Training Coach
Doctrine
A report may cite any of these as doctrine-N.
doctrine-1Contract freeze and fingerprint disciplineThe policy I/O contract (observation layout, scales, history semantics, action pipeline) is frozen and fingerprinted; every exported policy is stamped and verified; contract changes ship as new versioned profiles that leave old artifacts bit-identical, and old policies run forever under their era's pinned profile.
Case. The 215-dim omni contract was frozen with a three-machine digest; the one contract-level extension (lateral feed-forward) went in as a new `omni_ff` profile with the old profile provably untouched, and the contract checker caught two real wiring bugs before any training (`contract-freeze-and-checker`). A silently changed gait-clock default would have fed old policies a 25% slower clock - closed by pinned legacy profiles (`legacy-profile-pinning`). A stale derived USD forked plant mass 2.2% until an automated source-vs-derived instrument gated it (`derived-asset-staleness-check`). A gain profile is part of the closed loop a policy was trained in and belongs in its stamp; the recovery line's anchored authority was left out of its manifest and recorded as the gap not to repeat (`gain-profile-belongs-in-the-stamp`), and a second policy behind a deploy-side switch made the handoff state itself a contract (`recovery-two-policies-and-a-state-machine`, `walk-recovery-fsm-handoff`).
Coach application. On any proposal touching obs/action semantics, defaults, or derived assets: demand the version/profile plan, the fingerprint update, and the checker extension in the same change; flag any old artifact that would run under new defaults.
doctrine-2Attribution by resolved training params - never eval-override knobsCapability differences between lineages are explained only by digging each lineage's *resolved* training configuration and eliminating columns; evaluation-side override knobs (kd-scale, power-scale, cycle-time) act on the plant for *every* policy and may serve as deployment mitigations but never as explanations.
Case. Low-friction robustness across 8 lineages x 3840 cells was traced to kd DR *bandwidth* - every lineage had ground friction pinned to (1.0,1.0), so "trained friction" could not be the axis; the parameter axis and the plant axis were explicitly separated after the first attribution conflated them (`kd-bandwidth-mu-law-attribution`). "Weak turning" on hardware was a power-scale plant effect, not a training gap (`deploy-knob-attribution-before-retraining`); slowing the deploy clock was out-of-distribution, not a feature (`cycle-time-override-is-ood`). The ground truth for what a run trained under is the logged per-run config, not the source tree (`resolved-config-is-source-of-truth`).
Coach application. Whenever asked "why is lineage A better", require the resolved-param table first; kill zero-variance columns; refuse explanations phrased in eval-knob terms; when a knob helps, label it deployment mitigation.
doctrine-3PASS gates become constraints; FAIL gates become objectivesOnce a skill passes its gate, that gate converts into a standing regression constraint (budget <= 2/20 against the parent baseline) for all later training; gates currently failing are the only legitimate objectives of the next rung.
Case. The C ladder ran one frozen 13-cell x 20-seed matrix at every rung with promotion = "new skill PASS and old skills within regression budget"; C1 was stopped and re-rooted precisely because it trained away the root's backward PASS (`fixed-acceptance-matrix-per-rung`, `preregistered-stop-criteria-per-rung`). The C4 product shipped only at 260/260 cells with zero regression.
Coach application. Keep the ledger: every PASS adds a constraint row; propose rungs only against FAIL rows; treat any constraint violation as stop-and-attribute, never "the next rung might win it back".
doctrine-4One variable per ladder rung - counted against what the checkpoint sawA rung changes one variable, where "one" is counted against the checkpoint's actual training state, not against the current config's diff; batching is allowed only when each change owns a disjoint symptom space with a pre-registered ablation order.
Case. Two rungs failed identically because resuming s1e-500 under the evolved config silently added four plant variables the checkpoint had never seen ("单变量纪律不只看「我改了什么」,还要看「checkpoint 见过什么」" - `resume-state-dr-audit`). v8 legally batched four orthogonal fixes with a written ablation order (`orthogonal-batch-with-ablation-order`); v9 spent one run completing a 2x2 factorial so either outcome convicted a factor (`fill-the-missing-factorial-cell`); v10b's three-way ablation wrongfully convicted the clock and had to be retried fairly.
Coach application. Before any resume: diff cfg against the checkpoint's logged training state. Before any batch: require the symptom-ownership map and ablation order in writing.
doctrine-5Pre-register risks, readings, and stop criteria before the ladderBefore a ladder or risky rung, write down the known risks, the interpretation of every plausible outcome, and hit-any-one stop criteria - frozen before training, tightened when priors say results should come fast.
Case. The C ladder opened with three numbered risks including the exact falsification condition for its own root choice; A/B arms carried "预注册读法(事后不改)" tables; a level expected to fail was run anyway for its pre-registered diagnostic value (`preregister-risks-and-fork-readings`). Stop criteria caught C4-redo rungs at +200 instead of full caps (`preregistered-stop-criteria-per-rung`); hardware sessions pre-registered per-config expected signatures and the disagreement rule "不改结论改账" (`preregistered-real-expectations`, `feasibility-accounts-lock-design-point`).
Coach application. Refuse to open a rung without the written risk/reading/ stop block; after results, read conclusions off the pre-registered table and flag any post-hoc reinterpretation.
doctrine-6Plant parameters are measured, never inventedEvery plant number carries measurement provenance: armature = N^2 x rotor inertia from no-load tests, friction split by rig and by API column, torque limits shaped by per-joint gait peaks, latency traced through the real pipeline, masses weighed - and DR bands are additive around the measured nominal, sized to the measured dispersion.
Case. Guessed friction was 2.5x low and guessed damping 5x high (`friction-measured-not-guessed`); armature had been 0 with a 9:1 gearbox (81x reflected inertia, `armature-n2-rotor-inertia`); a uniform torque derating was "the wrong shape" vs measured peaks (`torque-limit-shape-by-measured-peaks`); the delay implementation itself was a wrong plant for a whole lineage (`latency-lerp-reverse-extrapolation`); the run design point was locked by three accounts including the tau_limit/kd speed ceiling (`feasibility-accounts-lock-design-point`); identified friction had to land in the right simulator API columns to act at all (`sim-api-friction-columns`). The recovery and one-leg lines opened with the same kind of accounts before any reward existed - a connected static path and the torque along it for an armless get-up, and the gains single support needs to be holdable at all (`get-up-feasibility-accounts-before-training`, `single-support-gain-authority-probe`).
Coach application. For any plant value in a config review, ask "measured how?"; reject absolute ranges with no nominal; check API column mapping and derived-asset regeneration whenever measured values land.
doctrine-7Sim2sim gate before sim2real - under deployment conditionsEvery checkpoint passes a second, independently built simulator before hardware, and both the gate and the smoke loop run under the measured deployment conditions (real pipeline delay, honest contact parameters, the deployment gain/power profile).
Case. The standing order "先sim2sim 再sim2real" (`sim2sim-gate-before-sim2real`); acceptance flipped to match hardware only under measured condim/torsional friction (`eval-plant-honesty-contact-params`); gates moved permanently to `--delay 2` after the kicking incident (`pipeline-latency-is-plant-not-dr`); and the harness itself must be audited - a frame-convention bug in the cross-sim evaluator invalidated a whole line of verdicts (`body-frame-velocity-api-audit`). The recovery line's second simulator caught a torque penalty paid for by bracing the legs together (`torque-penalty-bought-by-leg-bracing`), and a 1.8x torque disagreement between the two plants stayed binding because its one surviving explanation was never tested (`torque-disagreement-between-simulators-unresolved`).
Coach application. Block any hardware request lacking a second-sim PASS at deployment conditions; when sim2sim and training-side metrics disagree, treat the evaluator as a suspect too.
doctrine-8Observation honesty - the actor's inputs are a hardware contractThe actor observes only signals the real robot produces with realistic noise; privileged truths go to the critic; history windows are estimators and must train under plant variation; rewards on quantities the actor cannot observe buy only average suppression, never closed-loop correction.
Case. Ground-truth velocity/forces went critic-only (`observation-honesty-critic-only`); frame_hist under zero DR memorized the trainer's plant fingerprint - 0/20 transfer (`history-obs-needs-plant-variation`); world-frame yaw rewards could not teach pull-back because heading is unobservable to the actor - correction was routed to the deploy outer loop instead of breaking the contract (`reward-observability-limit`, `deploy-heading-loop-and-align-training`).
Coach application. Audit every actor-obs element for hardware existence; require minimal plant jitter whenever history/recurrence exists; for each reward, ask "can the actor see this error?" and route correction tasks to outer loops.
doctrine-9Reward economics are audited in realized currencyReward design decisions are made on realized per-step magnitudes under the actual policy and command distribution: price the do-nothing optimum before adding a mode, compare achieved values to the computed ignore-floor, calibrate thresholds between measured healthy and sick distributions, and ship every new penalty with a withdrawal clause.
Case. feet_air_time at weight 2.0 realized 0.038 vs tracking 1.2 - drag was rational (`realized-contribution-audit`); ignoring a vy command cost 28-180x less than ignoring vx until a gated tracking term was added (`reward-cost-of-ignoring-audit`, `gate-new-reward-terms-by-command`); achieved-vs-floor separated "never learned" from "priced out" (`ignore-floor-diagnosis`); the foot-distance wall was placed between measured healthy (0.6% tax) and sick (55%) policies (`calibrate-threshold-between-healthy-and-sick`); the landing penalty carried a pre-registered stand-down condition and actually stood down (`calibration-threshold-with-withdrawal-clause`); two clearance terms were inert until zero-points and gate occupancy were checked (`inert-reward-term-audit`). A get-up policy sat because three gated terms paid the seated pose 84% of the return and the one term that could tell sitting from standing was an exp kernel reading 4.6e-5 at the real error (`seated-basin-dead-exp-kernel`); a torque-tail term was weighted by its measured steady value beside a peer term after the estimate proved 12x off (`tail-torque-needs-hinge-on-computed-demand`).
Coach application. Never discuss weights in the abstract: demand the realized-contribution table, the ignore-floor number, and the healthy-pay calibration before any reward edit is approved.
doctrine-10The zero-cost option must be the desired behaviorFor every penalty, name what the zero-cost option is; penalize failure events (slip, saturation excess, contact in flight windows), never the motion or joints that healthy behavior uses; make degenerate strategies fatal via termination where penalties cannot price them out.
Case. Joint-usage penalties for drift taxed a 1.4%-of-momentum channel 2.7/step and collapsed training; the slip penalty costs a non-slipping gait exactly zero (`penalize-the-slip-not-the-joint`). A frozen-at-clamp joint pays zero action-rate forever - only a pre-clip saturation penalty flips the cheat economics (`saturation-cheating-zero-rate-cost`). Ungated phase shaping made standing 42x more expensive than stepping and cooked the hip motors (`moving-gate-42x-stand-tax`); crouch-shuffling lived until a height termination deleted it (`termination-closes-degenerate-basin`). A gated penalty is an exit: the policy parked just outside an uprightness gate, then just under a height gate, to stop paying a stance tax, and only a positive band plus an always-on guard closed both (`penalty-gate-is-an-escape-hatch`); a soft-limit penalty that charged the standing pose itself bought a 4.1 deg lean (`soft-limit-penalty-charges-nominal-pose`); an unpriced foot attitude was spent on edge-standing (`unpriced-foot-attitude-is-a-free-variable`); and the one-leg line listed its cheapest cheats before training and still met one through a zero-gradient band (`enumerate-cheapest-cheats-before-training`, `binary-band-reward-fake-touchdown`).
Coach application. Run the "零代价的选项是什么" audit on every proposed term; convert motion taxes into event-conditional penalties; check the termination set against each known degenerate strategy.
doctrine-11Measurement discipline: independent referees, signs, distributionsA disputed measurement is adjudicated only by an independent algorithm from raw state; directional ability requires sign-antisymmetry under command reversal; bimodal metrics are reported as mode shares (never medians, never 3 seeds); ratios are not comparable when totals change; reward values compare only within one command distribution; single chaotic events never cross machines.
Case. The triple reversal - a good metric was "refuted" by a sibling metric that shared the disease (`independent-referee-for-metric-disputes`, `body-frame-velocity-api-audit`); same-signed +/- responses were bias, not turning (`same-sign-response-is-yaw-bias`); the swing median sat in a bimodal gap (`median-hides-bimodal-distribution`); "v6 is jitterier" died on absolute energies (`ratio-metrics-need-absolute-check`); yaw gain measured 15x wrong in an oscillating frame (`heading-integral-not-body-rate`); a 44% improvement evaporated under same-distribution comparison (`same-distribution-reward-comparison`); drift direction was a limit cycle (`multiseed-sign-test-for-drift`); a cross-machine push cliff was chaos (`single-impulse-recovery-is-chaotic`).
Coach application. Before accepting any surprising number: ask for the independent recomputation, the sign pair, the distribution shape, and the comparison conditions. Retract in writing when a metric falls.
doctrine-12The deployment pipeline is plantIrreducible pipeline properties - action latency, rate limits, power/torque scaling, teleop command mappings - are part of the nominal plant, modeled from day one and reproduced in every gate; deploy-side scalings are crutches that flag unmodeled plant, and they cannot be algebraically folded into training constants.
Case. Right-leg kicking was over-trained-delay x loop gain; power 0.8 was a gain-reduction crutch that retired when the delay was modeled (`pipeline-latency-is-plant-not-dr`); power derating damages non-forward axes first (`power-scale-hurts-nonforward-axes`); training at 0.4 scale as the "twin" of deploying 0.5 x 0.8 collapsed 0/20 (`deploy-scaling-not-training-equivalent`); one shared teleop speed sent an out-of-band lateral command and the robot clipped its own foot (`teleop-command-band-per-axis`); the latency DR range had not even covered the measured pipeline (`latency-dr-covers-measured-pipeline`). A rate limiter added at deployment only clipped a policy that kept commanding (`deploy-rate-limiter-windup`); moved into training and anchored on the last command it became an integrator in the balance loop (`slew-anchor-is-an-integrator`); anchored on the measured angle it bounded torque and kept the bandwidth (`beta-anchored-action-target`). The walking lines' safe setting, power-scale 0.8, cut the ends of the recovery policy's full-range travel and left its spikes alone; a gain inside the trained band did the job (`power-derating-cuts-full-range-contract`).
Coach application. Demand the measured pipeline latency/limits in the plant model and in gate conditions; treat every deploy-side derating as a question ("what is this compensating?"); block per-axis command sources that exceed training bands.
doctrine-13DR budget is finite; its distribution is the measured supportRobustness is a conserved budget: disturbance training on an already-hardened lineage borrows from existing margins; DR ranges span the measured deployment support - no fictitious tails (they buy degenerate gaits), no single constants (they allow thin-margin specialization); harden the plant only after the task distribution is final.
Case. The same push dose helped a narrow lineage and damaged a balanced one - budget conservation (`push-dr-conditional-budget-conservation`); wide latency tails bought drag-glide, constant values shipped 60% thinner tilt margins - the answer is a narrow band on the measured support (`dr-tail-plant-continuation`, `constant-value-dr-overfits-margin`); task-first ordering because hardening a soon-to-change task wastes budget (`task-shaping-before-plant-hardening`); COM randomization used deliberately as a behavior-shaping tool, and rolled back on symptom per its own contract (`com-randomization-forces-leg-spread`, `com-dr-rollback-on-symptom`). DR that is switched on can still be thin: the run policy fell in the frontal plane its gain-and-latency randomization never touched (`thin-dr-judged-by-channel-coverage`), and a friction priority settled under one action contract had to be re-measured under the next (`friction-priority-re-measured-after-plant-change`).
Coach application. Before any DR rung: check the untrained policy against the spec, the lineage's current DR load, and the measured real-world range; after it: audit retained margins, not just the new tolerance.
doctrine-14Gates measure what hardware feels: posture, margins, stripped assistsAcceptance batteries carry posture-class rows (tilt max median, per-joint L/R asymmetry, temperature) beside task rows, graded margin columns beside binary gates, chirality scored per side, at least one condition that removes the environment's free stabilization, and validated predictive scalars promoted into the gate.
Case. Three same-shaped judging errors - survival, displacement, wz-difference - all missed what the operator felt; posture metrics had the predictive power (`task-metrics-vs-posture-metrics`, `stand-gate-posture-not-survival`); binary survival saturated and hid a 60% margin gap (`constant-value-dr-overfits-margin`); v5 passed everything on the ground and failed suspended (`suspension-probe-removes-free-stabilizer`); the hip_roll (l+r) scalar predicted real drift direction and ordering and entered the battery (`hip-roll-sum-predicts-lateral-drift`); averages hide chirality (`chirality-scored-separately`); gait-quality gates are judged at speeds that demand a gait (`low-speed-commands-reward-dragging`). The recovery line added the rest of the kit: where failed episodes end, not only where they started (`end-state-confusion-matrix`); a frozen acceptance distribution with a pinned seed (`frozen-acceptance-distribution-and-pinned-seed`); video of the metric rollout itself (`video-as-acceptance-record`); and the admission that a 10 s episode cannot see a stance that fails after a minute (`episode-length-bounds-what-a-gate-sees`). The one-leg line removed a foot-spacing wall that no gate measured, and the feet met on hardware (`removed-wall-returns-on-hardware`).
Coach application. Review every battery for posture rows, margin columns, per-side scoring, and an assist-stripped condition; when operator feel and gates disagree, suspect the metric class first.
doctrine-15Fork and root selection: recoverability, maturity, frozen rewardsChoose fork roots by which candidate's deficits the coming training can pay back (precision is recoverable; lost plasticity, symmetry, and margins are not); prefer mature checkpoints as roots even when younger ones score better as products; never fine-tune through a reward change - continuation is legal only with the reward frozen and plant/DR widening one rung at a time.
Case. s1e-500 beat higher-precision candidates because its exclusive strengths were unrecoverable (`fork-root-recoverable-shortfall`); the b300 arm proved maturity is capital against adaptation shock (`root-maturity-vs-product-quality`); the B-arm scatter/half-recover/collapse signature falsified reward-change fine-tuning and drew the legal boundary for S2 continuation (`fine-tune-reward-change-falsified`).
Coach application. For root debates, build the exclusive-strengths table and ask "which side can be trained back?"; require dual-arm evidence for maturity claims; classify any proposed continuation as reward-frozen or not before approving.
doctrine-16Curricula: verified engagement, lineage counters, disease-phase gatingAutomatic curricula must prove they engage (a saturated ratchet is constant DR wearing a curriculum's name); every ramp counts lineage-cumulative progress, not per-process steps; penalties aimed at late-stage pathologies ramp in after exploration noise decays; difficulty rises on measured per-stratum success, never on schedule.
Case. The s1f ratchet capped at iter 248 and never engaged (`auto-curriculum-engagement-check`); the saturation ramp re-fired at +600 after every resume and no shipped product ever saw the penalty (`curriculum-counter-lineage-steps`); the same penalty worked once gated to the disease phase and became an untouchable mechanism (`gate-penalties-to-the-disease-phase`); record-high aggregate reward hid a fully-failing delay stratum (`aggregate-metrics-mask-subgroup-failure`); bucket share is not a gradient lever (`bucket-share-is-not-a-gradient-lever`). An assist curriculum keyed to a pooled success share was withdrawn on the strength of the categories that already worked (`curriculum-criterion-conditioned-on-lagging-category`); a pace set by per-step income moved only when that income was time-gated (`per-step-income-drives-speed-time-gate`), and the same gate had to be retired in a lineage without the disease (`time-gate-vs-wide-stance-retire-the-fix`).
Coach application. Ask every curriculum three questions: does it engage (show the internal state)? what does it count (process or lineage)? when is it present (against the pathology's phase)? Check where shipped checkpoints sit relative to every ramp.
doctrine-17Probe before training: feasibility first, hypotheses in tablesAfter two failed training attempts at a skill, stop training: demonstrate the behavior open-loop, enumerate hypotheses in a written table audited against actual configs cheapest-first, race one probe per side of the sim2real boundary for hardware-only pathologies, and use suspended tests to acquit or convict actuators before blaming authority.
Case. "在黑暗里试钥匙" - four sidewalk rungs failed until an open-loop probe separated exploration/waveform/authority in one experiment (`open-loop-probe-before-reward-tuning`); the foot-drag mystery fell to a seven-hypothesis config audit (`hypothesis-table-code-audit`); the period-doubling was resolved by racing a reward-side and a plant-side evidence line - and both paid off, one per sub-case (`period-doubling-evidence-race`); the suspended test acquitted the roll actuator in one measurement (`suspended-test-isolates-actuator-authority`). A read-only configuration probe told a wall from a slope in the recovery line's seated basin (`configuration-probe-wall-not-slope`), and the fix it pointed to - where the feet are - took prone from 0/159 to 158/159 (`prone-dead-end-is-foot-placement`); a knob that did not move its variable was recorded as no test of the idea (`dof-vel-penalty-is-not-a-pacing-knob`).
Coach application. When a skill resists training, prescribe the probe before any further reward edits; require verified target trajectories before imitation terms; keep a falsified-fixes list so closed roads stay closed (`amplitude-cut-falsified-yaw-fix`).
doctrine-18External advice is recomputed locally; values transfer as ratiosEvery external suggestion is classified adopt / already-have / modify / trap by recomputing its claim on the local reward table and probe data; numeric values transfer only as dimensionless ratios (to tracking weight, leg length, sqrt(gL), control rate); citations are verified to exist.
Case. "Start vy very small" would have destroyed sidewalk learning on this reward table - the gradient scales quadratically (`external-advice-audit-against-own-arithmetic`); swing-height targets and weights transferred correctly only through leg-length and tracking-ratio scaling (`transfer-ratios-not-absolutes`); the "6-step delay" was refused for lacking a control rate (`latency-dr-covers-measured-pipeline`); a borrowed reference's structure was FK-verified and its amplitude re-derived from the division of labor (`reference-structure-fk-amplitude-division`); retrieval agents fabricated verbatim arXiv quotes - only source-verifiable material was used; and one dismissed suggestion later proved right for a different mechanism, and was credited (`cycle-average-tracking-for-gait-quantities`). An advisor's staged state machine turned out to exist in none of the three papers it cited, and reading them changed the plan (`advisor-paraphrase-vs-paper`).
Coach application. Intercept every "paper X does Y" with the local recomputation; convert absolutes to ratios before comparison; verify quotes; revisit dismissed advice when new mechanisms appear.
doctrine-19Hardware sessions are scripted experiments, not tuning sessionsReal-robot time executes a pre-registered matrix: risk-ordered (baseline first, fragile last with a spotter), stage-gated (suspended smoke before ground), A/B sessions bracketed by a repeated reference run, operators briefed on measured zero-command and untrained-axis behavior, chirality-aware disturbance protocols, no field tuning - the only legal field changes are scripted, single-variable, and self-reversing.
Case. The S2 acceptance sheet (`risk-ordered-real-deployment`, `battery-bracketed-real-ab`, `know-zero-command-behavior`, `push-test-chirality-protocol`, `no-field-tuning-protocol`); the RAM-only torque experiment with automatic power-cycle rollback (`reversible-single-variable-field-experiments`); and the sim-veto rule - even sim's condemnations get one safeguarded hardware check when they judge the purpose-built configuration (`sim-veto-needs-real-confirmation`). The recovery line's first real run went ahead with its preconditions unmet and was stopped as dangerous (`first-real-get-up-violent-stage-one-policy`); after it: a staged hang, mat and floor protocol (`staged-hang-mat-floor-for-get-up`), a fixed power-cycle pre-flight and two-machine discipline (`power-cycle-preflight`, `two-machine-config-discipline`), a fall guard replaced rather than switched off (`fall-guard-becomes-a-state`), and logs that are part of the run (`hardware-log-is-the-attribution-input`).
Coach application. Turn every hardware request into a runbook with order, gates, brackets, briefing, and anomaly plays; refuse improvised parameter changes on the floor.
doctrine-20Close questions in writing; restart when the debt is structuralAudited questions get frozen verdicts with citable wording and an explicit reopening bar; hardware verdicts are dated by deployment-stack and calibration state and expire when those change; and when successive rungs shuffle symptoms without net progress, freeze the lineage as regression baselines, pay the structural debts, and retrain minimal - carrying laws and instruments, not weights.
Case. The chirality and COM questions were closed with frozen wording and "no reopening without new hard evidence" (`frozen-verdicts-semantic-boundaries`); v5/v6's condemnations expired with the deploy stack (`stale-verdicts-under-old-stack`); a 2-degree calibration fix moved the whole runnable envelope (`zero-offset-calibration-shifts-envelope`); plant upgrades are era boundaries with paired re-baselining (`plant-swap-invariants-vs-shifts`); and the 2026-08-05 reset froze v5-v11, fixed the latency FIFO / manifest / sampling / reward-table debts, and restarted - producing the lineage that reached hardware SOTA (`freeze-lineage-fix-structure-restart`, `minimal-reward-table-with-provenance`). The recovery line's real-robot verdicts ended up in three places that disagree, one of them an undated note in a command file (`write-hardware-verdicts-back`).
Coach application. Maintain the closed-questions ledger and quote it when symptoms recur; stamp verdicts with stack/calibration versions; when a team is three rungs into symptom-shuffling, raise the restart question explicitly with the freeze-fix-restart pattern.
doctrine-21Name the quantity in the space it lives inA goal, reward term or acceptance criterion about the feet, the base or the contact state is computed from the quantity itself - world poses, forces, per-category outcomes - never through a joint-angle, single-signal or pooled stand-in that assumes everything else sits at nominal; and every detector is validated on a behaviour known not to contain the event before it becomes a gate.
Case. The recovery line was caught three times: |ankle roll| as "flat feet" sold stance width and the real robot slid into the splits, a hip-roll criterion was confounded by 50 deg of yaw, and the joint table said 0.271 m where the feet were 0.159 m apart; task-space terms produced the first flat, wide stance (`joint-space-proxy-for-task-space-quantity`). Flight detection lied in both directions across two lines - foot height flagged 40% false flight on a walking gait, contact force alone flagged slip chatter as hops (`contact-detector-single-signal-lies`). A pooled height average described a robot that did not exist - six in ten standing, four in ten sitting (`zero-partial-credit-is-not-an-iteration-problem`) - and the walking line had learned the same lesson on yaw rate (`heading-integral-not-body-rate`).
Coach application. For every reward term and gate row, ask what physical quantity it stands for and whether it is measured directly; flag joint-space or single-signal stand-ins for task-space goals, ask for a detector validated on a negative control, and split pooled metrics by category before reading them.
doctrine-22Continuation needs a live gradient; a release is chosen by a scanContinue a converged policy only on a change that creates a live gradient, on a short budget, with every checkpoint scanned on the transfer axis; choose a release by running the full battery over a band of checkpoints and stop on signals, never by taking the last one; and when edits to the terminal phase cannot move a behaviour, roll back and retrain with the constraint present from the start, keeping the order in which the lineage acquired its mechanisms as explicit curriculum phases.
Case. A continuation with no new gradient drifted MuJoCo transfer from 100/98% to 80/28% while every Isaac gate stayed perfect, and a live-gradient continuation at the same depth kept it (`converged-continuation-is-poison`). One-leg checkpoints 100 iterations apart failed 1 and 38 of 40 cells, and late ones degraded (`checkpoint-choice-is-a-full-gate-scan`). Four in-lineage stance fixes failed because the stance was the end of the get-up path, and from scratch it grew right (`stance-decided-by-get-up-path`); fixes stacked on degraded states were rolled back by the user (`stop-stacking-roll-back-and-audit`); and the lineage's final recipe, trained from scratch in one run, sat at 0% because the order of its curriculum was part of the product (`curriculum-history-is-part-of-the-product`). The omni line's short adaptation budgets and mature roots are the same law seen from the other side (`continuation-budget-not-from-zero`, `root-maturity-vs-product-quality`).
Coach application. Before approving a continuation, ask for the new gradient, the budget and the transfer axis in the scan; before approving a release, ask for the scan; after three rungs without progress on the target, propose rolling back to the last good checkpoint and a from-scratch phase plan instead of a fourth patch.
Experience cards
168 cards matching “single-impulse-recovery-is-chaotic”.
The +/-50 mm lateral COM randomization meant to spread the legs coincided with legs pulling IN - rolled back per its own pre-registered contract
com-dr-rollback-on-symptomWhen adopting a DR value that covers no local measurement, write its intent and rollback trigger into the config at adoption time; roll it back as the control arm the moment the symptom contradicts the intent, and promote the symptom's metric into the acceptance battery.
Symptom
After v7 adopted the reference developer's oversized lateral COM randomization (+/-50 mm) explicitly to force leg spread, the real robot's legs narrowed instead - lateral mean 154 mm / closest 107 mm in sim (nominal 214.5), narrower still on hardware with occasional leg contact.
Context
The rollback was clean because the adoption had been honest: the robot.yaml comment recorded the intent AND that the +/-50 value covered no local measurement (only a 16/7 mm measured offset existed; even the prior widening to +/-20 was subjective), plus the reference's own reported side effect (base sway) and the note "这一项要单独跑、 单独归因". When the opposite symptom appeared, v8 returned y to +/-20 mm as the control arm ("要么没起作用、要么帮了倒忙 … 按约定退回做 对照"), kept x/z untouched (a noise-level difference not worth another variable), and named the second suspect: the landing penalty itself, via the reference's own three-link chain (landing penalty -> stance narrows -> spacing penalty needed). A gate lesson was booked in the same table: v7's sim numbers had ALREADY crossed the line (154/107 vs v5's 182/147) - "这个指标本可拦下 v7" - so foot-distance became a standing acceptance row (min >120 mm, zero leg-leg contacts).
Change
base_com_offset_m y: 0.050 -> 0.020 (x/z kept), regenerated through the export tool rather than hand-editing derived files; foot-distance acceptance row added.
Outcome
A borrowed DR lever with no local measurement basis was retired the moment its symptom contradicted its purpose, at single-variable cost; the metric that would have caught it pre-hardware entered the gate.
Mechanism
DR ranges shape behavior through the policy's robustness strategy, which is jointly determined with every reward term; a lever that forces stance width on one robot can be dominated by a stronger narrowing pressure (landing softness) on another. Levers adopted without local measurement must carry their own rollback trigger, because there is no nominal to argue from when they misbehave.
Conflicts
Causality is not fully closed in the source: the narrowing may come from the landing penalty rather than the COM lever ("腿距的第二嫌疑人是 ④ 本身"); the rollback is the pre-agreed control experiment, not a verdict that the lever caused the narrowing.
Applies when
- importing DR ranges or behavioral-forcing randomizations from references
- a DR lever's observed effect contradicts its documented purpose
- a sim metric existed that would have caught a shipped regression
“⑥ 的本意 … 是逼策略把脚分开;真机结果是脚向内收且偶发相碰——要么没起作用、要么帮了倒忙。… 注释当时就写了"这一项要单独跑、单独归因"。现在症状出现了,按约定退回做对照。”
train/WALK_V8_SPEC.md § 3. 改动 C — 质心随机化退回(撤销 v7-⑥ 的 y 项) Teleop fed the sidewalk axis a command beyond its training band - feet clipped; give each axis its own speed setting
teleop-command-band-per-axisGive every command axis its own teleop scale, clamped to that axis's training band, and reproduce any hardware incident in sim with the exact deployed command values before touching training.
Symptom
Robot stepped on its own foot when sidewalking left under teleop - and only when going left.
Context
The teleop tool used one speed setting for all axes: --teleop-speed 0.20 applied to A/D sent cmd_vy = 0.20, above the training band's top (0.08-0.18) where foot-spacing margin is thinnest. Sim reproduction of the incident (product policy, pw0.8, 5 seeds x 20 s, true collision threshold = single foot width 104 mm): at vy 0.20 the minimum foot distance was 111-115 mm - 7-11 mm from self-collision - vs 147 mm at vy 0.10. Left was 4x more dangerous than right (25% vs 6% of time inside the 160 mm soft wall at vy 0.10), matching the left-only symptom; the margin did not degrade over time (pressing more just lengthened exposure).
Change
deploy_policy gained --teleop-side (default 0.10), separating the lateral speed from the forward speed so each axis's teleop command sits inside its own trained band.
Outcome
Command now inside the band with 43 mm margin at default; the incident became a quantified, reproduced, closed account rather than a mystery.
Mechanism
The policy's competence envelope is the training command distribution per axis; teleop mappings that share one scalar across axes silently command out-of-band inputs on the weakest axis. Asymmetric risk (left vs right) came from the policy's own chirality bias, so a symmetric command produced an asymmetric hazard.
Applies when
- wiring a joystick/teleop layer over a learned policy
- a hardware incident occurs on one command direction only
- training bands differ across command axes
“A/D 一直与 W/S 共用速度档，所以按 A 下发的是 vy = 0.20 —— 既超训练带（0.08~0.18）上沿 … 0.20（遥控实际值）| 111~115 mm | 7~11 mm … 且左比右危险 4 倍 … 处置：deploy_policy 新增 --teleop-side（默认 0.10），侧移与前进档分开。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3p. 一 向左走踩到自己 → --teleop-speed 0.20 同时喂给了 vy A 2-degree joint-zero calibration fix moved the whole runnable envelope - re-test old "cannot run" verdicts after recalibration
zero-offset-calibration-shifts-envelopeDate every hardware verdict with the calibration state; after any zero/mount recalibration, re-test previously condemned policy-power combinations and previously "unexplainable" posture offsets before attributing either to training or model.
Symptom
s1d was on record as "only runs at power 0.7" (kicked wildly at 0.8); after a calibration pass, the same policy ran 12 s at 0.8 with no kicking at all.
Context
The calibration had fixed a 2.08 deg zero offset on r_hip_roll - exactly the constant error source on the dominant joint of the kicking oscillation loop ("恰是乱踢振荡环主导关节的常值误差源"). The three-generation post-calibration hardware sweep also closed a second case: the robot's mysterious "backward lean" disappeared after calibration, and the sim-real posture difference collapsed from opposite-sign 5+ deg to same-sign ~2 deg ("后仰案实质了结") - the lean had been a sensing/zero artifact, not a mass-model error. Booked consequence: if the s1d recovery re-verifies, "真机可跑档整体 上移" - every policy's runnable power envelope shifts up, and downstream lineages' hardware expectations get revised.
Change
Joint-zero and mount calibration promoted from setup chore to a variable that dates hardware verdicts: verdicts about which power/scale levels a policy can run are conditioned on the calibration state they were measured under.
Outcome
One policy rehabilitated at a higher power level; one standing sim-real posture discrepancy closed without touching model or training; a pending re-verification booked rather than asserted.
Mechanism
A constant joint-zero error acts as a persistent disturbance injected at the feedback loop's most-loaded joint; near an oscillation threshold, removing a 2-degree bias is the difference between a stable and an unstable loop. Since the error is additive and machine-side, it shifts every policy's stability envelope simultaneously - which is why verdicts must carry their calibration date.
Conflicts
The s1d rehabilitation awaited one confirming re-run at the time of writing ("待复核一跑坐实") - the offset-as-cause reading is the head suspect, not a closed verdict.
Applies when
- a policy oscillates at a power level others tolerate
- sim and real disagree on a constant posture offset
- deciding whether to re-test old hardware verdicts after maintenance/calibration
“发现①:s1d@0.8 能跑了(旧账「只有 0.7 能跑」)——12s 无乱踢。头号嫌疑 = 标定修正:r_hip_roll offset 修 2.08°,恰是乱踢振荡环主导关节的常值误差源。… 发现②:「后仰」标定后消失 … sim-real 姿态差从反号 5°+ 收敛到同号 2°,后仰案实质了结。”
train/README.md § 真机 @0.8 三代横评(2026-08-07 标定后) A proposal in the runbook - torque and action limits as versioned safety tiers (classroom / research / expert) written to motor RAM and read back, separate from the reward's effort penalty - recorded as a proposal, its implementation unrecorded
safety-limits-are-a-layer-not-a-rewardKeep hardware limits as an explicit, versioned safety layer (tiers written and read back at start, the persisted default the safest one) and the effort penalty as a behaviour layer; when a skill needs more torque, change tier deliberately rather than trading one layer against the other.
Symptom
Running and jumping need more torque than the deployed limits allow, and the temptation is to trade the training-side effort penalty against the hardware limit, or to hand a new user a robot "tuned however the last person left it".
Context
A message pasted into the operator runbook (undated, citing Berkeley's practice of storing the full motor configuration as JSON with write and read-back scripts) proposes: configuration is a versioned artifact, not a verbal agreement; three safety tiers in robot.yaml beside the gain and policy profiles - classroom (RS06 limited to 10 N*m, lateral joints clamped: "however bad the policy, it only moves awkwardly"), research (14 N*m, clamps at twice the measured need, the default) and expert (the 36 N*m rating, joint limits only, requiring an explicit flag); deploy writes the tier to motor RAM at start and reads it back, while the stored copy stays classroom so a power cut returns to the safest state. It frames limits as the safety layer and the effort penalty as the behaviour layer - more torque for running means switching tier, not weakening the penalty.
Change
None recorded: the message ends by asking which to do first, a rollback or the tiers.
Outcome
The sources do not record the tiers being implemented; the deployed limits stayed at 12/17/11 N*m through the recovery and one-leg lines (the one-leg spec treats raising the RS06 limit as a separate, unapproved hardware decision). Related and recorded elsewhere: torque limits were written to RAM only in a scripted, self-reversing field experiment.
Mechanism
Hardware limits bound the damage any policy can do; reward terms shape what a policy prefers. Mixing them either weakens safety to buy behaviour or distorts behaviour to buy safety.
Applies when
- a new skill needs more torque than the deployed limits
- robots are handed to students or new users
- motor configuration lives in people's heads or in the firmware only
“配置是版本化的产物,不是口头约定。 … deploy_policy 启动时按档写进电机 RAM 并读回校验(落盘的那份永远保持 classroom,断电自动回到最安全状态)。 … 限幅是安全层,dof_torques_l2 是行为塑造层,它们在不同的层,不冲突。跑步要更大力矩就换档,而不是去动训练里的省力惩罚。”
RL系统/FOLLOW THIS copy 2.md § 面向 developer / 教育机构该怎么做 (pasted proposal, undated) Training-log reward values and fixed-command eval values live on different distributions - comparing them once claimed a 44% improvement that was really 6-10%
same-distribution-reward-comparisonQuote reward-term values only with their distribution attached (command range, DR on/off, environment), and compare across runs only when those match; re-measure in a common environment before claiming any improvement percentage.
Symptom
A v6-era analysis concluded slip had dropped 44% by comparing the training log's Episode_Reward against values calibrated in a fixed-command play environment; a same-condition re-measurement showed the true improvement was 6-10%.
Context
The training log's reward is an expectation over the training command distribution (vx 0.15-0.5, yaw +/-0.6, with pushes and domain randomization); play-environment calibrations are taken at a single fixed command with DR off. Subtracting one from the other compares apples to oranges - the warning was written into the v7 pre-flight: "奖励数值只能在同一指令分布下比较 … 拿它和固定 cmd 的 play 环境标定值相减会得出错误结论(v6 那轮已经栽过一次)".
Change
Rule adopted: any before/after reward-term comparison must hold the command distribution, DR state, and evaluation environment fixed; training-log values compare only against training-log values of runs with identical command/DR configs.
Outcome
The phantom 44% improvement was retracted; later term-level accounting (e.g. the C4 ignore-floor work) consistently specified its distribution before quoting numbers.
Mechanism
A reward term's expectation depends on the visited-state distribution as much as on the policy; changing the command distribution or DR moves every term's baseline. Cross-distribution differences therefore measure the distributions, not the policy change.
Applies when
- comparing reward telemetry across training runs or vs play evals
- claiming improvement percentages from training logs
- term-level reward accounting for diagnosis
“奖励数值只能在同一指令分布下比较。训练日志的 Episode_Reward 是在训练指令分布上算的(vx 0.15~0.5 / 偏航 ±0.6 / 带推力与域随机化), 拿它和固定 cmd 的 play 环境标定值相减会得出错误结论(v6 那轮已经栽过一次: 据此以为滑移降了 44%, 同条件对拍只有 6~10%)。”
train/WALK_V7_SPEC.md § 3. 开训自查 ⚠️ Raising a command bucket's share does not strengthen its per-state gradient - it only starves the other modes
bucket-share-is-not-a-gradient-leverWhen a skill is not learning, first prove its per-state signal is nonzero (ignore-floor and probe checks); only rebalance sampling shares to fix genuine sample starvation, and account the regression risk to the diluted modes before doing it.
Symptom
Sidewalk was not learning, and the reflex proposal was to give the side bucket a larger share of sampled commands.
Context
The C4-redo3 rung explicitly kept the 20/40/20/20 bucket (stand/forward/turn/side) with the reasoning written out: PPO computes advantages per state, so bucket proportion does not change the per-state gradient of side states; at 4096 envs x 20% x 24 steps the rollout already contained ~19.7k sidewalk states - sample count was not the bottleneck. And the cost side was already measured: cutting forward from 60% to 40% had made vx+0.30 die at +400 in an earlier run - more cuts would only collapse it sooner.
Change
Bucket proportions held constant across the entire C4 redo series; the actual bottlenecks (metric frame bug, reward variance penalty, exploration form) were pursued instead.
Outcome
Sidewalk was eventually fixed with zero bucket changes (feed-forward delivery, +100 iters); forward/turn skills never suffered starvation-induced regressions during the redo series.
Mechanism
Policy-gradient credit is assigned per visited state; oversampling a mode multiplies its states in the batch but not the informativeness of each, so if the per-state gradient is ~0 (behavior unreachable or reward indifferent), N times zero is still zero - while the displaced modes genuinely lose data and regress.
Applies when
- proposing to oversample a failing task/command mode
- a majority mode regresses after share rebalancing
- budgeting env count vs mode share for a multi-skill policy
“比例不动：PPO 逐状态算优势，桶占比不改变单状态梯度；4096 env × 20% × 24 = 每 rollout 已有 1.97 万个侧走状态，样本数不是瓶颈；而 forward 60%→40% 已实测让 f30 在 +400 处死掉，再加码只会更早塌。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3i. 桶 20/40/20/20 不动（比例不动） Foot dragging is an attractor, not a low amplitude - and joint damping is the mode switch, adjustable at deploy time
swing-bistability-damping-switchWhen a quality metric is bimodal, stop treating it as an amplitude to be trained up: map the modes against initial conditions and plant parameters, find the parameter that switches basins, apply it first as a deployment lever, and only then bake it into the training distribution (as a plant-family shift, never as an execution-mapping change).
Symptom
s2e_pd-1400's swing height "median 12.1 mm" hid a perfect bimodal distribution: 20 seeds split into a drag mode (2.6-4.9 mm) and a step mode (19.3-24.0 mm) with NOT ONE seed in between - the median sat in the empty gap, and "swing debt -11 mm" really meant "50% probability of falling into the drag attractor".
Context
Two designed experiments closed the mechanism. Test A (nominal plant, 40 seeds): step 42% / drag 58% / middle 0 - at nominal gains, initial conditions alone pick the mode, both modes 100% survivable. Test B (fixed init, kp x kd grid): kd is the mode SWITCH - at kd 1.3 all surviving cells step (13-22 mm), at kd 0.7 nearly all drag (2.7-4.3), only at kd 1.0 does init get a vote; kp >= 1.2 is dangerous (5/6 falls). Global verification at kd x1.3 (20-seed, delay 2): survival 20/20 at ZERO cost, step share 42 -> 80%, swing median 12.1 -> 18.4 mm, slip record low 334, thicker tilt margin - costs: vx 85 -> 78%, saturation +5 pp. A Pareto sweep then priced the knob: step share 42/72/75/88/82/90 across kd 1.00-1.30 with a linear vx tax of -2.3 pp per 0.1 kd - the basin gain is fully collected at kd 1.20 ("1.30 是 over-damping 纯多付税"). Mechanism: low damping leaves a landing micro-oscillation / ground-slide channel the policy can exploit to drag; damping plugs the channel.
Change
Deployment lever adopted: kd-scale 1.20 (conservative 1.15) as the legitimate successor to the power-0.8 crutch ("前者削幅度保稳,后者堵 拖地通道换步态,且不牺牲存活"); training-side prescription: move the DR band to nominal-1.2 x (0.9,1.1) = [1.08,1.32], deleting the [0.7,1.0) drag-teaching zone - a contract-level change requiring digest re-baselining, gated on measuring the real robot's actual kd dispersion first.
Outcome
The kd surgery rung (s2e_kd) delivered basin 8 -> 11/20, slip 405 -> 331, vx 81 -> 85% with no out-of-band fragility (below-band check 20/20) - "拐杖烧进分布的正确姿势", explicitly contrasted with the failed s1g amplitude version: this one changes the plant family the policy has seen, that one changed the execution mapping the policy would have to relearn.
Mechanism
The gait's swing behavior is a bistable dynamical system whose basin boundaries are set by plant parameters; a policy trained across a kd band that includes the drag basin has learned to inhabit it. Shifting the deployed (and then trained) damping moves the system into the step basin without touching the policy - a plant-side fix for what looked like a training deficiency.
Applies when
- a gait quality metric splits into distinct modes across seeds
- deciding between more training and a gain/damping change
- converting a deployment crutch into a training-distribution change
“20-seed 里拖地模式 2.6~4.9mm 与迈步模式 19.3~24.0mm 各半,中间一个不落 … kd 是模式开关——kd1.3 下 6/6 存活格全迈步 … kd0.7 下几乎全拖地 … swing 债的解(至少大半)在部署端阻尼档,不在训练端 … 机理:低阻尼下落脚微振荡/贴地滑给了策略顺势拖行的通道,加阻尼堵之。”
train/README.md § swing 双稳态定性 + kd 部署杠杆 (2026-08-07, 用户设计 Test A/B) Fix the task first, harden the plant second - DR budget spent on a dying task is wasted
task-shaping-before-plant-hardeningFreeze the task/command distribution before spending DR budget on plant robustness; if the task will still change, schedule plant hardening as a final pass and book the interim robustness gap explicitly.
Symptom
Tempting default ordering was to keep the plant-hardened (S2) lineage and teach it new commands; but the S2 plant adaptation had been earned on the straight-walk task, and the new omni tasks (sidewalk, in-place turn) use completely different contact patterns.
Context
The team had direct evidence that DR robustness is a budget that gets reallocated when the data distribution changes ("push/μ 两轮已实证 DR 预算有限且会被重分配") - robustness trained under one task/command distribution does not persist when training continues under another.
Change
Ladder order set to: first C (task shaping - add command modes until the task family is final), then a second S2 pass (plant hardening) on the C product. The plant-robustness gap this creates mid-ladder is accepted and booked explicitly ("此处不欠账" - the debt is assigned to the second S2 pass, not denied).
Outcome
The first S2 pass was not wasted: its laws (kd bandwidth <-> low mu, push need not be trained, ground mu need not be trained, bistability) let the second pass drop from five rungs to three. The C ladder itself ran on the softer plant band without incident.
Mechanism
DR robustness is carried by the policy's visited-state distribution; changing the task changes that distribution, so robustness bought under the old task partially dissolves. Hardening before the task is final means paying for robustness on states that will no longer be visited - "给一个即将不存在的任务花预算" (spending budget on a soon-to-not-exist task).
Applies when
- deciding ordering between skill/command expansion and DR hardening
- a hardened lineage is proposed as the root for a task change
- robustness regressions appear after adding new command modes
“S2 的 plant 适应是为直行步态调的，C4 侧走/C3 原地转是完全不同的接触模式，先硬化再改任务 = 给一个即将不存在的任务花预算（push/μ 两轮已实证 DR 预算有限且会被重分配）。故顺序改为 先 C（任务定型）→ 再 S2（plant 硬化）。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 0. 决策逻辑 = 短板可不可恢复 (末段) Audit rewards by realized contribution (weight x achieved value) - a weight of 2.0 was really paying 0.04
realized-contribution-auditEvaluate a reward table by each term's realized per-step contribution under the current policy, never by its weight column; if a term's realized value is ~0, escalating its weight is a no-op - change the term's structure instead.
Symptom
Foot dragging persisted through repeated weight escalation: feet_air_time had been raised 0.25 -> 1.0 -> 2.0 across versions with no behavioral change, and the training-side comment even recorded the fact ("几乎没有 单支撑相, 是拖着脚蹭") without the fix changing form.
Context
Computing realized per-term contributions in the trained state exposed the economy: feet_air_time contributed weight 2.0 x achieved 0.019 = 0.038 per step, against tracking's +1.20 - lifting the leg earned 3% of what tracking earned, so dragging was the rational optimum no matter the weight escalation. The same table acquitted the energy penalties (total -0.30 negative vs +1.74 positive) that a naive read of weights (-5.0 orientation!) would have blamed.
Change
Fix redirected from "raise the weight again" to "add a term whose realized contribution changes the optimum": a clearance penalty sized so its realized magnitude (~0.018/foot when dragging) is comparable to feet_air_time's, enough to flip the optimum without drowning tracking.
Outcome
With the term economy corrected (plus posture/range fixes), swing height reached 34 mm and tracking 87% by v6; weight escalation of the old term was abandoned.
Mechanism
A reward weight is only a multiplier on whatever the policy currently achieves on that term; when the achieved value is near zero (behavior absent), escalating the weight multiplies near-zero. Optimizer behavior is governed by realized per-step magnitudes, so audits must be conducted in that currency.
Applies when
- a behavior persists despite repeated weight increases
- auditing whether penalties are "too strong" or rewards "too weak"
- sizing a new reward term against existing ones
“把 feet_air_time 权重从 0.25 → 1.0 → 2.0 一路加,但没有加高度项。量级算下来:feet_air_time 权重 2.0 × 实得 0.019 = 0.038,而跟踪奖励是 1.2。抬腿的边际收益只有跟踪的 3%,拖地当然是最优解。… 正项 +1.74,负项 −0.30。能量惩罚不是瓶颈,抬腿没收益才是。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § 决定性证据(#1) / 各项奖励的实际量级 The best checkpoint to SHIP is not the best checkpoint to CONTINUE FROM - maturity is capital against adaptation shock
root-maturity-vs-product-qualityDecide shipping points and fork roots separately: gates rank products, but a root candidate must prove itself by surviving a continuation under the next rung's shift (dual-arm if in doubt) - and prefer the more-trained point as root when product metrics conflict with maturity.
Symptom
A band re-audit found s1e-300 beat the incumbent root s1e-500 on nearly every quality gate (stepping 19/20 vs 13/20 with historically-best 26.9 mm swing, speed gate 14/20 vs 2/20, heading 26 vs 54 deg/20 s) - suggesting the root had been mis-picked and the younger point should take over.
Context
The dual-arm control settled it the other way: continuing the S2 PD rung from s1e-500 adapted smoothly (3/3 smoke throughout), while the b300 control arm (same config, from s1e-300) fell into a survival valley under the PD shock (+100 iters: 1/3 -> 0/3), never climbed out within budget, and its 800-iter product scored 13/20 survival - eliminated. Verdict: "幼年点自身指标再好也扛不住新 DR 适应冲击, 成熟度是本钱,s1e-500 根被数据背书" - a young point's own metrics, however good, do not survive new-DR adaptation shock; maturity is capital. The audit still yielded value: the band scan (200-1000, per-100) mapped the lineage's arc (200 dragging -> 300 peak -> 400+ decay -> 900+ drift blowout), and 300 remains the better PRODUCT answer for shipping-as-is questions.
Change
Selection doctrine split into two questions with different answers: best-product point (quality gates at the point itself) vs best-root point (survives adaptation shocks; more training age = more capital), each decided by its own evidence - and root claims settled by a dual-arm continuation test, not by point metrics.
Outcome
s1e-500 kept the root role with data behind it; the S2e ladder built on it passed rung after rung, while the b300 line was closed at the cost of one control arm.
Mechanism
Early checkpoints sit near sharp optima with less accumulated robustness structure; their headline metrics reflect the narrow training distribution, not resilience to distribution shifts. A continuation rung is itself a distribution shift, so the root property being selected for is shock tolerance - observable only by actually continuing, never by static gates.
Applies when
- a younger checkpoint outscores the current root on quality gates
- choosing the base for a robustification or command ladder
- a continuation run stalls in an early survival valley
“b300 对照臂 … PD 冲击下存活谷(+100 起 1/3→0/3),预算尽未爬出,800 档 20-seed 存活 13/20 出局——幼年点自身指标再好也扛不住新 DR 适应冲击,成熟度是本钱,s1e-500 根被数据背书”
train/README.md § omni_s2e_pd (b300 对照臂) / s1e 选点重审 A nonzero response with the same sign for + and - commands is bias, not ability
same-sign-response-is-yaw-biasBefore 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。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 0. 读数纠正（重要，别引错） Three hardware accounts locked the run design point - and the knee's real speed ceiling is tau_limit/kd, not the firmware limit
feasibility-accounts-lock-design-pointBefore 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”
train/RUN_V0_SPEC.md § 1. 硬件账判决 / 2. 步态设计点 The real robot's right-leg kicking was over-trained-delay times loop gain - irreducible pipeline latency is plant, model it fully from day one
pipeline-latency-is-plant-not-drMeasure the end-to-end action pipeline delay and build it into the nominal plant and every acceptance gate from day one; treat power/scale deratings that "fix" oscillation as gain-reduction crutches flagging an unmodeled delay, and expect higher-feedback-gain policies to be MORE delay-fragile.
Symptom
On hardware, s1c/s1d at action scale 1.0 always kicked wildly with the right leg (s1c only ran as SOTA at power 0.8; s1d only at 0.7) - while sim showed nothing under default evaluation.
Context
Sim reproduced the incident item by item once the real pipeline delay was injected: s1d@1.0 with --delay 1 fell at 10.2 s, --delay 2 at 5.2 s; s1c@1.0 stressed (r_hip_roll saturation 5 -> 16%; "右脚" = the policy's chirality makes the right leg its high-gain leg); and the combos that worked on hardware (s1c@0.8+delay2, s1d@0.7+delay2) all survived in sim. Mechanism: the real pipeline is ~1-2 ticks (BusWorker next-cycle pickup + CAN round trip) but S1.1 trained only to 1 tick - "超训延迟 × 全环路增益 = 振荡;衰减 = 压环路增益换稳定" (delay beyond training x full loop gain = oscillation; the power derating had been buying stability by compressing loop gain). s1d was MORE fragile than s1c because its yaw 3-layer stack had learned higher feedback gain - higher gain, lower delay tolerance. Three changes: latency DR widened to cover reality; acceptance gates and smoke runs moved permanently to --delay 2 ("门必须在真机条件下预测 真机"); and the doctrine written twice-paid: "不可约的管线属性(延迟、 限速)不是'随机化选项',是 plant 本体,第一天就该全额建模" - S1's nominal-then-robust staging falsified by hardware for the second time. The later s1e hardware run at power 1.0 (no kicking, normal force) closed the loop: "0.8 = 旧代拐杖" - the derating had been a crutch for the under-modeled delay, not a real requirement.
Change
Latency modeled as plant from day one of any lineage (measured 1-2 ticks covered, bridge-layer rate limits likewise modeled by default); every gate and smoke evaluation issued under --delay 2.
Outcome
Kicking reproduced, explained, and eliminated in the s1e generation at full scale and full power; the deploy-side crutches (0.7/0.8) retired for the new lineage.
Mechanism
Feedback oscillation onset is a product of loop gain and phase lag; a policy trained below the real delay learns gains that sit past the real stability margin, and any output derating masks it by scaling gain down. Since pipeline delay is deterministic hardware property - not an uncertainty - it belongs in the nominal plant, and every evaluation must include it or the gate predicts a robot that does not exist.
Applies when
- hardware oscillation/kicking that sim only reproduces with added delay
- a policy only runs on hardware at reduced power/scale
- defining what belongs in the nominal plant vs the DR list
“真实链路延迟 ~1~2 拍 … S1.1 只训到 1 拍——超训延迟 × 全环路增益 = 振荡;衰减 = 压环路增益换稳定。s1d 比 s1c 更脆 = yaw 三层栈学出更高反馈增益,增益越高延迟容忍越低。… 教训入账:S1「先标称后鲁棒」第二次被真机证伪——不可约的管线属性(延迟、限速)不是"随机化选项",是 plant 本体,第一天就该全额建模。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 3. S1.4(真机右脚乱踢事故强制) Size each joint's action authority to its measured working range - lock a channel to zero only when its job is provably elsewhere
per-joint-action-scale-lockdownSet per-joint action scales from measured target ranges and momentum decompositions: full authority for working channels, working-range authority for balance channels, zero for channels whose contribution is measured negligible - and prefer this structural quieting over perpetual reward penalties, keeping the contract dimensions intact.
Symptom
"Walks crooked" - roll and yaw channels wandered; hip_yaw peak-to-peak reached 22.3 deg in v11 while contributing essentially nothing to locomotion; a uniform action scale of 0.5 gave every joint the same authority regardless of its actual job.
Context
The v12 design replaced the scalar action scale with per-joint scales justified by measurements: pitch-class 0.5 (the gait's entire working channel - untouched); hip_yaw 0.0 - lossless because it carries only 1.4% of yaw momentum (v6 decomposition) and straight-line targets use merely +/-0.006-0.03 ("乱动纯属浪费"); roll 0.2 - NOT zero, because lateral balance and weight transfer are roll's unique job (locking it would degenerate into foot-edge rocking, "比现在更歪"), and 0.2 covers the measured working range +/-0.06-0.19 while "0.5 的另一半全是 '歪歪扭扭'的来源". Costs were accepted consciously: turning demoted to an observation row with a fallback (yaw 0 -> 0.1 in v13). Contract preserved: the 12-dim action interface unchanged, yaw values simply neutralized. The structural lockdown also RETIRED the reward-side hip_yaw_quiet penalty - "A 的 yaw=0 结构性取代,不再付奖励塑形成本".
Change
action_scale_joint pitch 0.5 / roll 0.2 / yaw 0.0 wired through robot.yaml -> policy_io (verified: all-ones action gives hip_yaw target exactly 0) -> Isaac action term, guarded by the contract checker ("它就是抓这种双侧不一致的").
Outcome
Designed and verified on the shared side before the lineage freeze; stands as the pattern for authority sizing: structure replaces reward shaping wherever a channel should simply not act.
Mechanism
Action scale is a per-channel authority budget; uniform budgets give noise channels the same voice as working channels, and reward-side quieting then pays a permanent shaping tax for what a zero scale provides for free. But zeroing is only lossless when decomposition proves the channel's contribution negligible AND no unique function (balance) lives there.
Conflicts
Wired and verified on the config/deploy side but never trained - the 2026-08-05 reset suspended v12 before the Isaac-side run.
Applies when
- some joints wander without contributing to the task
- a quieting penalty (deviation/L1) taxes every step forever
- deciding action-space authority for a new task or robot
“yaw=0 是无损的:实测它只贡献 1.4% 偏航动量、直行目标只 ±0.006~0.03,乱动纯属浪费。… roll 不能为 0:横向平衡/重心换脚是它的独有职责,锁死会退化成脚缘摇摆(比现在更歪)。0.2 的依据:各代实测 roll 目标只用 ±0.06~0.19,0.5 的另一半全是"歪歪扭扭"的来源。”
train/WALK_V12_SPEC.md § 3. A —— 逐关节动作幅度(用户"只动 pitch"的安全版) Slowing the gait clock at deployment is out-of-distribution and backfires - lower the commanded speed instead, or train the knob
cycle-time-override-is-oodAny deployment override must correspond to a dimension the policy was trained to handle; to make a parameter field-adjustable, randomize it in training and observe it - otherwise use the levers inside the trained envelope (commands) and leave the knob alone.
Symptom
Real-robot feedback "walks very fast and unstable" suggested slowing the gait; a deploy-side --cycle-time override existed, making "just slow the clock" a one-flag temptation.
Context
A sim sweep of the override on walk_v6 @cmd 0.3 showed monotone degradation away from the trained 0.40 s cycle: at 0.50 s tilt jumped 7.9 -> 13.2 deg and landing force 1.52x -> 2.24x; at 0.80 s (half speed) clearance collapsed to 3 mm - dragging again - with 20 deg tilt. Meanwhile the legitimate lever, lowering the commanded speed with the clock untouched, improved everything monotonically: cmd 0.1 gave 104% tracking, 6.7 deg tilt, minimum slip - the most stable operating point. The file distinguishes the two "slows" explicitly: lower command = smaller steps at the same 2.5 Hz rhythm; a slower rhythm itself requires retraining - randomize cycle_time (e.g. 0.40-0.65 s) during training and expose it as an observation, and only then does --cycle-time become a field-adjustable knob.
Change
Deployment guidance: never ship a cycle-time override the policy was not trained under; respond to "too fast/unstable" with lower commands; schedule clock variability as a training-time (contract-level) change if a field knob is wanted.
Outcome
The sweep quantified the trap before hardware paid for it (dragging and 2.2x landing force at slowed clocks); cmd 0.1 documented as the stable demo point.
Mechanism
The policy is a function fitted around the training distribution; a deploy-side override moves an input (phase rate) to values never seen, so behavior degrades unpredictably - the knob LOOKS like a capability because it exists in the code, but capability lives in the training distribution, not the interface.
Applies when
- a deploy tool exposes overrides (clock, scale, gains) beyond the training distribution
- hardware feels "too fast/aggressive" and a quick knob exists
- deciding between a deploy-side tweak and a retrain
“0.80s | 1.25Hz | 0.165 | 3mm(拖地) | 20.0° … 慢一半直接崩 … 策略按 0.40 训练, 别的周期属分布外。… 降指令速度才是有效杠杆 … cmd 0.1 是最稳的工作点。… 要节奏本身变慢必须重训 —— 训练期把 cycle_time 随机化(如 0.40~0.65s)并作为观测的一维, 部署时 --cycle-time 就成了现场可调的旋钮。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § 2026-08-01 追加: 调慢步态时钟(--cycle-time)在仿真里是反效果 No parameter tuning on the floor - a failing config retries once, then it is out; anomalies go back to sim
no-field-tuning-protocolHardware time is for executing and measuring the pre-registered matrix, never for tuning: failing configs get one retry then elimination, anomalies get recorded and reproduced in sim, and contract-check bypass flags stay unused.
Symptom
Hardware sessions create pressure to fix problems live - nudge a gain, tweak a scale - which destroys attribution and risks the robot.
Context
The anomaly-handling section of the acceptance sheet is three fixed plays: (1) falls at start -> retry once at the same settings; falls again -> that configuration is eliminated, "不现场调参" (no on-site parameter tuning); (2) limit cycle or motor screech -> stop immediately, record the gain level and the joint, reproduce in sim before any discussion; (3) systematic disagreement with sim -> record it as a finding (hardware outranks sim) rather than adjusting anything to force agreement. Related guardrails elsewhere in the sheet: never pass --allow-unstamped / --allow-plant-drift to bypass manifest checks - if it errors, something real is wrong, stop and look.
Change
Field sessions restricted to executing the pre-written matrix; every fix path routed through sim reproduction and the normal config/rung process.
Outcome
Sessions stayed interpretable (each run matched a documented config) and safety overrides never became habit; anomalies arrived back in sim as reproducible cases instead of half-remembered floor stories.
Mechanism
Field-tuned values are measured under adrenaline on one floor with no logging or baselines - they contaminate the config lineage and are unattributable afterwards; and every bypass flag that skips a contract check converts a designed safety property into an operator promise.
Applies when
- a config fails or oscillates during a hardware session
- someone reaches for a live gain tweak or a bypass flag
- writing the anomaly-handling section of a deployment runbook
“起步即摔 → 换档重试一次, 仍摔则该档出局, 不现场调参。出现极限环/啸叫 → 立刻停, 记录档位与关节, 回 sim 复现再议。… 不要给 --allow-unstamped / --allow-plant-drift —— 三枚 ONNX 都已盖章 … 真要报错说明有别的问题, 停下来看。”
train/REAL_RUN_S2.md § 4. 异常处置 Export every CAD part in the whole-machine frame so URDF rotations are zero and inertia is exact
urdf-shared-origin-exportGenerate the model so that correctness is structural: shared-origin STL export, zero rotations, subtraction-only origins, and an explicit 1e-9 g*mm^2 -> kg*m^2 conversion - never hand-rotate inertia tensors.
Symptom
Hand-assembled URDFs accumulate per-link rotation/origin errors and unit-conversion mistakes in inertia tensors - silent plant corruption that no later calibration can cleanly fix.
Context
Documented CAD -> URDF -> USD procedure from a successful Isaac Lab deployment, kept as the recipe if Lucen regenerates its model.
Change
(1) In CAD, align the whole robot to Z-up, X-forward (Isaac Lab convention) and ground the assembly; (2) export each STL with other parts hidden but the machine's shared origin kept, so all parts share one origin, every URDF rotation is 0, and inertia matrices equal CAD values directly; (3) units: Fusion 360 gives g*mm^2, URDF wants kg*m^2 - multiply by 1e-9; (4) link origin = negative of the joint position; link COM = CAD COM minus joint position; joint origin = difference of the two joint positions; (5) after URDF -> USD import, open the USD separately and set it instanceable before saving.
Outcome
A URDF whose rotations are all zero and whose inertia tensors are CAD-exact, eliminating an entire class of hand-transcription plant errors.
Mechanism
Keeping one shared origin turns every frame transform into a pure translation computable by subtraction, and leaves inertia tensors in the frame CAD already computed them in - no rotation of inertia tensors, the most error-prone manual step, is ever needed.
Applies when
- building or regenerating URDF/MJCF from CAD
- inertia or frame bugs suspected in the plant model
- importing URDF into Isaac Lab / USD
“导出 STL 时隐藏其他零件但导出整机——这样所有零件共享同一原点，URDF 里所有 rotation 全是 0，惯量矩阵直接等于 CAD 值 / 单位：Fusion 360 给 g·mm²，URDF 要 kg·m²，乘 1e-9 / link origin = 该关节坐标取负 … URDF → USD 导入后必须单独打开 USD 设成 instanceable 再存”
Experience.md § URDF 制作流程 (lines 87-92) Audit which joints your imitation term constrains - a task that needs deviation is fighting the reference
imitation-term-scope-auditList which joints your imitation/deviation terms actually constrain and check the new skill's required motion against that list; for balance-coupled joints deliver references as feed-forward residuals, not absolute-position targets - and never assume "reference = 0" is neutral.
Symptom
Sidewalk would not learn despite a dedicated tracking reward; meanwhile the gait-shaping imitation term (joint_pos_ref) computed its error norm over ALL 12 joints while its reference covered only the 6 sagittal joints - roll/yaw reference was constantly 0.
Context
Two prior generations had shown the forward gait itself was taught by joint_pos_ref, not discovered by PPO (v6 halved the shaping and swing height collapsed 35 mm -> 4 mm). So the reference is load-bearing - but sidewalk requires hip_roll to deviate from nominal, and the all-joints norm punished exactly that deviation: "一边悬赏一边罚过程" (posting a bounty while punishing the process). A follow-up experiment (C4-redo3, free_roll=True releasing the 4 roll joints from the norm) raised the regularization headroom 6x -> 27x yet sidewalk stayed flat and released hip_roll wandered, killing other skills - net negative, withdrawn. A --roll-absolute probe showed the converse failure: pinning roll to a clock-driven absolute trajectory drove tilt 6.9 -> 13.7 deg. Conclusion recorded: absolute-position imitation cannot teach actions that must be superimposed on state feedback.
Change
The audit reframed the problem: neither punishing roll deviation nor freeing roll nor absolute roll tracking works; the reference for a balance-coupled joint must be delivered as feed-forward under the policy's residual control (see feedforward-for-phase-locked-skills).
Outcome
free_roll rung: joint_pos_ref term rose 0.887 -> 1.104 (release confirmed effective) but vy stayed flat; regularization hypothesis eliminated by experiment.
Mechanism
An imitation error norm defines a cage: joints inside it are pulled to the reference in absolute position, so any skill requiring systematic deviation is taxed per step; but joints carrying active balance cannot follow absolute references either, since their correct position depends on state. The scope and the delivery mechanism of the reference are therefore design decisions per joint, not defaults.
Applies when
- adding a skill that moves joints your reference sets to zero/nominal
- an imitation or deviation penalty coexists with a new tracking reward
- considering releasing joints from a shaping term mid-lineage
“前进步态也不是 PPO 自己发现的，是 joint_pos_ref 教出来的（v6 砍半塑形 → 抬脚 35 mm 塌到 4 mm…）。而 ref_joint_offset 原本只写 6 个矢状面关节，roll/yaw 参考恒 0 —— 侧走既没被教，roll 一偏离 nominal 反被 joint_pos_ref 扣分。一边悬赏一边罚过程。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3e. 为什么首战 FAIL / 3i. 解锁笼子 The restart reward table lists a reason for every term AND a lesson for every exclusion - absent terms are removed, not zero-weighted
minimal-reward-table-with-provenanceMaintain the reward table as an evidence ledger: every term cites the episode that justifies it, every excluded term cites the episode that convicted it (including the development stage it is valid at), and retired terms are deleted from the config, never left at weight zero.
Symptom
Seven walk generations had accumulated an entangled reward table where nobody could say which term earned its place; the restart needed a table that could be audited line by line.
Context
The minimal table v2 was built under three written principles: "一项管 一件事、结构性反抬脚的项一个不留、塑形只留一套相位逻辑;不在表里的一律 不加" (one term per job; zero structurally-anti-lift terms; exactly one phase-shaping logic; nothing outside the table gets added). Every row carries its provenance (e.g. base_height target = standing height cites the v4 crouch lesson; split x/y tracking cites the merged-exp gradient hole; world-frame yaw cites the v1/v3 body-frame lesson). Every EXCLUSION carries its same-type precedent: feet_landing_vel out because it is poison while the gait is unformed (drag pays 0, lifting pays - the v4-clearance / v8a-B "reverse threshold" family) though it was fine in v7 when the gait already existed - term validity depends on developmental stage; feet_air_time out with its measured non-lever evidence (v6 had it at 2.0 and still lifted 4 mm); and replaced terms are REMOVED from the config ("置 None,不是权重 0 挂着") so audits see truth, not dormant weight.
Change
Reward table rebuilt as ~20 rows each with weight + provenance column; exclusion list maintained alongside with the falsifying episode for each; dormant terms deleted rather than zeroed.
Outcome
Later revisions (S1.2/S1.3) modified the table by citing and updating specific rows' evidence rather than re-arguing the whole design; the table doubled as the lineage's reward-lesson index.
Mechanism
A reward table is a set of standing hypotheses; attaching each row's evidence makes revisions targeted and reversible, and recording why a term is absent prevents the cycle of re-adding known poisons. Deleting vs zero-weighting matters because config audits and DR interactions see the term either way - a zero-weight term is dormant complexity waiting to be flipped on wrongly.
Applies when
- designing a reward table for a restart or new task
- someone proposes re-adding a previously removed term
- auditing which reward rows still earn their place
“原则:一项管一件事、结构性反抬脚的项一个不留、塑形只留一套相位逻辑;不在表里的一律不加 … feet_landing_vel(评审 #4):拖地时代价恒 0、抬脚才收费——与 v4-clearance/v8a-B 同属「反抬脚门槛」家族,步态未成形时是毒;v7④ 加它时步态已存在。… 已从 cfg 移除(置 None),不是权重 0 挂着。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 3. 最小奖励表 v2 / 明确不带 When hardware underperforms, audit deployment knobs before prescribing retraining
deploy-knob-attribution-before-retrainingBefore any "retrain it" decision, reproduce the symptom in sim under the exact deployment configuration; if the symptom follows the deployment knob rather than the checkpoint, fix the knob or randomize it in training - never top-up-train the skill.
Symptom
Real-robot feedback after the C4 deployment - "turning is weak" - with two retraining options on the table: top up turn training, or restart from the s1e root.
Context
The sim account showed the policy turned well (75-81% at pw1.0); the robot was deployed at power-scale 0.8. The 3-6 pp difference between C2 and C4 policies at the same power was noise; the 40-50 pp difference between power levels was the entire effect. Both proposed retraining paths would have burned budget on a non-existent training gap, and restarting from s1e would additionally have discarded the sidewalk skill that took four rungs and a coordinate-bug hunt to obtain.
Change
Decision: retrain nothing. (1) Try pw1.0 on hardware first - sim says net gain; (2) only if 1.0 is unacceptable (heat/feel), the correct training fix is power/torque randomization in the S2 plant line (one variable, fixes turn and backward together) - not skill top-up; (3) restart-from-root explicitly ranked worst.
Outcome
The "weakness" was fully explained by the deployment knob; the sim/real signatures matched the earlier power-derating law verbatim ("与 C2 时代 power 衰减主要伤非前进轴 逐字吻合").
Mechanism
The policy's competence is defined under its training plant; deployment knobs (power scale, teleop mapping, command bands) silently define a different plant. Attributing a deploy-plant effect to a training gap produces exactly the wrong fix - more training on the wrong variable.
Applies when
- real robot underperforms a skill that sim says is fine
- proposals on the table include retraining or re-rooting
- deployment uses any override the trainer never saw (power scale, remapped commands, different control rate)
“正确的训练修法不是补训转向，而是训练时加 power/力矩随机化让策略在 0.8 下自己补偿 —— 单变量，属 S2 plant 线，一次同时修好转向与后退；从 s1e 重训是最差选项：丢掉四轮 + 一个指标 bug 才换来的侧走，而 C2 的转向本来就没问题。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3p. 三 处置顺序（回答「补训转向 还是 回 s1e 重训」：都不该） Choose the fork root by which candidate's shortfalls are recoverable, not by headline score
fork-root-recoverable-shortfallWhen picking a checkpoint to fork from, rank candidates by whether their weaknesses are trainable-back, not by current headline metrics; prefer the candidate whose deficits the upcoming training directly pays for.
Symptom
Multiple candidate checkpoints for the omni-command ladder root, each best at something different: fric-3000 had the best tracking precision (vx 88-91%) and hardened plant robustness; s1e-500 had lower precision (vx 82%) but was the only candidate that could still walk backward.
Context
Root selection ran as a data probe, not a preference vote: 6 candidates x 8 out-of-distribution omni commands x 20 seeds = 960 cells (probe_omni_0808.json). s1e-500 @pw1.0 survived 20/20 in all eight conditions including backward at 67% tracking; the deep-trained fric lineage scored backward 0-3/20 despite better forward precision.
Change
Decision criterion made explicit: list what each candidate exclusively wins at, then ask which of those wins the loser could train back. fric-3000's exclusive wins (precision, plant robustness) are both retrainable - precision is directly optimized by the reward, plant hardening is a planned later pass. s1e-500's exclusive wins (backward plasticity 20/20 vs 2/20, disturbance margin 159/160 vs 125/160, push chirality symmetry 40/40 vs 17/40) had all been shown unrecoverable - push-level rungs failed twice, chirality never recovered even with mirror augmentation on. Root = s1e-500.
Outcome
s1e-500 carried the whole C ladder; its backward skill was preserved through C2/C4 gates (regress budget <=2/20 enforced), and the final C4 product passed a 260-cell battery at 20/20 everywhere.
Mechanism
Training can re-earn anything the objective directly pays for, but capabilities that earlier training destroyed and never restored (plasticity, symmetry, robustness margins) are empirically one-way doors. The information-bearing comparison is therefore recoverability of each candidate's deficit, which the team stated as "独占项的可恢复性正好相反 —— 这就是判据" (the exclusive items' recoverability is exactly opposite - that is the criterion).
Applies when
- selecting a resume/fork root among several checkpoints
- one candidate is more precise but another retains a skill the rest lost
- planning a task-extension ladder from an existing lineage
“fric-3000 赢在精度（vx 88~91%…）与 plant 鲁棒性 → 两样都训得回来…；s1e-500 赢在可塑性（C1 20/20 vs 2/20）、抗扰余量（159/160 vs 125/160）、手性对称（推 ±6 N·s 40/40 vs 17/40）→ 三样都训不回来 … 独占项的可恢复性正好相反 —— 这就是判据。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 0. 为什么根是 s1e-500（数据，不是偏好） An auto-curriculum ratchet capped out at iter 248 and never engaged - stage difficulty manually or verify engagement
auto-curriculum-engagement-checkPrefer manually staged difficulty with gated transitions; if you use an automatic curriculum, instrument its internal state and alarm when it stops engaging - a saturated curriculum is constant DR wearing a curriculum's name.
Symptom
A curriculum mechanism intended to grow difficulty adaptively (s1f's ratchet) hit its cap at iteration 248 and never bit again - for 96% of the run its effect was equivalent to constant DR, i.e. the curriculum existed in name only.
Context
When external advice suggested graded wz bands (start ±0.15, then ±0.30), the team agreed with grading but explicitly rejected automatic curriculum, citing the s1f episode. The same logic had already been paid for with push grading: ±0.6 failed twice, ±0.3 was feasible - grading matters, but the grade transitions were made by hand at verified checkpoints.
Change
Ladder policy: difficulty staged manually, one band per rung, each transition gated by the acceptance battery; automatic ratchets not used unless their engagement is monitored and demonstrated.
Outcome
Every C-ladder band change (wz ±0.12-0.25 first, wider later) was an explicit, attributable rung; no silent constant-DR-in-disguise runs recurred.
Mechanism
Adaptive curricula couple their own state machine to noisy training metrics; a ratchet that saturates early stops adapting but keeps its name, so the operator believes difficulty is progressing when it is frozen. Manual staging costs more decisions but each decision is observable and reversible.
Applies when
- choosing between auto-curriculum and staged bands for a new skill
- a curriculum's difficulty parameter plateaus early in training
- post-hoc attribution of what difficulty a lineage actually saw
“C2 的 wz 分级（±0.15 → ±0.30，不要一上来 ±0.6）—— 与我们付过学费的 push 分级同形（±0.6 两轮 FAIL，±0.3 才可行）。但必须手动分级，不做自动课程 —— s1f 的课程化棘轮 iter 248 封顶未咬合，96% 时长等价常量 DR”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 1. 采纳 3 条 (C2 的 wz 分级) Narrowing the speed range to stop high-speed falls entrenched crouch-shuffling - judge gait quality at the speed that demands a gait
low-speed-commands-reward-draggingSet command ranges to include speeds that physically demand the target behavior, and evaluate behavior-quality gates at those speeds; when a restriction is added to suppress a failure, check what new optimum it creates at the remaining commands.
Symptom
After the command range was narrowed to (0.15, 0.35) m/s (to treat walk_v1's 134% overspeed and 8.3 s fall at 0.5), the policy settled into crouched foot-dragging; tracking rose monotonically with speed (63% at cmd 0.2, 76% at 0.3, 87% at 0.45), showing low speeds were where the degenerate gait was optimal.
Context
The narrowing advice was the author's own and is retracted in the file: it treated the symptom (falls at speed) while reinforcing the root cause (at 0.15-0.35 m/s, shuffling in a crouch is globally optimal - the Froude number is so low that even humans would not lift their feet). A zero-cost experiment confirmed the flip side: at cmd 0.5 the same policy met BOTH tracking (81%) and clearance (23.0/23.2 mm) standards.
Change
Speed range widened back toward (0.15, 0.5) - upper bound deliberately slightly above the mechanically feasible ~0.44 m/s so the policy finds the boundary itself; acceptance re-pointed: gait-quality criteria (tracking, clearance) judged at 0.45-0.5 m/s, low speed kept only as a survival check.
Outcome
v4 -> v6 progression under the widened range delivered 87% tracking with 34 mm clearance; the "low command = drag" account was confirmed by the monotone tracking-vs-speed curve.
Mechanism
Command distribution is part of the reward: physics prices gaits per speed, and at very low speed the energetic optimum is no swing phase at all. Restricting training to that regime makes the degenerate gait the correct answer to the posed problem - and grading a gait at a speed that does not require stepping measures nothing.
Applies when
- a gait degenerates after a command-range restriction
- quality metrics improve monotonically toward the range boundary
- writing acceptance criteria for gait quality vs survival
“现在看那个建议可能起了反作用:0.15~0.35 m/s 下蹲着蹭就是全局最优,抬腿反而亏。收窄治的是"高速摔倒"的症状,却强化了拖地的病根。… 验收标准里的 cmd 0.2 本身就是拖地速度(Froude 数极低,人在那个速度下也不抬脚)。accept_v2 应把速度跟踪与 clearance 的判定点改到 0.45~0.5 m/s”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § ② 放宽速度区间 / ① 零成本实验 Set torque limits per joint from measured gait peaks - a uniform percentage is the wrong shape, and training must use the deployed numbers
torque-limit-shape-by-measured-peaksMeasure per-joint torque peaks in the actual gait and set each limit as measured-peak x margin capped at rating; then propagate the same numbers into training and add an automated deploy-time consistency check - never derate by a uniform percentage, never let training assume torque deployment will not grant.
Symptom
A uniform 50% torque derating (18/8.5/7) had piled safety margin on the joints that never use it while cutting the busiest joint below half its measured demand.
Context
Per-joint gait peaks were measured (walk_v5 at cmd 0.3/0.6): RS06 (hip_pitch/knee) uses 5.5-5.9 N*m = 15-16% of its 36 N*m rating - cutting it to 12 is a free safety win; RS02's ankle_pitch runs at 16.2 N*m = 95% of its 17 N*m rating - "它是速度的硬件瓶颈", no room to cut; RS00 measured 36-44%, capped at 11. The resulting shape 12/17/11 replaced the uniform percentage. Sweeps across several limit sets (rated / 50% / 14-17-11 / 12-17-11) produced identical speed, lift, and landing force - within this range the limits do not shape the gait; what matters is consistency: "关键是训练和硬件必须是同一个数", because the exporter fills effort_limit from tau_limit, and a policy trained at rated 36/17/14 "会假设有三倍力矩可用" while deployed at 12/17/11 (exactly the v5 cross-generation inconsistency later suspected in its wild kicking).
Change
robot.yaml tau_limit set to the measured-shape 12/17/11, firmware written to match, and train/isaac_values.py regenerated so training sees the same limits; the deploy tool self-checks limits against robot.yaml on every run.
Outcome
Free safety margin captured where demand is low, the real bottleneck joint left at rating, and the train/deploy torque worlds unified with an automated consistency check.
Mechanism
Torque demand is grossly unequal across joints in a gait (15% vs 95% of rating here); a uniform percentage misallocates the safety budget by construction. And since the trainer treats effort_limit as a plant truth, any train/deploy mismatch is an invisible plant gap of exactly the mismatch ratio.
Applies when
- choosing safety torque limits for a legged platform
- training-vs-deployment actuator limit audit
- one joint runs near rating while others idle
“曾用统一 50%(18/8.5/7)是错的形状: 把余量堆在用不到的 RS06 上, 却把 ankle_pitch 砍到需求的 52%。… RS02 在 0.6 m/s 已用到额定 95%, 它是速度的硬件瓶颈 … 实测多组限幅 … 完全一致 —— 限幅在这个范围对步态零影响, 关键是训练和硬件必须是同一个数。… 若训练仍按额定 36/17/14, 学出的策略会假设有三倍力矩可用。”
train/WALK_V6_MINIMAL.md § 3. 训练侧必须同步的一件事 mj_objectVelocity returns inertial-principal-axis frame - one API assumption poisoned eval and observations for a whole line
body-frame-velocity-api-auditVerify every frame-sensitive API against a hand-computed truth (rotate raw qvel yourself, or command a known world velocity and check where it lands) before trusting any evaluation or observation built on it - especially when a model's inertial frame is rotated from its body frame.
Symptom
Sidewalk vy read ~0 under every condition; separately, whole-policy performance was mysteriously mediocre in sim2sim while training-side numbers looked fine. Four training rungs were declared FAIL partly on these readings.
Context
base_link's URDF inertial frame is rotated 90 deg about x relative to the body frame (iquat = [0.7071, 0.7071, 0, 0]). mj_objectVelocity(flg_local=1) rotates into ximat - the inertial principal-axis frame - not the body frame, and returns center-of-mass point velocity, not body-origin velocity. Consequences measured: the "vy" column was actually vertical velocity vz (walking at cmd 0.25: old reading +0.0093 vs true -0.0424); the angular velocity fed to the policy in sim2sim was [wx, wz, -wy] - a different quantity than Isaac and the real IMU provide. RMS check over 8 s of walking: y/z axes swapped between v6[:3] and the qvel truth.
Change
Fixed sim2sim and both probes to compute ang_b = qvel[3:6] and lin_b = xmat.T @ qvel[0:3] (identical quantity to Isaac's root_ang_vel_b / root_lin_vel_b), with a standalone reproduction script (frame_bug_repro_0809.py).
Outcome
Re-scoring the "failed" C4 lineage under correct coordinates reversed the verdicts: c4r4 checkpoints showed vy 80-126% tracking (old reading: +/-2%) and vx+0.30 at 91-95% where the old metric said 0/5 - the bad frame both mis-measured vy and, via corrupted policy observations, systematically depressed all measured performance. Final product passed 260/260 cells.
Mechanism
A simulator API's frame convention is part of the observation contract; when the model's inertial frame is rotated relative to the body frame, frame-agnostic use of a "local" velocity silently permutes axes. Feeding a policy an axis-permuted angular velocity is an observation corruption that degrades behavior everywhere, not just on the axis being studied.
Applies when
- building or auditing a cross-simulator evaluation harness
- one measured axis reads near-zero under all conditions
- sim2sim scores are inexplicably worse than training-side metrics
- URDF/MJCF inertial frames are rotated relative to body frames
“base_link 的 iquat = [0.7071, 0.7071, 0, 0] … mj_objectVelocity 用的是这个 … 喂给策略的 base_ang_vel 是 [wx, wz, −wy] —— MuJoCo 侧观测与 Isaac / 真机 IMU 不是同一个量；vy_mean 报的是竖直速度 vz —— 前进 cmd 0.25 时旧读数 +0.0093，真值 −0.0424。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3l. ⚠️ mj_objectVelocity 读的是惯性主轴系 / 3m. 一 bug 坐实 The action-delay was implemented as lerp - beyond one step it extrapolated BACKWARD, so a whole lineage trained on a fictitious actuator
latency-lerp-reverse-extrapolationUnit-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。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 0. 为什么从零 (1) Cutting swing amplitude 40% raised yaw-momentum demand 53% - the falsified fix is recorded so nobody walks that road again
amplitude-cut-falsified-yaw-fixTest 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。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § ② 未生效的机理: 减小摆动幅度反而让偏航需求上升 A real-robot verdict is (policy x deployment stack) - when the stack changes materially, old verdicts expire
stale-verdicts-under-old-stackDate every hardware verdict with the deployment-stack version it was measured under; after any material stack change, re-test before trusting old condemnations or old praises - with the interpretation of each possible result written down first.
Symptom
walk_v5 stood condemned as "kicks wildly" and walk_v6 as "cannot walk unassisted" - but those verdicts were issued under an earlier deployment stack (--heading did not exist yet, several fixes had just landed); only v7 had ever run under the current unified stack.
Context
New sim evidence sharpened the doubt: a same-harness four-version sweep showed v6 was the HEALTHIEST archive at the real operating point (cmd 0.15: dominant frequency locked at 2.50, steps 35:35 perfectly symmetric, foot distance 203/190 mm best of four, mean tilt 4.2 deg, saturation 15%). A full re-test under the unified stack was scheduled with per-version questions and a pre-filled interpretation table ("判读表(预填假设,回来对号)"): e.g. v6 walks + frequency ~2.5 -> old verdict was the stack's fault, v6 becomes the comparison champion; v6 walks but at ~1.25 -> period-doubling on hardware = confirmed plant gap, actuator fitting promoted to mainline; v5 no longer kicks -> the kicking was an old-stack artifact.
Change
All four versions re-queued on hardware under one stack (same torque limits, slew profile, heading loop, logging), with the version-specific legacy profile pinned; verdicts held provisional until re-issued.
Outcome
The re-test design separated policy properties from stack artifacts before any policy was permanently written off - and turned each outcome into a specific conclusion via the pre-filled table.
Mechanism
A deployed behavior is produced by the policy plus everything between it and the motors (heading loop, slew limits, torque caps, clock); verdicts implicitly condition on that whole stack. Fixing the stack invalidates the conditioning, so old failures may be stack artifacts and old successes may not survive either.
Applies when
- deployment tooling (limits, filters, loops) changed since a policy was last judged
- deciding which historical policy is the rightful baseline
- a sim sweep contradicts an old hardware verdict
“只有 v7 在完整的今日部署栈下上过真机 … v5"左右乱踢"、v6"未能自主"的判决全部来自更早的栈(--heading 尚不存在, 部分修复刚落地)——判决已过期。且 2026-08-02 四代同机仿真横测翻出了新证据:v6 在真机工况(cmd 0.15)下是四代里最健康的仿真档案”
train/REAL_SWEEP_V5_V8.md § 0. 为什么重测 Prove a new penalty actually fires - two ways a clearance term silently did nothing
inert-reward-term-auditBefore training with a new reward term, log its realized per-step value under the current policy and confirm it is nonzero where intended - check coordinate zero-points against FK and check who occupies the term's gate; and never weaken the term that creates the states your new term needs.
Symptom
A newly designed swing-height clearance penalty could have trained as a no-op twice over, and the companion advice to lower feet_air_time actively backfired when tried.
Context
Instance 1 (zero-point offset): the proposed code used body_pos_w of the foot link, but that is the ankle_roll_link frame origin, which sits 0.0585 m above the ground even with the foot flat on it - so (0.03 - 0.0585) is always negative and the penalty is永远 0; the 0.0585 offset must be subtracted (verified identical in MuJoCo FK and Isaac). Instance 2 (gate occupancy): the clearance penalty fires only in swing phase; a dragging policy keeps both feet in contact, so the penalty is constantly 0 for exactly the policy it was meant to fix - and worse, any slight lift immediately incurs it, a reverse threshold. Lowering feet_air_time to 0.5 on that advice measurably collapsed air time to 0.0002 (below v3). Corrected understanding: "clearance 是把已有的摆动相抬高, 造出摆动相仍要靠 air_time" - air_time creates the swing phase, clearance raises it.
Change
Fixed the height zero-point; kept feet_air_time as the swing-phase creator with clearance layered on top; both errors documented as corrections to the team's own earlier advice.
Outcome
With both fixed, swing height rose from 22-23 mm (v2) to 29 mm (v5) to 34 mm (v6); the inert-term failure class entered the standing checklist.
Mechanism
A penalty's gradient exists only where its gate is occupied and its argument crosses its threshold; frame offsets shift the threshold out of reach, and phase gates can have zero occupancy under exactly the policy being treated. Terms interact as an ecology - one term must create the states in which another can act.
Applies when
- adding any gated or thresholded penalty (clearance, impact, slip)
- a new term produces no behavioral change at any weight
- body-frame positions are used in reward code
“body_pos_w 是 ankle_roll_link 坐标系原点,平放触地时仍高出地面 0.0585 m。… (0.03 − 0.0585) 恒为负 → 惩罚永远是 0 … clearance 惩罚只在摆动相生效,拖地时两脚始终触地 → 惩罚恒 0;而一旦轻微抬脚就立刻扣分,对正在拖地的策略是反向门槛。… 正确认识:clearance 是"把已有的摆动相抬高",造出摆动相仍要靠 air_time。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § walk_v4 独立验收 — 本文档给的两处代码/建议是错的 Pre-register the ladder's risks and how each future result will be read - before training
preregister-risks-and-fork-readingsBefore a training ladder or risky rung, write the risks, the stop rules, and how every plausible outcome will be interpreted - then do not edit them after seeing results.
Symptom
Without pre-registration, ladder results get rationalized after the fact; the team had already seen post-hoc reads go wrong and adopted written pre-commitment.
Context
The C-ladder execution sheet opens with three numbered pre-registered risks: (1) S2 plant robustness will not carry into omni - a full S2 redo is budgeted from the start; (2) the s1e recipe has a collapse valley at iter 1500+ (recorded twice), so every rung runs a watch_ckpt --every 100 smoke loop with stop-on-degradation; (3) the root's OOD survival edge may partly be "it is slower / commits less" - with the reading fixed in advance: if C1 training raises tracking while survival drops, the edge was bought with slowness, and root selection reopens. Later rungs went further, pre-registering a full result-to-conclusion table for the A/B arms ("预注册读法（事后不改）") and even pre-registering the author's own doubt that a level would fail and what its failure would prove.
Change
Standing practice: before each rung, write down (a) known risks with their mitigations, (b) the interpretation of each possible outcome, (c) stop criteria - all frozen before the run starts ("开训前写死，事后不许改").
Outcome
When arm-A/arm-B and redo results arrived, conclusions were read off the pre-registered table instead of argued; a predicted-likely-FAIL level (C4-redo3) was still run because its pre-registered value was eliminating the regularization hypothesis - which it did.
Mechanism
Pre-commitment converts each training run into a decisive experiment: outcomes falsify or confirm named hypotheses instead of being absorbed into a story; it also makes negative results valuable (a FAIL that eliminates a hypothesis advances the search).
Applies when
- launching a multi-rung training ladder
- running an A/B fork whose outcome will drive a fork/root decision
- a rung is expected to fail but is run for its diagnostic value
“三条预注册风险 … 若 C1 训后跟踪提上去而存活掉下来，说明这条优势是速度买的、不是通用性 → 那时重开选根。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 0. 三条预注册风险 A stand gate judged by survival passes a robot that wanders a meter - judge posture instead
stand-gate-posture-not-survivalFor every gate, ask what behavior the metric is a proxy for and validate its ordering against real observations; replace metrics whose ordering disagrees with reality, and demote them explicitly rather than silently.
Symptom
Real robot "standing" drifted 0.5-1.4 m across the floor while the sim stand gate scored a clean 20/20 - because the gate's metric was episode survival, which wandering does not violate.
Context
C2's stand condition was originally written as "survival regression <=2/20". A real-robot counter-example on 2026-08-08 forced the re-judgment: wandering robots survive. Cross-checking candidate sim metrics against real-robot feel showed max-tilt median ordering agreed with hands-on ranking, while displacement ordering was actually OPPOSITE to real impressions - so displacement was demoted to a reference quantity, not a gate.
Change
Stand PASS criterion rewritten from survival to posture: "stand tilt max median <= root baseline +1.5 deg"; displacement kept only as reference. Applied to all subsequent rungs (C4 and redo levels inherit it).
Outcome
Later rungs gated stand on tilt (e.g. C4 product: 7.7 deg vs parent 7.1 deg, +0.6 deg PASS); the wandering failure mode became visible to the battery instead of hidden by survival.
Mechanism
A gate metric is a proxy for an intended behavior; survival is a proxy for "did not fall", not "stood still". Metric choice must be validated against ground truth (real-robot feel/measurement), and a proxy whose ordering disagrees with reality on real data is worse than no metric - it steers selection backwards.
Applies when
- writing PASS conditions for stand/idle/hold behaviors
- a gate passes policies that visibly misbehave on hardware
- choosing between candidate metrics for an acceptance battery
“stand 必须用位姿判，不能用存活判（2026-08-08 真机反证改判）：站着乱走 0.5~1.4 m 时存活照样 20/20 —— C2 的 stand 条件原写「存活退化 ≤2/20」，选错了指标。改为: stand 倾角 max 中位 ≤ 根基线 +1.5°（倾角与真机手感排序一致；位移排序与真机相反，降为参考量）”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3b. PASS 条件 ⚠️ stand 必须用位姿判 An edge-triggered landing penalty missed the tail and fired after the harm - penalize overspeed continuously inside the contact window
penalize-tail-before-touchdownPenalties aimed at impact/violation events must (a) price the excess over a threshold, not the mean, and (b) be active on the approach (state-gated window), not triggered by the event - check your control rate can even see the event you are penalizing.
Symptom
The v7 landing penalty (vz^2 on the contact-force rising edge, weight -10) did not bite: landing-velocity 95th percentile stayed at 2.61 m/s against a 0.3 target.
Context
Two structural faults were identified: (1) it penalized the MEAN over sparse events - many soft landings dilute the occasional violent slam, while the damage (GRF peaks, motor peak load) lives in the tail; (2) it fired AFTER touchdown - at 50 Hz evaluation the rising edge is aliased by physics decimation, so the read vz is often the already-decelerated post-impact value: underestimated, and with no shaping gradient before contact. Replacement: continuous penalty while the sole is inside a height gate (h < 0.03 m): relu(-vz - 0.30) - only the excess over an allowed approach speed is penalized (tail only), and gradient exists for several frames BEFORE touchdown. The sole-height computation again subtracts the 0.0585 m link offset ("WALK_DIAGNOSIS 坑#1, 别再踩"); the edge-triggered version was kept as a diagnostic only.
Change
feet_landing_vel reformulated: edge-event vz^2 -> in-window relu(-vz - v_ok) with v_ok 0.30 (conservative vs the sqrt(L)-scaled human value ~0.19, to be tightened after passing), h_gate 0.03, weight unchanged -10.
Outcome
The failure analysis of the first form was written before the second was trained; the v_ok escalation path (0.30 -> 0.45 if the robot becomes afraid to land) was pre-registered in the risk table.
Mechanism
Sparse-event mean penalties optimize the average case while the constraint is a quantile; and any penalty evaluated only at/after a discrete event gives the optimizer no gradient along the approach trajectory that determines the event. A state-gated continuous excess penalty fixes both: it prices only violations and shapes the approach.
Applies when
- impact/landing penalties fail to move tail percentiles
- a penalty is triggered by contact edges at a coarse control rate
- designing constraint-style penalties for rare violent events
“罚的是均值路径:上升沿是稀疏事件 … 大量软着陆稀释偶发猛砸;而伤害在尾部 … 罚在触地后:50 Hz 评一次,上升沿被物理 decimation 混叠,读到的 vz 常是撞完已减速的值——既低估,又没有触地前的塑形梯度。”
train/WALK_V8_SPEC.md § 2. 改动 B — 落地惩罚改罚尾部、罚在触地前 A suspended (no-load) test acquits or convicts the actuator before you blame authority
suspended-test-isolates-actuator-authorityBefore attributing a failure to actuator authority, measure no-load tracking error and steady-state torque fraction; blame authority only if the task fails while the error grows with demanded force - and then fix gains or targets, not training.
Symptom
hip_roll sagged 0.21 rad on the ground and saturation questions loomed over the sidewalk plan - was the roll axis physically too weak (authority), or was something else limiting it?
Context
Before C4, the roll-authority question was settled by measurement triage: suspended test (--suspend, feet off ground) showed hip_roll tracking error 0.0008 rad - actuator acquitted; the entire 0.21 rad ground sag is load-induced. Steady-state torque was 25% of limit - 75% margin remains. Since sidewalk needs lateral force, not exact angles, authority was ruled "not a hard limit", with a pre-registered criterion for when it WOULD become one: sidewalk fails to track AND roll error keeps growing - then the fix is raising hip_roll kp or lowering the vy target, not more training.
Change
Hypothesis "roll authority insufficient" demoted from blocker to a monitored branch with an explicit trigger condition; C4 proceeded.
Outcome
Later open-loop probes confirmed the actuator could produce the behavior (sidewalk feed-forward ran at full amplitude, 5/5 survival), and the eventual C4 failure causes were measurement and reward, never authority.
Mechanism
Suspended vs loaded comparison separates the actuator's closed-loop competence from the load path: tiny no-load tracking error means the motor/controller is fine and any loaded deviation is statics (gravity / stiffness budget, kp trading error for force). Torque-fraction measurement then bounds how much force headroom actually remains.
Applies when
- suspecting an axis is "too weak" for a new skill
- large position sag on a loaded joint
- deciding between hardware fix, gain change, and more training
“吊挂（--suspend）实测 hip_roll 跟踪误差 0.0008 rad → 执行器无罪，地面下垂 0.21 rad 全是负载所致；稳态占限扭 25% → 仍有 75% 扭矩余量。… 判据：若 C4 出现「侧走跟不动且 roll 误差继续变大」，那才是权限账 … 解法是提 hip_roll 的 kp 或降 vy 目标，不是硬训。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3d. roll 权限：已部分澄清，不是硬上限 Late training leaned on sampling noise as a stability crutch - deterministic play collapsed while training metrics stayed green
noise-crutch-deterministic-collapseEvaluate the deterministic policy in an external harness on a fixed cadence during training (not just at the end), select checkpoints on that curve, and treat a collapsing noise_std with rising training reward as a warning that noise is load-bearing.
Symptom
omni_s1's final checkpoint (model_5999) fell at 4 s even in Isaac's OWN deterministic play, while checkpoints from iter 1700-4000 were fine - and no training metric flagged anything. Policy noise_std had collapsed to 0.045 by iter ~990 (final 0.033).
Context
Diagnosis: the policy had learned to use its exploration noise as a dither/stabilizer - "策略把采样噪声当稳定拐杆,训练指标看不见" (the training metrics cannot see it, because training always runs with noise on). Countermeasures: entropy_coef 0.005 -> 0.01 to slow the std collapse, and - the structural fix - an in-training smoke loop (watch_ckpt.py): every 500 iters, export ONNX directly, run 3-seed MuJoCo evaluation, log CSV/TensorBoard curves plus three-view videos. The doctrine line was written in bold: "训练指标全绿不再是发育健康的 证据,冒烟曲线才是" - green training metrics are no longer evidence of healthy development; the smoke curve is. The follow-up run s1b showed the drift metric follow a U-shape (73 -> 8.6 at iter 3500 -> 76), making checkpoint selection BY the smoke curve (early stop at 3500) the shipping mechanism, with terminal re-degradation booked as known and unresolved.
Change
entropy floor raised; watch_ckpt smoke loop instituted as standing infrastructure; checkpoint selection moved from "last iteration" to "best point on the deterministic smoke curve".
Outcome
s1b shipped from iter 3500 (the U-bottom) instead of a degraded terminus; every later lineage (s1c/s1e, the C ladder's --every 100 loops) inherited the watcher as the standard guardrail.
Mechanism
PPO evaluates and improves the stochastic policy; if noise itself stabilizes the gait (dither smoothing a marginal limit cycle), the deterministic mean policy is a different, worse controller that training never measures. External deterministic evaluation on an independent simulator is the only readout of what will actually be deployed.
Applies when
- final checkpoints underperform mid-training ones
- noise_std collapses early while training reward climbs
- deciding which checkpoint to export and ship
“训练后期确定性脆化——noise_std iter~990 收到 0.045(终 0.033),model_5999 连 Isaac 确定性 play 都 4 s 摔(1700~4000 正常):策略把采样噪声当稳定拐杖,训练指标看不见。对策:entropy_coef 0.005→0.01 + train/watch_ckpt.py 训练中冒烟曲线 … 训练指标全绿不再是发育健康的证据,冒烟曲线才是。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 3. S1.1 修订记录 ② A reward on a quantity the actor cannot observe teaches "produce less of it", never "correct it" - closed-loop correction needs an outer loop
reward-observability-limitBefore adding a reward, check the actor can observe (or infer) the quantity: unobservable-error rewards buy only average suppression - route correction tasks to an outer loop whose commands stay in distribution, and do not break a frozen contract to add an observation a deploy-side loop can supply.
Symptom
Heading kept drifting despite world-frame yaw rewards, and a reviewer proposed heading-error rewards - raising the question of what yaw shaping can even teach this actor.
Context
The adopted architectural verdict: the actor's 45-dim base observation cannot see accumulated heading at all - projected_gravity is invariant to rotation about the gravity axis, and omega_z is a rate, not an angle. World-frame yaw-rate rewards are therefore privileged shaping that can only teach "少产生旋转" (generate less rotation), never "偏了以后拉回原线" (pull back to the line after drifting) - the policy cannot represent the error it would need to correct. The S1 gate (<=5 deg / 10 s) demands exactly the former, so the stack is right for its gate; active heading correction is assigned to the deployment outer loop (--heading P-loop converting heading error into in-distribution wz commands) plus small-wz training - and the 215-dim contract is explicitly NOT extended with a heading observation ("契约不加 heading 观测,冻结不动"). The reviewer's companion bias hypothesis was adjudicated with data: drift is bimodal - a basin mechanism decides whether you leave (seeds vary +/-16-46 deg vs -385 to -391 deg), and once out, rotation direction is constant (weight chirality; candidate root: the phase clock always swings left first).
Change
Yaw shaping kept as rate-tracking (three-layer stack); heading correction owned by the deploy outer loop; contract frozen; the "which behaviors need an outer loop" question settled by observability analysis rather than reward tuning.
Outcome
Stopped a contract change and a futile reward direction; drift work split correctly into rate-suppression (trainable) and error correction (outer loop), consistent with the earlier measured 10x drift reduction from the deploy-side loop.
Mechanism
A policy can only condition on its observation sigma-algebra; rewards on functions outside it shift the marginal action distribution (open-loop average effects) but cannot create feedback on the unobserved variable. Whether to add an observation, an outer loop, or accept average-shaping is decided by the task's gate: suppression gates need shaping, correction gates need the variable in some loop's view.
Applies when
- adding rewards on accumulated/世界-frame quantities (heading, position)
- deciding between a new observation, an outer loop, and shaping
- a drift symptom persists across reward-weight changes
“actor 的 45 维基座观测不到累计航向(projected_gravity 对绕重力轴旋转不变,ωz 是速率不是角度)——世界系 yaw 奖励是特权塑形,只能教「少产生旋转」,不能教「偏了以后拉回原线」。… 主动纠偏闭环 = S3 把小 wz 进分布 + deploy --heading 外环 … 215 契约不加 heading 观测,冻结不动。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 3. 评审④判决(2026-08-06,S1.3 开训前) Bracket a real-robot A/B with a repeated reference run - battery drain is the confound
battery-bracketed-real-abOrder hardware A/B sessions as A-B-A: repeat the first condition at the end, and void the comparison if the bracket runs disagree - never let battery or venue drift ride on the second condition.
Symptom
In a two-policy teleop A/B on hardware, the second policy is measured on a lower battery voltage than the first - a systematic bias that would be read as a policy difference.
Context
C2 real A/B (checkpoint 700 vs A800, same floor, same day) was scripted as 700 -> A800 -> 700-rerun, with the explicit note that a teleop session drains the pack and the trailing policy "naturally suffers".
Change
Protocol: run the reference policy first AND last; if the two reference runs differ noticeably, declare the whole session battery/floor-polluted and void the A/B ("结论作废重来"). Also log electricity per run.
Outcome
Called out as the round's only systematic confound, closed by one extra command ("这是本轮唯一的系统性混淆源，一条命令就能堵掉").
Mechanism
Battery voltage scales available torque, and torque loss hits behavior asymmetrically (see power-scale-hurts-nonforward-axes), so drain masquerades as policy regression; a head/tail reference pair converts the unobserved drift into a measured control.
Applies when
- comparing two policies or settings on hardware in one session
- any sequential hardware evaluation where the plant drifts (battery, temperature, floor wear)
“为什么要 700 复跑：一次遥控 session 下来电池会掉压，第二枚天然吃亏。头尾各跑一次 700，若两次 700 明显不同，说明这轮 A/B 被电量污染，结论作废重来。这是本轮唯一的系统性混淆源，一条命令就能堵掉。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3c. A-3 真机 A/B（同一段地板、同一天、电量记账） When the eval proxy has a known systematic bias, gate on within-proxy differences, not absolutes
relative-metrics-survive-proxy-biasWhere the evaluator is known-biased, design gates as within-evaluator contrasts (left vs right, A vs B, pre vs post) that cancel common-mode error; reserve absolute thresholds for quantities whose proxy calibration has been checked.
Symptom
MuJoCo systematically overestimated yaw turn gain (1.58/2.45 where Isaac measured 1.04/1.02), and friction alignment recovered only part of the gap (mu 1.0 -> 0.6 pulled it to 1.43/2.27) - so any absolute turn-gain acceptance threshold in MuJoCo would be judging the proxy's bias, not the policy.
Context
The acceptance criterion was rewritten to use only the left/right difference of the turn gain (standard: <20%): both directions pass through the same biased proxy, so the bias largely cancels in the difference while the policy's chirality - the thing being gated - survives. The absolute-gain row was dropped: "转向只判左右差,不判绝对值". A parallel task was still opened to align MuJoCo contact parameters to Isaac's (mu, restitution), since drift proved highly friction-sensitive (straight-line drift -65 deg at mu 1.0 vs +1 deg at mu 0.4) - bias reduction and bias-robust metrics proceeded together.
Change
Gate metric changed from absolute turn gain to left-right gain difference; proxy-alignment work scheduled separately rather than blocking acceptance.
Outcome
Turn acceptance became meaningful across proxy versions (v5 70% -> v6 19% difference measured the real improvement) while the absolute bias question was pursued without holding the ladder hostage.
Mechanism
A systematic multiplicative or additive proxy bias applies to both arms of a mirrored measurement; differencing (or ratioing) mirrored conditions cancels the common-mode bias to first order, leaving the asymmetry signal. Metrics built this way remain valid while the proxy is imperfect - which it always is somewhere.
Applies when
- a sim proxy disagrees with the trainer or hardware in absolute terms
- writing acceptance thresholds for direction-paired skills
- proxy calibration work would otherwise block a ladder
“转向只判左右差,不判绝对值 —— MuJoCo 的偏航增益系统性高估(实测 1.58/2.45 vs Isaac 1.04/1.02),摩擦只能解释一部分(μ 1.0→0.6 仅拉到 1.43/2.27)。差值是相对量。”
train/WALK_V5_SPEC.md § 6. 验收 Cross-simulator gate (Isaac Lab to MuJoCo) comes before any hardware attempt
sim2sim-gate-before-sim2realGate every policy through a second simulator with an independently built plant before hardware; treat sim2sim failure as a contract or overfitting bug, and sim2real failure after a sim2sim pass as a plant/actuator gap.
Symptom
A policy that only ever ran in its training simulator carries untested dependencies on that simulator's solver, contact model, and defaults; the first place those dependencies surface should not be the real robot.
Context
Standing order of operations for the whole Lucen program, recorded as the opening line of the experience log: train in Isaac Lab, gate in MuJoCo, only then go to hardware. The MuJoCo side is the same plant used for evaluation batteries, so a sim2sim pass also validates the exported policy + contract (obs ordering, scales, defaults) outside the training stack.
Change
Pipeline rule adopted - every checkpoint must pass the MuJoCo evaluation battery (sim2sim) before it is considered for real deployment (sim2real).
Outcome
Used generation after generation as the cheap filter; hardware sessions only ever received policies that had already survived a second simulator.
Mechanism
Two simulators disagree exactly where a policy is overfit to simulator-specific artifacts (contact softness, integrator, default parameters, obs conventions); a cross-sim transfer catches contract bugs and solver overfitting at zero hardware risk, so real-robot failures that remain are attributable to genuine plant/actuator gaps.
Applies when
- planning the path from training to first hardware trial
- exported policy behaves differently outside the training framework
- triaging whether a real-robot failure is contract vs plant
“先sim2sim - 从isaaclab 到mujoco / 再sim2real”
Experience.md § opening lines (1-2) A curriculum ramp keyed to the process step counter re-fires on every resume - and shipped policies never saw the penalty
curriculum-counter-lineage-stepsKey every curriculum/ramp schedule to lineage-cumulative progress, not per-process counters; and audit where your shipped checkpoints sit relative to every ramp - a penalty that no product ever experienced is not part of your training.
Symptom
vx+0.30 died at a fixed relative time in every resumed run: resume at 500 -> slide at 1100, zero at 1300; resume at 700 -> slide at 1300, zero at 1500 - absolute depths offset by exactly the resume offset, relative timetable identical.
Context
ramp_reward_weight (the saturation penalty ramp) read env.common_step_counter, which restarts at 0 for every run including --resume. So start_step=600 meant "600 iters after THIS resume", not "lineage iteration 600". The A/B arm pair was the clean proof: their env.yaml differed only in log_dir, only resume point distinguished them, and the omni CurriculumManager had exactly one active term - nothing else could produce that timetable. Second consequence: every shipped checkpoint (s1e-500 at +500, C2-700 at +200, A800 at +100) was selected before its run's +600, so the saturation penalty weight was 0.000 for every product ever shipped - explaining saturation 33% and raw |action| 1.9 against clip 1.0 (hip_roll in bang-bang), i.e. half the heat budget.
Change
Two independent recommendations recorded: (1) make the ramp count lineage steps (add the checkpoint's iteration offset on resume) or pin terminal weights in downstream rungs instead of ramping; (2) give the saturation penalty its own rung - never mixed into a skill-learning rung (that would be two variables again).
Outcome
Explained the recurring +600 death of the highest-amplitude command and the persistent actuator saturation of all shipped products with one root cause; honest caveat booked (at +800 the weight is only -0.086, small, but vx+0.30 is the command demanding the largest action amplitude, so it is squeezed first).
Mechanism
Resumable training splits "the lineage" from "the process"; any schedule keyed to process-local counters silently re-applies its transient to every descendant run, and any product-selection habit that picks checkpoints early systematically samples the pre-ramp regime - the curriculum exists in the config but never in any shipped policy.
Applies when
- resumed/forked training with any scheduled reward or DR ramp
- a metric dies at a fixed offset after each resume
- shipped policies show behavior a late-schedule penalty should prevent
“ramp_reward_weight 读的是 env.common_step_counter，它每个 run 从 0 开始，--resume 也不例外。… 原始 run / 臂B | 500 | 1100 = +600 | 1300 = +800；臂A | 700 | 1300 = +600 | 1500 = +800 … 所有出品其实从没见过饱和罚。… 这解释了 sat_max_pct 33%、raw |a| 最大 1.9（clip 是 1.0）—— hip_roll 一直在 bang-bang，而罚它的那一项权重恒 0。热账的一半在这里。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3g. 系统性问题：saturation_ramp 每次 resume 归零 Three same-shaped judging errors - task metrics (survival, tracking, displacement) cannot stand in for posture metrics
task-metrics-vs-posture-metricsKeep validated posture-class rows (tilt, per-joint L/R asymmetry, temperature) in every acceptance battery alongside task rows; when operator feel contradicts the gates, suspect the metric class before the operator - and never build a new skill on what is actually an asymmetry defect.
Symptom
The C2 product judged "full pass" on task metrics (A800: turn-gap 7 pp, vx+0.30 19/20) felt WORSE in the operator's hands than the half-pass 700: A800 tilted up to 12.90 deg (700: 6.64), drifted left while standing, showed larger per-joint asymmetries, and ran its hip_rolls 5 degC hotter.
Context
The re-judgment catalogued three same-type metric errors in one campaign: (1) stand judged by SURVIVAL - missed 0.5-1.4 m wandering; (2) stand ranked by DISPLACEMENT - ordering was opposite to real feel (tilt ordering matched); (3) chirality judged by wz-tracking GAP - measured turning symmetry while the robot's actual disease was postural left/right asymmetry, "两个不同的东西,且结论相反". Common pattern named: "我一直用「任务指标」当判据,而真机手感对应的是「姿态 指标」… 任务类指标不能替代它". The fix was already in the data: the per-joint left/right asymmetry table (printed identically by sim2sim and deploy) agreed with hardware in direction on every row - "判据可用、有预测力,我只是没把它写进 PASS 条件". Shipping decision followed the posture read: product reverted to 700 ("又一次「买到 精度、卖掉别的」"), and the C4 root moved to 700 as well, with the sharpest line of the episode: A800's left-drift "like sidewalking" is probably its frontal-plane asymmetry defect, not a capability - "在缺陷上建能力是危险的".
Change
Two posture quantities with demonstrated real-robot predictive power promoted into every PASS battery: tilt-max median and per-joint left/right asymmetry (both sim-computable, deploy-homologous); motor-temperature readout added to session close-out.
Outcome
Deployment flipped to the posture-better checkpoint; the hip_roll temperature table (43-48 degC vs 25-28) confirmed the earlier 90%-of-heat account; the run-line acceptance battery inherited the posture rows from birth ("任务类替代不了姿态类").
Mechanism
Task metrics measure goal attainment under the evaluator's episode definition; posture metrics measure the body state trajectory that operators, motors, and downstream skills actually experience. The two can rank candidates oppositely because task success tolerates postural pathology - so a battery without posture rows is blind to exactly what hardware feel reports first.
Applies when
- hardware feel disagrees with a green acceptance table
- choosing between checkpoints that split task vs posture metrics
- selecting the root for a skill that resembles an existing defect
“共同模式:我一直用「任务指标」(存活 / 跟踪率 / 位移)当判据,而真机手感对应的是「姿态指标」(倾角、逐关节左右不对称)。→ 验收判据里必须有姿态类指标,任务类指标不能替代它。… A800 的「左飘像 side walk」很可能 … 是它更大的额平面不对称的表现 —— 在缺陷上建能力是危险的。”
train/README.md § C2 选点改判 (2026-08-09): 手性判据第三次选错指标