Training Coach

Doctrine

A report may cite any of these as doctrine-N.

1. doctrine-1Contract freeze and fingerprint discipline

   The 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.

   contract-freeze-and-checkerlegacy-profile-pinningderived-asset-staleness-checkgain-profile-belongs-in-the-stamprecovery-two-policies-and-a-state-machinewalk-recovery-fsm-handoff

2. doctrine-2Attribution by resolved training params - never eval-override knobs

   Capability 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.

   kd-bandwidth-mu-law-attributiondeploy-knob-attribution-before-retrainingcycle-time-override-is-oodresolved-config-is-source-of-truth

3. doctrine-3PASS gates become constraints; FAIL gates become objectives

   Once 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".

   fixed-acceptance-matrix-per-rungpreregistered-stop-criteria-per-rung

4. doctrine-4One variable per ladder rung - counted against what the checkpoint saw

   A 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.

   resume-state-dr-auditorthogonal-batch-with-ablation-orderfill-the-missing-factorial-cell

5. doctrine-5Pre-register risks, readings, and stop criteria before the ladder

   Before 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.

   preregister-risks-and-fork-readingspreregistered-stop-criteria-per-rungpreregistered-real-expectationsfeasibility-accounts-lock-design-point

6. doctrine-6Plant parameters are measured, never invented

   Every 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.

   friction-measured-not-guessedarmature-n2-rotor-inertiatorque-limit-shape-by-measured-peakslatency-lerp-reverse-extrapolationfeasibility-accounts-lock-design-pointsim-api-friction-columnsget-up-feasibility-accounts-before-trainingsingle-support-gain-authority-probe

7. doctrine-7Sim2sim gate before sim2real - under deployment conditions

   Every 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.

   sim2sim-gate-before-sim2realeval-plant-honesty-contact-paramspipeline-latency-is-plant-not-drbody-frame-velocity-api-audittorque-penalty-bought-by-leg-bracingtorque-disagreement-between-simulators-unresolved

8. doctrine-8Observation honesty - the actor's inputs are a hardware contract

   The 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.

   observation-honesty-critic-onlyhistory-obs-needs-plant-variationreward-observability-limitdeploy-heading-loop-and-align-training

9. doctrine-9Reward economics are audited in realized currency

   Reward 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.

   realized-contribution-auditreward-cost-of-ignoring-auditgate-new-reward-terms-by-commandignore-floor-diagnosiscalibrate-threshold-between-healthy-and-sickcalibration-threshold-with-withdrawal-clauseinert-reward-term-auditseated-basin-dead-exp-kerneltail-torque-needs-hinge-on-computed-demand

10. doctrine-10The zero-cost option must be the desired behavior

    For 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.

    penalize-the-slip-not-the-jointsaturation-cheating-zero-rate-costmoving-gate-42x-stand-taxtermination-closes-degenerate-basinpenalty-gate-is-an-escape-hatchsoft-limit-penalty-charges-nominal-poseunpriced-foot-attitude-is-a-free-variableenumerate-cheapest-cheats-before-trainingbinary-band-reward-fake-touchdown

11. doctrine-11Measurement discipline: independent referees, signs, distributions

    A 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.

    independent-referee-for-metric-disputesbody-frame-velocity-api-auditsame-sign-response-is-yaw-biasmedian-hides-bimodal-distributionratio-metrics-need-absolute-checkheading-integral-not-body-ratesame-distribution-reward-comparisonmultiseed-sign-test-for-driftsingle-impulse-recovery-is-chaotic

12. doctrine-12The deployment pipeline is plant

    Irreducible 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.

    pipeline-latency-is-plant-not-drpower-scale-hurts-nonforward-axesdeploy-scaling-not-training-equivalentteleop-command-band-per-axislatency-dr-covers-measured-pipelinedeploy-rate-limiter-windupslew-anchor-is-an-integratorbeta-anchored-action-targetpower-derating-cuts-full-range-contract

13. doctrine-13DR budget is finite; its distribution is the measured support

    Robustness 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.

    push-dr-conditional-budget-conservationdr-tail-plant-continuationconstant-value-dr-overfits-margintask-shaping-before-plant-hardeningcom-randomization-forces-leg-spreadcom-dr-rollback-on-symptomthin-dr-judged-by-channel-coveragefriction-priority-re-measured-after-plant-change

14. doctrine-14Gates measure what hardware feels: posture, margins, stripped assists

    Acceptance 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.

    task-metrics-vs-posture-metricsstand-gate-posture-not-survivalconstant-value-dr-overfits-marginsuspension-probe-removes-free-stabilizerhip-roll-sum-predicts-lateral-driftchirality-scored-separatelylow-speed-commands-reward-draggingend-state-confusion-matrixfrozen-acceptance-distribution-and-pinned-seedvideo-as-acceptance-recordepisode-length-bounds-what-a-gate-seesremoved-wall-returns-on-hardware

15. doctrine-15Fork and root selection: recoverability, maturity, frozen rewards

    Choose 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.

    fork-root-recoverable-shortfallroot-maturity-vs-product-qualityfine-tune-reward-change-falsified

16. doctrine-16Curricula: verified engagement, lineage counters, disease-phase gating

    Automatic 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.

    auto-curriculum-engagement-checkcurriculum-counter-lineage-stepsgate-penalties-to-the-disease-phaseaggregate-metrics-mask-subgroup-failurebucket-share-is-not-a-gradient-levercurriculum-criterion-conditioned-on-lagging-categoryper-step-income-drives-speed-time-gatetime-gate-vs-wide-stance-retire-the-fix

17. doctrine-17Probe before training: feasibility first, hypotheses in tables

    After 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`).

    open-loop-probe-before-reward-tuninghypothesis-table-code-auditperiod-doubling-evidence-racesuspended-test-isolates-actuator-authorityconfiguration-probe-wall-not-slopeprone-dead-end-is-foot-placementdof-vel-penalty-is-not-a-pacing-knobamplitude-cut-falsified-yaw-fix

18. doctrine-18External advice is recomputed locally; values transfer as ratios

    Every 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.

    external-advice-audit-against-own-arithmetictransfer-ratios-not-absoluteslatency-dr-covers-measured-pipelinereference-structure-fk-amplitude-divisioncycle-average-tracking-for-gait-quantitiesadvisor-paraphrase-vs-paper

19. doctrine-19Hardware sessions are scripted experiments, not tuning sessions

    Real-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.

    risk-ordered-real-deploymentbattery-bracketed-real-abknow-zero-command-behaviorpush-test-chirality-protocolno-field-tuning-protocolreversible-single-variable-field-experimentssim-veto-needs-real-confirmationfirst-real-get-up-violent-stage-one-policystaged-hang-mat-floor-for-get-uppower-cycle-preflighttwo-machine-config-disciplinefall-guard-becomes-a-statehardware-log-is-the-attribution-input

20. doctrine-20Close questions in writing; restart when the debt is structural

    Audited 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.

    frozen-verdicts-semantic-boundariesstale-verdicts-under-old-stackzero-offset-calibration-shifts-envelopeplant-swap-invariants-vs-shiftsfreeze-lineage-fix-structure-restartminimal-reward-table-with-provenancewrite-hardware-verdicts-back

21. doctrine-21Name the quantity in the space it lives in

    A 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.

    joint-space-proxy-for-task-space-quantitycontact-detector-single-signal-lieszero-partial-credit-is-not-an-iteration-problemheading-integral-not-body-rate

22. doctrine-22Continuation needs a live gradient; a release is chosen by a scan

    Continue 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.

    converged-continuation-is-poisoncheckpoint-choice-is-a-full-gate-scanstance-decided-by-get-up-pathstop-stacking-roll-back-and-auditcurriculum-history-is-part-of-the-productcontinuation-budget-not-from-zeroroot-maturity-vs-product-quality

Experience cards

117 cards matching “frozen-acceptance-distribution-and-pinned-seed”.

• Tightening the bridge's rate limiter under an unchanged policy cut torque peaks 30-50% and made other things worse - the policy cannot see the limiter, keeps commanding and winds up; a deploy-side limiter is a safety net, not a curedeploy-rate-limiter-windup

  Mechanism understoodrecoverysim2sim-gateactuator-modelingsim2simreal-acceptance

  A rate or torque limiter added at deployment lowers peaks but the policy still commands as if unconstrained (saturation, windup, new contacts); use it as a safety net mirrored in evaluation, and put the constraint where the policy can learn around it.

  Symptom

  After the violent first real-robot get-up, the cheapest candidate fix was to tighten the bridge's slew (rate) limit for the recovery policy without retraining.

  Context

  Probe on R3.1 in MuJoCo (5 categories x 3 seeds, mu 1.0), monkeypatching the limiter with no repository change: TIGHT = RS06 4.0 / RS02 3.0 / RS00 2.0 rad/s (about 0.08/0.06/0.04 rad per policy step) against the current vel_limit setting.

  Change

  The probe decided the role of the limiter rather than a deployment.

  Outcome

  Success 14/15 -> 12/15; get-up median 2.35 -> 3.53 s (max 9.30); torque demand peak median hip_pitch 164% -> 111%, knee 166% -> 86%; action saturation still 100%; leg-leg contact 558 -> 860 frames. The limiter was kept only as a real-robot safety net (mirrored into sim2sim evaluation); the cure moved into training - where the next lesson was that a limiter anchored on the last command is itself an integrator (slew-anchor-is-an-integrator).

  Mechanism

  A policy that never trained with the limiter keeps issuing the targets it learned; the limiter clips them, the target window runs ahead (windup), and the robot follows a trajectory the policy never evaluated.

  Applies when

  • a trained policy is too violent on hardware and a quick deploy-side fix is tempting
  • adding slew, torque or velocity limits in a bridge or firmware
  • evaluation and deployment use different limiter settings

  “判读:**链路侧收紧立等可取地把 τ 峰值砍 30~50%,但成功率掉、饱和率仍 100%、 腿-腿接触反升** —— 策略感知不到限速器,目标窗口继续狂奔。⇒ 收紧 slew 只配当 **真机侧安全网**(必须同步进 sim2sim 口径,基础设施现成),**不配当治法; 治法必须进训练**。”

• A walking policy's tilt cutoff is a legal state for a recovery policy - the default 45 deg fall guard had to be raised for recovery tests and is disabled once the switch owns falls, so the abort chain becomes the recovery timeout, the operator's cut, and the firmware torque limitsfall-guard-becomes-a-state

  Observed oncerecoveryreal-deployreal-acceptancehardwareprocess

  When a new skill makes a safety cutoff's trigger a legal state, replace the cutoff with a bound of the skill's own (a timeout ending in a safe stop) instead of just switching it off; keep the operator's cut and the firmware limits as independent layers, and write every flag change into the run sheet.

  Symptom

  deploy_policy's default protection stops the robot beyond 45 deg of tilt. A recovery policy starts lying at roughly 90-97 deg, so under the default it is refused on the spot - a flag the first hanging checklist forgot.

  Context

  The layers in the sources: deploy_policy's tilt cutoff (default 45 deg, a line in the safety chain); for standalone recovery tests the cutoff was raised (110 deg in the spec's A/B sheet; 181 deg, effectively off, in some runbook commands); with --recovery-policy the cutoff is disabled because a fall is now a state, not an exception, and RECOVERY lasting over 15 s ends in a safe stop (the runbook calls it the line where the spotter steps in). Independent of the policy: firmware torque limits checked at start (12/17/11 N*m, set_torque --check), the operator cutting enable at any kicking or oscillation, and in the one-leg teleop a space-bar stop that puts the foot down.

  Change

  The flag was added to the run sheets, and the FSM replaced the removed cutoff with its own bound (the timeout).

  Outcome

  The spec records the flag omission and its fix; it does not record the FSM's timeout being exercised on hardware.

  Mechanism

  A safety cutoff encodes one policy's notion of "abnormal"; a new skill whose normal operation lies beyond it either cannot run or runs with the cutoff off, and only a replacement bound keeps the chain closed.

  Applies when

  • deploying recovery, fall-damage or acrobatic skills behind existing safety checks
  • a run sheet disables a protection flag
  • listing the abort chain for a hardware session

  “--max-tilt-deg(默认 45°,安全链第 13 行写的那个)。recovery 的合法状态覆盖整个倾角域,把它抬到 181 = 实效关闭 … RECOVERY 超时 15s 会自动安全停(看护介入线)”

• A hardware run without its log is an anecdote - the first real get-up's policy, gain profile and log were never recorded, two CSVs stayed "to be reported", and runbook commands wrote different policies' logs under one copied filenamehardware-log-is-the-attribution-input

  Replicatedinfrareal-deployreal-acceptancemeasurementprocess

  Make the log part of the run: name it from the policy and conditions automatically (never by hand-copied filenames), record the policy digest and gain profile inside it, include what the open questions need (torque, joint positions and targets), and treat a session without a collected log as incomplete.

  Symptom

  The recovery line's oldest open question - whether Isaac or MuJoCo reads torque demand correctly - was waiting on real-robot logs that never arrived, and the verdicts that did arrive could not be tied to files.

  Context

  deploy_policy writes a CSV per run (--log); the runbook's own analysis snippet reads its joint-position, target and action columns (q_, tgt_, act_), and the recovery hanging checklist asks for torque and joint logs for the whole run, to be compared with simulation. The first real get-up (08-09): policy, gain profile and log "to be recorded later". The first real A/B (08-11): v2_5b's result and both policies' CSVs "to be reported". In the runbook's walking commands, three runs of two different c4 policies log to real_s1e_pw08_teleop_0808.csv, and s1e and s2e_fric runs log to real_c2_700_pw08_teleop_0808.csv - filenames copied from other commands.

  Change

  None recorded; the spec kept listing the open-loop comparison as waiting for real logs.

  Outcome

  No real-robot log appears in the recovery spec through §50, so the simulator disagreement stayed unresolved and hardware verdicts stayed unattached to data.

  Mechanism

  Attribution needs the run's identity (policy digest, profile, conditions) and its signals in one artifact; a filename copied from another command mislabels the file, and a log not collected at the session is rarely collected later.

  Applies when

  • planning a hardware session whose result should settle a sim question
  • log filenames are typed or pasted by hand
  • hardware feedback arrives as prose without files

  “python tools/deploy_policy.py --policy train/policies/omni_c4_ff800_pj.onnx … --log train/real_logs/real_s1e_pw08_teleop_0808.csv … q,t,a=d[:,c("q_")],d[:,c("tgt_")],d[:,c("act_")]”

• IMU observation age cut 52-68 ms to ~4 ms by moving AHRS onto the MCU - as a single variableimu-age-move-fusion-downstream

  Observed oncewalkreal-deployhardwarereal-acceptanceprocess

  Audit observation age end-to-end and move time-critical fusion as close to the sensor as possible - and when you fix a latency, change only that one variable so the gain is attributable.

  Symptom

  IMU-derived observations reaching the policy were 52-68 ms old because attitude fusion ran in Python on the loaded host computer - stale attitude is a direct feedback-loop delay the policy was not trained with.

  Context

  The fix was scoped deliberately narrowly: move the AHRS computation from Python to the STM32 H7 (MC02). CAN topology explicitly unchanged, so the change is a clean single variable.

  Change

  AHRS fusion relocated Python -> H7. Before/after - IMU age: 52-68 ms -> ~4 ms; CAN timing: unchanged; Python load: high -> ~0.

  Outcome

  IMU age reduced by an order of magnitude with no confound; host CPU headroom recovered ("把计算单元搬在stm32上, 这样imu有剩余").

  Mechanism

  Sensor age is pipeline latency, not sensor quality: fusing on the MCU next to the sensor removes host scheduling jitter and interpreter overhead from the critical path. Keeping the bus topology fixed makes the improvement attributable to the relocation alone.

  Applies when

  • measured sensor-to-policy age far exceeds sensor sample period
  • attitude fusion or filtering runs on a loaded host CPU in an interpreted runtime
  • planning infrastructure changes during a sim2real campaign

  “AHRS 搬到 H7——这个不改 CAN 拓扑，只是把一段计算从 Python 挪到 MC02，单变量：IMU age 52–68 ms → ~4 ms / CAN 时序 不变 / Python 负载 高 → ≈0”

• Brief the operator on the lineage's measured zero-command and untrained-axis behavior before handing over the joystickknow-zero-command-behavior

  Replicatedomnireal-deployreal-acceptanceprocess

  Before any teleop/demo, measure and write down the policy's zero-command behavior and per-axis competence, label untrained axes explicitly as not-bugs, and set the floor/procedure to accommodate the known drift.

  Symptom

  A teleop session was about to start on a policy that does not stand still at zero command and has never been trained on lateral commands - behaviors an unbriefed operator would report as bugs or emergencies.

  Context

  Three measured facts were written into the teleop instructions ("都有 实测依据, 不是猜"): (1) A/D (lateral) keys will get essentially no response - probe-measured sidewalk tracking ~3%, an untrained axis: "这正是 C4 要解决的事, 不是 bug"; (2) no keypress = cmd 0, and this lineage does not stand still at zero command - a three-generation lineage property: paces in place, drifts right ~5 cm/s, net rotation -30 deg/20 s; sim survival is 20/20 (it will not fall) but it walks away slowly, so leave floor margin especially on the right; (3) S (backward) WILL respond - probe-measured 20/20 survival, 67% tracking untrained, which is also why this root was chosen for the C ladder. Plus a keybinding dry-run while suspended before touching down.

  Change

  Operator briefing became part of the deployment artifact: expected response per key, expected idle behavior with magnitudes and directions, and the distinction between untrained (expected, not a bug) and abnormal.

  Outcome

  The session proceeded with correct interpretations available in advance; the known zero-command wander was handled by floor margin and start-with-command procedure rather than misdiagnosed on the spot.

  Mechanism

  A learned policy's off-nominal behaviors (idle drift, untrained axes) are lineage properties, stable and measurable in sim beforehand; operator surprise converts known properties into false incident reports and unsafe reactions. A briefing transfers the measured behavior model to the person holding the controller.

  Applies when

  • handing a learned policy to an operator or demo audience
  • the policy idles in a non-stationary way at zero command
  • some command axes are untrained in the current lineage

  “A/D 基本不会有反应 —— s1e 从未训过非零 vy, 选根探针实测侧走跟踪率 ~3% … 这正是 C4 要解决的事, 不是 bug。… 不按键 = cmd 0, 而 s1e 在零指令下不站定 —— 血统属性, 三代实录: 原地踏步 + 右漂 ~5 cm/s + 净旋 −30°/20s。”

• Ungated phase shaping made standing 42x more expensive than stepping - and the stepping was cooking the hip motorsmoving-gate-42x-stand-tax

  Mechanism understoodomnireward-shapingreward-shapinghardwarereal-acceptanceprocess

  Gate every phase/clock-driven shaping term on the command that justifies motion, price the cmd=0 case explicitly during design - and when a reward flaw is sim-only, book it with trigger conditions instead of operating immediately on a working lineage.

  Symptom

  At cmd = 0 the sim policy never stood still - it stepped in place and crept 0.98 m per 20 s; on the real robot the same lineage's stepping made hip_roll motors run 20 degC hotter than every other joint (43-48 degC vs 25-28).

  Context

  The arithmetic closed it: the three phase-shaping terms (joint_pos_ref 1.6, feet_contact_number 1.2, feet_clearance_swing 1.6) are driven by the gait clock with NO command gating, so standing at cmd=0 forfeits 3.32/step of shaping while honest standing earns only 0.078 of tracking - stepping wins 42x. The heat chain: perpetual stepping = perpetual single support = one hip_roll stalled at ~4.3 N*m (25% of torque limit) carrying the torso's frontal-plane moment - two hip_rolls = 90% of whole-machine steady-state I2R; measured stand-vs-step comparison: total heat -71% when actually standing. The suspended test acquitted the actuator (0.21 rad sag -> 0.0008 rad in air) and mechanics vetoed the easy fix ("降 kp 救不了热" - equilibrium torque equals the external load regardless of kp). The fix (moving_gate: hard-gate the three shaping terms on |cmd| > eps) was designed - then DEFERRED by the user because the real robot at the time stood fine: "真机不表现该问题, 为真机不存在的病改奖励表不划算", with written trigger conditions (C-ladder stand row persistently failing, or real robot starting to step/drift at cmd=0) and the known hazard tag (this is exactly the reward-change class that triggers the B-arm signature). When the real robot later DID step and cook, the booked trigger fired and moving_gate moved from debt to to-do with its benefit re-priced: "停止空烧 hip_roll,稳态发热降 ~71%".

  Change

  moving_gate designed with the gate_by_cmd convention; deferral, triggers, and expected heat recovery all pre-registered instead of patching the reward for a then-sim-only symptom.

  Outcome

  The cmd=0 stepping went from mystery to closed arithmetic; the thermal measurement (hip_roll +20 degC) quantitatively confirmed the 90%-of-heat prediction; the reward change waited for real-world justification instead of spending a risky revision early.

  Mechanism

  Clock-driven shaping terms define a perpetual-motion bounty unless gated by command; the resulting idle gait is not a training bug but the table's optimum. Its cost surfaces on hardware as stall-torque heating set by statics (mass x lateral offset), which no gain change can remove - only removing the motion (gating) or widening the stance can.

  Applies when

  • the policy steps in place or creeps at zero command
  • specific joints run hot in idle behaviors
  • deciding when a known reward flaw justifies a risky mid-lineage fix

  “塑形合计 −3.32/步 … 净: 站定亏 42 倍 … 两颗 hip_roll 4.29 / 4.09 N·m(各占限扭 25%),占全机稳态 I²R 的 90% … 吊挂实测 hip_roll 跟踪误差 0.21 rad → 0.0008 rad … 降 kp 救不了热 … 真机不表现该问题, 为真机不存在的病改奖励表不划算”

• Every power cycle starts with the same read-only pre-flight - read the buses, check the torque limits against 12/17/11, verify the IMU axes, check the ports after any new USB device - and any reassembly re-measures the joint zerospower-cycle-preflight

  Observed onceinfrareal-deployreal-acceptancehardwareprocess

  Start every powered session with a fixed, read-only pre-flight - bus responses, torque limits equal to the simulated ones, IMU axes, device identities - and re-measure joint zeros after any mechanical reassembly before running a policy.

  Symptom

  Hardware state drifts between sessions in ways no policy can see: a motor that stops answering after a power cycle, a torque limit that differs from the one simulated, an IMU axis flipped, two USB devices swapping identities, a joint zero moved by reassembly.

  Context

  The runbook's session order before any policy runs: read every motor on both CAN buses without enabling them (the first command after every power cycle); set_torque --check, all twelve motors must read 12/17/11 N*m, and any difference is written back; imu_reader --verify-axes, where the operator tilts the robot forward and to the right and every check must pass before continuing; check_ports after plugging in any new USB device (the IMU and a CAN adapter once collided on USB identity). After re-mounting motors: read the buses, then re-measure the calibration offsets (three repeats, written back) - "skipping it means running everything on the wrong zero". Hanging checklists repeat the torque-limit check (the deploy script also self-checks at start).

  Change

  A fixed, read-only pre-flight run in the same order every session.

  Outcome

  The runbook records one earlier hardware check in the same spirit: all 12 motors' implied kp fell within 18.4-22.0 for a commanded 20, inside the kp randomization range used in training.

  Mechanism

  A policy transfers only if the plant matches the one it was evaluated on; the pre-flight turns silent hardware drift into a failed check before the robot moves.

  Applies when

  • the first command after powering a robot on
  • after swapping adapters, cables or motors
  • a policy that worked last session suddenly behaves differently

  “python tools/set_torque.py --check # 12 颗应全对 12/17/11, 有 diff 就 --write … 插任何新 USB 设备后都先跑一次 check_ports.py(IMU 和 CANable 的 USB 身份撞过车) … python tools/calib_stance.py --repeat 3 --write # 重标 offset —— 8/9/10 重新装, 机械零位变了”

• Deployment power derating damages non-forward axes far more than forward - sweep it in sim before deployingpower-scale-hurts-nonforward-axes

  Replicatedomnireal-deployreal-acceptanceactuator-modelingattribution

  Treat deployment power/torque scaling as a plant parameter: evaluate the policy in sim at the exact deployment scale, expect non-dominant axes to degrade first under derating, and either deploy at the training power or train with power randomization.

  Symptom

  Policies deployed at power-scale 0.8 (a safety derating of commanded torque) looked fine walking forward but were weak at backward and turning, inviting the wrong diagnosis "the skill was not trained well".

  Context

  Measured repeatedly: on s1e, going 1.0 -> 0.8 cost forward 18% but backward 58%; on C4-ff800, turn tracking was +25%/+40% at pw0.8 vs +75%/+58% at pw1.0, backward 51-52% vs 97-103%, while forward stayed 96-98% at both. Sim evaluation numbers in the plan were all pw1.0, but the robot was being run at 0.8.

  Change

  Pre-deploy protocol added: sweep the exported policy across power in sim (for PW in 0.8 0.9 1.0: eval_c_matrix --power $PW --seeds 20) and deploy at the first level where both turn directions reach >=50%. For C4 the recommendation was raise the robot to pw1.0 - the sweep showed it nearly free (saturation 47%->33%, left foot-clipping danger zone 25%->6%, cost only tilt 6.7->8.3 deg).

  Outcome

  Turning "weakness" resolved without any retraining; the sim sweep correctly predicted the real-robot signature at both power levels.

  Mechanism

  Forward walking is the reward-dominant, torque-cheapest skill with the most margin; backward/turn/sidewalk live closer to the torque envelope, so a uniform torque derating consumes their margin first. Training ran at power 1.0 (the trainer does no power scaling), so deploying at 0.8 is a systematic underactuation the policy never experienced.

  Applies when

  • deploying with any torque/power derating or safety scale
  • secondary skills (backward, turn, lateral) underperform on hardware while forward walking looks fine
  • choosing the deployment power level for a new policy

  “power 衰减对非前进轴的伤害远大于前进轴（s1e：前进 1.0→0.8 掉 18%，后退掉 58%）。转向是非前进轴，0.8 下很可能明显跟不动。”

• A field experiment is allowed when it is pre-scripted, single-variable, and self-reversing (RAM-only writes)reversible-single-variable-field-experiments

  Observed oncewalkreal-deployhardwarereal-acceptanceprocessattribution

  Permit hardware-side experiments only when scripted in advance with one variable, a log, and automatic reversion (volatile writes, git restore); keep every config mirror (yaml vs firmware) changed and restored as a unit.

  Symptom

  A hypothesis needed a hardware test - v5's "wild kicking" might trace to the RS00 torque cap being deployed at 11 N*m vs its trained 14 (-21%), on exactly the ankle-roll/hip-yaw joints doing lateral-yaw work - but changing limits in the field is the classic way to lose track of robot state.

  Context

  The experiment was written to be safe by construction: change exactly one number (robot.yaml RS00 tau_limit 11.0 -> 14.0), write to firmware RAM only (--write without --save, so a power cycle automatically rolls back to the saved 12/17/11), run the single logged trial, then restore both yaml (git checkout) and RAM immediately. The consistency requirement is explicit: the deploy tool's torque self-check compares against robot.yaml, so yaml and firmware must change and restore together; and the hypothesis scoping is itself single-variable - RS06's 67% cut was measured irrelevant (gait uses only 16% of rated) and hip torque was left alone for safety.

  Change

  Field experimentation policy refined: not "never touch hardware settings" but "only pre-scripted, one-variable, logged, auto-reverting changes with config/firmware kept consistent".

  Outcome

  The sub-experiment could answer the torque-cap hypothesis without any risk of the robot persisting in an undocumented state - forgetting to restore costs nothing but a git checkout.

  Mechanism

  The danger of field changes is state divergence (robot config drifting from the repo's record), not the change itself; volatile (RAM-only) writes bound the divergence lifetime to one power cycle, and single-variable scoping preserves attributability even in a field setting.

  Applies when

  • a hypothesis requires changing firmware limits or gains on the robot
  • field debugging tempts persistent config writes
  • designing safe escape hatches for deployment tooling

  “程序(--write 不带 --save = 只写 RAM,断电自动回滚)… deploy 的限扭自检是对 robot.yaml 比对的,所以 yaml 和固件必须同改同还原;忘了还原也没事,断电重启即回 12/17/11(上次 --save 的值),但 yaml 要 git checkout。”

• 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 unrecordedsafety-limits-are-a-layer-not-a-reward

  Hypothesisinfrareal-deployhardwareprocessreal-acceptance

  Keep 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。”

• 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 timestaged-hang-mat-floor-for-get-up

  Replicatedrecoveryreal-deployreal-acceptanceprocess

  Stage 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”

• With no term on foot attitude the robot stood on the edges of its feet (ankle roll -26 deg) from R0.5 to V2.5b; pricing it fixed that and turned stance width into the next free variable - the user saw both on video before any metric flagged themunpriced-foot-attitude-is-a-free-variable

  Replicatedrecoveryreward-shapingreward-shapingreal-acceptance

  List every posture quantity the hardware cares about (foot attitude, stance width, yaw, knee flexion) and make sure each is priced by a term with real gradient at the observed error; pricing one exposes the next, so re-inspect the feet-level video after every change.

  Symptom

  Watching the v2_5 video the user said the ankle roll after standing looked very strange - the feet were not flat. The feet view showed the right foot standing on its outer edge; median ankle roll at t = 8 s was -/+26 deg (limit +/-35), mirrored. This was the physical form of the ankle_roll saturation criterion that had failed since R0.5.

  Context

  No term priced foot attitude: feet_contact_upright counts an edge contact as contact, and stand_pose's wide exp kernel (sigma^2 = 9) gives almost no gradient at 0.45 rad. HoST carries an "ankle parallel" term (+20); this table never had one. Edge standing was made a blocking precondition for hardware (continuous ankle load, unstable contact, wear).

  Change

  V2.6 (single variable): flat_feet = (|q_l_ankle_roll| + |q_r_ankle_roll|) x upright gate x height gate, a linear hinge with a 5 deg margin, weight -2, continued from V2.5b.

  Outcome

  Ankle roll -/+26 -> 5.3/5.2 deg, ankle_roll saturation 6.6% (< 10%), feet flat on the feet-view video; success 99.6%, re-falls 0-1%. Then the user watched v2_6: hip yaw constantly tense and the legs very close together. The numbers: hip roll -/+4.9/4.8 deg against a nominal 25 - feet flat and hips open 25 deg cannot coexist without ankle compensation, the new term taxed that compensation, and nothing priced stance width. "Foot attitude as a free variable" was fixed and "stance width became the new free variable" - which the real robot then exposed as splits.

  Mechanism

  An optimizer spends every posture degree of freedom no term prices; closing one reallocates the slack to the next unpriced one.

  Applies when

  • a standing or landing posture looks wrong on video while gates pass
  • a saturation criterion keeps failing on one joint
  • a new posture term was just added

  “用户看 v2_5 视频:"起身之后 ankle_roll 非常奇怪,脚根本不是平着站立"。 … 机理:奖励表**无任何脚掌姿态项** —— feet_contact_upright 边缘接触也算触地, stand_pose 的 exp 核(σ²=9)对 26°=0.45 rad 梯度≈0。脚掌姿态是自由变量。”

• The recovery line's real-robot verdicts live in three places that disagree - the spec's "fairly stable, first real stand-up" for v2_6, an undated runbook note that only v3_1p1c works, and a first run whose details were never recordedwrite-hardware-verdicts-back

  Observed oncerecoveryreal-deployreal-acceptanceprocessattribution

  A hardware verdict is a dated entry in the authoritative ledger - policy file and stamp, gain profile, floor, battery, tries, log file, what was seen - written back the same day; a note in a command file is a pointer, not a verdict, and a newer verdict that contradicts an older one must say so.

  Symptom

  Asked "which recovery policy works on the real robot", the sources give different answers, and none of them carries the conditions of the test.

  Context

  08-09: the first real run was stopped as violent and dangerous; which ONNX, which gain profile and whether a log existed were marked "to be recorded" and never were. 08-11: v2_6 was "fairly stable", the line's first real get-up, with splits after standing; v2_5b's result and both CSVs were "to be reported". 08-14: v3_1p1c was stamped and pushed, with "the real first test still needs the user present"; the spec records no hardware result for it. The operator runbook (undated) puts above the v2_6 and v2_5b floor commands the note that none of the recovery policies below work, only recovery_v3_1p1c - a verdict never written back into the spec, with no date, floor, battery, number of tries or log attached.

  Change

  None recorded in the sources; this card records the gap.

  Outcome

  The line's authoritative record ends with v3_1p1c as the product awaiting its first real test, while the operator's note implies it is the only one that works and that v2_6 (recorded as a success) does not.

  Mechanism

  Verdicts given at the robot travel by word of mouth and command-file comments; without a record carrying the conditions, a later reader cannot tell a changed verdict from a changed floor, battery or stack.

  Conflicts

  §43 (2026-08-11) records v2_6 as the first successful real get-up ("fairly stable"); the undated runbook says every recovery policy except recovery_v3_1p1c does not work; §49 (2026-08-14) says v3_1p1c's first real test was still pending. The runbook's claim has no date and was never written back to the spec, so it cannot be ordered against §43.

  Applies when

  • choosing which policy to deploy from an operator's notes
  • a hardware session ends without a written result
  • two documents disagree about what worked on the robot

  “下面的recovery都不行 只有recovery_v3_1p1c.onnx”

• A 2-degree joint-zero calibration fix moved the whole runnable envelope - re-test old "cannot run" verdicts after recalibrationzero-offset-calibration-shifts-envelope

  Observed onceomnireal-deployreal-acceptancehardwareplant-calibrationattribution

  Date 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。”

• Cutting swing amplitude 40% raised yaw-momentum demand 53% - the falsified fix is recorded so nobody walks that road againamplitude-cut-falsified-yaw-fix

  Mechanism understoodwalksim-evalmeasurementattributionreward-shaping

  Test gait fixes against the quantity the ground must actually supply (torque/force rates vs friction ceilings), not against kinematic proxies; record falsified fixes with their mechanism so the search space shrinks permanently.

  Symptom

  Support-foot yaw slip stayed at ~223 deg (vs 225 deg) after walk_v6 cut joint swing amplitudes by ~40% (hip_pitch 20.6->10.4 deg, knee 31.3->18.8 deg) - the change built on the theory "smaller swing = less yaw momentum to dump into the ground".

  Context

  Direct measurement inverted the theory: yaw-momentum amplitude ROSE 16% (+/-0.1000 -> +/-0.1159) and its rate of change rose 53% (1.86 -> 2.84 N*m demanded from the ground), pinned exactly at the foot's supply ceiling (2.8-3.3 N*m at mu 0.6-0.7) - so slip could not drop. The extra demand lives in higher harmonics: v6's crisper foot placement (better clearance 34 mm, lower landing force) shortens the momentum- exchange window, concentrating the same exchange into less time. The verdict was written as a closed road: "下一轮不要再走这个方向". An honest residue was also booked: WHY amplitude down but momentum up 16% remained unresolved, with the named next step (per-rigid-body decomposition of H_z, since per-joint RMS sensitivity ignores phase correlations).

  Change

  The "reduce amplitude to reduce yaw momentum" lever was removed from the planning space; future yaw-slip work redirected toward the supply side (friction) and momentum-rate mechanics.

  Outcome

  Slip unchanged (225 -> 223 deg); the falsification and its mechanism became a permanent constraint on the fix search space.

  Mechanism

  Ground yaw torque demand scales with the rate of change of angular momentum, not its amplitude; kinematic amplitude cuts that also sharpen contact timing can raise dH/dt while lowering range. When demand exceeds the friction-limited supply ceiling, slip is set by the ceiling, so demand-side changes below the ceiling do nothing visible.

  Applies when

  • attacking foot slip or yaw drift via gait shape changes
  • a fix targets an amplitude while the constraint is a rate
  • documenting a failed intervention after a version comparison

  “walk_v6 | ±0.1159 (+16%) | 2.50 Hz | 2.84 N·m (+53%) … 脚的供给上限 2.8~3.3 N·m(μ 0.6~0.7)—— v6 正好顶在天花板上, 所以滑移一点没降。… 结论: "减小摆动幅度以降低偏航动量"这条被 v6 证伪 —— 砍 39% 幅度, 需求反升 53%。下一轮不要再走这个方向。”

• Low-friction robustness traced to kd DR bandwidth, not friction training - by digging resolved params across 8 lineages, 3840 cellskd-bandwidth-mu-law-attribution

  Mechanism understoodomniattributionattributiondomain-randomizationprocess

  Attribute capability differences by tabulating every lineage's resolved training params and eliminating zero-variance and non-aligned columns first; never let an eval-side override knob serve as the explanation axis, and never write a mechanism into a law before it survives a targeted test.

  Symptom

  Lineages differed wildly in low-ground-friction survival, and the intuitive explanation - "some trained ground friction, some didn't" - was about to steer the ladder toward a ground-mu training rung.

  Context

  The attribution ran as a full parameter-vs-result cross: 8 lineages x 4 eval kd levels x 6 mu levels x 20 seeds = 3840 cells, with each lineage's RESOLVED training params dug out and compared item by item. First kill: all 8 lineages had ground mu pinned at (1.0,1.0) - zero variance - so low-mu differences cannot come from friction training at all. The only training parameter aligned with the mu score was kd DR bandwidth: narrow (<=0.24) lineages scored 19.9/19.5/19.5, wide (>=0.40) scored 17.1/15.2/14.6/14.2/12.8 - the two groups completely non-overlapping. Every rival was excluded item by item (kd center no; kp band no; COM small-beneficial non-driving; friction rung a clean double null 19.5->19.5 and 15.2->14.6; iteration count non-monotonic), and the one clean single-variable causal link confirmed it: the s2e-3 kd surgery (0.7,1.3)->(1.08,1.32) moved the score 17.1->19.5. Counter-proof against "each best at its own operating point": the narrow-band lineage evaluated OUT of band (18.2) still beat the wide-band lineage at its own band center (9.2). Two axes were ordered never to be conflated (the first attribution's own error): training kd bandwidth is a parameter axis / lineage property; the eval-side --kd-scale knob is a plant axis (more damping physically helps on slippery floors for ALL policies) - "plant 轴只能当部署缓解,不能当 归因". A tempting mechanism story ("drag vs step attractor") was tested and falsified, and explicitly kept OUT of the law: "机制未定, 不入定律".

  Change

  The planned ground-mu training rung was recommended closed ("建议 不开") in favor of a kd band-narrowing rung (0.8,1.2)->(0.9,1.1) centered on the deployed value - with a pre-registered risk that the law demands "bandwidth = measured dispersion" and the real robot's kd dispersion was not yet measured; if it exceeds +/-10%, narrowing sacrifices real coverage and the rung must yield.

  Outcome

  A whole training rung was deleted from the ladder by attribution alone (the second S2 pass dropped mu and push, 5 rungs -> 3); floor material became a deployment-selection input (mu <~0.6 -> deploy the kd1.2 gain profile) rather than a training target.

  Mechanism

  Cross-lineage performance differences must be attributed over the actual training-parameter table, not over eval knobs or plausible stories: eval knobs act on the plant for every policy (a physical effect), while lineage properties come only from training-time parameters. Zero-variance columns are free eliminations, and one clean single-variable rung is worth more than any correlation.

  Applies when

  • explaining why lineages differ on a robustness axis
  • an eval-side knob (gain scale, power) changes results and invites misattribution
  • deciding whether to open a DR rung for an axis never actually varied in training

  “8 血统地面 μ 训练带全部钉 (1.0,1.0) 零方差,低 μ 差异与「训没训地面摩擦」无关,是 kd DR 带宽的副产物 … 宽 ≤0.24 → 19.9/19.5/19.5;宽 ≥0.40 → 17.1/15.2/14.6/14.2/12.8, 两组完全不重叠。… 训练 kd 带宽 = 参数轴/血统属性;评测部署 --kd-scale = plant 轴 … plant 轴只能当部署缓解, 不能当归因。… 机制未定, 不入定律。”

• Three hardware accounts locked the run design point - and the knee's real speed ceiling is tau_limit/kd, not the firmware limitfeasibility-accounts-lock-design-point

  Mechanism understoodrunplant-calibrationplant-calibrationactuator-modelinghardwareprocess

  Before opening a dynamic-gait training line, compute the full account set - tau_limit/kd effective speed ceilings, joint ROM under the intended reference geometry, and thermal RMS at the duty cycle - and let the accounts lock the design point; move only to pre-registered in-table alternates, re-running the accounts first.

  Symptom

  The run line was believed to require a firmware raise of the RS06 speed limit (10 rad/s) as a hard precondition, and the feasibility script's motor-envelope scan had marked 80/100 mm foot-lift cells "physically feasible".

  Context

  Three added accounts re-decided everything. (1) Damping tax: in MIT mode tau = kp*(q_des-q) - kd*qd, so sustained rotation is capped at tau_limit/kd = 12/1.5 = 8 rad/s - below the firmware's 10; at peak speeds 6.7-7.9 rad/s the damping term alone eats 10.1-11.9 N*m (84-99% of the torque limit). "提固件 limit_spd 越不过这道税 —— 它是 kd 与限扭的比,不是固件旋钮." (2) Joint ROM: the feasibility script had checked motor envelopes but NOT joint range - the ankle-pitch ROM caps 1:2:1 leg-shortening lift at 62 mm (soft) / 77 mm (hard), so the 80/100 mm "feasible" cells were voided; also firmware-independent. (3) Ankle thermal: duty 0.40 puts ankle RMS at 87% of continuous rating (0.35 -> 93%); long-period big-stride cells hit both ankle torque peak and heat. Verdict: firmware raise DEQUEUED (50 mm design point needs knee 6.7-7.3 < the 8 rad/s effective ceiling < firmware 10); vel_limit stays 10 so sim == robot. The three accounts uniquely lock the design point - 50 mm lift / T 0.60 s / duty 0.40 - "三笔账 唯一锁定,不是调参空间", with pre-registered alternates allowed only inside the table and only after re-running the accounts.

  Change

  Design point frozen from accounts; hardware precondition reversed by arithmetic rather than by test; reference amplitude (0.84 rad = FK inverse of 50 mm) derived, per-joint action scales sized to the required travel (knee 0.9, hip_pitch 0.6, ankle deliberately NOT amplified - hard limit is adjacent).

  Outcome

  A firmware work item left the critical path; an infeasible region of the design space was closed before any training; the remaining risk (knee tracking lag from the damping tax) was pre-registered with its own criterion and in-table fallback (duty 0.35) - "这不是'奖励没调好', 是 plant 账".

  Mechanism

  PD actuators in MIT mode pay kd*velocity out of the same torque budget that tracks position, so the effective speed ceiling is a ratio of configuration constants, invisible to firmware settings; and feasibility is the intersection of ALL constraint families (torque envelope, joint ROM, thermal RMS) - a scan that omits one family certifies impossible cells.

  Applies when

  • planning running/jumping or any high-rate gait on PD actuators
  • a firmware or hardware upgrade is assumed as a training precondition
  • a feasibility scan covers motor limits but not ROM or heat

  “膝的有效速度顶 = τ_limit/kd = 12/1.5 = 8 rad/s,不是固件的 10。… 提固件 limit_spd 越不过这道税 —— 它是 kd 与限扭的比,不是固件旋钮。… 可行性脚本只查了电机包络没查关节 ROM —— 其 80/100mm 的"物理可行"格作废。… 判决:RS06 提固件对 run v0 不是前置,出队”

• Pre-register the ladder's risks and how each future result will be read - before trainingpreregister-risks-and-fork-readings

  Replicatedomniprocessprocess

  Before a training ladder or risky rung, write the risks, the stop rules, and how every plausible outcome will be interpreted - then do not edit them after seeing results.

  Symptom

  Without pre-registration, ladder results get rationalized after the fact; the team had already seen post-hoc reads go wrong and adopted written pre-commitment.

  Context

  The C-ladder execution sheet opens with three numbered pre-registered risks: (1) S2 plant robustness will not carry into omni - a full S2 redo is budgeted from the start; (2) the s1e recipe has a collapse valley at iter 1500+ (recorded twice), so every rung runs a watch_ckpt --every 100 smoke loop with stop-on-degradation; (3) the root's OOD survival edge may partly be "it is slower / commits less" - with the reading fixed in advance: if C1 training raises tracking while survival drops, the edge was bought with slowness, and root selection reopens. Later rungs went further, pre-registering a full result-to-conclusion table for the A/B arms ("预注册读法（事后不改）") and even pre-registering the author's own doubt that a level would fail and what its failure would prove.

  Change

  Standing practice: before each rung, write down (a) known risks with their mitigations, (b) the interpretation of each possible outcome, (c) stop criteria - all frozen before the run starts ("开训前写死，事后不许改").

  Outcome

  When arm-A/arm-B and redo results arrived, conclusions were read off the pre-registered table instead of argued; a predicted-likely-FAIL level (C4-redo3) was still run because its pre-registered value was eliminating the regularization hypothesis - which it did.

  Mechanism

  Pre-commitment converts each training run into a decisive experiment: outcomes falsify or confirm named hypotheses instead of being absorbed into a story; it also makes negative results valuable (a FAIL that eliminates a hypothesis advances the search).

  Applies when

  • launching a multi-rung training ladder
  • running an A/B fork whose outcome will drive a fork/root decision
  • a rung is expected to fail but is run for its diagnostic value

  “三条预注册风险 … 若 C1 训后跟踪提上去而存活掉下来，说明这条优势是速度买的、不是通用性 → 那时重开选根。”

• The trainer read a stale USD after the URDF mass update - regenerate derived assets and gate on an automated equality instrumentderived-asset-staleness-check

  Mechanism understoodinfraplant-calibrationplant-calibrationprocesssim2sim

  For every derived plant artifact (USD from URDF, generated value files), pair the generation step with an automated source-vs-derived equality instrument, prove the instrument can fail, gate training on its PASS, and re-run physical audits after every regeneration.

  Symptom

  Measured link masses had been committed to URDF/MJCF (total 9.58 -> 9.792 kg, weighed values), but Isaac reads the derived USD asset - which still carried the old masses: a silent 2.2% mass fork between the training plant and the evaluation plant.

  Context

  The v12 checklist made USD regeneration a hard precondition ("硬性 前置") and, crucially, backed it with an instrument: check_usd_mass.py compares USD vs URDF per-link mass AND inertia trace, validated by showing it FAILs the stale asset naming 9 offending links, then PASSes after re-conversion (13/13 links consistent, total 9.7920). The self-collision filter audit was re-run after the regeneration (three poses, 0.00 N) because a regenerated asset invalidates physical audits done on the old one. This milestone was also where the three plants first aligned: "三边 plant 首次对齐(armature+摩擦+ 实称质量)就在这一代".

  Change

  convert_urdf re-run on the training machine, regenerated asset committed, check_usd_mass.py PASS required as an acceptance gate for the generation; dependent audits repeated post-regeneration.

  Outcome

  The 2.2% plant fork was closed before it could distort a generation's acceptance numbers; the staleness class of bug now has a permanent detector instead of a memory.

  Mechanism

  Source-of-truth edits do not propagate to derived binary assets by themselves; any consumer reading the derivative silently trains or evaluates on the old plant. An automated equality check between source and derivative - proven able to fail - turns an invisible staleness into a red gate, and regeneration invalidates every audit performed on the old artifact.

  Applies when

  • editing masses/inertia/geometry in URDF or MJCF sources
  • a trainer or evaluator consumes converted/derived assets
  • plant numbers differ between simulators for no visible reason

  “25ba997 把连杆质量更新为实称值(总重 9.58→9.792 kg,URDF/MJCF 已改),但 Isaac 读的是 train/assets/laika_v2.usd —— 仍是旧质量。… 否则 Isaac(9.58)与 MuJoCo(9.79)质量分叉 2.2%,v12 验收数字失真。验收门:python tools/check_usd_mass.py 必须 PASS … 对旧资产实测 FAIL/9 连杆点名,仪器已验证”

• 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 lengthsingle-support-gain-authority-probe

  Mechanism understoodonelegplant-calibrationactuator-modelingplant-calibrationhardware

  Before 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）”

• Armature must be N^2 x rotor inertia, never 0 - measure it no-loadarmature-n2-rotor-inertia

  Mechanism understoodwalkplant-calibrationplant-calibrationactuator-modeling

  Every geared actuator carries N^2 * I_rotor of reflected inertia at the joint; set armature from a no-load measurement, never leave it 0 and never guess it.

  Symptom

  Sim joints accelerate more easily than real joints; old MJCF had armature = 0 (rotor reflected inertia entirely unmodeled), a systematic sim2real gap on every joint.

  Context

  Original hand-written MJCF plant used armature 0. The team derived and then measured the correct value: torque needed at the rotor is I_rotor * N * alpha; after the N:1 gearbox the output shaft "feels" an extra N^2 * I_rotor of inertia. With a 9:1 reduction that is an 81x amplification of the rotor inertia, far too large to ignore.

  Change

  Set per-motor armature from no-load (motor out of the robot) measurement instead of 0: RS06 = 0.0070 kg*m^2, RS02 = 0.0032 kg*m^2, RS00 = 0.0015 kg*m^2. Landed together with measured friction as the first fully-measured plant parameter set.

  Outcome

  Plant parameters "第一次全部来自实测" (first time all from measurement); became the frozen plant baseline for all subsequent training generations.

  Mechanism

  Reflected inertia scales with the square of the gear ratio: the rotor spins N times faster than the joint, so its kinetic energy (and the torque needed to accelerate it) appears N^2 larger at the output. Omitting it makes simulated joints unrealistically fast/light, so policies learn action rates the real actuator cannot deliver.

  Applies when

  • building or auditing a simulation plant model for a geared/QDD actuator
  • sim policy moves joints faster or snappier than the real robot can
  • MJCF/URDF review shows armature or rotor inertia set to 0 or a default

  “armature 转子反射惯量有问题 在sim里面一定要处理 不能是0，空机测试。转子处需要的力矩 = I_rotor × N × α 经减速箱放大 N 倍后 = N² × I_rotor × α 所以输出轴"感觉到"多了一个 N² × I_rotor 的惯量。 这就是 armature。… 关键是那个平方。减速比 9:1 就放大 81 倍。”

• Choose the fork root by which candidate's shortfalls are recoverable, not by headline scorefork-root-recoverable-shortfall

  Mechanism understoodomnifork-selectionfork-selectionprocess

  When picking a checkpoint to fork from, rank candidates by whether their weaknesses are trainable-back, not by current headline metrics; prefer the candidate whose deficits the upcoming training directly pays for.

  Symptom

  Multiple candidate checkpoints for the omni-command ladder root, each best at something different: fric-3000 had the best tracking precision (vx 88-91%) and hardened plant robustness; s1e-500 had lower precision (vx 82%) but was the only candidate that could still walk backward.

  Context

  Root selection ran as a data probe, not a preference vote: 6 candidates x 8 out-of-distribution omni commands x 20 seeds = 960 cells (probe_omni_0808.json). s1e-500 @pw1.0 survived 20/20 in all eight conditions including backward at 67% tracking; the deep-trained fric lineage scored backward 0-3/20 despite better forward precision.

  Change

  Decision criterion made explicit: list what each candidate exclusively wins at, then ask which of those wins the loser could train back. fric-3000's exclusive wins (precision, plant robustness) are both retrainable - precision is directly optimized by the reward, plant hardening is a planned later pass. s1e-500's exclusive wins (backward plasticity 20/20 vs 2/20, disturbance margin 159/160 vs 125/160, push chirality symmetry 40/40 vs 17/40) had all been shown unrecoverable - push-level rungs failed twice, chirality never recovered even with mirror augmentation on. Root = s1e-500.

  Outcome

  s1e-500 carried the whole C ladder; its backward skill was preserved through C2/C4 gates (regress budget <=2/20 enforced), and the final C4 product passed a 260-cell battery at 20/20 everywhere.

  Mechanism

  Training can re-earn anything the objective directly pays for, but capabilities that earlier training destroyed and never restored (plasticity, symmetry, robustness margins) are empirically one-way doors. The information-bearing comparison is therefore recoverability of each candidate's deficit, which the team stated as "独占项的可恢复性正好相反 —— 这就是判据" (the exclusive items' recoverability is exactly opposite - that is the criterion).

  Applies when

  • selecting a resume/fork root among several checkpoints
  • one candidate is more precise but another retains a skill the rest lost
  • planning a task-extension ladder from an existing lineage

  “fric-3000 赢在精度（vx 88~91%…）与 plant 鲁棒性 → 两样都训得回来…；s1e-500 赢在可塑性（C1 20/20 vs 2/20）、抗扰余量（159/160 vs 125/160）、手性对称（推 ±6 N·s 40/40 vs 17/40）→ 三样都训不回来 … 独占项的可恢复性正好相反 —— 这就是判据。”

• After seven patch-generations, freeze the lineage as a regression baseline, fix the structural debts, and retrain from zerofreeze-lineage-fix-structure-restart

  Observed oncewalkprocessprocesscontract-freezecurriculum

  When successive rungs keep trading one symptom for another, ask whether the remaining problems are structural (contracts, latency, sampling, reward-table architecture); if so, freeze the lineage as regression baselines, pay the structural debts, and restart minimal - carrying forward laws and instruments, not weights and weights' patches.

  Symptom

  The v5-v11 walk lineage had accumulated interacting patches (reward terms, gates, clamps, per-joint scales) faster than it converged on the user's goal; v12's spec itself was superseded before training by an external review's verdict that the remaining problems were structural, not parametric.

  Context

  The 2026-08-05 status banner records the pivot: the walk profile was rolled back wholesale to v10b parameters, the v5-v11 lineage frozen "只作回归对照" (kept only as regression baselines), and four structural debts were named as prerequisites for a from-zero straight-walk baseline: the action-latency FIFO (fixed with its own test), the ONNX manifest contract, discrete command sampling, and a minimal reward table. The v12 spec - fully designed, partially implemented - was suspended: "本规格挂起,不再按此开训".

  Change

  Strategy switched from "one more patch generation" to freeze-fix-restart: lineage checkpoints retained as comparison anchors, infrastructure hardened first, then a clean retrain with a minimal reward table (this restart produced the s* generation that later became the real-robot SOTA line).

  Outcome

  A designed-and-ready training generation was deliberately not run - the review's structural findings outranked sunk design cost; the restart line inherited seven generations of laws (calibrations, gate batteries, falsified fixes) without inheriting their entangled reward table.

  Mechanism

  Patch lineages accumulate coupled terms whose interactions eventually cost more to reason about than a restart costs to train; the knowledge worth keeping is the laws and instruments (measured plant values, calibrated gates, falsified directions), not the entangled weights. A restart on hardened structure converts the lineage's lessons into a clean initial design instead of another delta.

  Applies when

  • repeated rungs shuffle symptoms without net progress
  • an external review flags infrastructure/contract debts
  • deciding between another patch generation and a clean retrain

  “同日外部评审定调换路线:冻结 v5~v11 血统(只作回归对照),修结构性问题(latency FIFO 已修 tests/test_action_latency.py、ONNX manifest 契约、离散命令采样、最小奖励表)后从零训直行基线。本规格挂起,不再按此开训。”

• Guessed joint friction was 2.5x low and damping 5x high - measure, then DR around nominalfriction-measured-not-guessed

  Mechanism understoodwalkplant-calibrationplant-calibrationdomain-randomization

  Measure 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”

• Compare the achieved reward to the computed ignore-floor to tell "never learned" from "learned but unprofitable"ignore-floor-diagnosis

  Mechanism understoodomniattributionattributionreward-shaping

  For 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。”

• Knee swing collapsed because it directly trades against the slip penalty - price the conflict explicitly and clamp what reward cannot holdknee-swing-vs-slip-pricing

  Mechanism understoodwalkreward-shapingreward-shapingattribution

  When a behavior collapses as another metric improves, look for the term pair trading them and set their price ratio deliberately (with escalation and reverse tripwires pre-registered); where the policy actively spends action budget to undo your target, stop paying more reward and clamp the target space structurally.

  Symptom

  Knee peak-to-peak swing collapsed across generations - v5 33 deg, v10 26-30, v10b 7-8, v11 6.5-8.6 - and rolling the clock back did not recover it, acquitting the clock; the collapse tracked the gated slip penalty instead: "屈膝与不打滑在当前奖励里直接对抗" - v10b's excellent 93 deg slip was purchased with knee amplitude.

  Context

  Reward-side flexion fixes had failed three times: raising reference amplitude backfired twice (v9/v11), and v11's deep-squat default was actively fought by the policy - it spent 0.68 of action budget pulling the squat straight ("被策略花 0.68 动作拉直反杀"). v12's design accepted the conflict as real and attacked on two tracks: (1) ECONOMICS - a direct knee_swing_amplitude reward (+0.3, target 0.55 rad, capped at 0.6/step = 55% of tracking), explicitly opposed to the slip penalty by design ("显式对立——这正是设计:v12 就是这场对抗的定价实验"), with an escalation ladder (K +0.3 -> +0.5, then slip -0.5 -> -0.3, one layer at a time) and a reverse tripwire (slip telemetry back at v10 levels -> slip weight to -0.8, accept ~20 deg knee compromise); (2) STRUCTURE - knee target bounds [0.2, 0.9] rad so full straightening is physically impossible (straightest 11.5 deg) and the 0.68 fighting budget is released. A bonus falsifiable prediction was attached: phase-lock strength tracks amplitude (v9_probe 48 deg locked 2.5 Hz; v11 low-amplitude 1.36 Hz unlocked), so if K works, hardware phase-lock should return - one change, two verdicts.

  Change

  knee_swing_amplitude reward + knee target clamp + pre-registered escalation/reverse levers; the failed reward-side-only approach retired.

  Outcome

  The lineage was frozen before v12 trained (strategic reset), but the diagnosis stands as the walk line's clearest example of two reward terms trading a behavior between them, with the pricing experiment and structural clamp fully designed and calibrated.

  Mechanism

  When two terms price opposite aspects of one motion (swing amplitude creates yaw momentum that becomes slip), the optimizer settles wherever the price ratio puts it - patching one side moves the equilibrium, not the conflict. Explicit pricing makes the trade a designed quantity; structural clamps remove the regions where the policy spends budget fighting the designer.

  Conflicts

  The pricing experiment (K vs slip) was designed and calibrated but never trained - the 2026-08-05 reset suspended v12; the collapse attribution table and the 0.68-action counterattack are measured, the remedy's效果 is untested.

  Applies when

  • one gait quality degrades in lockstep with another's improvement
  • the policy visibly fights a default pose or reference
  • repeated reward-side fixes for the same behavior have failed

  “膝摆塌在 v10→v10b,头号嫌疑是门控滑移罚(四代实测膝 p2p:v5 33° / v10 26~30° / v10b 7~8° / v11 6.5~8.6°;退时钟没救回 → 非时钟)——"屈膝"与"不打滑"在当前奖励里直接对抗 … 奖励侧修屈膝已三败 … v11 深蹲 default 被策略花 0.68 动作拉直反杀”

• The action-delay was implemented as lerp - beyond one step it extrapolated BACKWARD, so a whole lineage trained on a fictitious actuatorlatency-lerp-reverse-extrapolation

  Mechanism understoodinfraactuator-modelingactuator-modelingplant-calibrationsim2sim

  Unit-test plant-model code (delays, filters, randomizers) against hand-computed truth across its FULL configured range, not just the nominal case - a delay must be a queue, and any interpolation used outside [0,1] is a silent plant corruption that training will faithfully absorb.

  Symptom

  Every walk/stand model up to v11 had been trained on a silently wrong plant: the action-latency implementation lerp(cur, prev, lag) is only an interpolation for lag <= 1 - at lag 3 it computes 3*prev - 2*cur, a REVERSE extrapolation. With the configured (0, 0.06) s at 50 Hz (lag in [0,3]), about 2/3 of environments were adapting to actuator dynamics that do not exist.

  Context

  Listed as evidence item #1 for the full restart: "全部旧模型训在错误 plant 上" and the head suspect for the real robot's wild kicking. The fix replaced it with a true FIFO delay line (commit 7f13793) plus its own regression test (tests/test_action_latency.py) - but every exported ONNX predated the fix, which is part of why the lineage was frozen rather than patched.

  Change

  Delay implementation rewritten as an honest FIFO with unit tests; the restart baseline trained on the corrected plant from day one.

  Outcome

  A generation-scale training investment was revealed to have a corrupt plant underneath; the class of bug (plausible-looking math that silently changes meaning outside its valid range) got a permanent test.

  Mechanism

  lerp(a, b, w) leaves the segment for w > 1; used as a delay it fabricates high-gain inverted dynamics precisely in the largest-delay draws, so the policy learns compensation for an actuator that cannot exist - and DR then trains robustness to the artifact rather than to reality. No training metric can catch this: the sim is self-consistent, just wrong.

  Applies when

  • implementing or auditing action delay / filtering in a trainer
  • a lineage behaves as if compensating dynamics nobody modeled
  • deciding whether old checkpoints are salvageable after a plant bug

  “动作延迟旧实现 lerp(cur, prev, lag) 在 lag>1 时是反向外插(w=3 → 3·prev−2·cur),配置 [0,0.06]s@50Hz 即 lag∈[0,3],约 2/3 env 在适应不存在的执行器动态。7f13793 已换真 FIFO,但所有 ONNX 均训于修复之前 —— 真机"乱踢"的头号嫌疑。”

• When training fails repeatedly, inject the target behavior open-loop - stop tuning rewards for an unverified behavioropen-loop-probe-before-reward-tuning

  Mechanism understoodomniattributionattributionprocesscurriculum

  After 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。”

• Every rung gets written stop criteria - hit any one, stop; tightened when priors say results should come fastpreregistered-stop-criteria-per-rung

  Replicatedomnitraining-runprocessgate-battery

  Freeze per-rung stop criteria (old-skill floors, new-skill deadline, oscillation signature, known pathology signatures) before training, stop on first hit - and shorten the deadline in proportion to how fast your mechanism says results should appear.

  Symptom

  Continued training past the point of degradation had previously destroyed capabilities (C1 trained away the root's backward skill); without hard stop rules, sunk-cost reasoning keeps runs alive too long.

  Context

  Standard rung protocol - eval_c_matrix every 100 iters at 5 seeds with a fixed criteria list, frozen before training ("开训前写死，事后不许改"): (1) stand or vx+0.15 at <=3/5 for two consecutive points; (2) vx+0.15 tracking <70% for two consecutive points (vs recorded root baseline); (3) oscillation signature - survival repeatedly crossing zero between adjacent checkpoints, stop on first occurrence, do not wait for confirmation; (4) new-skill-no-progress deadline (e.g. wz tracking <30% or still same-signed after iter 400); (5) a known lineage pathology signature (s1c arm-B: scatter -> half-recover -> collapse).

  Change

  Stop budgets scale with prior knowledge: when C4-redo4's feed-forward was already proven open-loop, the no-progress deadline was tightened from +500 to +100 iters ("前馈是开环就给 71~96% 的 … 若 +100 还没有 … 不值得再烧").

  Outcome

  Multiple rungs were stopped exactly on criterion (C4-redo criterion 4 at iter 1200; redo2/redo3 at absolute 900), converting each into a clean hypothesis test instead of a drifting run; no rung burned its full cap on a dead hypothesis.

  Mechanism

  Degradation of retained skills is a lineage-level injury that later training often cannot undo, so detection latency is capital loss; and a stop rule written before the run cannot be bent by hope. Tightening deadlines when priors predict immediate results converts "no result yet" into evidence against the mechanism.

  Applies when

  • starting any resumed/curriculum training rung
  • deciding whether to keep training a run that shows early regression
  • a mechanism-backed change should produce results immediately

  “每 100 iter eval_c_matrix.py --seeds 5，命中任一即停 … 存活在相邻 checkpoint 间反复跨越 0（出现即停）… 收紧版：绝对 iter 900（= +200）时 vy±0.10 跟踪仍 <30% 即停”

• A nonzero response with the same sign for + and - commands is bias, not abilitysame-sign-response-is-yaw-bias

  Replicatedomnisim-evalmeasurementgate-batteryattribution

  Before crediting any directional skill, test both command signs: response must flip sign with the command; a same-signed pair is a bias to subtract, not an ability to report.

  Symptom

  Root-selection probe showed nonzero wz "tracking percentages" on turn commands, tempting the read that candidates could partially turn.

  Context

  During C-ladder root selection, s1e-500's measured yaw rate was +0.084 rad/s for cmd +0.3 and +0.093 rad/s for cmd -0.3 - same sign both ways. The same check on the C2 baseline gave wz+0.20 -> -0.13 and wz-0.20 -> +0.12 (again same sign), while the alternative root s2e_pd-1400 gave +0.16 / -0.16 - opposite signs, i.e. a genuine 16% command response.

  Change

  Reading corrected and written into the execution sheet: percentages on directional commands are meaningless unless the +cmd and -cmd responses have opposite signs; all three candidates were re-classified as "cannot turn, cannot sidewalk - C2/C3/C4 learn from zero". Acceptance criteria thereafter required "tracking >=50% AND left/right opposite-signed".

  Outcome

  Prevented crediting turn/sidewalk ability that did not exist; the antisymmetry clause became a standing part of every turn and sidewalk PASS condition (C2, C4, C4-redo levels all carry "且左右反号").

  Mechanism

  A constant yaw (or lateral) bias projects onto any command's sign convention and shows up as fake fractional tracking; only sign-antisymmetry under command reversal distinguishes a feedback response to the command from an open-loop offset.

  Applies when

  • evaluating turn/sidewalk/any signed-command tracking percentages
  • a candidate shows partial tracking on an axis it was never trained on
  • writing PASS criteria for a new directional skill

  “C2/C3 那些非零的 wz 百分比不是转向能力 —— 转向+ 与 转向− 的实测同号（s1e：cmd +0.3 → +0.084，cmd −0.3 → +0.093 rad/s），那是恒定偏航偏置。… 三个候选都不会转、都不会侧走。”

• A time gate that had cured one lineage's rushing made the from-scratch lineage trade away its stance width twice (0.364 -> 0.235 m, 0.355 -> 0.251 m) - its disease was absent there, so the fix was retired and the pre-gate checkpoint shippedtime-gate-vs-wide-stance-retire-the-fix

  Replicatedrecoveryreward-shapingreward-shapingcurriculumfork-selection

  Carry a fix into a new lineage only if its disease is present there; a mechanism that cured one lineage can be net negative in another, and when doubling a term's weight recovers almost nothing, treat the two objectives as structurally in conflict and remove the one whose purpose is gone.

  Symptom

  V3.1's phase 2 (the 3 s zero gate on standing income, continued from P1b) kept 100% success on every friction level and slowed the get-up, but the lateral stance drifted 0.364 -> 0.235 m and hip yaw crept to 57 deg against its 60 deg limit. With the width band's weight doubled (P2c, after P1c) it drifted again, 0.355 -> 0.251 m, below the pre-registered 0.30 m failure line.

  Context

  The zero gate had been introduced in V2.5/V2.5b to slow the old lineage's get-up. In V3.1 the rushing was already absent: P1c got up in 0.90-1.06 s with a worst torque ratio of 73.3%, better than the stamped v2_6c, because the full beta curriculum, second-difference smoothing and pull curriculum had cured the violence inside training.

  Change

  Recorded as a candidate law with two data points - the zero gate and a wide stance are mutually exclusive here - and the zero gate was removed from the V3.1 recipe. P1c (the pre-gate checkpoint) went through the full stamp-level acceptance instead.

  Outcome

  P1c passed everything: all six criteria, lateral stance 0.355 m, foot tilt P75 2.0 deg, mu {1.0, 0.8, 0.6, 0.4} x 10 seeds all 100%. recovery_v3_1p1c.onnx was stamped and pushed to the robot channel.

  Mechanism

  The zero gate moves the income toward "stay stable until the end", and under low-friction DR a wide stance has a slip tail, so survival outbids the width band; doubling the band's price bought back only 0.016 m - an auction that does not converge signals structural conflict, not an under-priced term.

  Applies when

  • porting reward mechanisms from an old lineage into a fresh recipe
  • a width, margin or posture metric erodes during a late training phase
  • a weight increase produces a negligible change in its target

  “**定律候选(二实证):归零门 × 宽站互斥**。 … 加价翻倍只挽回 0.016,竞拍不收敛)。 … **归零门是 v2_5 血统的历史包袱,对 V3.1 配方是净负资产,P2 阶段除名 —— P1c 即终点形态**。”

• 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 40/40binary-band-reward-fake-touchdown

  Mechanism understoodonelegreward-shapingreward-shapingsim2sim

  Shape 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**”

• Calibrate a wall penalty by measuring healthy and sick policies - healthy pays ~0, the disease pays a wallcalibrate-threshold-between-healthy-and-sick

  Mechanism understoodwalkreward-shapingreward-shapinggate-battery

  Calibrate every threshold penalty by evaluating its exact formula on replays of at least one healthy and one sick policy: place the threshold between their distributions, size the weight so the sick policy pays a decisive fraction of tracking while the healthy one pays ~0, and pre-compute neighboring thresholds for cheap adjustment.

  Symptom

  Real walk_v7 occasionally clipped its own legs (stance narrowed to 133 mm mean vs nominal 214.5); a foot-distance penalty was needed, but an uncalibrated threshold/weight risked either doing nothing or becoming a reverse barrier.

  Context

  The term (relu(d_min - lateral foot distance), measured in the base yaw frame because world-frame y is meaningless after turning) was calibrated before training by replaying three known policies through the exact reward formula at the acceptance operating point: healthy v5 (183 mm) pays 0.6% of tracking - effectively free; narrowed v7 (133 mm) pays 22% - effective widening pressure; collapsed v8 (93 mm) pays 55% - a wall. d_min 0.16 was placed deliberately between healthy and sick, with alternative thresholds (0.14/0.18) pre-computed in the tool output for later adjustment. The shape self-check was named as a standing question: "先问'零代价的选项是什么'" - the zero-cost region must be exactly the desired behavior.

  Change

  feet_lateral_distance added at d_min 0.16 / weight -10, with telemetry expectation pre-registered (should decay toward 0 as stance learns >160 mm; if bow-legged over-widening >214 appears, only then discuss an upper bound).

  Outcome

  v9_probe on hardware: no leg contact ("没碰腿(N2 兑现)"), stance min 145/126 mm green; the term's zero-cost design left healthy gait untaxed.

  Mechanism

  A relu threshold penalty defines a free region and a priced region; its correctness is entirely in where the boundary sits relative to the healthy and pathological distributions. Replaying known-good and known-bad policies through the exact formula measures both distributions in the term's own currency, making the threshold and weight a placement decision instead of a guess.

  Applies when

  • adding any relu/threshold-style wall penalty
  • a safety margin (foot distance, joint limit, clearance) needs enforcement without taxing normal behavior
  • choosing between candidate thresholds for a new term

  “形状自检 (v6 横向组/v8-B 的教训 —— 先问"零代价的选项是什么"): 标称站距付 0, 健康步态付 ~0, 收窄才付费 … v5(健康) 183 mm … 0.6% ≈ 免费 | v7(收窄) 133 mm … 22% —— 有效推宽 | v8(塌陷) 93 mm … 55% —— 墙 … d_min=0.16 恰在 v5(183)与 v7(133)之间”

• Training the final recipe from scratch in one run - every mechanism the lineage had accumulated - produced 0% and a seated robot; the order in which the lineage acquired those mechanisms was part of why it workedcurriculum-history-is-part-of-the-product

  Observed oncerecoverytraining-runcurriculumprocess

  A recipe that ends a lineage is not a recipe for a from-scratch run: consolidate it as ordered curriculum phases matching how the lineage acquired its mechanisms, check that every curriculum criterion is reachable from the starting policy, and read the run's raw term values, not the total reward, before calling it green.

  Symptom

  V3.0 trained the lineage's whole final recipe from scratch in one 9,000 iteration run - full beta curriculum, prone-conditioned pull assist, friction DR, the 3 s zero gate on standing income, flat_feet - testing the proposition "the product is defined by its configuration, not by its training history". Training looked all green (reward 26.33, episode length 500, 100% time-outs).

  Context

  Read in raw units against v2_6c at the same weights, the green was a seated equilibrium: base_height 0.377 vs 0.640, stand_pose 0.205 vs 0.516, flat_feet 0.0000 (zero because it sits outside its height gate, not because the feet were flat). Acceptance: 0.0% in Isaac at the deployed authority, 0.0% on every MuJoCo friction level, and still 0.0% at the training-time authority (100% seated at 0.222 m, upright and still).

  Change

  The full stdout (316k lines) was read: the beta curriculum's criterion (standing share over 0.35) was met zero times, so beta never left the wide setting and the policy had no experience at the deployed authority; the pull curriculum was stuck on the same criterion. The lineage had escaped the seated basin with immediate income (V2.0-V2.2) and only then added the zero gate to cure rushing (V2.5); from scratch, the zero gate removed the early "stand fast, earn more" gradient needed to escape. Verdict "the curriculum history is part of the product", limited to n = 1. v2_6c stayed the product.

  Outcome

  V3.1 kept the order as explicit phases: P1 from scratch with immediate income (zero gate off) until the curricula advance, P2 adding the zero gate. P1b/P1c escaped the seated basin and passed; P2 was later judged net negative and dropped (time-gate-vs-wide-stance-retire-the-fix).

  Mechanism

  Mechanisms that refine a competent policy (time gates, tight authority) can delete the gradient a naive policy needs, and a curriculum whose advancement criterion the naive policy never meets freezes at its first level.

  Conflicts

  The spec limits the falsification to "this recipe + this curriculum criterion" (n = 1, no seed sweep, no criterion tuning). V3.1's phased run succeeding is consistent with the ordering reading but changed other terms too.

  Applies when

  • consolidating a long lineage of continuation fixes into one clean recipe
  • a from-scratch run with all mechanisms enabled plateaus early
  • curriculum state is not logged or never advances

  “命题:产物由配置定义,而非训练史定义。 … 训练 log(完整 stdout 316k 行)`[beta_anchor]` 仅初始 1 行,**达标 0 次** … V2.0~V2.2 靠**即时计酬**爬出坐姿盆地(§33),站立巩固后 V2.5 才装归零门 治"过快"(§39)。**课程史是产品的一部分。**”

• A joint-velocity penalty meant to slow the get-up cut joint speed 16% and left the get-up time unchanged - the knob never moved the variable, so the idea it was meant to test stayed untesteddof-vel-penalty-is-not-a-pacing-knob

  Mechanism understoodrecoveryreward-shapingreward-shapingattribution

  Before reading a result as a test of an idea, check that the knob actually moved the independent variable; velocity regularizers smooth a schedule they do not set, and a schedule driven by per-step task income moves only when that income's time structure does.

  Symptom

  The get-up took 0.6-0.9 s in Isaac with large torque demand; the user proposed getting up more slowly so less torque would be needed.

  Context

  The idea had support in the accounts: the acceptance bound is an upper bound of 5 s (5-8x margin), the quasi-static squat path peaks at 25% of the limits, and rolling over needs no momentum. R3.2 raised dof_vel from -1e-3 to -5e-3 as the single variable.

  Change

  dof_vel -1e-3 -> -5e-3 (child-run from R3.1).

  Outcome

  Get-up medians moved +0.02-0.04 s (noise); raw joint velocity -16%; torque demand median got worse (hip_pitch 46-48% -> 63-67%) as the new term competed with torque_headroom on the same joints; MuJoCo 98 -> 96%. Verdict FAIL on the knob, not on the idea, and the rung was not adopted. When pace was later attacked through the income's time structure (V2.5/V2.5b), the MuJoCo get-up moved into the 3.5-4.5 s design band.

  Mechanism

  The pace was set by base_height_progress paying for every step spent high (stand earlier, earn more); a velocity regularizer only smooths motion along the same schedule and does not change when the robot stands up.

  Applies when

  • trying to make a skill slower or gentler with smoothness penalties
  • an experiment's primary metric did not move and a verdict is being written
  • two penalties act on the same joints

  “**关键判读:`dof_vel` 罚只把关节速度压了 16%,而起身用时一点没变。** 也就是说**这一级根本没有把"慢下来"这个自变量推动起来** —— 所以它**不构成对 用户假说的检验** … 起身节奏由 `base_height_progress` 的逐步计酬决定(早站起来就多 拿),速度正则只在同一条时间轨迹上把动作抹匀,不改变何时站起来。”

• A training-side rate limit anchored on the last commanded target is an integrator inside the balance loop - two unrelated lineages converged to the same 34-43% re-fall rate, a soft penalty could not fix it, and the bandwidth arithmetic said safety and standing could not coexistslew-anchor-is-an-integrator

  Mechanism understoodrecoverytraining-runactuator-modelingcontract-freezeattribution

  If you constrain actions in training, anchor the constraint on the measured state, not on the previous command - a limiter with memory adds lag inside the balance loop; and when two different lineages converge to the same failure rate, treat the cause as structural and stop adding soft penalties.

  Symptom

  With the rate limit moved into training (V1), policies either could not stand up or stood up and kept falling again: the stand oscillated, fell and climbed back, 34-43% of the time.

  Context

  V1.0-B (user decision: explore new postures from scratch, hard constraint in training): target <- prev + clip(target - prev, +/-S*dt) at the TIGHT rates, anchored on the last issued target like the bridge. Four runs: v1_0 from scratch 0.8% - every category righted under the limit, then knelt (the limit also damped the exploration that had escaped the seated basin in V0); v1_0c continued from R3.1 99.8% get-up but 36-43% re-fall and knee jitter 0.604 rad/s; v1_0p with a pull-assist curriculum (56 N -> 0, fully withdrawn) 39.1% unassisted, re-fall 34-42%; v1_0w with a windup-gap penalty 25.4%, re-fall 18-43%. Removing the limiter from v1_0p gave 0.0%: the policy had co-adapted with it.

  Change

  The rate-limit route was declared dead after four runs and the line was re-rooted on a beta-anchored action space (V2, user approval required).

  Outcome

  V2.0's first acceptance at full authority already showed re-falls of 0-1% (V1: 34-43%), the structural bet paying off before any tuning.

  Mechanism

  Anchored on the previous command, a saturated policy becomes a rate controller - one more integrator in the loop - and active balance through that lag oscillates, while a kneeling sit needs no active control and is stable. The arithmetic: kp 30 needs 0.4 rad of error for 12 N*m; at 4 rad/s that takes 0.1 s, half the pendulum time constant sqrt(0.38/9.8) ~ 0.2 s; keeping standing bandwidth needs S of at least ~8 rad/s, within 20% of the 10 rad/s velocity limit - no bound at all. Anchoring on the measured angle (q + beta*a) makes the full kp*beta authority available in one step, with no memory, and caps the impact at the same time.

  Applies when

  • adding rate limits, slew limits or target filters to a policy's action path
  • a policy stands but oscillates and re-falls after a constraint was added
  • different lineages or curricula land on the same failure signature

  “v1_0p(拉力课程):会站(prone 79.9%),再摔 34~42% —— **两条完全不同 血统、不同学习路径,收敛到同一失败率**。 … 动作饱和时它退化为 速率控制 = 环内多一个积分器;主动站姿平衡穿过该滞后必振荡(v1_0 的跪坐不需 主动控制,所以稳)。对照:**HoST 的 β 锚在当前实测 q,无记忆、无积分器**”

• Four in-lineage attempts to widen the standing stance failed - remove a tax, add a joint-space knife, change the target, add a task-space metric penalty - because the stance was the end state of the get-up path; trained from scratch with the right terms it grew right from day onestance-decided-by-get-up-path

  Replicatedrecoveryattributioncurriculumfork-selectionreward-shaping

  A posture a skill ends in is shaped by the path the policy takes to reach it; if several single-variable edits to the terminal-phase reward cannot move it, stop editing that phase and retrain with the terminal constraint present from the start.

  Symptom

  v2_6c stood with its feet 0.159 m apart (task-space) and its hips yawed 45-47 deg the same way, which split on the real robot. Standing-phase reward edits did not move it.

  Context

  V2.7-A removed the flat-feet tax on compensated stances (stance unchanged); V2.7b added a hip-roll lower-bound hinge (+5 deg in 3,000 iterations, yaw ratchet); V2.8 changed the stand_pose target to a wide flat stance (stance unchanged, yaw not unwound, feet nearly overlapping, mu 0.4 transfer 2%); V2.9 penalized lateral spacing in metres (the policy parked just outside the penalty's gate in a lunge, 0% success). The v2_6c get-up goes through a split and closes the feet together as it rises.

  Change

  In-lineage stance surgery was formally closed. V3.1 trained from scratch with task-space stance terms present from the first iteration (and, after P1, a positive width band instead of a penalty).

  Outcome

  V3.1 P1b: lateral stance 0.364 m, foot tilt 0.0 deg, all four categories 100%, MuJoCo mu 1.0 and 0.4 both 100% - with a symmetric toe-out the kinematic audit had not enumerated. P1c (with a yaw guard): 0.355 m, all six acceptance criteria passing, mu 1.0-0.4 all 100%; it became the product.

  Mechanism

  A converged policy does not rebuild the path that produced its terminal posture; a standing-phase gradient only finds the nearest hack around the posture the get-up delivers.

  Applies when

  • the final posture of a transition skill is wrong and resists terminal-phase shaping
  • repeated continuation rungs produce hacks instead of the intended posture
  • deciding between another in-lineage fix and a from-scratch retrain

  “窄站距 + yaw 扭是 v2_6c 起身策略(劈叉起身 → 双脚并拢收势)的**结构性 终态**,不是站立段的孤立参数 —— 站立形态由起身路径决定,在血统内只动 站立段奖励改不动它。”