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
171 cards matching “zero-partial-credit-is-not-an-iteration-problem”.
Four consecutive fixes were each continued from the previous fix's degraded state until the user stopped the ladder - "change parameters, don't stack errors" - rolled back to the last good checkpoint and audited the target geometry first
stop-stacking-roll-back-and-auditWhen successive rungs each start from the previous rung's output and the target symptom does not move, stop, roll back to the last good checkpoint and re-derive the next change from an audit; keep the measurements, discard the stacked remedies.
Symptom
After the real-robot splits, the V2.7 ladder tried to widen the stance: a term swap (A), a new stance knife (b), more iterations (甲), a doubled weight (乙). Stance barely moved while hip yaw ratcheted 46.7 -> 49.9 -> 52.5 deg toward its 60 deg limit.
Context
Each rung started from the previous rung's output. The user ruled on 2026-08-11 that things had gone wrong from V2.7-A: go back to v2_6 and rethink which parameters to change instead of stacking errors.
Change
乙 was killed at start and not counted; the product baseline rolled back to v2_6c model_29399; every measurement and law learned on the ladder was kept ("the data is real; what stacked was the treatment"). Before any new training, a zero-training kinematic audit of the stance targets was run.
Outcome
The audit found the stand_pose target itself rewarding the narrow stance (pose-target-geometric-audit) and showed geometrically why the yawed stance could not be widened with flat feet - so 乙 was proven unnecessary without running it. The next in-lineage attempts still failed, which is what established that the stance is set by the get-up path.
Mechanism
A rung continued from a degraded state inherits its compensations, so each new fix answers the previous fix's side effects; the yaw ratchet was the visible trace of that stacking.
Applies when
- three or more corrective rungs in a row without progress on the target metric
- a side-effect metric ratchets in one direction across rungs
- a new rung is being planned from the latest (not the best) checkpoint
“用户裁:"从 V2.7-A 开始就出问题了,应该回到 2.6 再思考如何改变参数而不是 错误叠加。"认账:A 的补丁 → b 的新刀 → 甲的加时 → 乙的加权,每级都从上级 的**退化状态**续(yaw 46.7→52.5° 的棘轮就是叠加痕迹)。 … 数据是真的,叠加的是处置。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §44 方法论裁定(2026-08-11,用户):V2.7 全阶梯叫停,回滚 v2_6 Guessed joint friction was 2.5x low and damping 5x high - measure, then DR around nominal
friction-measured-not-guessedMeasure frictionloss and damping separately (they need different rigs), put the measured value at DR center, and express DR as an additive band around that nominal - a DR range around a guessed value can exclude the real robot entirely.
Symptom
Old MJCF friction values were invented, not measured; when finally measured, every guessed value was wrong by a large factor in some direction.
Context
Joint friction split into Coulomb (frictionloss, tau_c) and viscous (damping b). Measured with the robot hung from a crane (吊机测) while armature was measured no-load; the two measurements are deliberately separated. Old MJCF: frictionloss 0.05, damping 0.1, DR joint_friction range [0, 0.1] "凭空拍的" (made up out of thin air).
Change
Replace guessed values with measured ones - frictionloss: RS06 0.15 / RS02 0.12 / RS00 0.13 N*m (old 0.05, i.e. 2.5x too low); damping: 0.02 N*m*s/rad on all three motor types (old 0.1, i.e. 5x too high). DR reshaped from an absolute made-up range [0, 0.1] to an additive band around measured nominal: joint_friction_add [-0.05, +0.10].
Outcome
"摩擦定稿(与 armature 一起, plant 参数第一次全部来自实测)" - friction frozen as part of the first fully-measured plant; DR now brackets a measured truth instead of spanning an invented interval.
Mechanism
Coulomb friction and viscous damping have opposite behavioral signatures (constant-torque threshold vs velocity-proportional drag); guessing both wrong in opposite directions gives a plant that is simultaneously too easy to start moving and too hard to move fast. DR centered on a wrong nominal makes the policy robust to a family of plants that does not contain the real one.
Applies when
- plant friction/damping values have no measurement provenance
- DR ranges are absolute intervals rather than bands around a nominal
- policy is over- or under-damped on hardware relative to sim
“测关节摩擦。吊机测，而armature应该空机测试。… frictionloss τ_c (N·m) │ 0.15 │ 0.12 │ 0.13 │ 0.05(低 2.5×) … damping b (N·m·s/rad) │ 0.02 │ 0.02 │ 0.02 │ 0.1(高 5×) … DR │ joint_friction_add: [−0.05, +0.10] 叠标称 │ 旧 [0, 0.1] 凭空拍的”
Experience.md § 摩擦定稿表 (lines 12-25) 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 Tightening the bridge's rate limiter under an unchanged policy cut torque peaks 30-50% and made other things worse - the policy cannot see the limiter, keeps commanding and winds up; a deploy-side limiter is a safety net, not a cure
deploy-rate-limiter-windupA rate or torque limiter added at deployment lowers peaks but the policy still commands as if unconstrained (saturation, windup, new contacts); use it as a safety net mirrored in evaluation, and put the constraint where the policy can learn around it.
Symptom
After the violent first real-robot get-up, the cheapest candidate fix was to tighten the bridge's slew (rate) limit for the recovery policy without retraining.
Context
Probe on R3.1 in MuJoCo (5 categories x 3 seeds, mu 1.0), monkeypatching the limiter with no repository change: TIGHT = RS06 4.0 / RS02 3.0 / RS00 2.0 rad/s (about 0.08/0.06/0.04 rad per policy step) against the current vel_limit setting.
Change
The probe decided the role of the limiter rather than a deployment.
Outcome
Success 14/15 -> 12/15; get-up median 2.35 -> 3.53 s (max 9.30); torque demand peak median hip_pitch 164% -> 111%, knee 166% -> 86%; action saturation still 100%; leg-leg contact 558 -> 860 frames. The limiter was kept only as a real-robot safety net (mirrored into sim2sim evaluation); the cure moved into training - where the next lesson was that a limiter anchored on the last command is itself an integrator (slew-anchor-is-an-integrator).
Mechanism
A policy that never trained with the limiter keeps issuing the targets it learned; the limiter clips them, the target window runs ahead (windup), and the robot follows a trajectory the policy never evaluated.
Applies when
- a trained policy is too violent on hardware and a quick deploy-side fix is tempting
- adding slew, torque or velocity limits in a bridge or firmware
- evaluation and deployment use different limiter settings
“判读:**链路侧收紧立等可取地把 τ 峰值砍 30~50%,但成功率掉、饱和率仍 100%、 腿-腿接触反升** —— 策略感知不到限速器,目标窗口继续狂奔。⇒ 收紧 slew 只配当 **真机侧安全网**(必须同步进 sim2sim 口径,基础设施现成),**不配当治法; 治法必须进训练**。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §26 探针:收紧桥层 slew,r3_1 不重训直接测 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) The get-up kept getting faster because standing earlier paid more every step - lowering torque authority barely slowed it, and only zeroing the standing income for the first 3 s moved the pace into the design band
per-step-income-drives-speed-time-gateWhen a skill is too fast, find the term that pays for finishing early and gate that income by time; keep the "get into position" term ungated so the policy does not learn to wait, use a ramp instead of a cliff, and confirm with a paired same-level experiment that the drift is motivational before changing it.
Symptom
The user judged the get-up too fast (Isaac medians about 0.7-1.6 s) and suspected path dependence: the policy seemed to get faster the longer it trained.
Context
Lowering the beta authority 0.40 -> 0.30 cut impact but moved supine only 1.70 -> 2.00 s: coordination-limited, not torque-limited. A paired experiment inside one beta level (checkpoint 15,600 vs 18,499, +2,900 iterations, same ruler) measured the drift: get-up medians -7 to -10%. The spec concluded the motive, not the path, was the cause - per-step standing income pays for every early step, and any lineage (even one from scratch) races toward the fastest solution inside its constraints.
Change
V2.5: the standing income (base_height, stand_pose, still, feet_on_ground) multiplied by w(t) = clamp(t/3 s, 0, 1); upright deliberately NOT gated, so righting and sitting up early still pay and the policy is not taught to lie flat and wait; a ramp, not a step. V2.5b: zero before t0 = 3 s, then a 1 s ramp.
Outcome
V2.5: Isaac 100%, get-up +17-43% slower, MuJoCo 100/100/98/100% (the best cross-simulator reading yet), still short of the 3.5-4.5 s design band - a linear ramp only discounts early income. V2.5b: MuJoCo supine 2.04 -> 4.10 s and prone 3.18 -> 4.04 s, inside the band; the Isaac pace barely moved (a lineage habit on a gradient-free plateau). Later the zero gate proved harmful when trained from scratch (curriculum-history-is-part-of-the-product) and in the V3.1 lineage (time-gate-vs-wide-stance-retire-the-fix).
Mechanism
Constraints on authority or velocity change how the fastest solution looks; the time structure of the task income decides how fast the fastest solution is.
Applies when
- a policy is faster or more aggressive than wanted and constraints do not slow it
- progress-style rewards pay every step spent at the goal
- performance drifts faster with more training at fixed settings
“**V2.5 机制(唯一)**:站立收入(base_height/stand_pose/still/feet_on_ground) 乘时间斜坡 w(t)=clamp(t/T_gate,0,1),T_gate=3.0 s;**upright 刻意不门控** (翻正/坐直早期照常拿钱,防"躺平等门开" … **用户假设量化 证实:逐步计酬动机在 β 包络内持续压缩时间,约束挡不住动机 —— V2.5 动机层 修法为正解。**”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §39 V2.5 预注册 / §39 补 配对实验 Write each config's expected hardware signature before the session - and if reality disagrees, change the books, not the conclusion
preregistered-real-expectationsBefore hardware runs, write per-config expected signatures and the disagreement rule (hardware outranks sim; discrepancies get recorded, not reconciled); validate the harness by checking it reproduces at least one known real behavior.
Symptom
Hardware impressions are easily narrated after the fact; without written expectations, any real-robot outcome can be made to "match" the sim story.
Context
The S2 acceptance sheet carried a section titled "sim 侧预注册预期 (事后核对, 不许事后改)" - per-configuration behavioral signatures written before the session: s1e@0.8 the disturbance king (push 159/160, zero chirality, all-mu 20/20) at the cost of speed gates 0/20 and zero-command wander ~0.98 m with -29.5 deg/20 s rotation; fric-3000 "walks accurately but is easier to push over"; fric-2400 neither. Credibility check included: the sim harness had reproduced the already-recorded real behavior (pace in place + right drift + net rotation -30 deg/20 s), which "提高本单全部预期的可信度". The anomaly clause fixed the epistemics in advance: if results systematically disagree with sim, "不改结论改账" - don't massage the conclusion, write the discrepancy into the books, and per the earlier zero-warning lesson, hardware wins.
Change
Every hardware session ships with a pre-registered expectation table (signature per config), a baseline-match credibility check, and a written precedence rule for disagreement.
Outcome
The A/B session became falsifiable: agreement confirms the proxy, disagreement is booked as a proxy-bias finding rather than argued away.
Mechanism
Pre-registration converts qualitative hardware sessions into tests of the sim-to-real mapping itself; a reproduced known behavior calibrates trust in the remaining predictions; and fixing "who wins on disagreement" beforehand prevents authority from drifting to whichever source flatters the plan.
Applies when
- planning any hardware acceptance or A/B session
- the sim harness's credibility in this regime is unestablished
- post-session write-ups tempt narrative fitting
“⚠️ sim 复现了真机已记录的「原地踏步 + 右漂 + 净旋 −30°/20s」—— harness 与真机行为对得上, 提高本单全部预期的可信度。… 结果与 sim 系统性不符 → 不改结论改账: 写进 README 该节, 按 「Isaac 指标三次零预警」的教训, 以真机为准。”
train/REAL_RUN_S2.md § 2. sim 侧预注册预期 (事后核对, 不许事后改) / 4. 异常处置 Freeze the deployment contract, stamp every export, and let an automated checker catch wiring bugs
contract-freeze-and-checkerFreeze and fingerprint the policy I/O contract; ship contract changes as new versioned profiles that leave old artifacts bit-identical; and extend the automated contract checker with every pipeline change, forcing the new path to execute in the check.
Symptom
Contract-level changes (observation layout, action pipeline) are where silent sim/real divergence is born; two real wiring bugs appeared the one time the action pipeline was extended.
Context
The 215-dim observation contract was frozen ("纪元 3，三机 digest" - an era number plus a digest agreed across three machines); proposals that would break it (e.g. a GRU memory) were rejected on contract grounds. Every exported ONNX is stamped and verified with a manifest (onnx_manifest --stamp / --verify), and deployment refuses mismatched combinations. When C4 added the lateral feed-forward, it went in as a NEW profile (omni_ff) leaving the existing omni profile's behavior bit-identical; the checker (check_contract) was extended to force the feed-forward path to actually execute (cmd_vy=0.13) and promptly caught two genuine bugs: (1) re-clamping with soft_joint_pos_limits after the feed-forward (0.23 rad deviation) instead of reusing the parent's clip; (2) indexing processed actions by asset.joint_names instead of the action term's own contract-ordered _joint_names, which landed the feed-forward on the wrong joints (l_hip_yaw / r_ankle_pitch).
Change
Contract discipline as implemented: frozen dims + digest; manifest stamping and refusal; contract changes only via new versioned profiles; checker updated in the same commit as any pipeline change, with inputs chosen so new code paths are exercised.
Outcome
Both wiring bugs caught before any training or deployment ("两个都是 check_contract 当场抓出来的 —— 这次它值回票价"); old deployments provably unaffected by the new profile.
Mechanism
The contract is the only interface the policy and robot share; freezing plus fingerprinting makes divergence detectable, and an executable checker turns "the contract holds" from a belief into a test - but only if its inputs actually drive the new code path.
Applies when
- modifying the action or observation pipeline of a deployed policy
- exporting policies for hardware
- proposals that would change observation dims or history structure
“契约校验抓到的两个真错误（记账，别再犯）：1. 前馈后误用 soft_joint_pos_limits（URDF 限位 ×0.9）重钳 → 0.23 rad 偏差 … 2. 用 asset.joint_names 索引 _processed_actions → 前馈落到 l_hip_yaw/r_ankle_pitch 上 … 两个都是 check_contract 当场抓出来的 —— 这次它值回票价。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3j. 契约级改动 / 契约校验抓到的两个真错误 A ratio metric flipped the verdict - spectral share rose while absolute high-frequency energy fell 16%
ratio-metrics-need-absolute-checkNever compare share/percentage/centroid metrics across conditions whose totals differ; pair every ratio with its absolute numerator before issuing a verdict, and log retracted judgments so they are not re-derived.
Symptom
walk_v6 was provisionally judged "more jittery" than v5 because the joint-velocity spectral centroid rose 2.91 -> 3.62 Hz and the >4 Hz energy share rose 12.6% -> 17.8%.
Context
Absolute measures said the opposite: first differences of actions fell 1.54 -> 1.31, second differences 2.55 -> 2.19, and absolute high-frequency energy fell 16% (0.490 -> 0.413). The shares and centroid rose only because low-frequency content fell even more - the denominator shrank. The interim judgment was retracted in writing so it would not be reused.
Change
Metric discipline noted: "占比类指标在总量变化时不能直接比较" - share/ratio metrics are not comparable across conditions when the total changes; verdicts about smoothness must cite absolute energies or difference norms.
Outcome
v6 correctly classified as smoother, not jitterier; the retracted judgment logged under "被推翻的一个中间判断(记下来免得复用)".
Mechanism
A ratio confounds numerator and denominator; any intervention that removes low-frequency content raises every high-frequency share without adding a single joule of jitter. Only absolute quantities support cross-condition comparison when totals move.
Applies when
- comparing smoothness/jitter/spectral metrics across versions
- any percentage-based metric moves after an intervention
- writing an eval report that includes normalized quantities
“我一度说"v6 动作更抖" … 错了: 动作一阶差 1.54→1.31、二阶差 2.55→2.19 都在降 … 谱质心升高只是因为低频成分掉得更多, 绝对高频能量实际下降 16%(0.490→0.413)。占比类指标在总量变化时不能直接比较。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § 过程中被推翻的一个中间判断(记下来免得复用) Model CAN polling skew - joint observations are 6-9 ms stale by read order
can-timing-skew-modelingIf joints are read sequentially over a shared bus, reproduce the per-group observation staleness in sim (or randomize it over the measured range) - synchronous observations are a privileged fiction.
Symptom
Policies trained with synchronous joint observations degrade on hardware where motors are polled sequentially over CAN - hip data is already 6-9 ms old by the time ankle data arrives.
Context
Menlo's core sim2real finding on a leg platform of almost identical mass to Lucen's. CAN is a sequential bus: one poll cycle reads motors in a fixed order, so the observation vector mixes timestamps. Lucen runs 6:6 motors on a dual CAN split, so the problem transfers one-to-one.
Change
Explicitly model CAN timing skew in sim: give the joint groups different observation delays matching physical read order. Menlo went further - running real firmware in the loop with a motor simulator between MuJoCo and firmware injecting 0.4-2 ms uniformly distributed delay.
Outcome
Reported by the reference team as their core sim2real enabler on a same-scale platform; recorded in Lucen's experience log as directly applicable ("这个问题一模一样").
Mechanism
A policy exploits any cross-joint temporal coherence present in training observations; when hardware breaks that coherence per bus position, the learned feedback acts on inconsistent state estimates, injecting phase error exactly at the control bandwidth.
Conflicts
Second-hand episode: outcome numbers are the reference team's report, not a Lucen-run experiment; Lucen adopted the requirement but the corpus has no Lucen A/B of skew-on vs skew-off.
Applies when
- robot polls actuators sequentially over CAN/RS485 or similar shared bus
- sim2real degradation appears as jitter or oscillation not seen in sim
- designing the observation/delay model before a training run
“电机走 CAN 是顺序轮询的，髋部电机的数据到踝部电机上报时已经陈旧了 6-9 ms，他们直接在仿真里显式建模了 CAN 时序偏斜，按读取顺序给三组关节不同的观测延迟。… 注入 0.4–2 ms 的均匀分布延迟。你们是 6:6 双 CAN 分总线，这个问题一模一样”
Experience.md § 执行器 + 时序建模 (line 6) Verify changes in the run's resolved config (and checkpoint md5), never in the source you edited
resolved-config-is-source-of-truthAttribution and single-variable claims must be made on the resolved per-run config (and checkpoint hashes), not on source diffs; verify every intended variable landed before burning compute, and verify every rollback byte-level against the historical resolved config.
Symptom
An intended arm-B config change never reached the training run - the run was grid-identical (117/117 cells) to its C2 predecessor - and the burn was only understood afterwards.
Context
The repo's discipline hardened around the logged resolved config (logs/<run>/params/env.yaml) as the only source of truth: (1) the C2 root-cause analysis was performed against the checkpoint's logged env.yaml, not the code ("以真相源 23-19-25/params/env.yaml 核实"); (2) C4 added a pre-flight: grep the landed env.yaml for the new keys, and compare the first checkpoints of the two arms - identical md5 means the variable did not land, stop immediately; (3) the C4 full rollback was accepted only after starting a 1-iter run and byte-comparing its resolved env.yaml against the historical 700-era file (identical except 4 dormant schema fields, each verified to be at its no-op default).
Change
Standing pre-flight and post-change verification: dump/diff the resolved config that the run actually consumed; use checkpoint hash equality as a cheap "variable landed" detector between arms.
Outcome
Caught the not-landed variable class of failure; made the rollback provably equivalent to the historical training state rather than believed-equivalent.
Mechanism
Between edited source and the running experiment sit layered overrides, env-var switches, and registration logic; only the resolved, serialized config reflects their composition. Diffing at that level tests the actual experiment; diffing source tests intent.
Applies when
- launching an A/B pair or any single-variable rung
- rolling back to a historical training state
- a run behaves as if a change was never applied
“开训前先验落盘 cfg（上一轮臂B 的改动没进 run，与 C2 逐格 117/117 相同）：grep -E "base_com|joint_friction|push_robot|track_lin_vel_y_exp" logs/<run>/params/env.yaml 另：两臂第一个 checkpoint 的 md5 若相同 = 变量没进去，立刻停。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3d. ⚠️ 开训前先验落盘 cfg / 3l. 回退清单（验证） 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) action_rate weight is the sim2real bandwidth knob - re-tune it whenever a rate limiter is removed
action-rate-weight-vs-bandwidthSet action_rate weight relative to real actuator bandwidth, and re-tune it any time another smoothing/limiting element (filter, slew limiter, gain) changes - reward weights are load-bearing parts of the actuator model.
Symptom
With a low action_rate_l2 weight the policy learns fast actions; the unmodeled part of the actuator response is then excited hardest, and sim2real "直接崩" (collapses outright). With too high a weight, actions become so slow the robot cannot maintain balance.
Context
The reference developer called action_rate_l2 the single most important reward for transfer, with side-by-side video evidence that the high-penalty, slower policy is clearly better on hardware. Lucen context: the team had just removed the SOFT_SPD=1.0 velocity limiter, which had been an implicit actuator-bandwidth constraint - leaving action_rate as the only remaining constraint on action speed.
Change
Decision recorded: after removing SOFT_SPD, re-evaluate the action_rate weight rather than keep the old value, since its effective role changed from "additional smoother" to "sole bandwidth constraint".
Outcome
Logged as a priority follow-up ("重新评估 action_rate 权重 - 拆掉 SOFT_SPD 之后这一项的作用变了"); the failure mode it guards against is training high-frequency actions the real actuators cannot track.
Mechanism
Slower actions stay inside the frequency band where the ideal-PD sim actuator and the real actuator agree; fast actions probe the band where unmodeled delay, inductance, and bandwidth limits dominate, so model error is amplified in exact proportion to action speed. Any removed external rate limit transfers that constraint's entire job onto the action_rate penalty.
Conflicts
The low/high tradeoff evidence is the external developer's report (with video); the Lucen-side entry is a pre-registered risk and decision, not yet an on-robot A/B at the time of writing.
Applies when
- removing or adding an action filter, slew limiter, or low-level speed cap
- real robot shows high-frequency chatter or overheating absent in sim
- tuning smoothness rewards before a hardware deployment
“权重低 → 动作快 → 执行器模型不准的部分被放大，sim2real 直接崩 / 权重高 → 动作慢 → 好迁移，但可能慢到无法维持平衡 … 我们刚拆掉 SOFT_SPD=1.0 的限速器，等于把执行器带宽约束整个移除了。action_rate 惩罚现在是唯一还在约束动作速率的东西，需要重新评估权重”
Experience.md § action_rate_l2 是他认为最关键的 reward (lines 61-70) FK-verify a borrowed reference's structure, then size its amplitude by the reference's job - it pins phase, the policy adds lift
reference-structure-fk-amplitude-divisionWhen borrowing a reference trajectory: verify its structural claim against your own kinematics (an invariant like flat-foot), assign it the phase-pinning job, and size amplitude low enough that the policy contributes the lift - moving toward a proven foreign value in halves, not jumps.
Symptom
walk_v4 had big knee swing (40-46 deg) but only 18-24 mm foot lift - amplitude without hip/knee/ankle phase coordination; later, walk_v5's real-robot swing ballooned to 73.6 deg (sim 55.7) with violent footfalls - amplitude over-driven by the reference.
Context
Structure first: Humanoid-Gym's 1:2:1 hip:knee:ankle reference was verified on the local model before adoption - the ratio exactly satisfies the locally derived flat-foot constraint hip - knee + ankle = 0, FK-tested at multiple amplitudes with sole pitch 0.00 deg throughout. Amplitude second, and here the first reasoning failed honestly: FK said shorter legs need LARGER reference scale (0.30 for 30 mm lift), and the FK was correct - but the premise was wrong ("FK 没错, 但前提错了"): it assumed foot lift must come from the reference. HighTorque Pi, same scale, uses 0.08 with a 0.02 m foot-height target - proof that lift is added by the policy ON TOP of the reference, whose actual job is pinning the phase relationship. Scale 0.30 made the reference the entire gait: over-constrained and over-driven. The correction went to 0.15, deliberately not Pi's 0.08: "一次只走一半, 留退路" (walk half the distance, keep a retreat).
Change
target_joint_pos_scale 0.30 -> 0.15 as one of v6-minimal's three changes, treating both the footfall force and the lateral kicking (yaw momentum scales with leg swing amplitude).
Outcome
v6 improved landing force 1.72x -> 1.55x, suspended tilt 45.9 -> 23.0 deg, turn-gain asymmetry 70% -> 19%; the later v6-halved-shaping experiment (35 mm -> 4 mm collapse) confirmed the reference still carries the gait's existence on this machine - the division of labor is real but machine-specific.
Mechanism
A joint-space reference plays two separable roles: encoding structure (phase relations that keep the foot flat) and injecting amplitude (energy). Structure transfers across robots and is checkable by FK against an invariant; amplitude is a negotiation with the policy, and over-assigning it to the reference removes the policy's freedom to modulate lift with state.
Applies when
- importing a reference gait / imitation target from another codebase
- reference amplitude reasoning based on leg length alone
- real swing amplitude far exceeds sim's under a strong reference
“FK 没错, 但前提错了。我默认抬脚必须由参考轨迹产生。HighTorque Pi 同尺度机器人 … 用 0.08, 而它 target_feet_height = 0.02 m —— 说明抬脚是策略在参考之上加出来的, 参考只负责钉住髋/膝/踝的相位配合。我们取 0.30 等于让参考本身就是整个步态, 过约束 + 过驱动”
train/WALK_V6_MINIMAL.md § ① target_joint_pos_scale 0.30 → 0.15 After installing the measured plant, re-run all generations paired on old and new plant - identity metrics carry verdicts, physics metrics re-baseline
plant-swap-invariants-vs-shiftsTreat every plant upgrade as an era boundary: re-run the retained policy set paired (same seeds/flags) on both plants, carry forward only verdicts whose metrics proved plant-invariant, re-baseline the rest - and mine the systematic shifts as measurements of the old plant's biases.
Symptom
With the plant finally fully measured (weighed masses 9.792 kg, bench-identified armature, in-situ friction), no historical sim number was comparable to new runs - "历史 sim 数字跨纪元不可比" - and it was unknown which historical verdicts still held.
Context
The era-2c cross-test ran all seven walk generations on the complete plant under one harness (14/14 survived), then re-ran the same 14 configurations on the OLD plant retrieved from git, same flags and seeds, with a self-check (one historical record reproduced digit-for-digit). The split was clean. Policy-identity metrics moved essentially zero across the plant swap - dominant frequency (v7's period-doubling 1.20 -> 1.20), knee amplitude (9.9 -> 10.0), foot distance (+/-2 mm), saturation (100 -> 100, 0 -> 0) - so all seven cross-generation verdicts (freeze signature, saturation-line closure, knee-collapse location, slip-penalty accounting, N2 lineage, v6's balance, v11's triad) were re-confirmed on the honest plant. Plant-physics metrics shifted systematically with ordering preserved: slip down 10-25% (measured friction makes ground-twisting costlier), landing vertical velocity down 15-50% ("旧 plant 高估落地 凶度"第二次独立证实), landing force mixed (mass up 2.2% vs friction braking the swing - two effects fighting). Exactly ONE behavior-level change: v8's low-speed period-doubling vanished (1.30 -> 2.50, lift normalizing) - confirming it had been machine-dependent bifurcation-edge behavior that armature+friction push off the knife edge, while v7's period-doubling stood untouched: saturation-freeze-driven, a policy property, not a numerical accident.
Change
Era re-baselining protocol: after any plant upgrade, one paired same-seed sweep of all retained generations on old and new plant; verdicts keyed to identity metrics carry over, thresholds re-read against the new-plant table, and the differences themselves become plant-physics findings.
Outcome
Seven verdicts survived with evidence rather than assumption; two causes of the period-doubling family were separated with plant-side proof; and the sim's landing-violence overestimate was independently confirmed a second time.
Mechanism
A policy's structural properties (frequencies, amplitudes, frozen joints) are functions of its weights and survive plant changes; contact-mediated quantities are joint properties of policy and plant and shift when the plant becomes honest. Pairing seeds across plants isolates the plant's contribution exactly, so the sweep both validates history and measures what the old plant had been lying about.
Applies when
- installing measured masses/armature/friction into the sim
- historical thresholds are cited across a plant change
- a hardware-only behavior might be bifurcation-edge sensitivity
“策略身份指标逐位不动:主频(v7 1.20→1.20)、膝摆 … 这些是策略属性,plant 换代携带无损,历史定论因此全部成立。… 唯一行为级变化:v8@0.15 的倍周期消失(主频 1.30→2.50…)——印证当时"分岔边缘、机器相关"的判定:armature+摩擦把 v8 推离刀锋;v7 的倍周期纹丝不动(1.20→1.20),它是饱和冻结驱动的深层属性,不是数值巧合。”
train/README.md § 纪元 2c 全代同机横测 (2026-08-04): 完全体 plant 上历史结论全部存活 The deploy-side walk/recovery switch - into recovery at tilt > 65 deg held 0.3 s, back at tilt < 15 deg with angular rate < 1 rad/s and straight knees held 1 s, a 15 s timeout, last action cleared both ways - and the handoff steps the design required are only partly implemented
walk-recovery-fsm-handoffSpecify a deploy-time controller switch as hysteretic, time-filtered predicates the robot can measure (proxy what it cannot, e.g. straight knees for height), a timeout that ends in a safe stop, and a complete handoff (history, clock, last action, command ramp) - then test that the code performs every handoff step, because the design document is not the implementation.
Symptom
With a recovery policy and a locomotion policy as separate networks, the robot needs a switch: when is it "fallen", when is it "up", and what state must be reset so the next policy does not act on the previous one's history.
Context
The 08-09 design: enter recovery when fallen (tilt > 55 deg or height < 0.60 x 0.384 m) for 150 ms, leave for a stand-hold when upright (tilt < 12 deg, height > 0.85 x 0.384 m, feet steady, |omega| < 0.8) for 400 ms - wide entry, strict exit, hysteresis - then a mandatory handoff trio before walking resumes (reset the walking policy's observation history, restart its phase clock at 0, clear its previous action and latency buffer) and a command ramp instead of a jump. The 08-14 implementation in deploy_policy (--recovery-policy): each policy under its own manifest contract (walk: nominal + scale; recovery: beta-anchored), the same rl_default gains, the tilt cutoff disabled; RECOVERY at tilt > 65 deg for 0.3 s; LOCO again at tilt < 15 deg and |omega| < 1 and knees straight (< 0.35 rad) for 1 s - the robot's computer has no height estimate, and straight knees stand in for height so a V3.0-style upright kneel cannot pass as standing; RECOVERY longer than 15 s ends in a safe stop; last_action cleared on both switches; command forced to 0 during RECOVERY; power scaling applies to LOCO only.
Change
An open account was written down with it: the recovery end state (0.355 m stance, hip yaw -/+27 deg) is outside the walking policy's training start distribution, so the first test must use stand / zero command as LOCO, and the long-term fix is to widen the walking policy's initial states rather than bend recovery's stance to suit walking.
Outcome
The spec records only a successful compile (py_compile); the hang test was left to be done on site. The operator runbook carries the three-step procedure (hang with stand as LOCO, mat and push, then omni walk as LOCO) but no outcome.
Mechanism
Two policies trained separately each assume their own history, clock and last action; a switch that carries any of them across feeds the next policy a state it never saw - the design called this "the walking policy seeing a ghost history".
Conflicts
The 08-09 design requires resetting history, clock and previous action plus a command ramp; the 08-14 implementation records last_action clearing and a zero command during recovery; the one-leg spec of 2026-09-14 lists the handoff hygiene as specified but not implemented - reset_history() is called by nothing (a 215-dim policy would carry four frames of pre-fall history), the phase clock is not zeroed, and there is no command ramp back to LOCO. No hardware run of the FSM is recorded in either source.
Applies when
- switching between separately trained policies on hardware
- a policy with history or phase observations is re-enabled mid-run
- the robot lacks a sensor the switching criterion was designed around
“**判据**:进 RECOVERY = 倾角 >65°(`--fall-tilt-deg`)持续 0.3 s;回 LOCO = §5 真机可测子集:倾角 <15° ∧ |ω|<1 ∧ **膝直 <0.35 rad(NX 无高度观测, 高度门用膝直代理 —— 防 V3.0 型"跪坐但直立"误判)** 持续 1 s (`--recover-hold`);RECOVERY 单次 >15 s(`--recovery-max-time`)安全停。 … **切换卫生**:两向切换 last_action 清零;RECOVERY 态 cmd 强制 0”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §50 FSM 双策略调度(2026-08-14,用户令):deploy_policy --recovery-policy 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 The smoke watcher panicked at the wrong operating point and its score goes blind when gates saturate - treat it as a survival sentinel, not a judge
smoke-watcher-operating-pointConfigure every automated evaluator at the lineage's declared deployment operating point, give it graded metrics that cannot saturate, and until then scope its authority to catastrophe-detection - never let a mis-configured watcher stop or rank a rung on its own.
Symptom
Two watcher misfires in one ladder: (1) during the friction rung the watcher (evaluating at kd 1.0) reported panic-level 1/3 survival from iter 3300 - falsified by the official kd 1.2 scan, because the lineage's design operating point was kd 1.2 and the watcher lacked the --kd-scale passthrough; (2) during the PD rung the watcher's early-stop score froze at iter 1050 despite ongoing drift improvements, because with all eight gates passing (constant 0/3 failures) the score has no gradient left - "八门全过恒 0/3 时 score 对漂移改善盲, s1f 课文三现".
Context
Both are the same category: the in-training smoke loop is an instrument with its own configuration (operating point, score design), and its verdicts are only as aligned as that configuration. The booked doctrine: "冒烟只当存活哨兵" - until the watcher evaluates at the deployment operating point with graded metrics, its role is detecting catastrophes, not ranking checkpoints; ranking belongs to the full battery at the design operating point (and the watcher's scoring was separately patched to weight survival 3x so recoveries during hard phases are not early-stopped away).
Change
Watcher debt booked (--kd-scale passthrough); score saturation acknowledged with graded columns planned; selection authority kept with 20-seed batteries at the declared operating point.
Outcome
A false panic did not abort a rung that was actually passing at its design point; a frozen score did not hide real drift gains; the instrument's authority was scoped to what its configuration can actually see.
Mechanism
An evaluator is itself configured (gain profile, delay, metrics); evaluating a policy away from its design operating point measures a counterfactual robot, and bounded scores saturate once binary gates pass, losing all sensitivity. Instruments need the same operating-point discipline as deployments and graded outputs to retain gradient.
Applies when
- an automated smoke loop contradicts the official battery
- early-stop scores freeze while graded metrics still improve
- lineages with non-default deployment gain/delay profiles
“watcher (kd1.0 口径) 3300 起 1/3 恐慌被 kd1.2 正式扫描证伪为考纲外假象 —— 工作点评测口径教训: watch_ckpt 缺 --kd-scale 透传 (待补), 冒烟只当存活哨兵。… watcher score 饱和误停 @1050(八门全过恒 0/3 时 score 对漂移改善盲, s1f 课文三现)”
train/README.md § omni_s2e_fric (watcher 恐慌被证伪) / omni_s2e_pd (500 臂) A stand gate judged by survival passes a robot that wanders a meter - judge posture instead
stand-gate-posture-not-survivalFor every gate, ask what behavior the metric is a proxy for and validate its ordering against real observations; replace metrics whose ordering disagrees with reality, and demote them explicitly rather than silently.
Symptom
Real robot "standing" drifted 0.5-1.4 m across the floor while the sim stand gate scored a clean 20/20 - because the gate's metric was episode survival, which wandering does not violate.
Context
C2's stand condition was originally written as "survival regression <=2/20". A real-robot counter-example on 2026-08-08 forced the re-judgment: wandering robots survive. Cross-checking candidate sim metrics against real-robot feel showed max-tilt median ordering agreed with hands-on ranking, while displacement ordering was actually OPPOSITE to real impressions - so displacement was demoted to a reference quantity, not a gate.
Change
Stand PASS criterion rewritten from survival to posture: "stand tilt max median <= root baseline +1.5 deg"; displacement kept only as reference. Applied to all subsequent rungs (C4 and redo levels inherit it).
Outcome
Later rungs gated stand on tilt (e.g. C4 product: 7.7 deg vs parent 7.1 deg, +0.6 deg PASS); the wandering failure mode became visible to the battery instead of hidden by survival.
Mechanism
A gate metric is a proxy for an intended behavior; survival is a proxy for "did not fall", not "stood still". Metric choice must be validated against ground truth (real-robot feel/measurement), and a proxy whose ordering disagrees with reality on real data is worse than no metric - it steers selection backwards.
Applies when
- writing PASS conditions for stand/idle/hold behaviors
- a gate passes policies that visibly misbehave on hardware
- choosing between candidate metrics for an acceptance battery
“stand 必须用位姿判，不能用存活判（2026-08-08 真机反证改判）：站着乱走 0.5~1.4 m 时存活照样 20/20 —— C2 的 stand 条件原写「存活退化 ≤2/20」，选错了指标。改为: stand 倾角 max 中位 ≤ 根基线 +1.5°（倾角与真机手感排序一致；位移排序与真机相反，降为参考量）”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3b. PASS 条件 ⚠️ stand 必须用位姿判 A 10 s acceptance episode left 6-7 s of standing to observe - a narrow stance held for that window and split on hardware; a gate cannot see instability slower than its own horizon
episode-length-bounds-what-a-gate-seesSize the standing phase of an acceptance episode, and its disturbances and floor friction, to what deployment will impose; a pass on a short static window certifies only that window.
Symptom
v2_6 passed every simulation gate (success 99.6%, re-falls 0-1%) and then, on the real robot, stood up and slid into the splits several times; prone starts stood and then fell backwards.
Context
Acceptance ran 10 s episodes; a ~1-2 s get-up left roughly 6-7 s of static standing on a nominal floor with no disturbance. The narrow stance's lateral margin and the straight-knee stance's lack of any flex buffer are both failure modes that need time, disturbance or lower friction to show.
Change
The gap was booked as a known blind spot of the gate ("long-duration standing stability") alongside the task-space stance criterion; later rungs added MuJoCo friction sweeps at mu 0.4 to every checkpoint scan.
Outcome
The spec through §50 records the blind spot but no longer standing window or disturbance row in the recovery acceptance itself.
Mechanism
An acceptance episode observes only the dynamics that unfold within its horizon under its conditions; slow drifts and disturbance-triggered failures are outside it by construction.
Applies when
- a policy passes sim gates and fails on hardware after a delay
- acceptance episodes are short relative to deployment use
- stability is judged without pushes or friction variation
“**sim 门为什么没逮住**:10 s episode 起身后只站 ~6-7 s,静态窗口内窄站距 撑得住;真机站立时长/扰动谱在门口径之外 —— 长时站立稳定性记为口径缺口。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §43 判读:sim 门为什么没逮住 Drop the frozen policy into chosen configurations - a squat 2.7 cm lower than the stuck pose stood 52% of the time, the stuck W-sit 0%, and the interpolation between them showed a wall, not a slope
configuration-probe-wall-not-slopeWhen a policy is stuck, probe the frozen policy from a grid of hand-placed start configurations, including interpolations between the stuck state and a nearby state it escapes from; one read-only experiment separates height, torque, sampling and configuration and tells you whether to prevent entry or train the exit.
Symptom
After R0.3 the policy stood from 62% of starts and never from the W-sit it fell into; height, torque, missing samples and reward were all plausible suspects.
Context
A read-only probe placed the R0.3 policy directly into specified configurations. Squats (hip, knee, ankle) = (-.65,-1.3,-.65) stood 100%, (-1.0,-2.0,-1.0) 89.8%, (-1.2,-2.4,-1.2) at 0.176 m 52.3%; the measured W-sit at 0.203 m 0.0%; the account-(3) hand-over state (146 deg tilt) 34.4%; linear interpolations from the W-sit toward the squat at 25/50/75% stood 0.0/0.0/3.1%. The squat family's quasi-static torque is 16% of the limits, and the W-sit was visited ~9 s per episode in training. FK showed the squat family (-a,-2a,-a) keeps the torso vertical, the feet flat and the COM over the feet all the way from 0.146 m to 0.384 m.
Change
Height, torque and sampling were eliminated in one experiment; the next rungs targeted entering the W-sit (foot placement) instead of escaping it, and seeding the dead point itself was ruled out because it was already visited every episode.
Outcome
Pure configuration: the W-sit (hips externally rotated +/-47 deg, knees folded 110 deg, shins flat, feet beside the body) is a different place from the sagittal squat (feet flat under the COM). The policy's standing skill was bound to a narrow sagittal family, and the wall was confirmed by the interpolation. The foot-placement rungs that followed took prone from 0/159 to 158/159.
Mechanism
A learned skill covers the neighbourhood of the states it succeeded from; a start state outside that neighbourhood fails regardless of height or torque, and an interpolation that stays at zero until close to a working state shows the boundary is sharp.
Applies when
- a policy stalls in a specific posture and several causes are plausible
- deciding between reverse-curriculum seeding and entry-prevention shaping
- a feasibility account says a path exists but the policy does not take it
“**决定性对比:比死点矮 2.7 cm 的蹲姿站立 52.3%,死点 0.0%。** 所以不是高度、 不是力矩(蹲姿族准静态力矩膝 1.96/12、踝 1.24/17,只占 16%)、也不是训练采样 (死点每局被访问 ~9 s)。**是纯位形问题** … 插值实验进一步显示这**不是坡是墙** —— 走到 75% 仍只有 3.1%”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §15 死点位形实验(只读探针,同一个 R0.3 策略放进指定位形) Removing a foot-spacing wall passed every simulated gate and made the feet collide on the real robot - nothing priced stance width in the two-foot phase, the policy narrowed to the simulator's self-collision floor, and real calibration offsets closed the last millimetres; the wall came back with a gate
removed-wall-returns-on-hardwareWhen a constraint is removed, name what will govern that quantity instead and add a gate for it; never let a simulator's collision floor be the margin, and when a gate is exceeded by a hair, record the exact numbers and hand the release decision to a person instead of quietly passing it.
Symptom
On the first real-robot try of oneleg_v0 (2026-09-16) the two feet collided; the user also judged the folded foot not high enough.
Context
The V0 reward table had dropped the feet_lateral_distance wall because it seemed to conflict with the hip adduction single support needs. In the two-foot command bucket no remaining term governed stance width, so the policy drifted narrower until the simulator's self-collision stopped it; the sim acceptance had no foot-spacing gate, so 40/40 said nothing about it. On the robot, calibration offsets consumed the margin.
Change
V0.1: the wall restored (-10, minimum 0.16 m), re-checked against measured numbers (a swing-phase lateral spacing of ~148 mm costs 0.12 per step, acceptable); fold weight 0.8 -> 2.0; a ninth gate: minimum foot spacing >= 100 mm and zero leg-contact frames. The removal was kept on record.
Outcome
oneleg_v0_1 (V0r2 model_2200) passed 39/40 with the spacing gate 40/40. The single miss (a 15.4 deg tilt transient against a < 15 deg limit during a side switch, steady 6.9 deg, everything else green) was recorded with its numbers and released for the user to overrule.
Mechanism
An unpriced degree of freedom drifts to wherever the simulator stops it; if that stop is the simulator's own collision model, the policy's margin on hardware is whatever the calibration error leaves.
Applies when
- dropping a reward term that looked redundant or conflicting
- hardware shows a failure no simulated gate measures
- a release candidate misses one gate row by a small amount
“V0 撤墙被真机证伪（2026-09-16）：双脚桶没有任何项管站宽，策略贴 sim 自碰撞底线收窄，真机标定偏差一吃**双脚相碰**。 … min ≥ 100 mm 且腿碰 0 帧（eval_straight 同判据）—— … V0 真机双脚相碰暴露 sim 门未看脚距的缺口 … L s2 标称 tilt 瞬态 15.4°（门限 <15, 超 0.4°, 稳态 6.9°, 该跑其余全绿）——换侧瞬态蹭线, 判定放行留档, 用户可否决。”
git:Lucen V2@origin/oneleg-line:train/ONELEG_V0_SPEC.md § §4 feet_lateral_distance 行 / §6 验收门 ⑨ / §8 核查单 7 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 IMU observation age cut 52-68 ms to ~4 ms by moving AHRS onto the MCU - as a single variable
imu-age-move-fusion-downstreamAudit observation age end-to-end and move time-critical fusion as close to the sensor as possible - and when you fix a latency, change only that one variable so the gain is attributable.
Symptom
IMU-derived observations reaching the policy were 52-68 ms old because attitude fusion ran in Python on the loaded host computer - stale attitude is a direct feedback-loop delay the policy was not trained with.
Context
The fix was scoped deliberately narrowly: move the AHRS computation from Python to the STM32 H7 (MC02). CAN topology explicitly unchanged, so the change is a clean single variable.
Change
AHRS fusion relocated Python -> H7. Before/after - IMU age: 52-68 ms -> ~4 ms; CAN timing: unchanged; Python load: high -> ~0.
Outcome
IMU age reduced by an order of magnitude with no confound; host CPU headroom recovered ("把计算单元搬在stm32上, 这样imu有剩余").
Mechanism
Sensor age is pipeline latency, not sensor quality: fusing on the MCU next to the sensor removes host scheduling jitter and interpreter overhead from the critical path. Keeping the bus topology fixed makes the improvement attributable to the relocation alone.
Applies when
- measured sensor-to-policy age far exceeds sensor sample period
- attitude fusion or filtering runs on a loaded host CPU in an interpreted runtime
- planning infrastructure changes during a sim2real campaign
“AHRS 搬到 H7——这个不改 CAN 拓扑，只是把一段计算从 Python 挪到 MC02，单变量：IMU age 52–68 ms → ~4 ms / CAN 时序 不变 / Python 负载 高 → ≈0”
Experience.md § AHRS 搬到 H7 (lines 28-35) A single-signal contact detector lied in both directions - foot height flagged 40% false flight on a walking gait, contact force alone flagged false flight during low-friction slip - so flight became force < 5 N AND sole height > 5 mm
contact-detector-single-signal-liesDefine contact and flight events from two independent signals (force and geometry) in conjunction, validate the detector on a behaviour known not to contain the event before using it as a gate, and match the trainer's threshold when comparing across simulators.
Symptom
The run line needed a flight-fraction gate. The first MuJoCo version, "sole higher than 2 mm", measured 40% flight on a walking policy that never flies. Five weeks later the one-leg gate, using contact force alone, reported support-foot "flight" segments at mu 0.4 for a policy that was not hopping.
Context
During a walking step the toe lifts or the heel strikes with the foot pitched, so the ankle-roll origin rises a few mm while part of the sole still touches - height alone calls that flight. Switching to contact force < 5 N (the same threshold Isaac's contact reward uses) zeroed the false flight on walking. In the one-leg re-test every force-only "flight" segment had a measured sole height of 0.0 mm: the normal force chattered while slip corrections played out on low friction.
Change
Run line: flight = contact force < 5 N ("lift-off must be judged by contact force"). One-leg line (2026-09-16): flight = force < 5 N AND sole height > 5 mm, recorded as the same measurement lesson in the opposite direction; the gate's behavioural meaning was unchanged.
Outcome
With force-based detection the walking policy read 0.0 flight and the run policy's zero flight was confirmed by two plants; with the conjunctive definition the one-leg support-foot gate stopped reporting false hops.
Mechanism
Each signal has its own failure: geometry moves without leaving the ground (foot pitch), and forces drop without leaving the ground (slip chatter); requiring both removes both families of false positives.
Applies when
- writing a flight, lift-off, hop or slip detector for a gate
- a gate reports an event the video does not show
- reusing a detector on a different gait or floor friction
“首版用**足底高度>2mm** 判离地, 在 omni_s1e 走路策略上测出 40% 假腾空 … 改用**接触力 <5N**(与 Isaac feet_contact_number 同源阈值)后 空检归零 (walk 策略 flight_frac 0.0)。**课文: 离地判定必须用接触力, 高度判 会把脚的俯仰当腾空**”
train/README.md § run R1 立项 (2026-08-09): Mac 侧新工具 + 一次空检抓获 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 hardware run without its log is an anecdote - the first real get-up's policy, gain profile and log were never recorded, two CSVs stayed "to be reported", and runbook commands wrote different policies' logs under one copied filename
hardware-log-is-the-attribution-inputMake the log part of the run: name it from the policy and conditions automatically (never by hand-copied filenames), record the policy digest and gain profile inside it, include what the open questions need (torque, joint positions and targets), and treat a session without a collected log as incomplete.
Symptom
The recovery line's oldest open question - whether Isaac or MuJoCo reads torque demand correctly - was waiting on real-robot logs that never arrived, and the verdicts that did arrive could not be tied to files.
Context
deploy_policy writes a CSV per run (--log); the runbook's own analysis snippet reads its joint-position, target and action columns (q_, tgt_, act_), and the recovery hanging checklist asks for torque and joint logs for the whole run, to be compared with simulation. The first real get-up (08-09): policy, gain profile and log "to be recorded later". The first real A/B (08-11): v2_5b's result and both policies' CSVs "to be reported". In the runbook's walking commands, three runs of two different c4 policies log to real_s1e_pw08_teleop_0808.csv, and s1e and s2e_fric runs log to real_c2_700_pw08_teleop_0808.csv - filenames copied from other commands.
Change
None recorded; the spec kept listing the open-loop comparison as waiting for real logs.
Outcome
No real-robot log appears in the recovery spec through §50, so the simulator disagreement stayed unresolved and hardware verdicts stayed unattached to data.
Mechanism
Attribution needs the run's identity (policy digest, profile, conditions) and its signals in one artifact; a filename copied from another command mislabels the file, and a log not collected at the session is rarely collected later.
Applies when
- planning a hardware session whose result should settle a sim question
- log filenames are typed or pasted by hand
- hardware feedback arrives as prose without files
“python tools/deploy_policy.py --policy train/policies/omni_c4_ff800_pj.onnx … --log train/real_logs/real_s1e_pw08_teleop_0808.csv … q,t,a=d[:,c("q_")],d[:,c("tgt_")],d[:,c("act_")]”
RL系统/FOLLOW THIS copy 2.md § Walk 遥控 / S2 / csv 分析片段 (operator runbook, undated) Real-robot trials of a new skill were staged by risk - a hanging dry run with the robot posed by hand, then one short try per category on a mat with the hardest last, then the composed behaviour (switch + walking) last - with the user present and a log every time
staged-hang-mat-floor-for-get-upStage a new skill's hardware trials by risk - hanging dry run posed by hand, one short try on a mat per start category with the hardest last, the composed behaviour last - with an operator ready to cut enable and a log for every try; relax a safety ban only for short, attended runs and say so in writing.
Symptom
A get-up policy acts violently near the ground by design, and the first unstaged real run of the line was stopped as dangerous.
Context
The hanging checklist written with the first stamped recovery product (v2_5, 2026-08-11), to be ticked item by item with the user present: both machines on the same commit and firmware torque limits checked; the robot hung from a single point about 0.1 m off the ground; a dry run with the robot posed by hand into supine and prone to watch that the target stream is gentle (the beta contract keeps targets within +/-0.25 rad of the measured pose, so enabling causes no homing fling); the first floor try is supine only, on a mat, once, with torque and joint logs; categories are added one at a time, prone last; any kicking or oscillation cuts enable immediately. For the switch (08-14) the runbook orders: hang with the standing policy as the locomotion side, then on a mat push the robot over and let it recover, and only last swap in the walking policy. An exemption was also written: edge-standing policies stay banned from long or unattended runs, but a short single A/B with the user present, hung or on a mat, is allowed. The one-leg line reused the same order (hang, then floor with a spotter, 60 s segments with a temperature check).
Change
Real trials as a checklist of stages, each gated on the previous one, with the composed behaviour last.
Outcome
The line's first real get-up (v2_6, 08-11) came through this protocol and was reported "fairly stable"; no further hardware outcomes of the switch are recorded in the spec.
Mechanism
Each stage exposes one new risk (commanded targets without contact, a single category with contact, harder categories, then the interaction of two policies), so a failure is attributable and cheap.
Applies when
- first hardware trial of a recovery, jumping or other high-impact skill
- switching between two policies on hardware for the first time
- a policy with a known posture defect needs a comparison run
“吊挂空跑: 手动摆到 supine/prone 姿态, 看目标流是否温和 (β 帽 7.5 N·m, 目标永远贴着当前 q ±0.25 rad —— 使能瞬间无归位甩动, 这是 β 契约附带保证) … 落地首试: supine 一类, 垫子, 单次; τ/q --log 全程记录 … 逐类别扩展 (prone 最后), 每类先单次”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §40 吊挂执行单(真机首试;需用户在场,逐项打勾) A 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) Symmetrizing the config made the gait MORE asymmetric - the asymmetry lived in the policy weights
asymmetry-in-weights-not-configLocalize a persistent asymmetry by intervening at the config layer first: if the symptom survives (or worsens), it is in the weights - fix it with symmetry-constrained training, not with trims or offsets.
Symptom
walk_v1 on hardware: straight-line command curved 149 deg in 15 s (9.9 deg/s) with 3.06 m lateral runout; turn gain +31% one way vs +129% the other (75% difference); knee asymmetry 4.4 deg in sim, 9.6 deg on the robot.
Context
The obvious suspect was the asymmetric default pose in the config. The decisive test: symmetrize standing_pose and run the SAME policy in sim - the asymmetry got LARGER (hip_pitch 6.8 -> 9.3 deg). Root cause therefore not in the config but baked into the policy weights: PPO without a symmetry constraint commonly converges one-sided, because splitting the work 50/50 and loading one side yield the same return, and the gradient falls randomly into one of the equivalent optima.
Change
Fix redirected from config trimming to retraining with mirror data augmentation (walk_v2 spec) - a weights-level fix for a weights-level disease.
Outcome
With augmentation (and the symmetric-default precondition), stand_v1 reached 0.0 deg asymmetry on all six joint pairs (from 4.4-7.7 deg), height fluctuation 7 mm -> 1 mm, mean |action| down 33%.
Mechanism
Reward-equivalent solution families (who carries the load) leave the symmetric solution unpreferred; SGD picks an arbitrary member and entrenches it. Config changes move the coordinate frame around the entrenched asymmetric function - they cannot move the function. The counterfactual test (change config, watch symptom) localizes the layer the disease lives in.
Applies when
- a robot veers or loads one side despite a symmetric-looking config
- deciding between config trims and retraining for an asymmetry
- mirrored-turn gains differ by tens of percent
“根因不在配置里:把 standing_pose 对称化后在 sim 里跑同一策略,不对称反而变大(hip_pitch 6.8°→9.3°)—— 说明不对称烙在策略权重里。这是无对称约束的 PPO 的常见收敛结果(左右各担一半与一边多担的回报相同,梯度会随机落进其中一个)。”
train/RETRAIN_v2.md § 1. 为什么是对称增强(证据) 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 Measure yaw rate by integrating heading, not by averaging body-frame angular velocity - the two differed 15x
heading-integral-not-body-rateFor any secular rate (turn gain, drift), integrate the world-frame angle over the window; never average instantaneous body-frame rates during oscillatory motion - and when code comments warn about a measurement, believe them before re-measuring.
Symptom
Two measurements of the same turn gain disagreed by a factor of ~15: time-averaged body-frame omega_z gave -0.05 while the sim2sim harness's heading-angle integration gave +0.473.
Context
The harness code comment had already documented and predicted the failure: during gait the torso oscillates (body-frame omega_z std up to 0.7); projecting world angular velocity onto a swaying body axis and then averaging biases the estimate systematically - "实测体系均值 −0.04 而实际在以 +0.15 转" (measured body-frame mean -0.04 while actually turning at +0.15). The author's own -0.05 measurement was declared void and the training machine's 1.58/2.45 turn gains confirmed valid.
Change
Measurement doctrine fixed: yaw rate for evaluation = net heading change by integration over the window; instantaneous body-frame rates are unusable for averaged directional statistics during legged gait.
Outcome
Subsequent friction sweeps and turn-gain accounting were all conducted in the heading-integral currency, making cross-simulator comparisons (MuJoCo vs Isaac 1.04/1.02) meaningful.
Mechanism
Averaging a vector quantity expressed in an oscillating frame couples the frame's oscillation into the mean (a rectification bias); the heading integral is computed in the world frame where the gait oscillation integrates to ~zero, leaving the secular component.
Applies when
- measuring turn gain, heading drift, or any secular angular rate
- a body-frame-averaged statistic disagrees with trajectory-level truth
- writing evaluation code for oscillating platforms
“我用体坐标系 ωz 的时间均值测,得 −0.05;sim2sim 用航向角积分,得 +0.473。差 15 倍。… 步态中躯干摇晃(体系 ωz std 可达 0.7),把世界角速度投到摇摆的体轴上再取均值会系统性偏掉 … 结论:偏航率必须用航向积分,体系瞬时角速度取均值不可用。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § ③ 转向增益 —— 我的测法是错的,训练机的 1.58/2.45 成立 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） When a contract default changes, old policies must run under a pinned legacy profile - a silent clock swap is out-of-distribution on hardware
legacy-profile-pinningTreat every trained policy as bound to the contract values of its training era: version the deployment profiles, pin old policies to their era's profile in every command, and never let a changed default silently apply to an old artifact.
Symptom
The walk profile's gait clock moved from 0.40 s to 0.50 s for new training, but versions v5-v9 were all trained at 0.40 s - running them under the updated default would silently feed a 25% slower phase clock to policies that never saw one.
Context
The re-test runbook hard-codes --policy-profile legacy_walk_040 into every command for the old versions, with the warning not to omit the flag: the mismatch is invisible (no error, no crash) but puts the policy out of distribution on hardware, where the same file had already documented that off-clock operation collapses gait quality.
Change
Deployment profiles versioned per training era; historical policies permanently associated with their era's profile; runbooks write the profile flag explicitly rather than relying on defaults.
Outcome
Old policies stayed runnable and comparable after the contract moved on; the silent-mismatch failure mode was closed by convention.
Mechanism
Changing a shared default rebinds every old artifact to a contract it was not trained under; unlike a schema break, a value change produces no error - only degraded, unexplainable behavior. Version-pinned profiles make the binding explicit and permanent.
Applies when
- changing any default in the deployment contract (clock, scales, gains) while old policies remain in use
- writing runbooks that mix policy generations
- a re-tested old policy behaves worse than its era's records
“2026-08-02 起 walk profile 的时钟改为 0.50(WALK_V10_SPEC §3)。v5~v9 全是 0.40 训的,本文件所有命令已改带 --policy-profile legacy_walk_040 ——不要省掉这个 flag,否则是拿慢 25% 的相位时钟静默喂旧策略(分布外,真机危险)。”
train/REAL_SWEEP_V5_V8.md § 1. 预检 ⚠️ 时钟改为 0.50 Two machines, one configuration - every gain, offset and torque limit changes only in robot.yaml, whoever edits pushes at once, both checkouts show the same commit before the robot moves, and a pulled policy file is size-checked and synced before power-off
two-machine-config-disciplineTreat the robot's configuration as a versioned artifact with one source of truth, push every change immediately, verify identical commits on every machine before a hardware session, keep hardware limits in the repo and the firmware in sync in both directions, and verify transferred model files (size, digest) before running them.
Symptom
The robot's onboard computer runs the bridge and deploy scripts from its own checkout while training and analysis happen on other machines; a hot fix left on one side, or a half-written file, silently makes the robot run something other than what was evaluated.
Context
The operator runbook's "wall version" of the two-machine discipline: configuration changes only in robot.yaml (calibration offset/sign, gains, torque limits), committed and pushed from the Mac, pulled on the robot, bridge restarted; code is not edited on the robot, and if it is, it is committed and pushed on the spot - nothing unpushed overnight; 30 seconds before every real-robot session both checkouts must show a clean status and the same last commit hash; changing tau_max requires writing the motor's limit_torque too (and the reverse); re-zeroed motors require re-measuring offsets. The recovery line added: after pulling on the robot, check the ONNX is not zero bytes (a lesson from a corruption incident on 08-12) and sync before cutting power; the recovery and main lines are separate worktrees, each pulled with --ff-only.
Change
Operating rules, pinned on the wall and repeated in the hanging checklists ("git pull, both machines on the same commit").
Outcome
The sources record the rules and the incident that produced the size check; they do not record a count of sessions the rules caught.
Mechanism
A policy is evaluated against one configuration; any divergence between the machines, or a truncated file, turns a hardware result into a result about an unknown configuration.
Applies when
- a robot's onboard computer and a workstation both hold the configuration
- someone hot-fixes code or gains on the robot
- model files are copied or pulled to the robot before a session
“改配置只改 robot.yaml(标定 offset/sign、增益、限扭全在里面)→ Mac git commit + push → NX git pull → 重启桥。 … 谁改完谁立刻推,永远不留未推送的改动过夜。 … 每次上真机前 30 秒检查:两边 git status 干净、git log -1 哈希一致。 … 铁律不变:改 tau_max 必须同步写电机 limit_torque(反之亦然);电机重新标零后 offset 必须重测回填 yaml。”
RL系统/FOLLOW THIS copy 2.md § ② 双机维护纪律(贴墙版) Every acceptance run records video of the very rollout that produced the numbers - the seated basin, edge-standing feet, tangled legs and the narrow stance were all seen on video before, or instead of, a metric catching them
video-as-acceptance-recordMake video a default output of every acceptance run, rendered from the same rollout the metrics come from (fixed views including the feet), and watch it - posture failures are visible before any gate row exists for them; never let video replace or override the numeric gate.
Symptom
Posture failures in the recovery line kept arriving as things the numbers had no row for: a kneeling W-sit, feet standing on their outer edges, crossed legs, a stance too narrow to hold on hardware.
Context
From 2026-08-09 (user decision) accept_recovery renders offscreen by default, following one env for the whole episode and archiving the clip. The MuJoCo gate's --video renders three views (side, front, feet) of the same rollout the metrics come from, with all plant modelling (delay, push); the older replay-based renderer produced an independent trajectory without delay and was not used for acceptance. Video never gates: if rendering breaks, --no-video keeps the numeric gate running.
Change
Video as a default acceptance artifact, named per policy, category and view, reviewed by the user.
Outcome
The R0.1 prone clip showed the same kneel-sit as R0; the R3.1 failure clip showed the crossed legs; the v2_5 feet view showed edge standing and led to V2.6; the v2_6 videos led the user to order a real-robot A/B between v2_5b and v2_6. Once, the recorder did not start (P1c final acceptance) and the visual material had to be produced separately.
Mechanism
Metrics exist only for failure modes someone anticipated; video shows the unanticipated ones, and rendering the metric rollout itself guarantees the picture and the numbers describe the same episode.
Applies when
- setting up an acceptance pipeline for posture-sensitive skills
- numbers pass but a human reviewer is uneasy
- sim videos are rendered by a separate replay tool
“**验收存视频(用户定 2026-08-09)**:`accept_recovery.py` 默认开 Isaac 离屏 渲染,跟拍一个 env 的整局并归档 … 跪坐这类盆地在数字表出现前肉眼先看见,视频是验收的 定性存档,数字门不受它影响”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §5 R0 验收门(预注册)验收存视频(用户定 2026-08-09) Add a single-point-suspension test to acceptance - the ground is a free stabilizer that hides divergence
suspension-probe-removes-free-stabilizerInclude at least one acceptance condition that strips the environment's free stabilization (suspension, or equivalent) - the sim-passing policy that fails on hardware is often failing a condition the battery never posed.
Symptom
walk_v5 looked healthy in every on-ground sim test yet diverged on the real robot - the acceptance battery had never measured a condition that would have revealed it.
Context
The battery gained a single-point-suspension probe (robot hung, feet free): measure torso tilt while the policy runs without ground contact. v5 scored 45.9 deg mean tilt suspended - wildly unstable - which the file calls "最灵敏的失稳探针(拿掉地面这个免费稳定器)": ground reaction forces passively stabilize a marginal policy, so on-ground metrics saturate long before the policy's internal balance is actually sound. v6 halved it (23.0 deg, target <10 deg) - progress visible on a scale where on-ground numbers showed nothing.
Change
Suspended-tilt added as a standing acceptance row; run under the honest contact parameters battery (accept_v2 with measured condim 4 / torsional friction 0.035), under which v5 correctly FAILS in agreement with the real robot.
Outcome
The sim battery's verdict on v5 flipped from pass to fail, matching hardware; suspended tilt became the discriminating metric between v5 and v6 (45.9 vs 23.0 deg) when ground metrics differed little.
Mechanism
Contact with the ground closes a stabilizing feedback loop the policy gets for free; removing it exposes the policy's own attitude control authority. A metric measured only in the assisted condition cannot rank policies by the unassisted quantity that hardware will actually demand during perturbations and flight phases.
Applies when
- sim acceptance passes but hardware diverges
- designing an acceptance battery for a legged robot
- two candidates tie on ground metrics
“单点吊那条是最灵敏的失稳探针(拿掉地面这个"免费稳定器"), v5 在地上一切正常却在真机发散, 就是因为验收从没测过这个工况。”
train/WALK_V6_MINIMAL.md § 5. 验收 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 The latency DR range must cover the measured deployment pipeline - 0-20 ms could not even reach the real 1-2 control steps
latency-dr-covers-measured-pipelineMeasure end-to-end action latency in control steps on your own stack (including cross-process queue boundaries), set the DR range to cover it with margin, and never import a delay count without its control frequency.
Symptom
Action latency was randomized over 0-20 ms (0-1 control step at 50 Hz), but the measured deployment path is 1-2 steps: the deploy process writes the target, an independently running BusWorker picks it up on its NEXT cycle, plus CAN round-trip - the training range could not cover the robot's actual latency at all.
Context
Fix: widen action_latency_s to 0-0.06 (0-3 steps). The external reference's "uniform 6 steps" was explicitly NOT copied - that number depends on his unknown control frequency; locally, a sweep at 0/1/2/3 steps showed walk_v5 survives all with insensitive metrics, so 6 steps "在我们这里没有依据" (has no local basis). The range was set from the measured pipeline with margin, not from a foreign constant.
Change
action_latency_s (0, 0.02) -> (0, 0.06), justified by pipeline analysis (writer/worker cycle boundary + bus time) and bounded by the local latency sweep.
Outcome
The DR band now brackets the true deployment latency; the policy trains against the delay it will actually face instead of a fictional sub-step world.
Mechanism
Latency DR only immunizes against delays inside its support; a range below the physical pipeline guarantees an untrained distribution shift at deployment. The correct range comes from tracing the pipeline's worst case (queueing boundaries + transport), and foreign step-counts are meaningless without the control rate they were measured at.
Applies when
- setting or auditing action-delay randomization
- deployment uses a separate bus/worker process from the policy loop
- importing delay-modeling numbers from other projects
“现行 0~20 ms = 0~1 个 50Hz 控制步, 而实测部署链路是 1~2 步(deploy 写 STATE.target 后, 独立跑的 BusWorker 下一轮才取走下发, 再加 CAN 往返)——现在的区间覆盖不到真机的实际延迟。… 不照抄参考来源的"统一 6 步": 那取决于他的控制频率(未知), 而我们扫过 0/1/2/3 步 … 6 步在我们这里没有依据。”
train/WALK_V7_SPEC.md § ⑤ action_latency_s 0~0.02 → 0~0.06 Sort external training advice into adopt / already-have / modify / would-trap by recomputing it on your own config
external-advice-audit-against-own-arithmeticNever apply external tuning advice directly: recompute each claim on your own reward table and probe data, classify it adopt / have / modify / trap, and record why - and verify external citations actually exist.
Symptom
External AI/literature advice for the omni ladder arrived plausible-sounding but was written without knowledge of this robot's actual reward table, contract, and history; following it blindly would have broken single-variable discipline and, in one case, made sidewalk unlearnable.
Context
Before the C ladder, every external suggestion was audited: 3 adopted (ellipsoid command sampling; staged wz bands; command-switch acceptance), 3 already present (unified reward; frame history - the frozen 168-dim 5-frame window; per-100-iter acceptance), 2 modified (stand share kept at 20% to avoid a second variable; back share NOT raised because the probe showed backward works untrained 20/20@67%, so oversampling would only crowd out forward), and 1 flagged as a trap: "start vy very small (0.06-0.15)" - on THIS reward table vy was only an L2 tax, so ignoring a vy=0.06 command costs 0.4% of the vx tracking scale, 28-180x cheaper than ignoring forward, with quadratic shrinkage making small commands weaker still. A separate retrieval-reliability note: two search agents returned fabricated verbatim quotes from arXiv PDFs (2 papers, verified fake and discarded); only HTML/abstract/source-verifiable material was used.
Change
Advice classified only after recomputing each claim with local numbers; the "start small" trap was replaced by adding a gated lateral tracking term (the ladder's only true reward surgery) instead of shrinking the command.
Outcome
The adopted items (ellipsoid modes, staged wz, transition acceptance) entered the ladder; the trap was avoided; one external factual error (calling s1g the mainline start - it was falsified 0/20) was caught. Later, one initially-dismissed item (sigma=0.15 too narrow) turned out right for a different reason than claimed - see cycle-average-tracking-for-gait-quantities.
Mechanism
External advice encodes the advisor's reward table and robot, not yours; the transfer-validity test is whether the claim survives recomputation under your own arithmetic (reward margins, probe baselines, contract freeze). Items that survive become experiments; items that don't become documented traps.
Applies when
- incorporating LLM or literature advice into a training plan
- advice conflicts with locally measured baselines
- an external claim depends on reward-table details the advisor cannot know
“其建议 C4「先很小，vy = ±0.06~0.15」—— 在我们这张奖励表下会让侧走学不起来 … 忽略侧走比忽略前进便宜 28~180 倍，且指令越小激励越弱（平方缩放）—— "先很小"在稳定性上对、在梯度上正好把信号缩没了。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 1. 外部 AI 训练建议的评估（采纳 / 已有 / 要改 / 会踩坑）