, the same checkpoint scored side 3.8 points and mid 10.2 points differently on two runs of the same script.
Context
Acceptance ran 512 parallel envs drawn from the fall categories. Had it kept following the training table, 15% of acceptance samples would have landed on states easier than prone - inflated scores and generations that could not be compared. The two same-checkpoint runs had identical per-item height medians, so the ruler had not changed; the spread was reset resampling noise (side n ~ 169, sigma 2.3%; mid n ~ 35, sigma 8.3%). The spec's "20 seeds" had always meant controlled seeds.
Change
accept_recovery.ACCEPT_CATEGORIES pinned to the four R0-R0.2 categories and decoupled from the training FALL_CATEGORIES; --seed 20260809 pinned, after which two consecutive runs were bit-identical. The mid row (n ~ 35) was labelled the bluntest gate.
Outcome
Every later generation (R0.3 through V3.1) was scored on the frozen distribution and seed, which is what let R0.3's intermediate state be read as "no measurable gain" (62.7 -> 62.1%) and R0.2's mid drop be booked as noise rather than a regression.
Mechanism
An acceptance set that follows the training distribution measures a moving target, and an unpinned reset draw adds sampling noise that small-n rows cannot absorb.
Applies when
- the training reset or command distribution changes between generations
- repeated evaluations of one checkpoint disagree
- a small category drives a pass/fail decision
“**分布冻结**:`accept_recovery.ACCEPT_CATEGORIES` 钉死 §5 四类 … 与训练侧 `FALL_CATEGORIES` **解耦**。 … **side 差 3.8 点、mid 差 10.2 点**(h 中位逐项一致,证明不是尺子变了)—— 纯 reset 重采样噪声 … 钉死后两次连跑逐位相同。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §14 验收尺子的两处加固(R0.3 起生效,向后兼容) 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 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) Every new penalty ships with a pre-registered withdrawal clause - if healthy gait must pay above the cap, the term stands down
calibration-threshold-with-withdrawal-clauseIntroduce every new penalty with: the zero-cost-option audit, a replay-calibrated weight formula (healthy pays a fixed small fraction of tracking), and a pre-registered withdrawal condition - and let the clause fire without argument when the calibration says the term cannot be afforded.
Symptom
Three same-shaped crashes had established a failure archetype: v4's clearance, v8a's landing window (weight off by 58x uncalibrated), and v6a's bare hip_yaw suppression all combined a zero-cost "don't move" option with a fee on any motion - a reverse barrier that pushes policies toward standing still.
Context
The v11 landing-window penalty was therefore introduced under a calibration-threshold protocol: (1) shape chosen with the window tightened (h_gate 0.03 -> 0.02, because 0.03 equaled the clearance target and priced the entire descent); (2) weight from a FORMULA, not judgment: measure the term's raw value on healthy replays (v5/v10b), set w = -(0.10-0.15 x tracking reward) / raw_healthy; (3) withdrawal clause pre-registered: if healthy gait must pay >15% of tracking no matter the tuning, the term is withdrawn to the next version rather than forced in - "不硬上". The companion hip_yaw quieting term ran the same protocol (calibrate on replays, healthy pays <=5%) and was later retired entirely when a structural fix (zero action scale) made its shaping tax unnecessary.
Change
Penalty introduction protocol: shape audit (what is the zero-cost option?), replay-based weight formula, healthy-pay cap with a written stand-down condition - all before training.
Outcome
The landing term was in fact withdrawn under its clause (v12 records "P5 落地窗口罚 已撤 … 维持撤下"), demonstrating the protocol firing as designed instead of the fourth same-type crash.
Mechanism
A penalty's damage mode is mispricing healthy behavior; since the healthy price is measurable in advance on replays, both the weight and the go/no-go decision can be computed rather than discovered by a ruined training run. The withdrawal clause converts "make it work" pressure into a clean deferral.
Applies when
- adding any motion-taxing penalty to a working gait
- a proposed term's weight has no measurement behind it
- a previous same-shaped term crashed training
“权重公式而非拍脑袋:先在 v5/v10b 回放上量 h_gate=0.02 的原始值,w = −(0.10~0.15 × 跟踪奖励) / raw_健康;标定门槛:若健康步态无论如何要付 >15% 跟踪,本项撤下留 v12,不硬上 (v4 clearance/v8a-B/v6a 三次同型翻车的教训:代价为零的"不动"选项 + 一动就收费 = 反向壁垒)。”
train/WALK_V11_SPEC.md § 6. P5 —— 落地窗口罚(三代欠账,标定门槛制) Compare the achieved reward to the computed ignore-floor to tell "never learned" from "learned but unprofitable"
ignore-floor-diagnosisFor any skill that trains flat, compute the reward the null policy would earn on that term; achieved==floor means the behavior never paid out (find why: exploration, reward observability, or feasibility) - do not tune weights first.
Symptom
C4 sidewalk failed on both arms; the question was whether the policy had found sidewalk and rejected it as unprofitable, or never found it at all - two diagnoses with opposite fixes.
Context
The theoretical value of the sidewalk tracking term for a policy that completely ignores the command was computable from the command distribution: 0.189. Trained final values landed at 0.187 (arm A) and 0.204 (arm B) - sitting exactly on the ignore-floor - while the honest balance at the optimum actually favored sidewalking (net +0.88/step inside the side bucket). Later the same arithmetic closed the whole saga: for the true reward landscape, doing real sidewalk scored 0.153 vs 0.944 for ignoring - the policy's refusal "是理性最优，不是探索失败" (rational optimum, not exploration failure) under one hypothesis, and under the final measurement-corrected account the policy had "每一次都在 做理性选择" (made the rational choice every time).
Change
Diagnostic rule adopted: compute the ignore-floor for the new term; if the achieved value sits on it, the behavior was never expressed in useful volume (or the reward cannot distinguish it - check both); if the achieved value is above floor but the behavior is absent at deployment, the policy sampled it and priced it out - then the reward balance, not exploration, is the lever.
Outcome
Correctly identified that PPO had not merely under-valued sidewalk; each subsequent hypothesis (waveform sign, regularization cage, exploration form, reward kernel) was tested against this floor arithmetic, which kept the search honest through three reversals.
Mechanism
Every reward term has a computable value under the null behavior; the achieved-vs-floor gap is a one-number audit of whether the optimizer ever monetized the target behavior. It converts "training failed" into one of two mechanistically distinct states with different fixes.
Applies when
- a new skill's tracking reward plateaus early
- deciding between exploration fixes and reward-weight fixes
- post-mortem of a failed curriculum rung
“track_lin_vel_y_exp 训练终值恰好坐在「完全无视指令」的底分上（A 0.187 / B 0.204，理论值 0.189），而终点 balance 明明有利（side 桶内净 +0.88/步）。不是学会了不划算，是根本没学到。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3e. 为什么首战 FAIL A binary reward band on the swing knee had zero gradient everywhere below it, so the one-leg policy parked in an unloaded "fake touchdown" that Isaac's 5 N threshold scored as success and MuJoCo showed as real pressing - a capped constant-gradient ramp, retrained from scratch, passed 40/40
binary-band-reward-fake-touchdownShape approach-to-target rewards as capped ramps with gradient from the starting posture, never as bands or indicators; and compare contact-based terms across simulators, because a policy riding just under a force threshold looks perfect in one and wrong in the other.
Symptom
At iteration 1,000 of the first one-leg run the swing foot never lifted: the policy stood with the "raised" foot resting lightly on the ground. In Isaac the contact-match term paid 96% of full marks; the same policy in MuJoCo pressed that foot on the ground for 450 frames.
Context
The swing-leg goal was "shank folded fully back" (knee 1.5-1.95 rad), rewarded as a binary band: +0.8 inside [1.5, 1.95], zero elsewhere. From knee 0.05 to 1.5 rad the term was flat. Contact is judged at a 5 N force threshold, so a foot carrying less than 5 N counts as lifted. The walk line had hit the same disease with a binary indicator (v4) and fixed it with a capped ramp (knee_swing_amplitude).
Change
swing_knee_fold changed from the binary band to a ramp clamp(|q|/1.5, 0, 1) - a constant gradient capped near 86 deg - and the policy was retrained from scratch (V0r1). After the first real-robot try showed the fold still too low, its weight went 0.8 -> 2.0 (V0.1).
Outcome
V0r1 model_2300 passed the full acceptance 40/40 (swing knee 1.72 rad, about 98.5 deg) and was stamped as oneleg_v0.onnx; the cross-simulator disagreement is recorded as the thing that caught the cheat.
Mechanism
A reward that is flat until the target is reached gives no gradient to approach it, so the policy settles for the nearest state other terms reward - here, a foot that satisfies the contact threshold without lifting; a second simulator with different contact force resolution exposes such threshold-riding.
Applies when
- rewarding a posture target with an in-band / out-of-band indicator
- a contact threshold decides whether a foot counts as lifted
- trainer-side contact terms are near full marks while the video looks wrong
“初版二值带 [1.5,1.95] 在膝 0.05→1.5 全程零梯度，策略停在"卸力虚点地"（Isaac 5N 阈下 contact_match 96% 满分 / MuJoCo 同策略 450 帧实压——跨仿真器互证抓作弊）；v4 二值指示同型病，按 knee_swing_amplitude 判例改常数梯度封顶 ramp，从零重训 … **oneleg_v0.onnx = V0r1 model_2300, 40/40 PASS**”
git:Lucen V2@origin/oneleg-line:train/ONELEG_V0_SPEC.md § §4 奖励表 swing_knee_fold 行 / §8 核查单 5 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) Training at scale 0.4 is NOT the twin of deploying 0.5 at power 0.8 - the algebra matches, the learned policy does not
deploy-scaling-not-training-equivalentNever assume deploy-side scalings can be folded into training-time constants ("burning the crutch into training"): the learned optimum depends on the training-time authority, so treat such conversions as full experiments with pre-registered expectations and a sim2sim gate before any hardware.
Symptom
s1g (S1.6) trained from zero at action_scale 0.4 - meant as the "training twin" of the hardware-proven s1c-at-power-0.8 (0.8 x 0.5 = 0.4) - was all green in Isaac (zero falls, reward 117) yet scored 0/3 across all eight checkpoints and 0/20 at 20 seeds in the MuJoCo gate, falling forward at median 1.57 s with a 2.9x speed overshoot.
Context
The pre-registered expectation (survival gate should pass, since the conviction matrix showed s1c@0.8+delay2 all-survive) was cleanly falsified, and the harness was acquitted by controls: --delay 0 fell identically (not a delay fragility), check_contract all green, and s1c through the same harness survived 2/3. The verdict: "「s1c@0.8 = 0.4 训练孪生」的代数等价不成立" - a policy deployed with a derated output still LIVES in the 0.5 internal model it trained under (its value function, its expectations of its own authority), while a policy that starts training with reduced authority learns a different, clip-hugging gait with zero margin for plant differences ("部署端打折的策略活在 0.5 的内模里,训练起点收权限学出的是贴 clip 的 另一套步态,对 plant 差异零余量"). Result: the policy was withdrawn before hardware ("撤回——不上真机"), the lineage root moved back to the 0.5-contract s1c-5500, and this became the C ladder's cited fact-check ("s1g 是 0/20 证伪出局的那一代").
Change
The amplitude-surgery route abandoned; contract kept at scale 0.5; the deploy-side 0.8 crutch later retired on its own merits when the delay-complete s1e generation ran at full power.
Outcome
One training run bought a clean falsification of a plausible algebraic identity; no hardware time was spent on it because the sim2sim gate caught it.
Mechanism
Output scaling commutes with the network arithmetic but not with learning: the training-time scale shapes which gait solutions are reachable and how much clip headroom the optimum keeps. A derated mature policy retains the wide-authority solution executed softly; a from-zero narrow-authority policy finds a different optimum that saturates its smaller envelope - the two are not the same controller in different units.
Applies when
- proposing to move a deployment derating into a training constant
- a scaled-down contract policy hugs the action clip
- Isaac-green / cross-sim-zero results on a re-scaled lineage
“预注册 a) 证伪——Isaac 全绿(零摔/reward 117)但 MuJoCo --delay 2 八档 checkpoint 扫描全数 0/3、iter6500 20-seed 0/20 … 「s1c@0.8 = 0.4 训练孪生」的代数等价不成立: 部署端打折的策略活在 0.5 的内模里,训练起点收权限学出的是贴 clip 的另一套步态,对 plant 差异零余量。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 3. S1.6 判决(2026-08-07 验收) Mirror augmentation over an asymmetric default injects systematic error - symmetrize the default first and verify the transform bit-exact
mirror-augmentation-needs-symmetric-defaultBefore enabling any symmetry augmentation, make every constant inside the observation encoding exactly symmetric, and validate the mirror transform against forward kinematics to machine precision - an unverified augmentation is a new error source, not a regularizer.
Symptom
Mirror data augmentation was about to be added while both default poses (standing_pose, walk nominal_pose) were asymmetric - stale hand-tuned compensations from before a ground re-calibration, with hip_yaw differing 2.40 deg between sides and the foot soles actually tilted (pitch 2.88/1.35 deg, roll -2.47/+0.25 deg).
Context
The observation encodes joint_pos_rel = q - default. Under mirroring q_l -> -q_r, the relation (q-default)_l -> -(q-default)_r holds only if default_l = -default_r; with an asymmetric default, augmentation produces observation pairs that are NOT mirror images, i.e. "default 不对称时做镜像增强会引入系统性错误,比不做还糟" (worse than not doing it). The fix: adopt model geometric zero as standing default (MuJoCo FK verified: sole pitch/roll exactly 0, asymmetry 0.00 deg) and a symmetric crouch for walk (hip -0.25/knee -0.5/ankle -0.25 satisfying hip - knee + ankle = 0 to keep soles flat). The mirror transform itself was verified bit-exact before use: pseudovector vs polar-vector sign patterns (ang vel [-1,1,-1], gravity [1,-1,1], cmd [1,-1,-1]), joint swap-and-negate; FK check that left-foot pose under q equals the mirror of right-foot pose under mirror(q), measured error 0.00e+00.
Change
Defaults symmetrized first (with init heights recomputed by FK), stand policy retrained on the new default so both policies share one default; augmentation enabled only after the FK mirror test passed.
Outcome
stand_v1 achieved exact left/right pairing (l_knee -0.1013 / r_knee +0.1013), six-pair asymmetry 0.0 deg, height fluctuation 7 -> 1 mm, 33% less mean |action|.
Mechanism
Augmentation asserts an equivariance of the observation encoding; any asymmetric constant inside the encoding (the default) breaks the asserted symmetry, so the augmented data teaches a false invariance. Verifying the transform against FK geometry tests the assertion end to end, independent of the training stack.
Applies when
- adding mirror/symmetry augmentation to locomotion training
- defaults or trims were hand-tuned per side at any point
- observations are expressed relative to a default pose
“观测里 joint_pos_rel = q − default。镜像下 q_l → −q_r,要让 (q−default)_l → −(q−default)_r 成立,必须 default_l = −default_r。default 不对称时做镜像增强会引入系统性错误,比不做还糟。… 位置误差与姿态矩阵误差实测均为 0.00e+00。”
train/RETRAIN_v2.md § 2. 前提:default 姿态必须先对称化(不是可选项) / 3. 镜像变换 Fix a too-deep nominal pose before adding any penalties - the default stance defines the basin training starts in
nominal-posture-before-penaltiesBefore tuning penalties on a degenerate gait, audit the nominal pose and height targets against morphology and published ratios; if the default stance encodes the degenerate behavior, fix it first - and recompute dependent quantities (init height) by FK, not by hand.
Symptom
Policy lived in a crouched shuffle; nominal knee angle was 0.5 rad (28.6 deg) - deeper than published configs (Unitree G1 0.3 rad / 17.2 deg, Booster T1 0.4 rad) - so the policy's starting point and its action-space center both sat inside the crouch basin.
Context
Initially ranked "secondary" in the local diagnosis, this was promoted to co-first priority by the cross-check against published reward tables, which states that with nominal knee flexion above ~0.4 rad, fixing the posture must precede adding any penalties ("改这个之前别加任何 惩罚都是白费"). Companion base-height items: walk profile had weakened base_height_l2 to -5.0 (base class -10, field standard -10 to -20, "the second most common cause of death"), and the height target must be the STANDING height (0.384), not the crouch height.
Change
Nominal knee 0.5 -> 0.3 rad with init_base_height recomputed by MuJoCo FK (0.3739 -> 0.3802); base_height_l2 restored to -10 with standing height target; both bundled as first-priority alongside the clearance term.
Outcome
Part of the v5/v6 package that lifted swing height to 34 mm and tracking to 87%; the crouch basin stopped being the default answer.
Mechanism
The nominal pose is the fixed point every regularizer pulls toward and the point where action=0 lands; if that point is itself the degenerate posture, every penalty fights the geometry. Correcting the attractor is prior to shaping the gradient field around it.
Applies when
- policy converges to a crouched or collapsed posture
- nominal joint angles were chosen for stability rather than gait
- base-height reward targets or weights were locally weakened
“研究明确说"nominal 膝屈超过 ~0.4 rad 必须先改,改这个之前别加任何惩罚"。我们是 0.50,超标。… base_height_l2 在 walk profile 里被减到 −5.0(基类是 −10)。研究说这是"第二常见死因"且应 −10 ~ −20。改回 −10。目标高度用站立高 0.384 是对的(研究要求 target 必须是*站立*高度而非蹲姿)。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § 修正 ①(升级优先级) / 修正 ④ 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 2-degree joint-zero calibration fix moved the whole runnable envelope - re-test old "cannot run" verdicts after recalibration
zero-offset-calibration-shifts-envelopeDate every hardware verdict with the calibration state; after any zero/mount recalibration, re-test previously condemned policy-power combinations and previously "unexplainable" posture offsets before attributing either to training or model.
Symptom
s1d was on record as "only runs at power 0.7" (kicked wildly at 0.8); after a calibration pass, the same policy ran 12 s at 0.8 with no kicking at all.
Context
The calibration had fixed a 2.08 deg zero offset on r_hip_roll - exactly the constant error source on the dominant joint of the kicking oscillation loop ("恰是乱踢振荡环主导关节的常值误差源"). The three-generation post-calibration hardware sweep also closed a second case: the robot's mysterious "backward lean" disappeared after calibration, and the sim-real posture difference collapsed from opposite-sign 5+ deg to same-sign ~2 deg ("后仰案实质了结") - the lean had been a sensing/zero artifact, not a mass-model error. Booked consequence: if the s1d recovery re-verifies, "真机可跑档整体 上移" - every policy's runnable power envelope shifts up, and downstream lineages' hardware expectations get revised.
Change
Joint-zero and mount calibration promoted from setup chore to a variable that dates hardware verdicts: verdicts about which power/scale levels a policy can run are conditioned on the calibration state they were measured under.
Outcome
One policy rehabilitated at a higher power level; one standing sim-real posture discrepancy closed without touching model or training; a pending re-verification booked rather than asserted.
Mechanism
A constant joint-zero error acts as a persistent disturbance injected at the feedback loop's most-loaded joint; near an oscillation threshold, removing a 2-degree bias is the difference between a stable and an unstable loop. Since the error is additive and machine-side, it shifts every policy's stability envelope simultaneously - which is why verdicts must carry their calibration date.
Conflicts
The s1d rehabilitation awaited one confirming re-run at the time of writing ("待复核一跑坐实") - the offset-as-cause reading is the head suspect, not a closed verdict.
Applies when
- a policy oscillates at a power level others tolerate
- sim and real disagree on a constant posture offset
- deciding whether to re-test old hardware verdicts after maintenance/calibration
“发现①:s1d@0.8 能跑了(旧账「只有 0.7 能跑」)——12s 无乱踢。头号嫌疑 = 标定修正:r_hip_roll offset 修 2.08°,恰是乱踢振荡环主导关节的常值误差源。… 发现②:「后仰」标定后消失 … sim-real 姿态差从反号 5°+ 收敛到同号 2°,后仰案实质了结。”
train/README.md § 真机 @0.8 三代横评(2026-08-07 标定后) Close a question with an audit, then freeze the wording - later symptoms may not reopen it without new hard evidence
frozen-verdicts-semantic-boundariesWhen an audit closes a hardware-vs-policy question, record the closing evidence, freeze a citable wording for future recurrences, and set the reopening bar explicitly; separate robustness perturbations from plant-truth questions so a DR rung's failure can never silently reopen a closed measurement.
Symptom
Recurring directional bias on the robot kept re-suggesting "maybe the hardware/COM/mechanics are asymmetric", threatening to re-litigate questions that audits had already closed - burning attention each time a descendant policy leaned or drifted.
Context
Two boundary decisions were written as permanent: (1) semantic separation - "S2④ COM ±20mm = 纯鲁棒性扰动,不再承担「解释真机后仰」任务" - if the COM-DR rung degrades, the ONLY allowed conclusion is "policy insufficiently robust to COM uncertainty"; reopening "is the CAD COM wrong" is forbidden because the mass audit was completed and closed (@63f9212). (2) a frozen wording for chirality, to be quoted verbatim whenever left/right bias appears in later rungs: observed directional bias = policy-level spontaneous symmetry breaking; plant asymmetry = no supporting evidence after the mass + model symmetry audit; mitigation candidate pi_sym queued, not blocking. The evidential basis was quantitative: the root policy was perfectly symmetric under +/-6 N*s pushes (40/40) while descendants broke (17/40, 13/40) - "手性是 S2 训练中获得的, 根没有; 机械侧已双 PASS 关案, 不重开".
Change
Closed questions carry (a) the audit commit that closed them, (b) a frozen citable wording for recurrences, and (c) an explicit evidence bar for reopening ("无新硬证据不得重开").
Outcome
Later chirality observations (C2's 15 pp turn gap, hip_roll drift bias) were handled as policy-lineage properties with policy-side mitigations, without a single hardware re-audit cycle.
Mechanism
Symptom classes recur under different guises; without a frozen verdict each recurrence re-runs the same expensive investigation and risks a different (worse-informed) conclusion. Freezing verdict plus wording converts recurring symptoms into citations, while the evidence bar keeps the closure honest rather than dogmatic - the root/descendant symmetry comparison is what makes "it's the training, not the machine" checkable at any time.
Applies when
- a recurring symptom keeps suggesting an already-audited hardware cause
- writing conclusions for a completed calibration/audit
- a DR rung's degradation invites re-measuring the plant
“若 S2④ 退化,结论只能是「当前 policy 对 COM 不确定性不够鲁棒」,不得重开「CAD COM 是不是错了」… 手性冻结表述 … Plant asymmetry: no supporting evidence after mass + model symmetry audit … 无新硬证据不得重开机械不对称”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 4. 语义分界与手性冻结表述(2026-08-07 用户定,永久) 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) 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) Run acceptance under measured contact parameters - honest condim/torsional-friction flipped a false PASS into a real-matching FAIL
eval-plant-honesty-contact-paramsPin the evaluation plant's contact model to measured values (contact dimension, torsional/rolling friction, mu) before trusting any gate that involves slip, impact, or drift - a gate can only fail a policy for physics its simulator contains.
Symptom
walk_v5 passed the old acceptance battery yet failed on the real robot (footfall force, drift, kicking) - the evaluation plant was flattering the policy.
Context
The battery was re-run under "honest contact parameters" - condim 4 (adding torsional contact) with measured torsional friction 0.035 - and v5 then FAILED exactly the rows corresponding to its real problems: heading 185 deg (limit 30), support-foot yaw slip 284 deg (limit 80), landing force 1.72x (limit 1.5x), suspended tilt 45.9 deg (limit 10). The slip physics depends on torsional friction, which the default contact model (condim 3) does not even simulate - a slip problem is invisible to an evaluator that cannot represent yaw friction at the foot. Term-sizing measurements for the new rewards were likewise taken under the same honest parameters (cmd 0.45, skipping the 5 s start transient).
Change
Acceptance harness pinned to condim 4 / torsion 0.035 (measured); verdicts issued under defaults declared non-citable for these rows.
Outcome
Sim acceptance verdicts began agreeing with hardware ("现在失败, 与真机一致"); the v6 fixes could be developed and validated against an evaluator that could actually see the disease.
Mechanism
An evaluator is a plant model too: contact dimensionality and friction values decide which failure modes exist in the simulation at all. Evaluating under default contact parameters tests the policy in a world where its real failure is physically impossible, producing structurally false PASSes.
Applies when
- sim acceptance passes policies that fail on hardware
- slip/drift/impact gates run under default simulator contact settings
- setting up a cross-simulator evaluation harness
“accept_v2.py 已加三条判据, walk_v5 在诚实的接触参数下(--condim 4 --torsion 0.035)现在失败, 与真机一致:直行 15s 航向累计 <30° | 185° ✗ … 落脚力峰值 <1.5× 体重 | 1.72× ✗”
train/WALK_V6_MINIMAL.md § 5. 验收 The 1.5 Hz step-frequency gate was retracted - the author had misread his own actuator data, and the limit fought pendulum dynamics
gate-threshold-retracted-frequencyEvery gate threshold must cite its measurement and survive a first-principles sanity check; when a gate keeps failing otherwise healthy behavior, re-derive the threshold from the raw data before enforcing it again - and retract wrong gates in writing.
Symptom
An acceptance criterion "step frequency <= 1.5 Hz" kept failing healthy policies (walk_v4 at 2.33 Hz), and an earlier attempt to force slower stepping (v3) had killed stepping altogether.
Context
The threshold had been derived from the author's own actuator frequency-response measurements - but re-reading the raw table showed the misread: amplitude ratio at 2.0 Hz is 0.88 (knee) / 0.83 (ankle), acceptable; the genuinely bad point was walk_v2's 3.8 Hz at 0.58. Mechanism check agreed: the leg as a compound pendulum (L ~ 0.30 m) has a natural frequency ~1.1 Hz, swing half-period 0.45 s - the observed 2.1-2.4 Hz sits near where the leg wants to swing, and forcing 1.5 Hz "是跟摆动动力学对着干" (fights the swing dynamics). The frequency definition itself was pinned by two independent methods (contact-event counting 2.39 Hz vs FFT 2.33 Hz, agreeing): reported numbers are cycle frequency = steps per leg per second.
Change
Gate retracted in writing: "步频 ≤1.5 Hz 应删除或放宽到 ≤2.5 Hz"; frequency definition standardized before entering any config.
Outcome
walk_v4/v6's 2.1-2.4 Hz reclassified from disease to normal; the v3 failure got its probable explanation (suppressing stepping to meet a wrong gate).
Mechanism
A gate is only as good as the measurement and the reading behind it; thresholds inherited from a misread plot become invisible design constraints that later training obeys at real cost. Cross-checking a threshold against first-principles dynamics (pendulum frequency) is a cheap way to catch such misreads.
Applies when
- an acceptance threshold repeatedly fails policies that look healthy
- thresholds were set from a single person's reading of raw data
- a forced compliance with a gate degrades the behavior it guards
“我当初依据自己测的执行器频响定的,但看错了区间。… 2.0~2.4 Hz 的幅值比 0.83~0.88 是可接受的;真正不行的是 walk_v2 的 3.8 Hz。… 腿按复摆算(L≈0.30 m)自然频率约 1.1 Hz … 把它压到 1.5 Hz 是跟摆动动力学对着干(walk_v3 把迈步压没了,可能正是这个原因)。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § ② 撤回"步频 ≤1.5 Hz"这条验收标准 —— 是我定错了 A single run's drift direction may be a limit cycle, not a policy bias - check the sign distribution across seeds
multiseed-sign-test-for-driftDistinguish "bias" from "broken symmetry limit cycle" by the sign distribution over many seeds; report drift as (mean, sign split), and never compare single-run drift magnitudes across versions.
Symptom
Net yaw over 15 s appeared to worsen from -41 deg (v2) to -84 deg (v4), inviting the conclusion that the new version drifted more.
Context
The Isaac-side view across 32 environments told a different story: per-env yaw was mixed-sign (20 negative / 12 positive) with mean ~0 - the drift is a limit cycle whose direction depends on initial conditions, not a systematic policy bias. The single MuJoCo run had sampled one draw from that distribution, so its magnitude could not be compared across versions as if it were a property.
Change
Evaluation rule: before classifying drift as systematic, run multiple seeds and examine the sign distribution; single-trajectory drift magnitudes are samples, not properties.
Outcome
The v2-vs-v4 drift "regression" was reclassified as not-established; later drift work (hip_roll l+r bias) used cross-policy, cross-seed evidence instead.
Mechanism
Symmetric dynamical systems can settle into either of two mirrored limit cycles; the selected cycle is decided by noise and initial state. A statistic whose sign is initial-condition-dependent has no meaning as a single sample - only its distribution does.
Applies when
- comparing heading drift or lateral drift across policy versions
- a symmetric-looking behavior shows a consistent direction in one run
- deciding whether to fix "drift" in reward or calibration
“偏航反而变差(−41° → −84°):注意 Isaac 侧 32 env 的逐 env 偏航是正负混合(20/12)、均值 ≈0,说明这是极限环性质(方向随初值)而非策略偏置 —— MuJoCo 单次跑测到的是分布里的一个样本,不能当作系统性偏差。要判断需多种子统计。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § walk_v4 独立验收 读法 (偏航) 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)