Training Coach

Doctrine

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

1. doctrine-1Contract freeze and fingerprint discipline

   The policy I/O contract (observation layout, scales, history semantics, action pipeline) is frozen and fingerprinted; every exported policy is stamped and verified; contract changes ship as new versioned profiles that leave old artifacts bit-identical, and old policies run forever under their era's pinned profile.

   Case. The 215-dim omni contract was frozen with a three-machine digest; the one contract-level extension (lateral feed-forward) went in as a new `omni_ff` profile with the old profile provably untouched, and the contract checker caught two real wiring bugs before any training (`contract-freeze-and-checker`). A silently changed gait-clock default would have fed old policies a 25% slower clock - closed by pinned legacy profiles (`legacy-profile-pinning`). A stale derived USD forked plant mass 2.2% until an automated source-vs-derived instrument gated it (`derived-asset-staleness-check`). A gain profile is part of the closed loop a policy was trained in and belongs in its stamp; the recovery line's anchored authority was left out of its manifest and recorded as the gap not to repeat (`gain-profile-belongs-in-the-stamp`), and a second policy behind a deploy-side switch made the handoff state itself a contract (`recovery-two-policies-and-a-state-machine`, `walk-recovery-fsm-handoff`).

   Coach application. On any proposal touching obs/action semantics, defaults, or derived assets: demand the version/profile plan, the fingerprint update, and the checker extension in the same change; flag any old artifact that would run under new defaults.

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

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

   Capability differences between lineages are explained only by digging each lineage's *resolved* training configuration and eliminating columns; evaluation-side override knobs (kd-scale, power-scale, cycle-time) act on the plant for *every* policy and may serve as deployment mitigations but never as explanations.

   Case. Low-friction robustness across 8 lineages x 3840 cells was traced to kd DR *bandwidth* - every lineage had ground friction pinned to (1.0,1.0), so "trained friction" could not be the axis; the parameter axis and the plant axis were explicitly separated after the first attribution conflated them (`kd-bandwidth-mu-law-attribution`). "Weak turning" on hardware was a power-scale plant effect, not a training gap (`deploy-knob-attribution-before-retraining`); slowing the deploy clock was out-of-distribution, not a feature (`cycle-time-override-is-ood`). The ground truth for what a run trained under is the logged per-run config, not the source tree (`resolved-config-is-source-of-truth`).

   Coach application. Whenever asked "why is lineage A better", require the resolved-param table first; kill zero-variance columns; refuse explanations phrased in eval-knob terms; when a knob helps, label it deployment mitigation.

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

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

   Once a skill passes its gate, that gate converts into a standing regression constraint (budget <= 2/20 against the parent baseline) for all later training; gates currently failing are the only legitimate objectives of the next rung.

   Case. The C ladder ran one frozen 13-cell x 20-seed matrix at every rung with promotion = "new skill PASS and old skills within regression budget"; C1 was stopped and re-rooted precisely because it trained away the root's backward PASS (`fixed-acceptance-matrix-per-rung`, `preregistered-stop-criteria-per-rung`). The C4 product shipped only at 260/260 cells with zero regression.

   Coach application. Keep the ledger: every PASS adds a constraint row; propose rungs only against FAIL rows; treat any constraint violation as stop-and-attribute, never "the next rung might win it back".

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

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

   A rung changes one variable, where "one" is counted against the checkpoint's actual training state, not against the current config's diff; batching is allowed only when each change owns a disjoint symptom space with a pre-registered ablation order.

   Case. Two rungs failed identically because resuming s1e-500 under the evolved config silently added four plant variables the checkpoint had never seen ("单变量纪律不只看「我改了什么」,还要看「checkpoint 见过什么」" - `resume-state-dr-audit`). v8 legally batched four orthogonal fixes with a written ablation order (`orthogonal-batch-with-ablation-order`); v9 spent one run completing a 2x2 factorial so either outcome convicted a factor (`fill-the-missing-factorial-cell`); v10b's three-way ablation wrongfully convicted the clock and had to be retried fairly.

   Coach application. Before any resume: diff cfg against the checkpoint's logged training state. Before any batch: require the symptom-ownership map and ablation order in writing.

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

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

   Before a ladder or risky rung, write down the known risks, the interpretation of every plausible outcome, and hit-any-one stop criteria - frozen before training, tightened when priors say results should come fast.

   Case. The C ladder opened with three numbered risks including the exact falsification condition for its own root choice; A/B arms carried "预注册读法(事后不改)" tables; a level expected to fail was run anyway for its pre-registered diagnostic value (`preregister-risks-and-fork-readings`). Stop criteria caught C4-redo rungs at +200 instead of full caps (`preregistered-stop-criteria-per-rung`); hardware sessions pre-registered per-config expected signatures and the disagreement rule "不改结论改账" (`preregistered-real-expectations`, `feasibility-accounts-lock-design-point`).

   Coach application. Refuse to open a rung without the written risk/reading/ stop block; after results, read conclusions off the pre-registered table and flag any post-hoc reinterpretation.

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

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

   Every plant number carries measurement provenance: armature = N^2 x rotor inertia from no-load tests, friction split by rig and by API column, torque limits shaped by per-joint gait peaks, latency traced through the real pipeline, masses weighed - and DR bands are additive around the measured nominal, sized to the measured dispersion.

   Case. Guessed friction was 2.5x low and guessed damping 5x high (`friction-measured-not-guessed`); armature had been 0 with a 9:1 gearbox (81x reflected inertia, `armature-n2-rotor-inertia`); a uniform torque derating was "the wrong shape" vs measured peaks (`torque-limit-shape-by-measured-peaks`); the delay implementation itself was a wrong plant for a whole lineage (`latency-lerp-reverse-extrapolation`); the run design point was locked by three accounts including the tau_limit/kd speed ceiling (`feasibility-accounts-lock-design-point`); identified friction had to land in the right simulator API columns to act at all (`sim-api-friction-columns`). The recovery and one-leg lines opened with the same kind of accounts before any reward existed - a connected static path and the torque along it for an armless get-up, and the gains single support needs to be holdable at all (`get-up-feasibility-accounts-before-training`, `single-support-gain-authority-probe`).

   Coach application. For any plant value in a config review, ask "measured how?"; reject absolute ranges with no nominal; check API column mapping and derived-asset regeneration whenever measured values land.

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

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

   Every checkpoint passes a second, independently built simulator before hardware, and both the gate and the smoke loop run under the measured deployment conditions (real pipeline delay, honest contact parameters, the deployment gain/power profile).

   Case. The standing order "先sim2sim 再sim2real" (`sim2sim-gate-before-sim2real`); acceptance flipped to match hardware only under measured condim/torsional friction (`eval-plant-honesty-contact-params`); gates moved permanently to `--delay 2` after the kicking incident (`pipeline-latency-is-plant-not-dr`); and the harness itself must be audited - a frame-convention bug in the cross-sim evaluator invalidated a whole line of verdicts (`body-frame-velocity-api-audit`). The recovery line's second simulator caught a torque penalty paid for by bracing the legs together (`torque-penalty-bought-by-leg-bracing`), and a 1.8x torque disagreement between the two plants stayed binding because its one surviving explanation was never tested (`torque-disagreement-between-simulators-unresolved`).

   Coach application. Block any hardware request lacking a second-sim PASS at deployment conditions; when sim2sim and training-side metrics disagree, treat the evaluator as a suspect too.

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

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

   The actor observes only signals the real robot produces with realistic noise; privileged truths go to the critic; history windows are estimators and must train under plant variation; rewards on quantities the actor cannot observe buy only average suppression, never closed-loop correction.

   Case. Ground-truth velocity/forces went critic-only (`observation-honesty-critic-only`); frame_hist under zero DR memorized the trainer's plant fingerprint - 0/20 transfer (`history-obs-needs-plant-variation`); world-frame yaw rewards could not teach pull-back because heading is unobservable to the actor - correction was routed to the deploy outer loop instead of breaking the contract (`reward-observability-limit`, `deploy-heading-loop-and-align-training`).

   Coach application. Audit every actor-obs element for hardware existence; require minimal plant jitter whenever history/recurrence exists; for each reward, ask "can the actor see this error?" and route correction tasks to outer loops.

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

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

   Reward design decisions are made on realized per-step magnitudes under the actual policy and command distribution: price the do-nothing optimum before adding a mode, compare achieved values to the computed ignore-floor, calibrate thresholds between measured healthy and sick distributions, and ship every new penalty with a withdrawal clause.

   Case. feet_air_time at weight 2.0 realized 0.038 vs tracking 1.2 - drag was rational (`realized-contribution-audit`); ignoring a vy command cost 28-180x less than ignoring vx until a gated tracking term was added (`reward-cost-of-ignoring-audit`, `gate-new-reward-terms-by-command`); achieved-vs-floor separated "never learned" from "priced out" (`ignore-floor-diagnosis`); the foot-distance wall was placed between measured healthy (0.6% tax) and sick (55%) policies (`calibrate-threshold-between-healthy-and-sick`); the landing penalty carried a pre-registered stand-down condition and actually stood down (`calibration-threshold-with-withdrawal-clause`); two clearance terms were inert until zero-points and gate occupancy were checked (`inert-reward-term-audit`). A get-up policy sat because three gated terms paid the seated pose 84% of the return and the one term that could tell sitting from standing was an exp kernel reading 4.6e-5 at the real error (`seated-basin-dead-exp-kernel`); a torque-tail term was weighted by its measured steady value beside a peer term after the estimate proved 12x off (`tail-torque-needs-hinge-on-computed-demand`).

   Coach application. Never discuss weights in the abstract: demand the realized-contribution table, the ignore-floor number, and the healthy-pay calibration before any reward edit is approved.

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

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

    For every penalty, name what the zero-cost option is; penalize failure events (slip, saturation excess, contact in flight windows), never the motion or joints that healthy behavior uses; make degenerate strategies fatal via termination where penalties cannot price them out.

    Case. Joint-usage penalties for drift taxed a 1.4%-of-momentum channel 2.7/step and collapsed training; the slip penalty costs a non-slipping gait exactly zero (`penalize-the-slip-not-the-joint`). A frozen-at-clamp joint pays zero action-rate forever - only a pre-clip saturation penalty flips the cheat economics (`saturation-cheating-zero-rate-cost`). Ungated phase shaping made standing 42x more expensive than stepping and cooked the hip motors (`moving-gate-42x-stand-tax`); crouch-shuffling lived until a height termination deleted it (`termination-closes-degenerate-basin`). A gated penalty is an exit: the policy parked just outside an uprightness gate, then just under a height gate, to stop paying a stance tax, and only a positive band plus an always-on guard closed both (`penalty-gate-is-an-escape-hatch`); a soft-limit penalty that charged the standing pose itself bought a 4.1 deg lean (`soft-limit-penalty-charges-nominal-pose`); an unpriced foot attitude was spent on edge-standing (`unpriced-foot-attitude-is-a-free-variable`); and the one-leg line listed its cheapest cheats before training and still met one through a zero-gradient band (`enumerate-cheapest-cheats-before-training`, `binary-band-reward-fake-touchdown`).

    Coach application. Run the "零代价的选项是什么" audit on every proposed term; convert motion taxes into event-conditional penalties; check the termination set against each known degenerate strategy.

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

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

    A disputed measurement is adjudicated only by an independent algorithm from raw state; directional ability requires sign-antisymmetry under command reversal; bimodal metrics are reported as mode shares (never medians, never 3 seeds); ratios are not comparable when totals change; reward values compare only within one command distribution; single chaotic events never cross machines.

    Case. The triple reversal - a good metric was "refuted" by a sibling metric that shared the disease (`independent-referee-for-metric-disputes`, `body-frame-velocity-api-audit`); same-signed +/- responses were bias, not turning (`same-sign-response-is-yaw-bias`); the swing median sat in a bimodal gap (`median-hides-bimodal-distribution`); "v6 is jitterier" died on absolute energies (`ratio-metrics-need-absolute-check`); yaw gain measured 15x wrong in an oscillating frame (`heading-integral-not-body-rate`); a 44% improvement evaporated under same-distribution comparison (`same-distribution-reward-comparison`); drift direction was a limit cycle (`multiseed-sign-test-for-drift`); a cross-machine push cliff was chaos (`single-impulse-recovery-is-chaotic`).

    Coach application. Before accepting any surprising number: ask for the independent recomputation, the sign pair, the distribution shape, and the comparison conditions. Retract in writing when a metric falls.

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

12. doctrine-12The deployment pipeline is plant

    Irreducible pipeline properties - action latency, rate limits, power/torque scaling, teleop command mappings - are part of the nominal plant, modeled from day one and reproduced in every gate; deploy-side scalings are crutches that flag unmodeled plant, and they cannot be algebraically folded into training constants.

    Case. Right-leg kicking was over-trained-delay x loop gain; power 0.8 was a gain-reduction crutch that retired when the delay was modeled (`pipeline-latency-is-plant-not-dr`); power derating damages non-forward axes first (`power-scale-hurts-nonforward-axes`); training at 0.4 scale as the "twin" of deploying 0.5 x 0.8 collapsed 0/20 (`deploy-scaling-not-training-equivalent`); one shared teleop speed sent an out-of-band lateral command and the robot clipped its own foot (`teleop-command-band-per-axis`); the latency DR range had not even covered the measured pipeline (`latency-dr-covers-measured-pipeline`). A rate limiter added at deployment only clipped a policy that kept commanding (`deploy-rate-limiter-windup`); moved into training and anchored on the last command it became an integrator in the balance loop (`slew-anchor-is-an-integrator`); anchored on the measured angle it bounded torque and kept the bandwidth (`beta-anchored-action-target`). The walking lines' safe setting, power-scale 0.8, cut the ends of the recovery policy's full-range travel and left its spikes alone; a gain inside the trained band did the job (`power-derating-cuts-full-range-contract`).

    Coach application. Demand the measured pipeline latency/limits in the plant model and in gate conditions; treat every deploy-side derating as a question ("what is this compensating?"); block per-axis command sources that exceed training bands.

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

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

    Robustness is a conserved budget: disturbance training on an already-hardened lineage borrows from existing margins; DR ranges span the measured deployment support - no fictitious tails (they buy degenerate gaits), no single constants (they allow thin-margin specialization); harden the plant only after the task distribution is final.

    Case. The same push dose helped a narrow lineage and damaged a balanced one - budget conservation (`push-dr-conditional-budget-conservation`); wide latency tails bought drag-glide, constant values shipped 60% thinner tilt margins - the answer is a narrow band on the measured support (`dr-tail-plant-continuation`, `constant-value-dr-overfits-margin`); task-first ordering because hardening a soon-to-change task wastes budget (`task-shaping-before-plant-hardening`); COM randomization used deliberately as a behavior-shaping tool, and rolled back on symptom per its own contract (`com-randomization-forces-leg-spread`, `com-dr-rollback-on-symptom`). DR that is switched on can still be thin: the run policy fell in the frontal plane its gain-and-latency randomization never touched (`thin-dr-judged-by-channel-coverage`), and a friction priority settled under one action contract had to be re-measured under the next (`friction-priority-re-measured-after-plant-change`).

    Coach application. Before any DR rung: check the untrained policy against the spec, the lineage's current DR load, and the measured real-world range; after it: audit retained margins, not just the new tolerance.

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

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

    Acceptance batteries carry posture-class rows (tilt max median, per-joint L/R asymmetry, temperature) beside task rows, graded margin columns beside binary gates, chirality scored per side, at least one condition that removes the environment's free stabilization, and validated predictive scalars promoted into the gate.

    Case. Three same-shaped judging errors - survival, displacement, wz-difference - all missed what the operator felt; posture metrics had the predictive power (`task-metrics-vs-posture-metrics`, `stand-gate-posture-not-survival`); binary survival saturated and hid a 60% margin gap (`constant-value-dr-overfits-margin`); v5 passed everything on the ground and failed suspended (`suspension-probe-removes-free-stabilizer`); the hip_roll (l+r) scalar predicted real drift direction and ordering and entered the battery (`hip-roll-sum-predicts-lateral-drift`); averages hide chirality (`chirality-scored-separately`); gait-quality gates are judged at speeds that demand a gait (`low-speed-commands-reward-dragging`). The recovery line added the rest of the kit: where failed episodes end, not only where they started (`end-state-confusion-matrix`); a frozen acceptance distribution with a pinned seed (`frozen-acceptance-distribution-and-pinned-seed`); video of the metric rollout itself (`video-as-acceptance-record`); and the admission that a 10 s episode cannot see a stance that fails after a minute (`episode-length-bounds-what-a-gate-sees`). The one-leg line removed a foot-spacing wall that no gate measured, and the feet met on hardware (`removed-wall-returns-on-hardware`).

    Coach application. Review every battery for posture rows, margin columns, per-side scoring, and an assist-stripped condition; when operator feel and gates disagree, suspect the metric class first.

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

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

    Choose fork roots by which candidate's deficits the coming training can pay back (precision is recoverable; lost plasticity, symmetry, and margins are not); prefer mature checkpoints as roots even when younger ones score better as products; never fine-tune through a reward change - continuation is legal only with the reward frozen and plant/DR widening one rung at a time.

    Case. s1e-500 beat higher-precision candidates because its exclusive strengths were unrecoverable (`fork-root-recoverable-shortfall`); the b300 arm proved maturity is capital against adaptation shock (`root-maturity-vs-product-quality`); the B-arm scatter/half-recover/collapse signature falsified reward-change fine-tuning and drew the legal boundary for S2 continuation (`fine-tune-reward-change-falsified`).

    Coach application. For root debates, build the exclusive-strengths table and ask "which side can be trained back?"; require dual-arm evidence for maturity claims; classify any proposed continuation as reward-frozen or not before approving.

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

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

    Automatic curricula must prove they engage (a saturated ratchet is constant DR wearing a curriculum's name); every ramp counts lineage-cumulative progress, not per-process steps; penalties aimed at late-stage pathologies ramp in after exploration noise decays; difficulty rises on measured per-stratum success, never on schedule.

    Case. The s1f ratchet capped at iter 248 and never engaged (`auto-curriculum-engagement-check`); the saturation ramp re-fired at +600 after every resume and no shipped product ever saw the penalty (`curriculum-counter-lineage-steps`); the same penalty worked once gated to the disease phase and became an untouchable mechanism (`gate-penalties-to-the-disease-phase`); record-high aggregate reward hid a fully-failing delay stratum (`aggregate-metrics-mask-subgroup-failure`); bucket share is not a gradient lever (`bucket-share-is-not-a-gradient-lever`). An assist curriculum keyed to a pooled success share was withdrawn on the strength of the categories that already worked (`curriculum-criterion-conditioned-on-lagging-category`); a pace set by per-step income moved only when that income was time-gated (`per-step-income-drives-speed-time-gate`), and the same gate had to be retired in a lineage without the disease (`time-gate-vs-wide-stance-retire-the-fix`).

    Coach application. Ask every curriculum three questions: does it engage (show the internal state)? what does it count (process or lineage)? when is it present (against the pathology's phase)? Check where shipped checkpoints sit relative to every ramp.

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

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

    After two failed training attempts at a skill, stop training: demonstrate the behavior open-loop, enumerate hypotheses in a written table audited against actual configs cheapest-first, race one probe per side of the sim2real boundary for hardware-only pathologies, and use suspended tests to acquit or convict actuators before blaming authority.

    Case. "在黑暗里试钥匙" - four sidewalk rungs failed until an open-loop probe separated exploration/waveform/authority in one experiment (`open-loop-probe-before-reward-tuning`); the foot-drag mystery fell to a seven-hypothesis config audit (`hypothesis-table-code-audit`); the period-doubling was resolved by racing a reward-side and a plant-side evidence line - and both paid off, one per sub-case (`period-doubling-evidence-race`); the suspended test acquitted the roll actuator in one measurement (`suspended-test-isolates-actuator-authority`). A read-only configuration probe told a wall from a slope in the recovery line's seated basin (`configuration-probe-wall-not-slope`), and the fix it pointed to - where the feet are - took prone from 0/159 to 158/159 (`prone-dead-end-is-foot-placement`); a knob that did not move its variable was recorded as no test of the idea (`dof-vel-penalty-is-not-a-pacing-knob`).

    Coach application. When a skill resists training, prescribe the probe before any further reward edits; require verified target trajectories before imitation terms; keep a falsified-fixes list so closed roads stay closed (`amplitude-cut-falsified-yaw-fix`).

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

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

    Every external suggestion is classified adopt / already-have / modify / trap by recomputing its claim on the local reward table and probe data; numeric values transfer only as dimensionless ratios (to tracking weight, leg length, sqrt(gL), control rate); citations are verified to exist.

    Case. "Start vy very small" would have destroyed sidewalk learning on this reward table - the gradient scales quadratically (`external-advice-audit-against-own-arithmetic`); swing-height targets and weights transferred correctly only through leg-length and tracking-ratio scaling (`transfer-ratios-not-absolutes`); the "6-step delay" was refused for lacking a control rate (`latency-dr-covers-measured-pipeline`); a borrowed reference's structure was FK-verified and its amplitude re-derived from the division of labor (`reference-structure-fk-amplitude-division`); retrieval agents fabricated verbatim arXiv quotes - only source-verifiable material was used; and one dismissed suggestion later proved right for a different mechanism, and was credited (`cycle-average-tracking-for-gait-quantities`). An advisor's staged state machine turned out to exist in none of the three papers it cited, and reading them changed the plan (`advisor-paraphrase-vs-paper`).

    Coach application. Intercept every "paper X does Y" with the local recomputation; convert absolutes to ratios before comparison; verify quotes; revisit dismissed advice when new mechanisms appear.

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

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

    Real-robot time executes a pre-registered matrix: risk-ordered (baseline first, fragile last with a spotter), stage-gated (suspended smoke before ground), A/B sessions bracketed by a repeated reference run, operators briefed on measured zero-command and untrained-axis behavior, chirality-aware disturbance protocols, no field tuning - the only legal field changes are scripted, single-variable, and self-reversing.

    Case. The S2 acceptance sheet (`risk-ordered-real-deployment`, `battery-bracketed-real-ab`, `know-zero-command-behavior`, `push-test-chirality-protocol`, `no-field-tuning-protocol`); the RAM-only torque experiment with automatic power-cycle rollback (`reversible-single-variable-field-experiments`); and the sim-veto rule - even sim's condemnations get one safeguarded hardware check when they judge the purpose-built configuration (`sim-veto-needs-real-confirmation`). The recovery line's first real run went ahead with its preconditions unmet and was stopped as dangerous (`first-real-get-up-violent-stage-one-policy`); after it: a staged hang, mat and floor protocol (`staged-hang-mat-floor-for-get-up`), a fixed power-cycle pre-flight and two-machine discipline (`power-cycle-preflight`, `two-machine-config-discipline`), a fall guard replaced rather than switched off (`fall-guard-becomes-a-state`), and logs that are part of the run (`hardware-log-is-the-attribution-input`).

    Coach application. Turn every hardware request into a runbook with order, gates, brackets, briefing, and anomaly plays; refuse improvised parameter changes on the floor.

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

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

    Audited questions get frozen verdicts with citable wording and an explicit reopening bar; hardware verdicts are dated by deployment-stack and calibration state and expire when those change; and when successive rungs shuffle symptoms without net progress, freeze the lineage as regression baselines, pay the structural debts, and retrain minimal - carrying laws and instruments, not weights.

    Case. The chirality and COM questions were closed with frozen wording and "no reopening without new hard evidence" (`frozen-verdicts-semantic-boundaries`); v5/v6's condemnations expired with the deploy stack (`stale-verdicts-under-old-stack`); a 2-degree calibration fix moved the whole runnable envelope (`zero-offset-calibration-shifts-envelope`); plant upgrades are era boundaries with paired re-baselining (`plant-swap-invariants-vs-shifts`); and the 2026-08-05 reset froze v5-v11, fixed the latency FIFO / manifest / sampling / reward-table debts, and restarted - producing the lineage that reached hardware SOTA (`freeze-lineage-fix-structure-restart`, `minimal-reward-table-with-provenance`). The recovery line's real-robot verdicts ended up in three places that disagree, one of them an undated note in a command file (`write-hardware-verdicts-back`).

    Coach application. Maintain the closed-questions ledger and quote it when symptoms recur; stamp verdicts with stack/calibration versions; when a team is three rungs into symptom-shuffling, raise the restart question explicitly with the freeze-fix-restart pattern.

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

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

    A goal, reward term or acceptance criterion about the feet, the base or the contact state is computed from the quantity itself - world poses, forces, per-category outcomes - never through a joint-angle, single-signal or pooled stand-in that assumes everything else sits at nominal; and every detector is validated on a behaviour known not to contain the event before it becomes a gate.

    Case. The recovery line was caught three times: |ankle roll| as "flat feet" sold stance width and the real robot slid into the splits, a hip-roll criterion was confounded by 50 deg of yaw, and the joint table said 0.271 m where the feet were 0.159 m apart; task-space terms produced the first flat, wide stance (`joint-space-proxy-for-task-space-quantity`). Flight detection lied in both directions across two lines - foot height flagged 40% false flight on a walking gait, contact force alone flagged slip chatter as hops (`contact-detector-single-signal-lies`). A pooled height average described a robot that did not exist - six in ten standing, four in ten sitting (`zero-partial-credit-is-not-an-iteration-problem`) - and the walking line had learned the same lesson on yaw rate (`heading-integral-not-body-rate`).

    Coach application. For every reward term and gate row, ask what physical quantity it stands for and whether it is measured directly; flag joint-space or single-signal stand-ins for task-space goals, ask for a detector validated on a negative control, and split pooled metrics by category before reading them.

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

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

    Continue a converged policy only on a change that creates a live gradient, on a short budget, with every checkpoint scanned on the transfer axis; choose a release by running the full battery over a band of checkpoints and stop on signals, never by taking the last one; and when edits to the terminal phase cannot move a behaviour, roll back and retrain with the constraint present from the start, keeping the order in which the lineage acquired its mechanisms as explicit curriculum phases.

    Case. A continuation with no new gradient drifted MuJoCo transfer from 100/98% to 80/28% while every Isaac gate stayed perfect, and a live-gradient continuation at the same depth kept it (`converged-continuation-is-poison`). One-leg checkpoints 100 iterations apart failed 1 and 38 of 40 cells, and late ones degraded (`checkpoint-choice-is-a-full-gate-scan`). Four in-lineage stance fixes failed because the stance was the end of the get-up path, and from scratch it grew right (`stance-decided-by-get-up-path`); fixes stacked on degraded states were rolled back by the user (`stop-stacking-roll-back-and-audit`); and the lineage's final recipe, trained from scratch in one run, sat at 0% because the order of its curriculum was part of the product (`curriculum-history-is-part-of-the-product`). The omni line's short adaptation budgets and mature roots are the same law seen from the other side (`continuation-budget-not-from-zero`, `root-maturity-vs-product-quality`).

    Coach application. Before approving a continuation, ask for the new gradient, the budget and the transfer axis in the scan; before approving a release, ask for the scan; after three rungs without progress on the target, propose rolling back to the last good checkpoint and a from-scratch phase plan instead of a fourth patch.

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

Experience cards

64 cards matching “advisor-paraphrase-vs-paper”.

• The advisor's "runtime five-stage state machine + per-stage reference poses + RL residual" appeared in none of the three papers it cited - reading the originals changed the plan and downgraded two widely repeated industry claimsadvisor-paraphrase-vs-paper

  Replicatedrecoveryprocessprocessattribution

  Read the primary source behind any piece of advice before adopting its architecture; record where the paraphrase and the original differ, downgrade claims the originals do not support to speculation, and adopt what the verified sources actually share.

  Symptom

  After the violent first real run, an advisor proposed re-architecting recovery as a runtime staged state machine with reference poses and an RL residual, citing HoST, HumanUP and StableMimic.

  Context

  The three papers were read in full on 2026-08-09 and tabulated (deployment form, what the "stages" really are, hard constraints, references). HoST: one end-to-end policy, height-gated rewards in training, action anchored as q + beta*a with a beta curriculum. HumanUP: two training stages with the same observation/action; the vendor's three-stage state machine is the baseline it beats (41.7% vs 78.3%); Stage II tracks an 8x slowed Stage I trajectory (4x too violent, 10x does not converge). StableMimic: a learned soft gate. On 08-10 more sources were checked the same way: the Agility page does not say Digit's self-righting was learned in simulation (only step recovery is stated as RL), so the claim was downgraded to speculation; HoST's support for the 12-DoF armless Mini Pi exists in its code repository, not in the paper text.

  Change

  Adopted only what the originals share: a hard action bound or anchored action space, strong smoothing including a second-difference term, a slowed hidden reference, heavy DR and real fallen states. The staged runtime state machine was not adopted.

  Outcome

  The next re-rooting candidates came straight from the verified material, and the beta-anchored action space (HoST, with the Mini Pi configuration as the nearest real-robot precedent) became V2, the lineage that later stood up on hardware.

  Mechanism

  A paraphrase compresses a paper into the advisor's own architecture; only the original shows what was actually deployed, what was a baseline, and which numbers came with which ablation.

  Applies when

  • an advisor, agent or summary proposes an architecture with citations
  • an industry claim ("X learned it in sim") is about to justify a design
  • several papers are cited for one combined recipe

  “⇒ **顾问的核心形态"runtime 五阶段状态机 + 每阶段参考姿态 + RL residual"在三篇引文 里均不存在**,其中 HumanUP 还点名 state machine 是局限。”

• Borrow reward values from other robots as ratios (to tracking weight, to leg length) - never as absolute numberstransfer-ratios-not-absolutes

  Mechanism understoodwalkreward-shapingreward-shapingprocess

  When importing any numeric from another robot's config or paper, identify its natural normalizer (tracking weight, leg length, sqrt(g*L), body mass) and transfer the dimensionless ratio; sanity-check against a same-scale robot when one exists.

  Symptom

  Published configs offered tempting absolute values (swing height target 0.06-0.08 m, weight -20) that would have been wrong for a robot with half the leg length and a different tracking weight.

  Context

  The cross-check normalized before transferring: G1's feet_swing_height weight -20 against tracking +1.0 is a 20x ratio, so with local tracking at 1.5 the equivalent is -30, not -20. G1's 0.06 m target on a ~0.70 m leg scales to ~28 mm on the local 0.325 m leg (Humanoid-Gym converts to ~23 mm), confirming the locally chosen 0.03 m and explicitly rejecting copying 0.05-0.08 absolutes. A same-class robot (Menlo's 16 kg) was used to sanity-check feet_air_time (+0.5 vs the local 2.0, flagged over-high). A nondimensional check of the same kind later validated the sidewalk speed target (v/sqrt(gL) = 0.081 vs hardware-verified 0.101 - 0.104 - inside the envelope, conservative).

  Change

  All borrowed values converted through ratios (weight/tracking-weight, height/leg-length, dimensionless speed) before entering the config.

  Outcome

  The scaled values worked (0.03 m target matched both the scaling law and measured 22-23 mm baseline); no cross-robot absolute was ever copied raw.

  Mechanism

  Reward economies are scale-relative (only ratios to the tracking term matter to the optimum) and kinematic quantities are morphology-relative (clearance scales with leg length, speed with sqrt(g*L)); absolutes encode the source robot's scale, ratios encode the design intent.

  Applies when

  • copying reward weights/targets from open-source configs or papers
  • setting clearance heights, speed targets, or impact thresholds
  • comparing your weights to published tables

  “G1 的 feet_swing_height 是 tracking 的 20 倍(−20 vs +1.0)。我们 tracking 是 1.5,按同比例应为 −30 … G1 目标 0.06 m / 腿长 ~0.70 m,换算到我们 0.325 m 腿长约 28 mm;Humanoid-Gym 换算约 23 mm。故 target 取 0.03 m 是对的 … 不必抄 0.05~0.08 的绝对值。”

• Sort external training advice into adopt / already-have / modify / would-trap by recomputing it on your own configexternal-advice-audit-against-own-arithmetic

  Replicatedomniprocessprocessattributionreward-shaping

  Never 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。”

• The best checkpoint to SHIP is not the best checkpoint to CONTINUE FROM - maturity is capital against adaptation shockroot-maturity-vs-product-quality

  Mechanism understoodomnifork-selectionfork-selectioncurriculumgate-battery

  Decide 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”

• When the eval proxy has a known systematic bias, gate on within-proxy differences, not absolutesrelative-metrics-survive-proxy-bias

  Mechanism understoodwalkgate-batterygate-batterysim2simattribution

  Where the evaluator is known-biased, design gates as within-evaluator contrasts (left vs right, A vs B, pre vs post) that cancel common-mode error; reserve absolute thresholds for quantities whose proxy calibration has been checked.

  Symptom

  MuJoCo systematically overestimated yaw turn gain (1.58/2.45 where Isaac measured 1.04/1.02), and friction alignment recovered only part of the gap (mu 1.0 -> 0.6 pulled it to 1.43/2.27) - so any absolute turn-gain acceptance threshold in MuJoCo would be judging the proxy's bias, not the policy.

  Context

  The acceptance criterion was rewritten to use only the left/right difference of the turn gain (standard: <20%): both directions pass through the same biased proxy, so the bias largely cancels in the difference while the policy's chirality - the thing being gated - survives. The absolute-gain row was dropped: "转向只判左右差,不判绝对值". A parallel task was still opened to align MuJoCo contact parameters to Isaac's (mu, restitution), since drift proved highly friction-sensitive (straight-line drift -65 deg at mu 1.0 vs +1 deg at mu 0.4) - bias reduction and bias-robust metrics proceeded together.

  Change

  Gate metric changed from absolute turn gain to left-right gain difference; proxy-alignment work scheduled separately rather than blocking acceptance.

  Outcome

  Turn acceptance became meaningful across proxy versions (v5 70% -> v6 19% difference measured the real improvement) while the absolute bias question was pursued without holding the ladder hostage.

  Mechanism

  A systematic multiplicative or additive proxy bias applies to both arms of a mirrored measurement; differencing (or ratioing) mirrored conditions cancels the common-mode bias to first order, leaving the asymmetry signal. Metrics built this way remain valid while the proxy is imperfect - which it always is somewhere.

  Applies when

  • a sim proxy disagrees with the trainer or hardware in absolute terms
  • writing acceptance thresholds for direction-paired skills
  • proxy calibration work would otherwise block a ladder

  “转向只判左右差,不判绝对值 —— MuJoCo 的偏航增益系统性高估(实测 1.58/2.45 vs Isaac 1.04/1.02),摩擦只能解释一部分(μ 1.0→0.6 仅拉到 1.43/2.27)。差值是相对量。”

• Three same-shaped judging errors - task metrics (survival, tracking, displacement) cannot stand in for posture metricstask-metrics-vs-posture-metrics

  Replicatedomnireal-acceptancereal-acceptancegate-batteryattribution

  Keep validated posture-class rows (tilt, per-joint L/R asymmetry, temperature) in every acceptance battery alongside task rows; when operator feel contradicts the gates, suspect the metric class before the operator - and never build a new skill on what is actually an asymmetry defect.

  Symptom

  The C2 product judged "full pass" on task metrics (A800: turn-gap 7 pp, vx+0.30 19/20) felt WORSE in the operator's hands than the half-pass 700: A800 tilted up to 12.90 deg (700: 6.64), drifted left while standing, showed larger per-joint asymmetries, and ran its hip_rolls 5 degC hotter.

  Context

  The re-judgment catalogued three same-type metric errors in one campaign: (1) stand judged by SURVIVAL - missed 0.5-1.4 m wandering; (2) stand ranked by DISPLACEMENT - ordering was opposite to real feel (tilt ordering matched); (3) chirality judged by wz-tracking GAP - measured turning symmetry while the robot's actual disease was postural left/right asymmetry, "两个不同的东西,且结论相反". Common pattern named: "我一直用「任务指标」当判据,而真机手感对应的是「姿态 指标」… 任务类指标不能替代它". The fix was already in the data: the per-joint left/right asymmetry table (printed identically by sim2sim and deploy) agreed with hardware in direction on every row - "判据可用、有预测力,我只是没把它写进 PASS 条件". Shipping decision followed the posture read: product reverted to 700 ("又一次「买到 精度、卖掉别的」"), and the C4 root moved to 700 as well, with the sharpest line of the episode: A800's left-drift "like sidewalking" is probably its frontal-plane asymmetry defect, not a capability - "在缺陷上建能力是危险的".

  Change

  Two posture quantities with demonstrated real-robot predictive power promoted into every PASS battery: tilt-max median and per-joint left/right asymmetry (both sim-computable, deploy-homologous); motor-temperature readout added to session close-out.

  Outcome

  Deployment flipped to the posture-better checkpoint; the hip_roll temperature table (43-48 degC vs 25-28) confirmed the earlier 90%-of-heat account; the run-line acceptance battery inherited the posture rows from birth ("任务类替代不了姿态类").

  Mechanism

  Task metrics measure goal attainment under the evaluator's episode definition; posture metrics measure the body state trajectory that operators, motors, and downstream skills actually experience. The two can rank candidates oppositely because task success tolerates postural pathology - so a battery without posture rows is blind to exactly what hardware feel reports first.

  Applies when

  • hardware feel disagrees with a green acceptance table
  • choosing between checkpoints that split task vs posture metrics
  • selecting the root for a skill that resembles an existing defect

  “共同模式:我一直用「任务指标」(存活 / 跟踪率 / 位移)当判据,而真机手感对应的是「姿态指标」(倾角、逐关节左右不对称)。→ 验收判据里必须有姿态类指标,任务类指标不能替代它。… A800 的「左飘像 side walk」很可能 … 是它更大的额平面不对称的表现 —— 在缺陷上建能力是危险的。”

• The standing-pose reward had been pulling toward the narrow stance the whole line was fighting - a zero-training kinematic audit of the target vector found it, after first auditing the wrong nominalpose-target-geometric-audit

  Mechanism understoodrecoveryattributionreward-shapingattributionplant-calibration

  Before training on a pose target, audit it with forward kinematics - is it geometrically consistent (feet flat, intended stance, intended width) and is it the frame you think it is (action nominal vs standing default)? A posture term's target may itself be the attractor you are fighting.

  Symptom

  Several rungs aimed at widening the stance failed; the stance stayed narrow as if something kept pulling it back.

  Context

  The audit (MuJoCo forward kinematics, no training): every 5 deg of hip roll widens the stance ~5.5 cm (0.271 m at 5 deg, 0.383 m at 15 deg); at 47 deg of hip yaw a wide stance cannot be flat-footed (residual foot tilt ~0.7 x hip roll), which explained the stalled rungs. The first report also said the stand_pose nominal (hip roll 25, knee 60) has a 63 deg residual foot tilt - but that was the action frame's nominal (the limit-midpoint squat), which stand_pose never used, despite a docstring warning not to mix them. stand_pose's real target was DEFAULT_JOINT_POS: the contract's all-zero pose, legs parallel, ~0.22 m apart.

  Change

  The disease statement was corrected in writing: the narrow stance was not an accidental by-product of proxy traps but the target stand_pose had been actively rewarding. A stored "narrow the stance" knife was marked toxic. V2.8 moved the target to a flat 15-deg stance (sigma 3 -> 1.5, flat_feet margin 5 -> 20 deg).

  Outcome

  V2.8 still failed in-lineage (stance unchanged, feet nearly overlapping, mu 0.4 transfer 2%) - see stance-decided-by-get-up-path - and the from-scratch V3.1 removed both roll joints from stand_pose and put width into a task-space term, which is what finally produced a 0.355 m flat stance. The 63 deg finding was kept as a warning: an action nominal used as a standing target would be a ready-made pit.

  Mechanism

  A posture term with a sharp kernel around the wrong target is an active attractor; every other term fighting it pays twice.

  Applies when

  • a posture keeps returning despite penalties against it
  • a reward uses a default or nominal pose as its target
  • the contract has more than one "nominal" (action frame vs standing pose)

  “上文"stand_pose 的 nominal (hip25/knee60) 残倾 63°"**审计错了对象**:那是 **动作参考系 nominal**(限位中点蹲),stand_pose 从未指向它(函数 docstring 原文即警告"两者别混",还是混了 —— 记档)。 … **修正后的病根陈述:窄站距不是代理陷阱的意外副产物,而是 stand_pose 一直在主动奖励的目标本身**”

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

  Mechanism understoodwalksim-evalmeasurementattributionreward-shaping

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

  Symptom

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

  Context

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

  Change

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

  Outcome

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

  Mechanism

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

  Applies when

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

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

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

  Observed oncewalkreal-deployhardwarereal-acceptanceprocessattribution

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

  Symptom

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

  Context

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

  Change

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

  Outcome

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

  Mechanism

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

  Applies when

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

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

• The fallen-state reset was designed, not sampled from SO(3) - fixed category shares with jitter, a low drop that settles physically, equal left/right shares for mirror augmentation, and a numeric check before trainingfallen-pose-reset-distribution

  Observed oncerecoverytraining-runcurriculumdomain-randomizationprocess

  Build a fallen-start distribution from named, physically plausible categories with jitter and a settle phase, keep mirrored categories at equal probability, and check the realized shares and penetration numerically before spending a training run on it.

  Symptom

  A get-up policy can only learn from the fallen states its resets produce; uniformly random orientations produce ground-penetrating and limit-jammed states the robot can never be in.

  Context

  R0 reset_root_fallen: supine 30%, prone 30%, side_l 15%, side_r 15%, mid (random axis 50-125 deg) 10%, +/-15 deg jitter, full yaw, dropped from 0.28-0.40 m and left to settle under physics, joints uniform inside the soft limits with a 5% margin plus small random velocities. Random SO(3) was rejected (the advisor agreed). side_l and side_r must have equal probability because mirror augmentation turns a left fall into a right fall. The advisor had proposed supine and prone only for R0; the spec included side and mid because the feasibility accounts showed physical solutions for all of them, and wrote "narrow back to supine+prone" down as the first fallback. With no display on the training box the reset was checked numerically instead of by eye.

  Change

  Category mix as above; realized shares, settle height and penetration measured over 512 envs before the first run. A fallen-state bank (real falls, settled and stored) was pre-registered for R2.

  Outcome

  Realized shares 29.3/31.6/16.4/17.8% against the config, settle +0.262 m, final penetration 0/512 (a 0.10 m peak at the write instant, ankle links only, pushed out within 80 ms because the 0.28 m drop floor is shorter than a fully extended leg). R0's failure was a reward basin, not a reset artifact. The fallen-state bank stayed unbuilt through V3.1 (checklist item open); R0.3 later re-sliced the prone share into roll_l/roll_r bands, which is what forced the acceptance distribution to be frozen separately.

  Mechanism

  A category-structured, physically settled start distribution keeps training on states the robot can actually occupy, and equal mirrored shares keep mirror augmentation a pure doubling of data rather than a bias.

  Applies when

  • designing reset distributions for get-up, recovery or multi-contact skills
  • mirror/symmetry augmentation is on and the task has chiral start states
  • no viewport is available to inspect resets on the training machine

  “角度 jitter ±15°、yaw 全域、0.28~0.40 m 低空放下由物理沉降,关节软限位内 均匀(留 5% 余量)+ 小随机速度。**不用 random SO(3)**(会采出穿地/极限卡死 等现实不可能状态,顾问同判) … side_l/side_r **概率必须相等**(镜像增强的样本同分布前提)”

• Two simulators disagreed 1.8x on one policy's torque demand - four explanations were eliminated with numbers, the surviving suspect was never tested, and neither reading was allowed to cancel the othertorque-disagreement-between-simulators-unresolved

  Hypothesisrecoverysim2sim-gatesim2simactuator-modelingattribution

  When two simulators disagree on a safety-relevant quantity, eliminate the measurement explanations one at a time with numbers, name the survivor as a hypothesis, keep the pessimistic reading binding, and run the direct test (replay one action sequence open-loop through both plants) before the quantity is used to pass a gate for hardware.

  Symptom

  For R3.0, Isaac read hip_pitch torque demand at 75-80% of the limit (PASS); MuJoCo read the same policy at 148-152% (1.5x over the limit).

  Context

  Candidates were eliminated one by one: PD gains (identical, RS06 kp 30 / kd 1.5), the settle window (both skip the first 0.5 s), the statistic (worse-of-two-legs vs per-joint - explains ~15%), self-collision (the no-contact subset still read 152%), sampling (500 Hz peak vs 50 Hz sample - ~9%). About 1.8x remained. The prime suspect - Isaac's implicit actuator (PD solved inside the PhysX integration, chosen to mimic kHz firmware PD) against MuJoCo's 500 Hz explicit PD - was named but untested.

  Change

  The Isaac PASS was recorded as valid for the Isaac plant only; the prescribed decider was an open-loop replay of one action sequence through both plants, compared step by step, needing no training. It was upgraded to a precondition of R3.1.

  Outcome

  R3.1 ran in parallel with, not after, the replay, and the replay never appears as done. By §40 it was "the oldest open account" on the line, to be fed by real-robot logs - which the spec also never records. Meanwhile the 50 Hz sample under-read the peak by 34% as smoothing narrowed the spikes, so Isaac-side readings grew more optimistic exactly when the comparison mattered more.

  Mechanism

  Each measurement artifact explained a slice of the gap; what remained is a plant difference, and an untested plant hypothesis cannot license discarding the pessimistic simulator on a safety-relevant quantity.

  Conflicts

  The spec prescribes the open-loop replay (§23), upgrades it to an R3.1 precondition, then records that R3.1 ran in parallel without it (§24), and lists it as the oldest open account before hardware (§40); nothing through §50 (2026-08-14) records a result. Every later "torque gate PASS" on this line is an Isaac-plant reading plus a MuJoCo check, never a reconciled one.

  Applies when

  • Isaac and MuJoCo (or sim and hardware) report different torques, contacts or slips
  • implicit vs explicit actuator models are in play
  • a gate passes on one simulator only

  “**同一个策略,一侧判 PASS 一侧判超限 1.5 倍。** … 口径项全部扣掉后仍剩 **~1.8×** 没有解释。 … 但**这条没有验证,不能拿它当结论去抵消 MuJoCo 的读数**。 … (做法:拿同一条 动作序列在两边开环回放,逐拍比 τ —— 不需要重训)”

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

  Mechanism understoodinfraplant-calibrationplant-calibrationprocesssim2sim

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

  Symptom

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

  Context

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

  Change

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

  Outcome

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

  Mechanism

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

  Applies when

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

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

• Curriculum-gate a penalty to the phase where its disease occurs - early on it only taxes explorationgate-penalties-to-the-disease-phase

  Replicatedwalkcurriculumcurriculumreward-shapingaction-rate

  For penalties aimed at late-stage pathologies (freezing, saturation, degenerate attractors), ramp the weight in only after exploration noise has decayed; anchor the terminal weight to measured healthy-vs-sick raw values, and shift all related tripwires to after the ramp completes.

  Symptom

  The action_saturation penalty, applied from iteration 0 in v8a, taxed exploration itself: with init_noise_std 1.2 the sampled actions paid ~-2.45/step before any policy had formed - while the disease it targets (clamp freezing) is a LATE pathology (v9 froze at iteration ~2624).

  Context

  v10 re-introduced the same penalty behind a curriculum gate: weight 0 until iter 1000, ramping linearly to -1.0 by iter 2000 - present only when the disease can occur, absent while exploration noise dominates. The trust argument was evidence, not hope: in v8a the term, while active, had pulled joint_pos_ref from 0.041 up to 0.155 and climbing - proof it can extract a policy from the frozen pit. Weight magnitudes were anchored to measured raw values (healthy v5 0.310 / v6 0.106 vs frozen v7 1.145 / v9 1.22 per step: at -1.0 healthy pays 6-18% of tracking, frozen pays 60%+, standing ~0). v10c then isolated the gated term as THE anti-freeze mechanism by single variable, upgraded to untouchable status in v11: "S 的门控机制(v10c 单变量铁案:任何情况下 不许撤,只许调终值)" - and v11 dared to relax other penalties only because S stood guard.

  Change

  action_saturation gated 0 -> -1.0 over iters 1000-2000 (later terminal value tuned -1.0 -> -0.5 with the gate mechanism itself frozen); tripwires adjusted to respect the gate's timing (freeze check moved to iter 2500-3000 to give the ramped term its effect window).

  Outcome

  Freezing stopped recurring while early training kept full exploration; the mechanism graduated from experiment to invariant within two versions.

  Mechanism

  A penalty's incidence depends on who occupies its support: early in training that is exploration noise (whose suppression starves learning), late it is the converged pathology. Time-gating aligns the penalty's presence with its target's presence, buying the constraint without the exploration tax - and tripwire timing must then be computed from the gate schedule, not from ungated precedents.

  Applies when

  • a structural penalty punishes exploration in early training
  • a late-onset pathology (freeze/saturation) needs a standing guard
  • deciding when a curriculum ramp should engage

  “v8a 实锤它的病根是"罚在采样动作上"——init_noise_std 1.2 的早期等于罚探索(~−2.45/步);而冻结是晚期病(v9 速率 2624 才死平)… 门控让它只在病发期在场。… v8a 里它在场时 joint_pos_ref 从 0.041 爬到 0.155 且仍在升——有从低谷爬出的实证。”

• After installing the measured plant, re-run all generations paired on old and new plant - identity metrics carry verdicts, physics metrics re-baselineplant-swap-invariants-vs-shifts

  Mechanism understoodwalksim2sim-gatesim2simplant-calibrationgate-batteryattribution

  Treat 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。”

• Set torque limits per joint from measured gait peaks - a uniform percentage is the wrong shape, and training must use the deployed numberstorque-limit-shape-by-measured-peaks

  Mechanism understoodwalkactuator-modelingactuator-modelinghardwareplant-calibration

  Measure 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。”

• Score left and right separately - averages hide chirality breaking that mirror augmentation does not preventchirality-scored-separately

  Replicatedomnigate-batterygate-batteryreal-acceptance

  Report every mirrored skill as two numbers with an explicit gap budget; never accept an average, and never assume augmentation guarantees symmetry - measure it per lineage and treat breakage as hard to reverse.

  Symptom

  Policies developed quantified left/right asymmetry (e.g. C2-700 turned right at 82% but left at 67% - a 15 pp gap; push tolerance 40/40 symmetric on the root vs 17/40 on a deep-trained descendant), and averaged metrics would have reported healthy midpoints.

  Context

  The repo had policy-level symmetry-breaking evidence strong enough to make separate scoring a battery rule: "左右必须分开打分 … 平均 vy 跟踪会把它掩盖". Notably, chirality broke and never recovered even though mirror augmentation (command-level mirror_prob 0.5) was on the whole time - augmentation reduced but did not prevent asymmetry, and once broken it stayed broken through subsequent rungs. PASS conditions therefore carried explicit symmetry budgets (left/right tracking gap <=10 pp), and sim's predicted asymmetry (700: right faster than left) was flagged for direct real-robot timing confirmation.

  Change

  Battery rule: every directional skill reports left and right (CW/CCW) as separate rows with a max-gap budget; mirror augmentation treated as mitigation, not proof of symmetry.

  Outcome

  The 700-vs-A800 asymmetry gap (15 pp vs 7 pp) became a first-class selection criterion; C4 product shipped with a measured 5 pp gap.

  Mechanism

  Averaging over mirrored conditions cancels antisymmetric error exactly where it matters; and symmetry lost during training is a lineage injury (like plasticity loss) that later rungs do not spontaneously heal, so it must be gated, not assumed.

  Applies when

  • evaluating turn/sidewalk/push-recovery or any mirrored skill
  • relying on mirror/symmetry augmentation
  • selecting between checkpoints with similar average scores

  “左右必须分开打分（left/right lateral、CW/CCW turn 各自一行）—— 本仓已有 policy-level symmetry breaking 的量化证据，平均 vy 跟踪会把它掩盖。”

• Narrowing the speed range to stop high-speed falls entrenched crouch-shuffling - judge gait quality at the speed that demands a gaitlow-speed-commands-reward-dragging

  Mechanism understoodwalkcurriculumcurriculumreward-shapinggate-battery

  Set command ranges to include speeds that physically demand the target behavior, and evaluate behavior-quality gates at those speeds; when a restriction is added to suppress a failure, check what new optimum it creates at the remaining commands.

  Symptom

  After the command range was narrowed to (0.15, 0.35) m/s (to treat walk_v1's 134% overspeed and 8.3 s fall at 0.5), the policy settled into crouched foot-dragging; tracking rose monotonically with speed (63% at cmd 0.2, 76% at 0.3, 87% at 0.45), showing low speeds were where the degenerate gait was optimal.

  Context

  The narrowing advice was the author's own and is retracted in the file: it treated the symptom (falls at speed) while reinforcing the root cause (at 0.15-0.35 m/s, shuffling in a crouch is globally optimal - the Froude number is so low that even humans would not lift their feet). A zero-cost experiment confirmed the flip side: at cmd 0.5 the same policy met BOTH tracking (81%) and clearance (23.0/23.2 mm) standards.

  Change

  Speed range widened back toward (0.15, 0.5) - upper bound deliberately slightly above the mechanically feasible ~0.44 m/s so the policy finds the boundary itself; acceptance re-pointed: gait-quality criteria (tracking, clearance) judged at 0.45-0.5 m/s, low speed kept only as a survival check.

  Outcome

  v4 -> v6 progression under the widened range delivered 87% tracking with 34 mm clearance; the "low command = drag" account was confirmed by the monotone tracking-vs-speed curve.

  Mechanism

  Command distribution is part of the reward: physics prices gaits per speed, and at very low speed the energetic optimum is no swing phase at all. Restricting training to that regime makes the degenerate gait the correct answer to the posed problem - and grading a gait at a speed that does not require stepping measures nothing.

  Applies when

  • a gait degenerates after a command-range restriction
  • quality metrics improve monotonically toward the range boundary
  • writing acceptance criteria for gait quality vs survival

  “现在看那个建议可能起了反作用:0.15~0.35 m/s 下蹲着蹭就是全局最优,抬腿反而亏。收窄治的是"高速摔倒"的症状,却强化了拖地的病根。… 验收标准里的 cmd 0.2 本身就是拖地速度(Froude 数极低,人在那个速度下也不抬脚)。accept_v2 应把速度跟踪与 clearance 的判定点改到 0.45~0.5 m/s”

• action_rate weight is the sim2real bandwidth knob - re-tune it whenever a rate limiter is removedaction-rate-weight-vs-bandwidth

  Observed oncewalkreward-shapingaction-ratereward-shapingactuator-modeling

  Set 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”

• Close a question with an audit, then freeze the wording - later symptoms may not reopen it without new hard evidencefrozen-verdicts-semantic-boundaries

  Mechanism understoodomniprocessprocessattributionplant-calibration

  When an audit closes a hardware-vs-policy question, record the closing evidence, freeze a citable wording for future recurrences, and set the reopening bar explicitly; separate robustness perturbations from plant-truth questions so a DR rung's failure can never silently reopen a closed measurement.

  Symptom

  Recurring directional bias on the robot kept re-suggesting "maybe the hardware/COM/mechanics are asymmetric", threatening to re-litigate questions that audits had already closed - burning attention each time a descendant policy leaned or drifted.

  Context

  Two boundary decisions were written as permanent: (1) semantic separation - "S2④ COM ±20mm = 纯鲁棒性扰动,不再承担「解释真机后仰」任务" - if the COM-DR rung degrades, the ONLY allowed conclusion is "policy insufficiently robust to COM uncertainty"; reopening "is the CAD COM wrong" is forbidden because the mass audit was completed and closed (@63f9212). (2) a frozen wording for chirality, to be quoted verbatim whenever left/right bias appears in later rungs: observed directional bias = policy-level spontaneous symmetry breaking; plant asymmetry = no supporting evidence after the mass + model symmetry audit; mitigation candidate pi_sym queued, not blocking. The evidential basis was quantitative: the root policy was perfectly symmetric under +/-6 N*s pushes (40/40) while descendants broke (17/40, 13/40) - "手性是 S2 训练中获得的, 根没有; 机械侧已双 PASS 关案, 不重开".

  Change

  Closed questions carry (a) the audit commit that closed them, (b) a frozen citable wording for recurrences, and (c) an explicit evidence bar for reopening ("无新硬证据不得重开").

  Outcome

  Later chirality observations (C2's 15 pp turn gap, hip_roll drift bias) were handled as policy-lineage properties with policy-side mitigations, without a single hardware re-audit cycle.

  Mechanism

  Symptom classes recur under different guises; without a frozen verdict each recurrence re-runs the same expensive investigation and risks a different (worse-informed) conclusion. Freezing verdict plus wording converts recurring symptoms into citations, while the evidence bar keeps the closure honest rather than dogmatic - the root/descendant symmetry comparison is what makes "it's the training, not the machine" checkable at any time.

  Applies when

  • a recurring symptom keeps suggesting an already-audited hardware cause
  • writing conclusions for a completed calibration/audit
  • a DR rung's degradation invites re-measuring the plant

  “若 S2④ 退化,结论只能是「当前 policy 对 COM 不确定性不够鲁棒」,不得重开「CAD COM 是不是错了」… 手性冻结表述 … Plant asymmetry: no supporting evidence after mass + model symmetry audit … 无新硬证据不得重开机械不对称”

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

  Mechanism understoodwalkreward-shapingreward-shapingattribution

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

  Symptom

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

  Context

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

  Change

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

  Outcome

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

  Mechanism

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

  Conflicts

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

  Applies when

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

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

• Before adding a command mode, compute what ignoring it costs - the lazy optimum must losereward-cost-of-ignoring-audit

  Mechanism understoodomnireward-shapingreward-shaping

  Price the do-nothing policy for every new command or objective: compute reward-per-step for "comply" vs "ignore" from the actual table, and only train once ignoring is decisively unprofitable.

  Symptom

  A new command mode can be silently unlearnable if the reward table makes "ignore the command entirely" nearly free compared to the tracking reward available elsewhere.

  Context

  For each C rung the team computed the per-step cost of completely ignoring the new command versus ignoring forward: ignoring vx=0.25 costs 1.264/step; ignoring wz=0.20 costs 0.984/step (78% of forward - gradient sufficient, so C2 was certified "zero reward surgery"); but ignoring vy=0.10 cost only 0.020/step - 50-60x weaker, because vy entered the table only as an L2 tax, not a tracking term.

  Change

  Rule instituted: a rung may claim "no reward change needed" only after this arithmetic shows the ignore-cost is the same order as forward's. For C4 the audit failed, so track_lin_vel_y_exp (+2.0, std 0.15, same form as vx) was added - raising the ignore-cost at cmd_vy=0.10 from 0.020 to 0.718/step (36x).

  Outcome

  C1/C2/C3 proceeded with zero reward edits, keeping single-variable attribution clean; C4's needed surgery was identified before training instead of after a failed run.

  Mechanism

  PPO converges to whatever costs least; if the reward margin for obeying a new command is a rounding error against existing terms, the "ignore" policy is the optimum and no amount of training fixes it. The audit prices the lazy optimum explicitly before spending compute.

  Applies when

  • adding a command axis or task mode to an existing reward table
  • a new skill trains flat while other skills stay healthy
  • certifying a rung as "no reward change"

  “cmd wz 0.20 → 0.984（coarse .473 + fine .491 + L2 .020）… 对照：忽略 vx=0.25 = 1.264（本级 78%，同量级）；忽略 vy=0.10 = 0.020（弱 50 倍——那才是 C4 必须加 track_lin_vel_y_exp 的原因）。本级不动奖励表。”

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

  Replicatedrecoveryreward-shapingreward-shapingcurriculumfork-selection

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

  Symptom

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

  Context

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

  Change

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

  Outcome

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

  Mechanism

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

  Applies when

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

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

• An exponential kernel on instantaneous velocity punishes gait oscillation - track the cycle averagecycle-average-tracking-for-gait-quantities

  Mechanism understoodomnireward-shapingreward-shapingattribution

  Reward velocity tracking on gait-cycle averages (or filtered values), not instantaneous samples, whenever the desired behavior oscillates at stride frequency; widening the kernel does not fix a variance penalty.

  Symptom

  Even while the robot genuinely sidewalked (verified after the metric fix), the Isaac-side tracking reward sat on the ignore-floor: true sidewalk scored 0.178 vs 0.189 for ignoring the command - the reward was mildly punishing the desired behavior.

  Context

  Sidewalking is inherently oscillatory: per-frame vy std was 0.177 while the tracking kernel width was sigma = 0.15, applied to the instantaneous value. A kernel-width scan showed widening sigma 0.15 -> 0.50 still loses (-0.14 -> -0.07): "指数核惩罚的是方差，而侧步天生带方差" (the exponential kernel penalizes variance, and side-stepping inherently carries variance). Modeling with measured parameters: replacing instantaneous vy with the mean over one gait cycle (0.5 s) flips the margin decisively (true sidewalk 1.888 vs ignore 1.281, +0.607), half-cycle is neutral (+0.006), two cycles adds nothing more. Explicitly flagged as extrapolation pending Isaac-side implementation. This also vindicated a previously dismissed external note (sigma too small) - right conclusion, different mechanism than claimed (variance, not gradient).

  Change

  Proposed fix recorded: change the tracked quantity from instantaneous vy to a one-gait-cycle running average; widening sigma alone rejected by the scan.

  Outcome

  Diagnosis complete and quantified; the C4 product shipped via feed-forward before the reward change was implemented, so the cycle-average fix remained a verified-by-model, not-yet-trained change.

  Mechanism

  E[exp(-(v-c)^2/sigma^2)] decreases with Var(v) even when E[v] = c exactly; a gait's phase-locked oscillation guarantees variance at the stride frequency, so instantaneous tracking rewards structurally prefer standing still at the command mean. Averaging over exactly one cycle removes stride-frequency variance while preserving command-following error.

  Conflicts

  The cycle-average fix itself is model-extrapolated ("⚠️ 这一条是外推，须在 Isaac 侧实装并复量后才能当结论") - the diagnosis is measured, the remedy untested in training at the time of writing.

  Applies when

  • tracking rewards for lateral/turn/any oscillation-carrying velocity
  • a verified behavior scores below the ignore-floor
  • choosing sigma for exp-kernel tracking terms

  “侧走时 vy 的逐帧摆幅 std = 0.177，而 track_lin_vel_y_exp 核宽 σ = 0.15，且作用在瞬时值上 … 真侧走（均值 66%，振荡 ±0.18）0.178 | 完全无视指令 0.189 … 真侧走的得分比无视指令还低。… σ 从 0.15 放到 0.50，侧走仍然吃亏 … 把跟踪目标从瞬时 vy 换成一个步态周期（0.5 s）的平均 vy：… 1.888 vs 1.281”

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

  Mechanism understoodomnireward-shapingreward-shapinghardwarereal-acceptanceprocess

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

  Symptom

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

  Context

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

  Change

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

  Outcome

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

  Mechanism

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

  Applies when

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

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

• Raising a command bucket's share does not strengthen its per-state gradient - it only starves the other modesbucket-share-is-not-a-gradient-lever

  Mechanism understoodomnicurriculumcurriculumreward-shapingdomain-randomization

  When a skill is not learning, first prove its per-state signal is nonzero (ignore-floor and probe checks); only rebalance sampling shares to fix genuine sample starvation, and account the regression risk to the diluted modes before doing it.

  Symptom

  Sidewalk was not learning, and the reflex proposal was to give the side bucket a larger share of sampled commands.

  Context

  The C4-redo3 rung explicitly kept the 20/40/20/20 bucket (stand/forward/turn/side) with the reasoning written out: PPO computes advantages per state, so bucket proportion does not change the per-state gradient of side states; at 4096 envs x 20% x 24 steps the rollout already contained ~19.7k sidewalk states - sample count was not the bottleneck. And the cost side was already measured: cutting forward from 60% to 40% had made vx+0.30 die at +400 in an earlier run - more cuts would only collapse it sooner.

  Change

  Bucket proportions held constant across the entire C4 redo series; the actual bottlenecks (metric frame bug, reward variance penalty, exploration form) were pursued instead.

  Outcome

  Sidewalk was eventually fixed with zero bucket changes (feed-forward delivery, +100 iters); forward/turn skills never suffered starvation-induced regressions during the redo series.

  Mechanism

  Policy-gradient credit is assigned per visited state; oversampling a mode multiplies its states in the batch but not the informativeness of each, so if the per-state gradient is ~0 (behavior unreachable or reward indifferent), N times zero is still zero - while the displaced modes genuinely lose data and regress.

  Applies when

  • proposing to oversample a failing task/command mode
  • a majority mode regresses after share rebalancing
  • budgeting env count vs mode share for a multi-skill policy

  “比例不动：PPO 逐状态算优势，桶占比不改变单状态梯度；4096 env × 20% × 24 = 每 rollout 已有 1.97 万个侧走状态，样本数不是瓶颈；而 forward 60%→40% 已实测让 f30 在 +400 处死掉，再加码只会更早塌。”

• The real robot's right-leg kicking was over-trained-delay times loop gain - irreducible pipeline latency is plant, model it fully from day onepipeline-latency-is-plant-not-dr

  Mechanism understoodomniactuator-modelingactuator-modelingreal-acceptanceattributionsim2sim

  Measure 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。”

• Training-log reward values and fixed-command eval values live on different distributions - comparing them once claimed a 44% improvement that was really 6-10%same-distribution-reward-comparison

  Mechanism understoodwalksim-evalmeasurementattributionprocess

  Quote reward-term values only with their distribution attached (command range, DR on/off, environment), and compare across runs only when those match; re-measure in a common environment before claiming any improvement percentage.

  Symptom

  A v6-era analysis concluded slip had dropped 44% by comparing the training log's Episode_Reward against values calibrated in a fixed-command play environment; a same-condition re-measurement showed the true improvement was 6-10%.

  Context

  The training log's reward is an expectation over the training command distribution (vx 0.15-0.5, yaw +/-0.6, with pushes and domain randomization); play-environment calibrations are taken at a single fixed command with DR off. Subtracting one from the other compares apples to oranges - the warning was written into the v7 pre-flight: "奖励数值只能在同一指令分布下比较 … 拿它和固定 cmd 的 play 环境标定值相减会得出错误结论(v6 那轮已经栽过一次)".

  Change

  Rule adopted: any before/after reward-term comparison must hold the command distribution, DR state, and evaluation environment fixed; training-log values compare only against training-log values of runs with identical command/DR configs.

  Outcome

  The phantom 44% improvement was retracted; later term-level accounting (e.g. the C4 ignore-floor work) consistently specified its distribution before quoting numbers.

  Mechanism

  A reward term's expectation depends on the visited-state distribution as much as on the policy; changing the command distribution or DR moves every term's baseline. Cross-distribution differences therefore measure the distributions, not the policy change.

  Applies when

  • comparing reward telemetry across training runs or vs play evals
  • claiming improvement percentages from training logs
  • term-level reward accounting for diagnosis

  “奖励数值只能在同一指令分布下比较。训练日志的 Episode_Reward 是在训练指令分布上算的(vx 0.15~0.5 / 偏航 ±0.6 / 带推力与域随机化), 拿它和固定 cmd 的 play 环境标定值相减会得出错误结论(v6 那轮已经栽过一次: 据此以为滑移降了 44%, 同条件对拍只有 6~10%)。”

• Cross-simulator gate (Isaac Lab to MuJoCo) comes before any hardware attemptsim2sim-gate-before-sim2real

  Replicatedwalksim2sim-gatesim2simprocessgate-battery

  Gate every policy through a second simulator with an independently built plant before hardware; treat sim2sim failure as a contract or overfitting bug, and sim2real failure after a sim2sim pass as a plant/actuator gap.

  Symptom

  A policy that only ever ran in its training simulator carries untested dependencies on that simulator's solver, contact model, and defaults; the first place those dependencies surface should not be the real robot.

  Context

  Standing order of operations for the whole Lucen program, recorded as the opening line of the experience log: train in Isaac Lab, gate in MuJoCo, only then go to hardware. The MuJoCo side is the same plant used for evaluation batteries, so a sim2sim pass also validates the exported policy + contract (obs ordering, scales, defaults) outside the training stack.

  Change

  Pipeline rule adopted - every checkpoint must pass the MuJoCo evaluation battery (sim2sim) before it is considered for real deployment (sim2real).

  Outcome

  Used generation after generation as the cheap filter; hardware sessions only ever received policies that had already survived a second simulator.

  Mechanism

  Two simulators disagree exactly where a policy is overfit to simulator-specific artifacts (contact softness, integrator, default parameters, obs conventions); a cross-sim transfer catches contract bugs and solver overfitting at zero hardware risk, so real-robot failures that remain are attributable to genuine plant/actuator gaps.

  Applies when

  • planning the path from training to first hardware trial
  • exported policy behaves differently outside the training framework
  • triaging whether a real-robot failure is contract vs plant

  “先sim2sim - 从isaaclab 到mujoco / 再sim2real”

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

  Mechanism understoodomnifork-selectionfork-selectionprocess

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

  Symptom

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

  Context

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

  Change

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

  Outcome

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

  Mechanism

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

  Applies when

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

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

• Teleop fed the sidewalk axis a command beyond its training band - feet clipped; give each axis its own speed settingteleop-command-band-per-axis

  Mechanism understoodomnireal-deployreal-acceptancehardwareattribution

  Give every command axis its own teleop scale, clamped to that axis's training band, and reproduce any hardware incident in sim with the exact deployed command values before touching training.

  Symptom

  Robot stepped on its own foot when sidewalking left under teleop - and only when going left.

  Context

  The teleop tool used one speed setting for all axes: --teleop-speed 0.20 applied to A/D sent cmd_vy = 0.20, above the training band's top (0.08-0.18) where foot-spacing margin is thinnest. Sim reproduction of the incident (product policy, pw0.8, 5 seeds x 20 s, true collision threshold = single foot width 104 mm): at vy 0.20 the minimum foot distance was 111-115 mm - 7-11 mm from self-collision - vs 147 mm at vy 0.10. Left was 4x more dangerous than right (25% vs 6% of time inside the 160 mm soft wall at vy 0.10), matching the left-only symptom; the margin did not degrade over time (pressing more just lengthened exposure).

  Change

  deploy_policy gained --teleop-side (default 0.10), separating the lateral speed from the forward speed so each axis's teleop command sits inside its own trained band.

  Outcome

  Command now inside the band with 43 mm margin at default; the incident became a quantified, reproduced, closed account rather than a mystery.

  Mechanism

  The policy's competence envelope is the training command distribution per axis; teleop mappings that share one scalar across axes silently command out-of-band inputs on the weakest axis. Asymmetric risk (left vs right) came from the policy's own chirality bias, so a symmetric command produced an asymmetric hazard.

  Applies when

  • wiring a joystick/teleop layer over a learned policy
  • a hardware incident occurs on one command direction only
  • training bands differ across command axes

  “A/D 一直与 W/S 共用速度档，所以按 A 下发的是 vy = 0.20 —— 既超训练带（0.08~0.18）上沿 … 0.20（遥控实际值）| 111~115 mm | 7~11 mm … 且左比右危险 4 倍 … 处置：deploy_policy 新增 --teleop-side（默认 0.10），侧移与前进档分开。”

• Symmetrizing the config made the gait MORE asymmetric - the asymmetry lived in the policy weightsasymmetry-in-weights-not-config

  Mechanism understoodwalkattributionattributionreward-shapingcurriculum

  Localize 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)。”

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

  Mechanism understoodwalkreward-shapingreward-shapinggate-battery

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

  Symptom

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

  Context

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

  Change

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

  Outcome

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

  Mechanism

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

  Applies when

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

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

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

  Observed oncerecoverytraining-runcurriculumprocess

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

  Symptom

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

  Context

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

  Change

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

  Outcome

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

  Mechanism

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

  Conflicts

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

  Applies when

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

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

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

  Mechanism understoodomniattributionattributionreward-shaping

  For any skill that trains flat, compute the reward the null policy would earn on that term; achieved==floor means the behavior never paid out (find why: exploration, reward observability, or feasibility) - do not tune weights first.

  Symptom

  C4 sidewalk failed on both arms; the question was whether the policy had found sidewalk and rejected it as unprofitable, or never found it at all - two diagnoses with opposite fixes.

  Context

  The theoretical value of the sidewalk tracking term for a policy that completely ignores the command was computable from the command distribution: 0.189. Trained final values landed at 0.187 (arm A) and 0.204 (arm B) - sitting exactly on the ignore-floor - while the honest balance at the optimum actually favored sidewalking (net +0.88/step inside the side bucket). Later the same arithmetic closed the whole saga: for the true reward landscape, doing real sidewalk scored 0.153 vs 0.944 for ignoring - the policy's refusal "是理性最优，不是探索失败" (rational optimum, not exploration failure) under one hypothesis, and under the final measurement-corrected account the policy had "每一次都在 做理性选择" (made the rational choice every time).

  Change

  Diagnostic rule adopted: compute the ignore-floor for the new term; if the achieved value sits on it, the behavior was never expressed in useful volume (or the reward cannot distinguish it - check both); if the achieved value is above floor but the behavior is absent at deployment, the policy sampled it and priced it out - then the reward balance, not exploration, is the lever.

  Outcome

  Correctly identified that PPO had not merely under-valued sidewalk; each subsequent hypothesis (waveform sign, regularization cage, exploration form, reward kernel) was tested against this floor arithmetic, which kept the search honest through three reversals.

  Mechanism

  Every reward term has a computable value under the null behavior; the achieved-vs-floor gap is a one-number audit of whether the optimizer ever monetized the target behavior. It converts "training failed" into one of two mechanistically distinct states with different fixes.

  Applies when

  • a new skill's tracking reward plateaus early
  • deciding between exploration fixes and reward-weight fixes
  • post-mortem of a failed curriculum rung

  “track_lin_vel_y_exp 训练终值恰好坐在「完全无视指令」的底分上（A 0.187 / B 0.204，理论值 0.189），而终点 balance 明明有利（side 桶内净 +0.88/步）。不是学会了不划算，是根本没学到。”

• Removing a hand trim re-exposed the plant offset it had been silently compensating - and a slope scan told bias from sensitivityhand-trims-hide-plant-offsets

  Mechanism understoodwalkplant-calibrationplant-calibrationattributionreal-acceptance

  Treat hand-tuned trims as undocumented plant measurements: before deleting one, find what it compensates and re-house that knowledge in the model or the reward budget; diagnose posture errors with a sensitivity sweep to distinguish constant bias from gain problems.

  Symptom

  After switching from the old hand-trimmed default to the clean geometric zero, the retrained stand policy's only regression was torso lean: 1.8 deg -> 4.1 deg backward.

  Context

  The old default's ankle-pitch trim (-0.0489/+0.0628) had been pre-compensating a fore-aft COM mismatch; removing the trim removed the hidden compensation, and the posture reward alone was too weak to win it back. A COM sensitivity scan settled what kind of problem this was: sweeping base COM offset -50 to +50 mm gave nearly identical slopes for old and new policies (~0.026 deg/mm) - "不是质心敏感度问题, 是恒定偏置" (not a sensitivity problem, a constant bias). Fix landed in stand_v1b: posture corrected to +0.24 deg while keeping symmetry (<=0.1 deg) and low effort (0.259), disturbance rejection better than both predecessors. Model credibility was checked the honest way: v0's sim prediction at the real COM position (-22 mm) was -2.31 deg lean vs real measured 2.2-3.1 deg - "预测精准命中" - which is what licensed trusting v1b's -0.52 deg prediction. (Side flag from the same file: a sign convention had been documented wrongly in early comments - gravity_base[0] > 0 is forward lean.)

  Change

  Trims retired in favor of explicit modeling: symmetric geometric default plus a posture-reward budget sized to carry the real COM offset; the offset itself known (real COM ~22 mm behind model).

  Outcome

  stand_v1b passed acceptance as the standing lineage's final version; the walk-line requirement "加大躯干姿态惩罚权重" was upgraded from suggestion to mandatory, since walking amplifies what standing tolerates (real walk_v1 hit 26 deg lean vs sim 7.4).

  Mechanism

  Hand trims are plant knowledge stored in the wrong place - invisible, asymmetric, and stale after recalibration; removing them re-exposes the raw plant error. A sensitivity sweep separates the two possible diagnoses (slope change = control problem; parallel offset = constant plant bias), each with a different fix.

  Applies when

  • cleaning up hand-tuned offsets/trims in defaults or calibration
  • a posture bias appears after a default or calibration change
  • deciding whether a lean is a COM-sensitivity or constant-offset issue

  “两者斜率几乎相同(≈0.026°/mm),v1 只是整体多后仰约 2.4° —— 不是质心敏感度问题,是恒定偏置。成因:旧 default 的踝俯仰 trim(−0.0489/+0.0628)本就预补偿了前后质心偏差,换成零位 default 后这份补偿没了 … v0 在真机质心处(−22 mm)的 sim 预测为 −2.31° 后仰,真机实测 2.2~3.1° 后仰 —— 预测精准命中。”

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

  Mechanism understoodomniattributionattributiondomain-randomizationprocess

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

  Symptom

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

  Context

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

  Change

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

  Outcome

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

  Mechanism

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

  Applies when

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

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

• 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 bandper-step-income-drives-speed-time-gate

  Mechanism understoodrecoveryreward-shapingreward-shapingcurriculum

  When 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。**”

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

  Replicatedomnireal-deployreal-acceptanceactuator-modelingattribution

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

  Symptom

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

  Context

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

  Change

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

  Outcome

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

  Mechanism

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

  Applies when

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

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

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

  Mechanism understoodwalkplant-calibrationplant-calibrationdomain-randomization

  Measure frictionloss and damping separately (they need different rigs), put the measured value at DR center, and express DR as an additive band around that nominal - a DR range around a guessed value can exclude the real robot entirely.

  Symptom

  Old MJCF friction values were invented, not measured; when finally measured, every guessed value was wrong by a large factor in some direction.

  Context

  Joint friction split into Coulomb (frictionloss, tau_c) and viscous (damping b). Measured with the robot hung from a crane (吊机测) while armature was measured no-load; the two measurements are deliberately separated. Old MJCF: frictionloss 0.05, damping 0.1, DR joint_friction range [0, 0.1] "凭空拍的" (made up out of thin air).

  Change

  Replace guessed values with measured ones - frictionloss: RS06 0.15 / RS02 0.12 / RS00 0.13 N*m (old 0.05, i.e. 2.5x too low); damping: 0.02 N*m*s/rad on all three motor types (old 0.1, i.e. 5x too high). DR reshaped from an absolute made-up range [0, 0.1] to an additive band around measured nominal: joint_friction_add [-0.05, +0.10].

  Outcome

  "摩擦定稿(与 armature 一起, plant 参数第一次全部来自实测)" - friction frozen as part of the first fully-measured plant; DR now brackets a measured truth instead of spanning an invented interval.

  Mechanism

  Coulomb friction and viscous damping have opposite behavioral signatures (constant-torque threshold vs velocity-proportional drag); guessing both wrong in opposite directions gives a plant that is simultaneously too easy to start moving and too hard to move fast. DR centered on a wrong nominal makes the policy robust to a family of plants that does not contain the real one.

  Applies when

  • plant friction/damping values have no measurement provenance
  • DR ranges are absolute intervals rather than bands around a nominal
  • policy is over- or under-damped on hardware relative to sim

  “测关节摩擦。吊机测，而armature应该空机测试。… frictionloss τ_c (N·m) │ 0.15 │ 0.12 │ 0.13 │ 0.05(低 2.5×) … damping b (N·m·s/rad) │ 0.02 │ 0.02 │ 0.02 │ 0.1(高 5×) … DR │ joint_friction_add: [−0.05, +0.10] 叠标称 │ 旧 [0, 0.1] 凭空拍的”

• The restart reward table lists a reason for every term AND a lesson for every exclusion - absent terms are removed, not zero-weightedminimal-reward-table-with-provenance

  Mechanism understoodomnireward-shapingreward-shapingprocesscontract-freeze

  Maintain the reward table as an evidence ledger: every term cites the episode that justifies it, every excluded term cites the episode that convicted it (including the development stage it is valid at), and retired terms are deleted from the config, never left at weight zero.

  Symptom

  Seven walk generations had accumulated an entangled reward table where nobody could say which term earned its place; the restart needed a table that could be audited line by line.

  Context

  The minimal table v2 was built under three written principles: "一项管 一件事、结构性反抬脚的项一个不留、塑形只留一套相位逻辑;不在表里的一律 不加" (one term per job; zero structurally-anti-lift terms; exactly one phase-shaping logic; nothing outside the table gets added). Every row carries its provenance (e.g. base_height target = standing height cites the v4 crouch lesson; split x/y tracking cites the merged-exp gradient hole; world-frame yaw cites the v1/v3 body-frame lesson). Every EXCLUSION carries its same-type precedent: feet_landing_vel out because it is poison while the gait is unformed (drag pays 0, lifting pays - the v4-clearance / v8a-B "reverse threshold" family) though it was fine in v7 when the gait already existed - term validity depends on developmental stage; feet_air_time out with its measured non-lever evidence (v6 had it at 2.0 and still lifted 4 mm); and replaced terms are REMOVED from the config ("置 None,不是权重 0 挂着") so audits see truth, not dormant weight.

  Change

  Reward table rebuilt as ~20 rows each with weight + provenance column; exclusion list maintained alongside with the falsifying episode for each; dormant terms deleted rather than zeroed.

  Outcome

  Later revisions (S1.2/S1.3) modified the table by citing and updating specific rows' evidence rather than re-arguing the whole design; the table doubled as the lineage's reward-lesson index.

  Mechanism

  A reward table is a set of standing hypotheses; attaching each row's evidence makes revisions targeted and reversible, and recording why a term is absent prevents the cycle of re-adding known poisons. Deleting vs zero-weighting matters because config audits and DR interactions see the term either way - a zero-weight term is dormant complexity waiting to be flipped on wrongly.

  Applies when

  • designing a reward table for a restart or new task
  • someone proposes re-adding a previously removed term
  • auditing which reward rows still earn their place

  “原则:一项管一件事、结构性反抬脚的项一个不留、塑形只留一套相位逻辑;不在表里的一律不加 … feet_landing_vel(评审 #4):拖地时代价恒 0、抬脚才收费——与 v4-clearance/v8a-B 同属「反抬脚门槛」家族,步态未成形时是毒;v7④ 加它时步态已存在。… 已从 cfg 移除(置 None),不是权重 0 挂着。”

Next page