Training Coach
Doctrine
A report may cite any of these as doctrine-N.
doctrine-1Contract freeze and fingerprint disciplineThe policy I/O contract (observation layout, scales, history semantics, action pipeline) is frozen and fingerprinted; every exported policy is stamped and verified; contract changes ship as new versioned profiles that leave old artifacts bit-identical, and old policies run forever under their era's pinned profile.
Case. The 215-dim omni contract was frozen with a three-machine digest; the one contract-level extension (lateral feed-forward) went in as a new `omni_ff` profile with the old profile provably untouched, and the contract checker caught two real wiring bugs before any training (`contract-freeze-and-checker`). A silently changed gait-clock default would have fed old policies a 25% slower clock - closed by pinned legacy profiles (`legacy-profile-pinning`). A stale derived USD forked plant mass 2.2% until an automated source-vs-derived instrument gated it (`derived-asset-staleness-check`). A gain profile is part of the closed loop a policy was trained in and belongs in its stamp; the recovery line's anchored authority was left out of its manifest and recorded as the gap not to repeat (`gain-profile-belongs-in-the-stamp`), and a second policy behind a deploy-side switch made the handoff state itself a contract (`recovery-two-policies-and-a-state-machine`, `walk-recovery-fsm-handoff`).
Coach application. On any proposal touching obs/action semantics, defaults, or derived assets: demand the version/profile plan, the fingerprint update, and the checker extension in the same change; flag any old artifact that would run under new defaults.
doctrine-2Attribution by resolved training params - never eval-override knobsCapability differences between lineages are explained only by digging each lineage's *resolved* training configuration and eliminating columns; evaluation-side override knobs (kd-scale, power-scale, cycle-time) act on the plant for *every* policy and may serve as deployment mitigations but never as explanations.
Case. Low-friction robustness across 8 lineages x 3840 cells was traced to kd DR *bandwidth* - every lineage had ground friction pinned to (1.0,1.0), so "trained friction" could not be the axis; the parameter axis and the plant axis were explicitly separated after the first attribution conflated them (`kd-bandwidth-mu-law-attribution`). "Weak turning" on hardware was a power-scale plant effect, not a training gap (`deploy-knob-attribution-before-retraining`); slowing the deploy clock was out-of-distribution, not a feature (`cycle-time-override-is-ood`). The ground truth for what a run trained under is the logged per-run config, not the source tree (`resolved-config-is-source-of-truth`).
Coach application. Whenever asked "why is lineage A better", require the resolved-param table first; kill zero-variance columns; refuse explanations phrased in eval-knob terms; when a knob helps, label it deployment mitigation.
doctrine-3PASS gates become constraints; FAIL gates become objectivesOnce a skill passes its gate, that gate converts into a standing regression constraint (budget <= 2/20 against the parent baseline) for all later training; gates currently failing are the only legitimate objectives of the next rung.
Case. The C ladder ran one frozen 13-cell x 20-seed matrix at every rung with promotion = "new skill PASS and old skills within regression budget"; C1 was stopped and re-rooted precisely because it trained away the root's backward PASS (`fixed-acceptance-matrix-per-rung`, `preregistered-stop-criteria-per-rung`). The C4 product shipped only at 260/260 cells with zero regression.
Coach application. Keep the ledger: every PASS adds a constraint row; propose rungs only against FAIL rows; treat any constraint violation as stop-and-attribute, never "the next rung might win it back".
doctrine-4One variable per ladder rung - counted against what the checkpoint sawA rung changes one variable, where "one" is counted against the checkpoint's actual training state, not against the current config's diff; batching is allowed only when each change owns a disjoint symptom space with a pre-registered ablation order.
Case. Two rungs failed identically because resuming s1e-500 under the evolved config silently added four plant variables the checkpoint had never seen ("单变量纪律不只看「我改了什么」,还要看「checkpoint 见过什么」" - `resume-state-dr-audit`). v8 legally batched four orthogonal fixes with a written ablation order (`orthogonal-batch-with-ablation-order`); v9 spent one run completing a 2x2 factorial so either outcome convicted a factor (`fill-the-missing-factorial-cell`); v10b's three-way ablation wrongfully convicted the clock and had to be retried fairly.
Coach application. Before any resume: diff cfg against the checkpoint's logged training state. Before any batch: require the symptom-ownership map and ablation order in writing.
doctrine-5Pre-register risks, readings, and stop criteria before the ladderBefore a ladder or risky rung, write down the known risks, the interpretation of every plausible outcome, and hit-any-one stop criteria - frozen before training, tightened when priors say results should come fast.
Case. The C ladder opened with three numbered risks including the exact falsification condition for its own root choice; A/B arms carried "预注册读法(事后不改)" tables; a level expected to fail was run anyway for its pre-registered diagnostic value (`preregister-risks-and-fork-readings`). Stop criteria caught C4-redo rungs at +200 instead of full caps (`preregistered-stop-criteria-per-rung`); hardware sessions pre-registered per-config expected signatures and the disagreement rule "不改结论改账" (`preregistered-real-expectations`, `feasibility-accounts-lock-design-point`).
Coach application. Refuse to open a rung without the written risk/reading/ stop block; after results, read conclusions off the pre-registered table and flag any post-hoc reinterpretation.
doctrine-6Plant parameters are measured, never inventedEvery plant number carries measurement provenance: armature = N^2 x rotor inertia from no-load tests, friction split by rig and by API column, torque limits shaped by per-joint gait peaks, latency traced through the real pipeline, masses weighed - and DR bands are additive around the measured nominal, sized to the measured dispersion.
Case. Guessed friction was 2.5x low and guessed damping 5x high (`friction-measured-not-guessed`); armature had been 0 with a 9:1 gearbox (81x reflected inertia, `armature-n2-rotor-inertia`); a uniform torque derating was "the wrong shape" vs measured peaks (`torque-limit-shape-by-measured-peaks`); the delay implementation itself was a wrong plant for a whole lineage (`latency-lerp-reverse-extrapolation`); the run design point was locked by three accounts including the tau_limit/kd speed ceiling (`feasibility-accounts-lock-design-point`); identified friction had to land in the right simulator API columns to act at all (`sim-api-friction-columns`). The recovery and one-leg lines opened with the same kind of accounts before any reward existed - a connected static path and the torque along it for an armless get-up, and the gains single support needs to be holdable at all (`get-up-feasibility-accounts-before-training`, `single-support-gain-authority-probe`).
Coach application. For any plant value in a config review, ask "measured how?"; reject absolute ranges with no nominal; check API column mapping and derived-asset regeneration whenever measured values land.
doctrine-7Sim2sim gate before sim2real - under deployment conditionsEvery checkpoint passes a second, independently built simulator before hardware, and both the gate and the smoke loop run under the measured deployment conditions (real pipeline delay, honest contact parameters, the deployment gain/power profile).
Case. The standing order "先sim2sim 再sim2real" (`sim2sim-gate-before-sim2real`); acceptance flipped to match hardware only under measured condim/torsional friction (`eval-plant-honesty-contact-params`); gates moved permanently to `--delay 2` after the kicking incident (`pipeline-latency-is-plant-not-dr`); and the harness itself must be audited - a frame-convention bug in the cross-sim evaluator invalidated a whole line of verdicts (`body-frame-velocity-api-audit`). The recovery line's second simulator caught a torque penalty paid for by bracing the legs together (`torque-penalty-bought-by-leg-bracing`), and a 1.8x torque disagreement between the two plants stayed binding because its one surviving explanation was never tested (`torque-disagreement-between-simulators-unresolved`).
Coach application. Block any hardware request lacking a second-sim PASS at deployment conditions; when sim2sim and training-side metrics disagree, treat the evaluator as a suspect too.
doctrine-8Observation honesty - the actor's inputs are a hardware contractThe actor observes only signals the real robot produces with realistic noise; privileged truths go to the critic; history windows are estimators and must train under plant variation; rewards on quantities the actor cannot observe buy only average suppression, never closed-loop correction.
Case. Ground-truth velocity/forces went critic-only (`observation-honesty-critic-only`); frame_hist under zero DR memorized the trainer's plant fingerprint - 0/20 transfer (`history-obs-needs-plant-variation`); world-frame yaw rewards could not teach pull-back because heading is unobservable to the actor - correction was routed to the deploy outer loop instead of breaking the contract (`reward-observability-limit`, `deploy-heading-loop-and-align-training`).
Coach application. Audit every actor-obs element for hardware existence; require minimal plant jitter whenever history/recurrence exists; for each reward, ask "can the actor see this error?" and route correction tasks to outer loops.
doctrine-9Reward economics are audited in realized currencyReward design decisions are made on realized per-step magnitudes under the actual policy and command distribution: price the do-nothing optimum before adding a mode, compare achieved values to the computed ignore-floor, calibrate thresholds between measured healthy and sick distributions, and ship every new penalty with a withdrawal clause.
Case. feet_air_time at weight 2.0 realized 0.038 vs tracking 1.2 - drag was rational (`realized-contribution-audit`); ignoring a vy command cost 28-180x less than ignoring vx until a gated tracking term was added (`reward-cost-of-ignoring-audit`, `gate-new-reward-terms-by-command`); achieved-vs-floor separated "never learned" from "priced out" (`ignore-floor-diagnosis`); the foot-distance wall was placed between measured healthy (0.6% tax) and sick (55%) policies (`calibrate-threshold-between-healthy-and-sick`); the landing penalty carried a pre-registered stand-down condition and actually stood down (`calibration-threshold-with-withdrawal-clause`); two clearance terms were inert until zero-points and gate occupancy were checked (`inert-reward-term-audit`). A get-up policy sat because three gated terms paid the seated pose 84% of the return and the one term that could tell sitting from standing was an exp kernel reading 4.6e-5 at the real error (`seated-basin-dead-exp-kernel`); a torque-tail term was weighted by its measured steady value beside a peer term after the estimate proved 12x off (`tail-torque-needs-hinge-on-computed-demand`).
Coach application. Never discuss weights in the abstract: demand the realized-contribution table, the ignore-floor number, and the healthy-pay calibration before any reward edit is approved.
doctrine-10The zero-cost option must be the desired behaviorFor every penalty, name what the zero-cost option is; penalize failure events (slip, saturation excess, contact in flight windows), never the motion or joints that healthy behavior uses; make degenerate strategies fatal via termination where penalties cannot price them out.
Case. Joint-usage penalties for drift taxed a 1.4%-of-momentum channel 2.7/step and collapsed training; the slip penalty costs a non-slipping gait exactly zero (`penalize-the-slip-not-the-joint`). A frozen-at-clamp joint pays zero action-rate forever - only a pre-clip saturation penalty flips the cheat economics (`saturation-cheating-zero-rate-cost`). Ungated phase shaping made standing 42x more expensive than stepping and cooked the hip motors (`moving-gate-42x-stand-tax`); crouch-shuffling lived until a height termination deleted it (`termination-closes-degenerate-basin`). A gated penalty is an exit: the policy parked just outside an uprightness gate, then just under a height gate, to stop paying a stance tax, and only a positive band plus an always-on guard closed both (`penalty-gate-is-an-escape-hatch`); a soft-limit penalty that charged the standing pose itself bought a 4.1 deg lean (`soft-limit-penalty-charges-nominal-pose`); an unpriced foot attitude was spent on edge-standing (`unpriced-foot-attitude-is-a-free-variable`); and the one-leg line listed its cheapest cheats before training and still met one through a zero-gradient band (`enumerate-cheapest-cheats-before-training`, `binary-band-reward-fake-touchdown`).
Coach application. Run the "零代价的选项是什么" audit on every proposed term; convert motion taxes into event-conditional penalties; check the termination set against each known degenerate strategy.
doctrine-11Measurement discipline: independent referees, signs, distributionsA disputed measurement is adjudicated only by an independent algorithm from raw state; directional ability requires sign-antisymmetry under command reversal; bimodal metrics are reported as mode shares (never medians, never 3 seeds); ratios are not comparable when totals change; reward values compare only within one command distribution; single chaotic events never cross machines.
Case. The triple reversal - a good metric was "refuted" by a sibling metric that shared the disease (`independent-referee-for-metric-disputes`, `body-frame-velocity-api-audit`); same-signed +/- responses were bias, not turning (`same-sign-response-is-yaw-bias`); the swing median sat in a bimodal gap (`median-hides-bimodal-distribution`); "v6 is jitterier" died on absolute energies (`ratio-metrics-need-absolute-check`); yaw gain measured 15x wrong in an oscillating frame (`heading-integral-not-body-rate`); a 44% improvement evaporated under same-distribution comparison (`same-distribution-reward-comparison`); drift direction was a limit cycle (`multiseed-sign-test-for-drift`); a cross-machine push cliff was chaos (`single-impulse-recovery-is-chaotic`).
Coach application. Before accepting any surprising number: ask for the independent recomputation, the sign pair, the distribution shape, and the comparison conditions. Retract in writing when a metric falls.
doctrine-12The deployment pipeline is plantIrreducible pipeline properties - action latency, rate limits, power/torque scaling, teleop command mappings - are part of the nominal plant, modeled from day one and reproduced in every gate; deploy-side scalings are crutches that flag unmodeled plant, and they cannot be algebraically folded into training constants.
Case. Right-leg kicking was over-trained-delay x loop gain; power 0.8 was a gain-reduction crutch that retired when the delay was modeled (`pipeline-latency-is-plant-not-dr`); power derating damages non-forward axes first (`power-scale-hurts-nonforward-axes`); training at 0.4 scale as the "twin" of deploying 0.5 x 0.8 collapsed 0/20 (`deploy-scaling-not-training-equivalent`); one shared teleop speed sent an out-of-band lateral command and the robot clipped its own foot (`teleop-command-band-per-axis`); the latency DR range had not even covered the measured pipeline (`latency-dr-covers-measured-pipeline`). A rate limiter added at deployment only clipped a policy that kept commanding (`deploy-rate-limiter-windup`); moved into training and anchored on the last command it became an integrator in the balance loop (`slew-anchor-is-an-integrator`); anchored on the measured angle it bounded torque and kept the bandwidth (`beta-anchored-action-target`). The walking lines' safe setting, power-scale 0.8, cut the ends of the recovery policy's full-range travel and left its spikes alone; a gain inside the trained band did the job (`power-derating-cuts-full-range-contract`).
Coach application. Demand the measured pipeline latency/limits in the plant model and in gate conditions; treat every deploy-side derating as a question ("what is this compensating?"); block per-axis command sources that exceed training bands.
doctrine-13DR budget is finite; its distribution is the measured supportRobustness is a conserved budget: disturbance training on an already-hardened lineage borrows from existing margins; DR ranges span the measured deployment support - no fictitious tails (they buy degenerate gaits), no single constants (they allow thin-margin specialization); harden the plant only after the task distribution is final.
Case. The same push dose helped a narrow lineage and damaged a balanced one - budget conservation (`push-dr-conditional-budget-conservation`); wide latency tails bought drag-glide, constant values shipped 60% thinner tilt margins - the answer is a narrow band on the measured support (`dr-tail-plant-continuation`, `constant-value-dr-overfits-margin`); task-first ordering because hardening a soon-to-change task wastes budget (`task-shaping-before-plant-hardening`); COM randomization used deliberately as a behavior-shaping tool, and rolled back on symptom per its own contract (`com-randomization-forces-leg-spread`, `com-dr-rollback-on-symptom`). DR that is switched on can still be thin: the run policy fell in the frontal plane its gain-and-latency randomization never touched (`thin-dr-judged-by-channel-coverage`), and a friction priority settled under one action contract had to be re-measured under the next (`friction-priority-re-measured-after-plant-change`).
Coach application. Before any DR rung: check the untrained policy against the spec, the lineage's current DR load, and the measured real-world range; after it: audit retained margins, not just the new tolerance.
doctrine-14Gates measure what hardware feels: posture, margins, stripped assistsAcceptance batteries carry posture-class rows (tilt max median, per-joint L/R asymmetry, temperature) beside task rows, graded margin columns beside binary gates, chirality scored per side, at least one condition that removes the environment's free stabilization, and validated predictive scalars promoted into the gate.
Case. Three same-shaped judging errors - survival, displacement, wz-difference - all missed what the operator felt; posture metrics had the predictive power (`task-metrics-vs-posture-metrics`, `stand-gate-posture-not-survival`); binary survival saturated and hid a 60% margin gap (`constant-value-dr-overfits-margin`); v5 passed everything on the ground and failed suspended (`suspension-probe-removes-free-stabilizer`); the hip_roll (l+r) scalar predicted real drift direction and ordering and entered the battery (`hip-roll-sum-predicts-lateral-drift`); averages hide chirality (`chirality-scored-separately`); gait-quality gates are judged at speeds that demand a gait (`low-speed-commands-reward-dragging`). The recovery line added the rest of the kit: where failed episodes end, not only where they started (`end-state-confusion-matrix`); a frozen acceptance distribution with a pinned seed (`frozen-acceptance-distribution-and-pinned-seed`); video of the metric rollout itself (`video-as-acceptance-record`); and the admission that a 10 s episode cannot see a stance that fails after a minute (`episode-length-bounds-what-a-gate-sees`). The one-leg line removed a foot-spacing wall that no gate measured, and the feet met on hardware (`removed-wall-returns-on-hardware`).
Coach application. Review every battery for posture rows, margin columns, per-side scoring, and an assist-stripped condition; when operator feel and gates disagree, suspect the metric class first.
doctrine-15Fork and root selection: recoverability, maturity, frozen rewardsChoose fork roots by which candidate's deficits the coming training can pay back (precision is recoverable; lost plasticity, symmetry, and margins are not); prefer mature checkpoints as roots even when younger ones score better as products; never fine-tune through a reward change - continuation is legal only with the reward frozen and plant/DR widening one rung at a time.
Case. s1e-500 beat higher-precision candidates because its exclusive strengths were unrecoverable (`fork-root-recoverable-shortfall`); the b300 arm proved maturity is capital against adaptation shock (`root-maturity-vs-product-quality`); the B-arm scatter/half-recover/collapse signature falsified reward-change fine-tuning and drew the legal boundary for S2 continuation (`fine-tune-reward-change-falsified`).
Coach application. For root debates, build the exclusive-strengths table and ask "which side can be trained back?"; require dual-arm evidence for maturity claims; classify any proposed continuation as reward-frozen or not before approving.
doctrine-16Curricula: verified engagement, lineage counters, disease-phase gatingAutomatic curricula must prove they engage (a saturated ratchet is constant DR wearing a curriculum's name); every ramp counts lineage-cumulative progress, not per-process steps; penalties aimed at late-stage pathologies ramp in after exploration noise decays; difficulty rises on measured per-stratum success, never on schedule.
Case. The s1f ratchet capped at iter 248 and never engaged (`auto-curriculum-engagement-check`); the saturation ramp re-fired at +600 after every resume and no shipped product ever saw the penalty (`curriculum-counter-lineage-steps`); the same penalty worked once gated to the disease phase and became an untouchable mechanism (`gate-penalties-to-the-disease-phase`); record-high aggregate reward hid a fully-failing delay stratum (`aggregate-metrics-mask-subgroup-failure`); bucket share is not a gradient lever (`bucket-share-is-not-a-gradient-lever`). An assist curriculum keyed to a pooled success share was withdrawn on the strength of the categories that already worked (`curriculum-criterion-conditioned-on-lagging-category`); a pace set by per-step income moved only when that income was time-gated (`per-step-income-drives-speed-time-gate`), and the same gate had to be retired in a lineage without the disease (`time-gate-vs-wide-stance-retire-the-fix`).
Coach application. Ask every curriculum three questions: does it engage (show the internal state)? what does it count (process or lineage)? when is it present (against the pathology's phase)? Check where shipped checkpoints sit relative to every ramp.
doctrine-17Probe before training: feasibility first, hypotheses in tablesAfter two failed training attempts at a skill, stop training: demonstrate the behavior open-loop, enumerate hypotheses in a written table audited against actual configs cheapest-first, race one probe per side of the sim2real boundary for hardware-only pathologies, and use suspended tests to acquit or convict actuators before blaming authority.
Case. "在黑暗里试钥匙" - four sidewalk rungs failed until an open-loop probe separated exploration/waveform/authority in one experiment (`open-loop-probe-before-reward-tuning`); the foot-drag mystery fell to a seven-hypothesis config audit (`hypothesis-table-code-audit`); the period-doubling was resolved by racing a reward-side and a plant-side evidence line - and both paid off, one per sub-case (`period-doubling-evidence-race`); the suspended test acquitted the roll actuator in one measurement (`suspended-test-isolates-actuator-authority`). A read-only configuration probe told a wall from a slope in the recovery line's seated basin (`configuration-probe-wall-not-slope`), and the fix it pointed to - where the feet are - took prone from 0/159 to 158/159 (`prone-dead-end-is-foot-placement`); a knob that did not move its variable was recorded as no test of the idea (`dof-vel-penalty-is-not-a-pacing-knob`).
Coach application. When a skill resists training, prescribe the probe before any further reward edits; require verified target trajectories before imitation terms; keep a falsified-fixes list so closed roads stay closed (`amplitude-cut-falsified-yaw-fix`).
doctrine-18External advice is recomputed locally; values transfer as ratiosEvery external suggestion is classified adopt / already-have / modify / trap by recomputing its claim on the local reward table and probe data; numeric values transfer only as dimensionless ratios (to tracking weight, leg length, sqrt(gL), control rate); citations are verified to exist.
Case. "Start vy very small" would have destroyed sidewalk learning on this reward table - the gradient scales quadratically (`external-advice-audit-against-own-arithmetic`); swing-height targets and weights transferred correctly only through leg-length and tracking-ratio scaling (`transfer-ratios-not-absolutes`); the "6-step delay" was refused for lacking a control rate (`latency-dr-covers-measured-pipeline`); a borrowed reference's structure was FK-verified and its amplitude re-derived from the division of labor (`reference-structure-fk-amplitude-division`); retrieval agents fabricated verbatim arXiv quotes - only source-verifiable material was used; and one dismissed suggestion later proved right for a different mechanism, and was credited (`cycle-average-tracking-for-gait-quantities`). An advisor's staged state machine turned out to exist in none of the three papers it cited, and reading them changed the plan (`advisor-paraphrase-vs-paper`).
Coach application. Intercept every "paper X does Y" with the local recomputation; convert absolutes to ratios before comparison; verify quotes; revisit dismissed advice when new mechanisms appear.
doctrine-19Hardware sessions are scripted experiments, not tuning sessionsReal-robot time executes a pre-registered matrix: risk-ordered (baseline first, fragile last with a spotter), stage-gated (suspended smoke before ground), A/B sessions bracketed by a repeated reference run, operators briefed on measured zero-command and untrained-axis behavior, chirality-aware disturbance protocols, no field tuning - the only legal field changes are scripted, single-variable, and self-reversing.
Case. The S2 acceptance sheet (`risk-ordered-real-deployment`, `battery-bracketed-real-ab`, `know-zero-command-behavior`, `push-test-chirality-protocol`, `no-field-tuning-protocol`); the RAM-only torque experiment with automatic power-cycle rollback (`reversible-single-variable-field-experiments`); and the sim-veto rule - even sim's condemnations get one safeguarded hardware check when they judge the purpose-built configuration (`sim-veto-needs-real-confirmation`). The recovery line's first real run went ahead with its preconditions unmet and was stopped as dangerous (`first-real-get-up-violent-stage-one-policy`); after it: a staged hang, mat and floor protocol (`staged-hang-mat-floor-for-get-up`), a fixed power-cycle pre-flight and two-machine discipline (`power-cycle-preflight`, `two-machine-config-discipline`), a fall guard replaced rather than switched off (`fall-guard-becomes-a-state`), and logs that are part of the run (`hardware-log-is-the-attribution-input`).
Coach application. Turn every hardware request into a runbook with order, gates, brackets, briefing, and anomaly plays; refuse improvised parameter changes on the floor.
doctrine-20Close questions in writing; restart when the debt is structuralAudited questions get frozen verdicts with citable wording and an explicit reopening bar; hardware verdicts are dated by deployment-stack and calibration state and expire when those change; and when successive rungs shuffle symptoms without net progress, freeze the lineage as regression baselines, pay the structural debts, and retrain minimal - carrying laws and instruments, not weights.
Case. The chirality and COM questions were closed with frozen wording and "no reopening without new hard evidence" (`frozen-verdicts-semantic-boundaries`); v5/v6's condemnations expired with the deploy stack (`stale-verdicts-under-old-stack`); a 2-degree calibration fix moved the whole runnable envelope (`zero-offset-calibration-shifts-envelope`); plant upgrades are era boundaries with paired re-baselining (`plant-swap-invariants-vs-shifts`); and the 2026-08-05 reset froze v5-v11, fixed the latency FIFO / manifest / sampling / reward-table debts, and restarted - producing the lineage that reached hardware SOTA (`freeze-lineage-fix-structure-restart`, `minimal-reward-table-with-provenance`). The recovery line's real-robot verdicts ended up in three places that disagree, one of them an undated note in a command file (`write-hardware-verdicts-back`).
Coach application. Maintain the closed-questions ledger and quote it when symptoms recur; stamp verdicts with stack/calibration versions; when a team is three rungs into symptom-shuffling, raise the restart question explicitly with the freeze-fix-restart pattern.
doctrine-21Name the quantity in the space it lives inA goal, reward term or acceptance criterion about the feet, the base or the contact state is computed from the quantity itself - world poses, forces, per-category outcomes - never through a joint-angle, single-signal or pooled stand-in that assumes everything else sits at nominal; and every detector is validated on a behaviour known not to contain the event before it becomes a gate.
Case. The recovery line was caught three times: |ankle roll| as "flat feet" sold stance width and the real robot slid into the splits, a hip-roll criterion was confounded by 50 deg of yaw, and the joint table said 0.271 m where the feet were 0.159 m apart; task-space terms produced the first flat, wide stance (`joint-space-proxy-for-task-space-quantity`). Flight detection lied in both directions across two lines - foot height flagged 40% false flight on a walking gait, contact force alone flagged slip chatter as hops (`contact-detector-single-signal-lies`). A pooled height average described a robot that did not exist - six in ten standing, four in ten sitting (`zero-partial-credit-is-not-an-iteration-problem`) - and the walking line had learned the same lesson on yaw rate (`heading-integral-not-body-rate`).
Coach application. For every reward term and gate row, ask what physical quantity it stands for and whether it is measured directly; flag joint-space or single-signal stand-ins for task-space goals, ask for a detector validated on a negative control, and split pooled metrics by category before reading them.
doctrine-22Continuation needs a live gradient; a release is chosen by a scanContinue a converged policy only on a change that creates a live gradient, on a short budget, with every checkpoint scanned on the transfer axis; choose a release by running the full battery over a band of checkpoints and stop on signals, never by taking the last one; and when edits to the terminal phase cannot move a behaviour, roll back and retrain with the constraint present from the start, keeping the order in which the lineage acquired its mechanisms as explicit curriculum phases.
Case. A continuation with no new gradient drifted MuJoCo transfer from 100/98% to 80/28% while every Isaac gate stayed perfect, and a live-gradient continuation at the same depth kept it (`converged-continuation-is-poison`). One-leg checkpoints 100 iterations apart failed 1 and 38 of 40 cells, and late ones degraded (`checkpoint-choice-is-a-full-gate-scan`). Four in-lineage stance fixes failed because the stance was the end of the get-up path, and from scratch it grew right (`stance-decided-by-get-up-path`); fixes stacked on degraded states were rolled back by the user (`stop-stacking-roll-back-and-audit`); and the lineage's final recipe, trained from scratch in one run, sat at 0% because the order of its curriculum was part of the product (`curriculum-history-is-part-of-the-product`). The omni line's short adaptation budgets and mature roots are the same law seen from the other side (`continuation-budget-not-from-zero`, `root-maturity-vs-product-quality`).
Coach application. Before approving a continuation, ask for the new gradient, the budget and the transfer axis in the scan; before approving a release, ask for the scan; after three rungs without progress on the target, propose rolling back to the last good checkpoint and a from-scratch phase plan instead of a fourth patch.
Experience cards
162 cards matching “com-dr-rollback-on-symptom”.
The +/-50 mm lateral COM randomization meant to spread the legs coincided with legs pulling IN - rolled back per its own pre-registered contract
com-dr-rollback-on-symptomWhen adopting a DR value that covers no local measurement, write its intent and rollback trigger into the config at adoption time; roll it back as the control arm the moment the symptom contradicts the intent, and promote the symptom's metric into the acceptance battery.
Symptom
After v7 adopted the reference developer's oversized lateral COM randomization (+/-50 mm) explicitly to force leg spread, the real robot's legs narrowed instead - lateral mean 154 mm / closest 107 mm in sim (nominal 214.5), narrower still on hardware with occasional leg contact.
Context
The rollback was clean because the adoption had been honest: the robot.yaml comment recorded the intent AND that the +/-50 value covered no local measurement (only a 16/7 mm measured offset existed; even the prior widening to +/-20 was subjective), plus the reference's own reported side effect (base sway) and the note "这一项要单独跑、 单独归因". When the opposite symptom appeared, v8 returned y to +/-20 mm as the control arm ("要么没起作用、要么帮了倒忙 … 按约定退回做 对照"), kept x/z untouched (a noise-level difference not worth another variable), and named the second suspect: the landing penalty itself, via the reference's own three-link chain (landing penalty -> stance narrows -> spacing penalty needed). A gate lesson was booked in the same table: v7's sim numbers had ALREADY crossed the line (154/107 vs v5's 182/147) - "这个指标本可拦下 v7" - so foot-distance became a standing acceptance row (min >120 mm, zero leg-leg contacts).
Change
base_com_offset_m y: 0.050 -> 0.020 (x/z kept), regenerated through the export tool rather than hand-editing derived files; foot-distance acceptance row added.
Outcome
A borrowed DR lever with no local measurement basis was retired the moment its symptom contradicted its purpose, at single-variable cost; the metric that would have caught it pre-hardware entered the gate.
Mechanism
DR ranges shape behavior through the policy's robustness strategy, which is jointly determined with every reward term; a lever that forces stance width on one robot can be dominated by a stronger narrowing pressure (landing softness) on another. Levers adopted without local measurement must carry their own rollback trigger, because there is no nominal to argue from when they misbehave.
Conflicts
Causality is not fully closed in the source: the narrowing may come from the landing penalty rather than the COM lever ("腿距的第二嫌疑人是 ④ 本身"); the rollback is the pre-agreed control experiment, not a verdict that the lever caused the narrowing.
Applies when
- importing DR ranges or behavioral-forcing randomizations from references
- a DR lever's observed effect contradicts its documented purpose
- a sim metric existed that would have caught a shipped regression
“⑥ 的本意 … 是逼策略把脚分开;真机结果是脚向内收且偶发相碰——要么没起作用、要么帮了倒忙。… 注释当时就写了"这一项要单独跑、单独归因"。现在症状出现了,按约定退回做对照。”
train/WALK_V8_SPEC.md § 3. 改动 C — 质心随机化退回(撤销 v7-⑥ 的 y 项) The run policy never left the ground and fell in the second simulator from the frontal plane - its DR (gains and latency only) covered the actuator axis, not the frontal-plane contact and inertia disturbances the doubled stride amplified; "is DR on" is the wrong question
thin-dr-judged-by-channel-coverageJudge a DR recipe by whether its randomized terms cover the channel where the skill can lose stability, not by whether DR is enabled; when a new skill lengthens single support or enlarges motion in one plane, add disturbances in the plane it destabilizes before training.
Symptom
run R1 (6,000 iterations, 78 min): no flight phase ever appeared, and every one of 13 checkpoints failed the eight-gate MuJoCo smoke. In Isaac: zero terminations in 6,000 iterations, 4.2 deg tilt. In MuJoCo at delay 2: 1/6 survived, falls within 1.9-6.2 s at 50.8-58.7 deg, the most saturated joints all roll joints.
Context
The run contract doubled sagittal travel (knee action scale 0.9, knee swing peak 1.14 rad) with a 0.60 s period and 0.40 duty - long single support - while roll/yaw scales were deliberately left at 0.5. DR copied the s1e recipe: kp/kd (0.9, 1.1) and latency on; mass, COM, joint friction and push all off; ground friction pinned at (1.0, 1.0). Flight was read two independent ways: Isaac's per-foot contact reward stayed 0.845-0.857, never above 0.87 - the arithmetic ceiling of a gait with zero flight - and 30 of 36 MuJoCo seeds had flight fraction exactly 0 (the nonzero six were all tumbling falls). Foot lift itself worked (46-59 mm against a 50 mm design point): the walk-era "not enough travel" failure did not recur.
Change
Verdict FAIL, with the pre-registered first knob (exploration noise 1.0 -> 1.2) explicitly rejected as aimed at a different axis. The lesson was generalized and applied at the next line's design review: the one-leg spec made push, body mass, base COM and friction DR mandatory for its permanent single support and banned the thin recipe.
Outcome
The run line did not continue past R1 in the sources. The one-leg V0 with the wider DR passed its friction-variant gate (mu 0.4 and 1.2) inside a 40/40 acceptance.
Mechanism
Randomizing gains and latency covers the actuator's axis; a skill whose failure lives in frontal-plane contact and inertia needs randomization on that channel (push, mass, COM, friction), or the trainer's exact plant becomes the only one the policy can stand on - the omni_s1 transfer trap a second time, this time with DR switched on.
Applies when
- a policy is flawless in the trainer and falls immediately in a second simulator
- reusing a DR recipe from a skill with a different support pattern
- failures concentrate on one axis (roll, yaw) the DR does not touch
“**机理**: 矢状面行程翻倍 (膝摆动峰 1.14 rad) + T 0.60 + duty 0.40 的长单支撑, 把额状面扰动放大了一个量级; 而 roll/yaw 通道按 §3 **刻意没有放大** (仍 0.5), DR 又是 s1e 复刻的薄配方 (mass/COM/关节摩擦/push **四关全关**, 地面摩擦钉死 (1.0, 1.0))。 … 说明**薄 DR 的判据不能只看"有没有开 DR"**, 要看**开的那几项 是否覆盖失稳所在的通道** —— kp/kd 与延迟是执行器轴向的, 对额状面接触/惯性 扰动零覆盖。 … 0.87 正是「零腾空的走路步态」的天花板算术”
git:Lucen V2@origin/run-line:train/README.md § run R1 FAIL (2026-08-09, run 21-30-30_run_r1): 腾空零, 但病根在额状面不在探索 Oversized lateral COM randomization (+/-5 cm) deliberately forces leg spread
com-randomization-forces-leg-spreadDR ranges can be behavior-shaping tools, not just robustness padding: oversize a randomization axis to force a strategy the reward struggles to express - and expect a compensating behavior to appear as the cost.
Symptom
Feet drift toward the centerline and even collide; policy has no incentive to keep a lateral support base.
Context
COM randomization ranges were chosen asymmetrically by axis: lateral +/-5 cm ("比常规大，故意的" - larger than usual, on purpose), fore-aft +/-2 cm, vertical +/-2 cm. The oversized lateral range is not robustness padding but a behavioral forcing function. Lucen logged it as directly relevant to its own roll-channel / sideways leg-kick symptom.
Change
Set COM randomization to lateral +/-5 cm, fore-aft +/-2 cm, vertical +/-2 cm, with the lateral band intentionally oversized to make narrow stances fail during training.
Outcome
Effective at separating the feet on the reference robot; side effect - the base began swaying left-right, which then required a foot-centerline distance penalty (see reward-chain-foot-height-landing-spacing).
Mechanism
Randomizing COM laterally makes narrow-stance policies fall for some draws, so PPO discovers wide stances as the only strategy robust across the band - DR used as an implicit reward. The sway side effect appears because the policy hedges against unknown COM by active lateral correction.
Applies when
- feet too close / self-collision in a learned gait
- roll-axis instability suspected to come from narrow stance
- choosing COM or mass-offset DR ranges
“两脚太近甚至互撞 → 先试质心横向随机化 ±5 cm，逼迫策略把脚分开；有效但引发新问题——基座开始左右摇摆 … 横向 ±5 cm（比常规大，故意的，用来逼出分腿）/ 前后 ±2 cm / 垂直 ±2 cm”
Experience.md § 质心随机化范围 (lines 75, 84-86) Push DR helped one lineage and hurt another at the same dose - robustness budget is conserved and gets borrowed, not created
push-dr-conditional-budget-conservationBefore opening a disturbance-DR rung, measure whether the untrained policy already meets the spec; if training it anyway, expect the benefit to be conditional on the lineage's existing DR load, grade the intensity, and audit retained margins - budget spent elsewhere will be borrowed back.
Symptom
The push rung's outcome flipped with the lineage: direct +/-0.6 m/s push failed outright on first attempt (base walking collapsed - kd1.2 scan 0/3 from iter 3300, sim2sim self-falls with pushes OFF - no PASS point existed); staged +/-0.3 then gave the narrow-kd single-working-point lineage real gains (push survival 1/5 -> 4/5) while the SAME dose made the dual-working-point balanced-band lineage WORSE (20-seed survival 18 -> 12/20 plus across-the-board push regression).
Context
The four-ladder verdict ("四梯定案", s2e/s2f at both intensities) named the pattern: "push DR 收益条件性" - the benefit is conditional on how much robustness budget the lineage has already spent. The law candidate: "DR 总预算守恒, 平衡带鲁棒性从抗扰余量借" - total DR budget is conserved; a lineage already covering a wide plant band pays for push tolerance out of its disturbance margin. Both S2 ladders therefore closed at the friction rung, with the decisive numerator: untrained push tolerance already met the 4-6 N*s requirement, so the rung was not needed at all ("⑥ push 不训(收益条件性,免训 ±0.6 已达 标)"). The same accounting later justified the C-before-S2 ordering ("push/μ 两轮已实证 DR 预算有限且会被重分配") and trimmed the second S2 pass to three rungs.
Change
Push removed from the standing ladder; graded intensity retained as the method IF a lineage ever needs push training; "does the untrained policy already meet the disturbance spec" instituted as the first check before opening any disturbance rung.
Outcome
Two rungs (push, ground mu) deleted from the second S2 pass on measured grounds; the ladder's real yield was re-stated honestly as precision, not robustness (speed gate 0 -> 20/20, zero-command drift 0.98 -> 0.06 m, but push 159 -> 125/160).
Mechanism
A fixed-capacity policy allocates representation and margin across the training distribution; adding a disturbance axis to a lineage that already spans a wide plant family forces reallocation - the new tolerance is bought with existing margins. Lineages with narrow plant coverage have free budget, so the identical DR dose lands as gain. Benefit is a property of (dose x lineage state), never of the dose alone.
Applies when
- proposing push/perturbation training on a hardened lineage
- the same DR rung helped one lineage and hurt another
- accounting where a ladder's robustness gains actually came from
“push DR 收益条件性 —— s2e⑥a (单工作点血统 kd 窄带) ±0.3 得抗推 1/5→4/5; s2f⑥ (双工作点平衡带血统) 同档反而 20-seed 存活 18→12/20 且抗推全面倒退。规律候选: DR 总预算守恒, 平衡带鲁棒性从抗扰余量借。两阶梯均以 ⑤ 摩擦级收官 … 抗推 4~6 N·s 免训已达标。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 4. ⑥ push 四梯定案 (2026-08-07) A DR tail the robot never has is pure cost - stage deterministic plant levels instead of one wide uniform
dr-tail-plant-continuationSet every DR range from the measured deployment distribution and cut tails that hardware cannot produce; when an axis changes the controller's character (delay, major gain regimes), prefer staged deterministic levels with gates over one wide uniform.
Symptom
Two consecutive lineages (s1e, s1f) trained under uniform latency DR (0, 0.06 s = 0-3 frames) both converged to drag-glide gaits - buying survival under heavy delay by giving up swing (3.6 mm) - even though the real pipeline never exceeds ~2 frames.
Context
The account: roughly 1/3 of training quality was spent on the >2 frame tail that hardware never presents ("uniform 尾部 ~1/3 训练质量 花在真机不出现的 >2 帧上"). The deeper reading came from the user: uniform 0-3 frames is not merely tail-heavy - it "把性质不同的控制系统 混进同一 PPO batch" (mixes qualitatively different control systems into one PPO batch); a 0-frame and a 3-frame plant demand different controllers, and one policy trained on the mixture serves neither. The S2 v2 ladder therefore redefined latency "从「随机化参数」重新定 义为 actuator/control plant 的一部分": deterministic FIFO levels, staged 1 frame then 2 frames (lo=hi so fractional interpolation degenerates to exact N frames, synonymous with the harness --delay N), each level gated by the fixed acceptance battery - a plant continuation, not a randomization.
Change
Latency DR replaced by staged deterministic levels covering the measured 1-2 tick reality with no tail; each stage a separate continuation rung with the standard gate and rollback.
Outcome
The s2_lag1 rung showed the clean-signal benefit immediately (survival 20/20, heading 6x recovery) with the swing cost booked honestly (21 -> 12 mm, half-pass, ladder paused for adjudication); the drag-glide attractor from uniform tails did not recur.
Mechanism
DR asks one policy to cover a plant family; when part of the family is fictitious, the policy pays real capability for fictitious robustness, and when family members demand structurally different controllers, gradient averaging produces a compromise controller optimal for none. A measured, discrete plant set matches the actual deployment support and keeps each rung's training signal coherent.
Applies when
- policies converge to degenerate gaits that buy worst-case survival
- a DR range extends well past the measured hardware range
- choosing between wide randomization and a staged ladder on an axis
“两轮实证(s1e/s1f)宽尾延迟 DR 逼出拖地滑行 … uniform 0~3 帧不止尾重,而是把性质不同的 控制系统混进同一 PPO batch;1→2 帧确定性分级 = plant continuation,训练信号干净得多—— latency 从「随机化参数」重新定义为 actuator/control plant 的一部分。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 4. v2 阶梯 (2026-08-07 用户定) Guessed joint friction was 2.5x low and damping 5x high - measure, then DR around nominal
friction-measured-not-guessedMeasure frictionloss and damping separately (they need different rigs), put the measured value at DR center, and express DR as an additive band around that nominal - a DR range around a guessed value can exclude the real robot entirely.
Symptom
Old MJCF friction values were invented, not measured; when finally measured, every guessed value was wrong by a large factor in some direction.
Context
Joint friction split into Coulomb (frictionloss, tau_c) and viscous (damping b). Measured with the robot hung from a crane (吊机测) while armature was measured no-load; the two measurements are deliberately separated. Old MJCF: frictionloss 0.05, damping 0.1, DR joint_friction range [0, 0.1] "凭空拍的" (made up out of thin air).
Change
Replace guessed values with measured ones - frictionloss: RS06 0.15 / RS02 0.12 / RS00 0.13 N*m (old 0.05, i.e. 2.5x too low); damping: 0.02 N*m*s/rad on all three motor types (old 0.1, i.e. 5x too high). DR reshaped from an absolute made-up range [0, 0.1] to an additive band around measured nominal: joint_friction_add [-0.05, +0.10].
Outcome
"摩擦定稿(与 armature 一起, plant 参数第一次全部来自实测)" - friction frozen as part of the first fully-measured plant; DR now brackets a measured truth instead of spanning an invented interval.
Mechanism
Coulomb friction and viscous damping have opposite behavioral signatures (constant-torque threshold vs velocity-proportional drag); guessing both wrong in opposite directions gives a plant that is simultaneously too easy to start moving and too hard to move fast. DR centered on a wrong nominal makes the policy robust to a family of plants that does not contain the real one.
Applies when
- plant friction/damping values have no measurement provenance
- DR ranges are absolute intervals rather than bands around a nominal
- policy is over- or under-damped on hardware relative to sim
“测关节摩擦。吊机测，而armature应该空机测试。… frictionloss τ_c (N·m) │ 0.15 │ 0.12 │ 0.13 │ 0.05(低 2.5×) … damping b (N·m·s/rad) │ 0.02 │ 0.02 │ 0.02 │ 0.1(高 5×) … DR │ joint_friction_add: [−0.05, +0.10] 叠标称 │ 旧 [0, 0.1] 凭空拍的”
Experience.md § 摩擦定稿表 (lines 12-25) Close a question with an audit, then freeze the wording - later symptoms may not reopen it without new hard evidence
frozen-verdicts-semantic-boundariesWhen an audit closes a hardware-vs-policy question, record the closing evidence, freeze a citable wording for future recurrences, and set the reopening bar explicitly; separate robustness perturbations from plant-truth questions so a DR rung's failure can never silently reopen a closed measurement.
Symptom
Recurring directional bias on the robot kept re-suggesting "maybe the hardware/COM/mechanics are asymmetric", threatening to re-litigate questions that audits had already closed - burning attention each time a descendant policy leaned or drifted.
Context
Two boundary decisions were written as permanent: (1) semantic separation - "S2④ COM ±20mm = 纯鲁棒性扰动,不再承担「解释真机后仰」任务" - if the COM-DR rung degrades, the ONLY allowed conclusion is "policy insufficiently robust to COM uncertainty"; reopening "is the CAD COM wrong" is forbidden because the mass audit was completed and closed (@63f9212). (2) a frozen wording for chirality, to be quoted verbatim whenever left/right bias appears in later rungs: observed directional bias = policy-level spontaneous symmetry breaking; plant asymmetry = no supporting evidence after the mass + model symmetry audit; mitigation candidate pi_sym queued, not blocking. The evidential basis was quantitative: the root policy was perfectly symmetric under +/-6 N*s pushes (40/40) while descendants broke (17/40, 13/40) - "手性是 S2 训练中获得的, 根没有; 机械侧已双 PASS 关案, 不重开".
Change
Closed questions carry (a) the audit commit that closed them, (b) a frozen citable wording for recurrences, and (c) an explicit evidence bar for reopening ("无新硬证据不得重开").
Outcome
Later chirality observations (C2's 15 pp turn gap, hip_roll drift bias) were handled as policy-lineage properties with policy-side mitigations, without a single hardware re-audit cycle.
Mechanism
Symptom classes recur under different guises; without a frozen verdict each recurrence re-runs the same expensive investigation and risks a different (worse-informed) conclusion. Freezing verdict plus wording converts recurring symptoms into citations, while the evidence bar keeps the closure honest rather than dogmatic - the root/descendant symmetry comparison is what makes "it's the training, not the machine" checkable at any time.
Applies when
- a recurring symptom keeps suggesting an already-audited hardware cause
- writing conclusions for a completed calibration/audit
- a DR rung's degradation invites re-measuring the plant
“若 S2④ 退化,结论只能是「当前 policy 对 COM 不确定性不够鲁棒」,不得重开「CAD COM 是不是错了」… 手性冻结表述 … Plant asymmetry: no supporting evidence after mass + model symmetry audit … 无新硬证据不得重开机械不对称”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 4. 语义分界与手性冻结表述(2026-08-07 用户定,永久) Friction DR was demoted after a measurement (94% success at mu 0.4 with no friction randomization) and promoted again when the action contract changed and mu 0.4 fell to 76% - DR priorities belong to a plant and contract, not to a task
friction-priority-re-measured-after-plant-changeRe-measure transfer along the friction axis for every new action contract or plant, not once per task; a DR priority settled under one action parameterization does not carry to the next.
Symptom
Getting up is all scraping and pushing against the ground, and training pinned friction at 1.0, so friction looked like the first thing to randomize.
Context
The MuJoCo gate on R0.5 (5 categories x 10 seeds x 4 friction levels) measured 100/100/98/94% at mu 1.0/0.8/0.6/0.4: degradation showed first as time (prone 3.2 -> 5.3 s), not failure, so friction DR was demoted and the DR budget earmarked for mass/COM. After the switch to the beta-anchored action space, V2.2 read 90/94/90/76%: mu 0.4 was now the weak row.
Change
V2.3 (single variable): friction DR static (1.0, 1.0) -> (0.2, 2.0), dynamic (0.15, 1.6), the HiFAR range keeping the base dynamic/static ratio; restitution untouched. Continued from v2_2.
Outcome
Isaac nominal 99.8% (DR did not hurt the nominal plant); MuJoCo 98/98/96/92% - mu 0.4 76 -> 92%, mu 1.0 back to R3.1's 98% with bounded torque.
Mechanism
How much a policy leans on friction depends on how it moves; the spec records that the sensitivity rose after the action contract changed but does not establish why.
Applies when
- changing the action space, gains or authority of an existing skill
- deciding which DR axis to spend the next rung on
- an earlier sweep justified leaving an axis unrandomized
“**μ 砍到 0.4(训练值的 40%)仍有 94%**,退化先体现在**用时**(prone 3.2→5.3 s) 而不是成败。μ≥0.8 完全无损。→ **§17 曾把"摩擦随机化提到 R4 第一项"当作优先 事项,这条实测把它降级了**”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §21 MuJoCo 复核门 ② 摩擦依赖 Record-high training reward hid a fully-failing DR subgroup - aggregate metrics average over draws, gates must test per condition
aggregate-metrics-mask-subgroup-failureNever gate on metrics aggregated across DR draws: evaluate at fixed representative conditions (especially the deployment-critical stratum), and if a difficulty axis matters, ramp it on measured per-stratum success rather than sampling the full range from iteration zero.
Symptom
omni_s1e trained under constant-wide latency DR (0, 0.06 s) posted the lineage's highest-ever Isaac reward (129) - while the --delay 2 smoke evaluation showed 3/3 falls from iter 1500 onward, persisting to early stop; the usable checkpoint window shrank to iters 500-1000.
Context
Diagnosis written plainly: "聚合奖励掩盖重延迟尾部子群体失败" - the aggregated reward averages over latency draws, so the majority of light-delay environments can mask the total failure of the heavy-delay tail. The remedy for the training side was a survival-gated ratchet curriculum (survival_gated_latency): the sampling cap starts at 0.02 s and rises +0.01 only when a 4096-reset window's survival (time_out share) reaches >=90%, capped at 0.06, ratchet up-only - "增益与延迟耐受一起长,不升到策略撑不住的 地方" (gain and delay tolerance grow together; never raise past what the policy can hold). The detection side was already in place from the noise-crutch episode: the per-condition smoke curve, not the training reward, is the health readout.
Change
Latency exposure made curriculum-gated on measured subgroup survival instead of uniform-from-zero; per-condition (--delay 2) smoke evaluation kept as the authoritative curve; watcher scoring adjusted (survival weighted 3x) so recovery during hard phases is not early-stopped away.
Outcome
The failure mode was caught by the smoke curve within one generation; the follow-up redesign (deterministic staged latency) superseded the ratchet, but the aggregate-masking lesson held through both.
Mechanism
Expected-return training weights each DR draw by probability, so a subgroup can contribute bounded loss while being catastrophically failed; any scalar averaged over the randomization cannot distinguish "uniformly decent" from "great on easy draws, dead on hard ones". Only conditioning the evaluation on the stratum reveals the split, and curricula should raise difficulty on measured stratum success, not on schedule.
Applies when
- training reward hits records while a fixed-condition eval degrades
- wide DR on an axis where deployment sits at one known value
- designing curricula for difficulty axes (delay, push, terrain)
“常量 latency DR (0,0.06) 从零训被证伪——Isaac reward 129 历代最高,但 --delay 2 冒烟 iter1500 起 3/3 全摔持续到早停(聚合奖励掩盖重延迟尾部子群体失败,可用窗口只剩 500/1000)。… 采样上限 0.02 起步 … ≥90% 才 +0.01s,0.06 封顶,棘轮只升不降。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 3. S1.5(s1e 训练塌方复盘) Multiple changes may share one rung only if their symptom spaces are orthogonal - with the ablation order written in advance
orthogonal-batch-with-ablation-orderBatch changes into one rung only when you can name each change's private symptom space in writing; pre-register the ablation order (numeric before structural) and per-change escalation plans, so a mixed outcome decomposes without new decisions.
Symptom
v8 needed four repairs at once (saturation cheating, landing impact, leg narrowing, heading alignment) - strict one-variable laddering would have cost four training cycles for wounds that were all already diagnosed.
Context
The batch was allowed because each change owns a disjoint symptom space, stated explicitly: "A→形态/饱和, B→落地/步态高度, C→腿距/roll 摇摆, D→偏航/转向" - so a single run can attribute each outcome to its change by which symptom moved. For the failure case, the ablation order was pre-registered (A2 -> A1 -> B -> D -> C, "先撤数 值改动" - retract numeric tweaks before structural ones), and every change carried its own escalation/rollback plan (e.g. A insufficient: joint_pos_ref 1.6->2.0 or widen the exp kernel; B overdone - robot afraid to land: v_ok 0.30->0.45; D unstable: rel 0.5->0.25, not back to 0).
Change
Four-change rung executed as one run with per-change symptom ownership, per-change contingency plans, and a pre-registered global ablation order for unattributable regressions.
Outcome
The rung retained single-run attributability without paying 4x training cost; the contingency table meant no failure mode would require improvising an ablation under pressure.
Mechanism
The one-variable rule exists to keep attribution possible, not as an end in itself; attribution survives batching exactly when the changes' observable effects are separable. Orthogonality is a claim that must be argued per pair in advance - and the pre-registered ablation order is the escape hatch for the case the claim fails.
Applies when
- several diagnosed fixes are queued and ladder time is scarce
- deciding between strict laddering and a combined rung
- a combined rung shows a regression no single change explains
“四个改动症状空间基本正交,可单 run 归因:A→形态/饱和,B→落地/步态高度,C→腿距/roll 摇摆,D→偏航/转向。出现无法归因的整体退化时消融顺序 A2→A1→B→D→C(先撤数值改动)。”
train/WALK_V8_SPEC.md § 8. 风险与归因 Fix the task first, harden the plant second - DR budget spent on a dying task is wasted
task-shaping-before-plant-hardeningFreeze the task/command distribution before spending DR budget on plant robustness; if the task will still change, schedule plant hardening as a final pass and book the interim robustness gap explicitly.
Symptom
Tempting default ordering was to keep the plant-hardened (S2) lineage and teach it new commands; but the S2 plant adaptation had been earned on the straight-walk task, and the new omni tasks (sidewalk, in-place turn) use completely different contact patterns.
Context
The team had direct evidence that DR robustness is a budget that gets reallocated when the data distribution changes ("push/μ 两轮已实证 DR 预算有限且会被重分配") - robustness trained under one task/command distribution does not persist when training continues under another.
Change
Ladder order set to: first C (task shaping - add command modes until the task family is final), then a second S2 pass (plant hardening) on the C product. The plant-robustness gap this creates mid-ladder is accepted and booked explicitly ("此处不欠账" - the debt is assigned to the second S2 pass, not denied).
Outcome
The first S2 pass was not wasted: its laws (kd bandwidth <-> low mu, push need not be trained, ground mu need not be trained, bistability) let the second pass drop from five rungs to three. The C ladder itself ran on the softer plant band without incident.
Mechanism
DR robustness is carried by the policy's visited-state distribution; changing the task changes that distribution, so robustness bought under the old task partially dissolves. Hardening before the task is final means paying for robustness on states that will no longer be visited - "给一个即将不存在的任务花预算" (spending budget on a soon-to-not-exist task).
Applies when
- deciding ordering between skill/command expansion and DR hardening
- a hardened lineage is proposed as the root for a task change
- robustness regressions appear after adding new command modes
“S2 的 plant 适应是为直行步态调的，C4 侧走/C3 原地转是完全不同的接触模式，先硬化再改任务 = 给一个即将不存在的任务花预算（push/μ 两轮已实证 DR 预算有限且会被重分配）。故顺序改为 先 C（任务定型）→ 再 S2（plant 硬化）。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 0. 决策逻辑 = 短板可不可恢复 (末段) The latency DR range must cover the measured deployment pipeline - 0-20 ms could not even reach the real 1-2 control steps
latency-dr-covers-measured-pipelineMeasure end-to-end action latency in control steps on your own stack (including cross-process queue boundaries), set the DR range to cover it with margin, and never import a delay count without its control frequency.
Symptom
Action latency was randomized over 0-20 ms (0-1 control step at 50 Hz), but the measured deployment path is 1-2 steps: the deploy process writes the target, an independently running BusWorker picks it up on its NEXT cycle, plus CAN round-trip - the training range could not cover the robot's actual latency at all.
Context
Fix: widen action_latency_s to 0-0.06 (0-3 steps). The external reference's "uniform 6 steps" was explicitly NOT copied - that number depends on his unknown control frequency; locally, a sweep at 0/1/2/3 steps showed walk_v5 survives all with insensitive metrics, so 6 steps "在我们这里没有依据" (has no local basis). The range was set from the measured pipeline with margin, not from a foreign constant.
Change
action_latency_s (0, 0.02) -> (0, 0.06), justified by pipeline analysis (writer/worker cycle boundary + bus time) and bounded by the local latency sweep.
Outcome
The DR band now brackets the true deployment latency; the policy trains against the delay it will actually face instead of a fictional sub-step world.
Mechanism
Latency DR only immunizes against delays inside its support; a range below the physical pipeline guarantees an untrained distribution shift at deployment. The correct range comes from tracing the pipeline's worst case (queueing boundaries + transport), and foreign step-counts are meaningless without the control rate they were measured at.
Applies when
- setting or auditing action-delay randomization
- deployment uses a separate bus/worker process from the policy loop
- importing delay-modeling numbers from other projects
“现行 0~20 ms = 0~1 个 50Hz 控制步, 而实测部署链路是 1~2 步(deploy 写 STATE.target 后, 独立跑的 BusWorker 下一轮才取走下发, 再加 CAN 往返)——现在的区间覆盖不到真机的实际延迟。… 不照抄参考来源的"统一 6 步": 那取决于他的控制频率(未知), 而我们扫过 0/1/2/3 步 … 6 步在我们这里没有依据。”
train/WALK_V7_SPEC.md § ⑤ action_latency_s 0~0.02 → 0~0.06 A frame-history observation under zero DR memorizes the trainer's plant fingerprint - the estimator must see variation to learn estimation
history-obs-needs-plant-variationIf the observation carries history (stacked frames, RNN), keep at least minimal plant variation (gain/latency jitter) on from the first iteration - "nominal first, robust later" is structurally invalid for estimator-bearing contracts.
Symptom
omni_s1 (fresh 215-dim contract with a 5-frame history window, trained with DR fully off): training all green, yet the MuJoCo gate scored 0/20 on all eight doors - falls within 2 s, seven checkpoints, not one transferred.
Context
The history window exists precisely to let the actor implicitly estimate line velocity and actuator dynamics (the actor is denied base_lin_vel by observation honesty). Under a constant plant that implicit estimator has nothing to estimate - it learns the trainer's exact response fingerprint instead, and any other simulator's micro-differences are out-of-distribution: "5 帧窗按设计就是隐式估计器, plant 恒定时它学到 Isaac 精确响应的指纹". The planned "nominal-first-robust-later" staging was declared STRUCTURALLY incompatible with history observations: "估计器要见过变化才学估计, 否则学背诵" (an estimator must see variation to learn estimation, otherwise it learns recitation). Honest confound note kept: this is mixed with "zero DR does not transfer, period" - but both attributions prescribe the same fix, so no control was run.
Change
S1.1: minimum actuator jitter turned on from day one - kp/kd +/-10%, latency 0-1 frame (friction/COM/mass still nominal, no push - those stay for the S2 ladder).
Outcome
Transfer restored: survival 0/20 -> 20/20, speed 19/20, foot distance 20/20 (remaining failures moved to gait quality, a different disease); the staging doctrine was amended - history-carrying contracts never train under a frozen plant.
Mechanism
A recurrent/history channel fits whatever temporal structure minimizes loss; with a deterministic plant the cheapest structure is the plant's own impulse-response signature, yielding features that are simulator-specific rather than physics-general. Plant variation forces the channel to carry state-estimation features that transfer.
Conflicts
Attribution is explicitly confounded with the simpler "zero DR never transfers" reading ("与「零 DR 本身就不迁移」混杂 … 两种归因处方相同, 不做对照") - the source chose not to spend a control run separating them.
Applies when
- adding frame stacking or recurrence to an actor observation
- a nominal-plant policy fails a cross-simulator gate within seconds
- planning DR staging for a new contract
“frame_hist × 零 DR = plant 指纹过拟合——5 帧窗按设计就是隐式估计器, plant 恒定时它学到 Isaac 精确响应的指纹, MuJoCo 的微小差异即 OOD, 2 s 内摔, 七个 checkpoint 无一迁移。「先标称后鲁棒」的分段与历史观测结构性冲突:估计器要见过变化才学估计,否则学背诵。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 3. S1.1 修订记录 ① Fine-tuning through a reward-table change was falsified (scatter, half-recover, collapse) - continuation training is legal only with the reward frozen
fine-tune-reward-change-falsifiedNever fine-tune through a reward-table change - retrain from zero; reserve checkpoint continuation for frozen-reward plant/DR widening, reset noise_std when branching, and watch for the scatter/half-recover/collapse signature as the abort trigger.
Symptom
The s1c A/B experiment: arm B fine-tuned from an existing checkpoint under the revised reward (same contract, same network, changed reward + small DR) and failed with a characteristic signature - scatter, half-recover, fall back ("打散→半恢复→摔回"); arm A trained from zero under the same config won decisively (full shaping lifted swing to 21.6 mm within 500 iters; shipped at 5500).
Context
Verdict recorded: "从零 + 强塑形是本机唯一验证过的发育路径" (from-zero plus strong shaping is this machine's only validated development path). The signature became a standing stop criterion in every later rung that touched a reward ("s1c B 臂签名,出现即停"). Crucially the boundary of the law was drawn explicitly when S2 continuation training was proposed: "当年证伪的是「奖励表中途改版的 fine-tune」… S2 续训奖励表全程冻结、只逐级加宽 plant/DR,属另一类" - continuing a checkpoint with the reward FROZEN while widening plant/DR one rung at a time is a different class and was allowed (and then worked, powering the whole S2/C lineage) - with the honest fallback that if frozen-reward continuation ever collapses, that rung retrains from zero and the doctrine gets re-examined with data. Fine-tune arms also need mechanical care: reset the checkpoint's collapsed noise_std (terminal 0.033 "会杀死探索") and account for iteration counters re-zeroing (curriculum gates fire immediately).
Change
Reward changes and lineage continuation permanently separated: reward revisions -> from-zero retrain; plant/DR widening -> frozen-reward continuation with per-rung gates; the B-arm signature promoted to a universal tripwire.
Outcome
No later reward revision was attempted by fine-tune; frozen-reward continuation carried S2 (PD/COM/friction rungs) and the C command ladder successfully from the s1e root.
Mechanism
A trained policy sits in an optimum of its reward's geometry; changing the reward moves the optimum but leaves the policy's exploration noise near-zero and its value function calibrated to the old returns - it disassembles the old solution faster than it can assemble the new one. Widening DR under a frozen reward instead keeps the optimum's identity and asks only for local robustification.
Applies when
- proposing to fine-tune an existing policy under a revised reward
- planning a robustification ladder from a validated checkpoint
- a continued run scatters then partially recovers then collapses
“B 臂 fine-tune 证伪(打散→半恢复→摔回——从零 + 强塑形是本机唯一验证过的发育路径)。… 当年证伪的是「奖励表中途改版的 fine-tune」(B 臂,塑形突变致终盘摔回);S2 续训奖励表全程冻结、只逐级加宽 plant/DR,属另一类;若 s2_lag1 续训本身塌方,回退方案 = 该级从零重训,续训教义再议(拿数据说话)。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 3. S1.3 / 4. 与 s1c fine-tune 证伪的关系 When hardware underperforms, audit deployment knobs before prescribing retraining
deploy-knob-attribution-before-retrainingBefore any "retrain it" decision, reproduce the symptom in sim under the exact deployment configuration; if the symptom follows the deployment knob rather than the checkpoint, fix the knob or randomize it in training - never top-up-train the skill.
Symptom
Real-robot feedback after the C4 deployment - "turning is weak" - with two retraining options on the table: top up turn training, or restart from the s1e root.
Context
The sim account showed the policy turned well (75-81% at pw1.0); the robot was deployed at power-scale 0.8. The 3-6 pp difference between C2 and C4 policies at the same power was noise; the 40-50 pp difference between power levels was the entire effect. Both proposed retraining paths would have burned budget on a non-existent training gap, and restarting from s1e would additionally have discarded the sidewalk skill that took four rungs and a coordinate-bug hunt to obtain.
Change
Decision: retrain nothing. (1) Try pw1.0 on hardware first - sim says net gain; (2) only if 1.0 is unacceptable (heat/feel), the correct training fix is power/torque randomization in the S2 plant line (one variable, fixes turn and backward together) - not skill top-up; (3) restart-from-root explicitly ranked worst.
Outcome
The "weakness" was fully explained by the deployment knob; the sim/real signatures matched the earlier power-derating law verbatim ("与 C2 时代 power 衰减主要伤非前进轴 逐字吻合").
Mechanism
The policy's competence is defined under its training plant; deployment knobs (power scale, teleop mapping, command bands) silently define a different plant. Attributing a deploy-plant effect to a training gap produces exactly the wrong fix - more training on the wrong variable.
Applies when
- real robot underperforms a skill that sim says is fine
- proposals on the table include retraining or re-rooting
- deployment uses any override the trainer never saw (power scale, remapped commands, different control rate)
“正确的训练修法不是补训转向，而是训练时加 power/力矩随机化让策略在 0.8 下自己补偿 —— 单变量，属 S2 plant 线，一次同时修好转向与后退；从 s1e 重训是最差选项：丢掉四轮 + 一个指标 bug 才换来的侧走，而 C2 的转向本来就没问题。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3p. 三 处置顺序（回答「补训转向 还是 回 s1e 重训」：都不该） Verify changes in the run's resolved config (and checkpoint md5), never in the source you edited
resolved-config-is-source-of-truthAttribution and single-variable claims must be made on the resolved per-run config (and checkpoint hashes), not on source diffs; verify every intended variable landed before burning compute, and verify every rollback byte-level against the historical resolved config.
Symptom
An intended arm-B config change never reached the training run - the run was grid-identical (117/117 cells) to its C2 predecessor - and the burn was only understood afterwards.
Context
The repo's discipline hardened around the logged resolved config (logs/<run>/params/env.yaml) as the only source of truth: (1) the C2 root-cause analysis was performed against the checkpoint's logged env.yaml, not the code ("以真相源 23-19-25/params/env.yaml 核实"); (2) C4 added a pre-flight: grep the landed env.yaml for the new keys, and compare the first checkpoints of the two arms - identical md5 means the variable did not land, stop immediately; (3) the C4 full rollback was accepted only after starting a 1-iter run and byte-comparing its resolved env.yaml against the historical 700-era file (identical except 4 dormant schema fields, each verified to be at its no-op default).
Change
Standing pre-flight and post-change verification: dump/diff the resolved config that the run actually consumed; use checkpoint hash equality as a cheap "variable landed" detector between arms.
Outcome
Caught the not-landed variable class of failure; made the rollback provably equivalent to the historical training state rather than believed-equivalent.
Mechanism
Between edited source and the running experiment sit layered overrides, env-var switches, and registration logic; only the resolved, serialized config reflects their composition. Diffing at that level tests the actual experiment; diffing source tests intent.
Applies when
- launching an A/B pair or any single-variable rung
- rolling back to a historical training state
- a run behaves as if a change was never applied
“开训前先验落盘 cfg（上一轮臂B 的改动没进 run，与 C2 逐格 117/117 相同）：grep -E "base_com|joint_friction|push_robot|track_lin_vel_y_exp" logs/<run>/params/env.yaml 另：两臂第一个 checkpoint 的 md5 若相同 = 变量没进去，立刻停。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3d. ⚠️ 开训前先验落盘 cfg / 3l. 回退清单（验证） Removing a hand trim re-exposed the plant offset it had been silently compensating - and a slope scan told bias from sensitivity
hand-trims-hide-plant-offsetsTreat hand-tuned trims as undocumented plant measurements: before deleting one, find what it compensates and re-house that knowledge in the model or the reward budget; diagnose posture errors with a sensitivity sweep to distinguish constant bias from gain problems.
Symptom
After switching from the old hand-trimmed default to the clean geometric zero, the retrained stand policy's only regression was torso lean: 1.8 deg -> 4.1 deg backward.
Context
The old default's ankle-pitch trim (-0.0489/+0.0628) had been pre-compensating a fore-aft COM mismatch; removing the trim removed the hidden compensation, and the posture reward alone was too weak to win it back. A COM sensitivity scan settled what kind of problem this was: sweeping base COM offset -50 to +50 mm gave nearly identical slopes for old and new policies (~0.026 deg/mm) - "不是质心敏感度问题, 是恒定偏置" (not a sensitivity problem, a constant bias). Fix landed in stand_v1b: posture corrected to +0.24 deg while keeping symmetry (<=0.1 deg) and low effort (0.259), disturbance rejection better than both predecessors. Model credibility was checked the honest way: v0's sim prediction at the real COM position (-22 mm) was -2.31 deg lean vs real measured 2.2-3.1 deg - "预测精准命中" - which is what licensed trusting v1b's -0.52 deg prediction. (Side flag from the same file: a sign convention had been documented wrongly in early comments - gravity_base[0] > 0 is forward lean.)
Change
Trims retired in favor of explicit modeling: symmetric geometric default plus a posture-reward budget sized to carry the real COM offset; the offset itself known (real COM ~22 mm behind model).
Outcome
stand_v1b passed acceptance as the standing lineage's final version; the walk-line requirement "加大躯干姿态惩罚权重" was upgraded from suggestion to mandatory, since walking amplifies what standing tolerates (real walk_v1 hit 26 deg lean vs sim 7.4).
Mechanism
Hand trims are plant knowledge stored in the wrong place - invisible, asymmetric, and stale after recalibration; removing them re-exposes the raw plant error. A sensitivity sweep separates the two possible diagnoses (slope change = control problem; parallel offset = constant plant bias), each with a different fix.
Applies when
- cleaning up hand-tuned offsets/trims in defaults or calibration
- a posture bias appears after a default or calibration change
- deciding whether a lean is a COM-sensitivity or constant-offset issue
“两者斜率几乎相同(≈0.026°/mm),v1 只是整体多后仰约 2.4° —— 不是质心敏感度问题,是恒定偏置。成因:旧 default 的踝俯仰 trim(−0.0489/+0.0628)本就预补偿了前后质心偏差,换成零位 default 后这份补偿没了 … v0 在真机质心处(−22 mm)的 sim 预测为 −2.31° 后仰,真机实测 2.2~3.1° 后仰 —— 预测精准命中。”
train/RETRAIN_v2.md § 4b. stand_v1 独立验证结果 / 4c. stand_v1b 验收结果 A constant-value plant rung passed every binary gate with record scores - and shipped 60% thinner posture margins that hardware exposed
constant-value-dr-overfits-marginRandomize deployment-critical axes over a narrow band spanning the measured real support - never a single value, never a fictitious tail - and report graded margin quantities (tilt margin) next to binary gates, because saturated gates rank thin-margin and thick-margin policies identically.
Symptom
s2_lag1 (trained at constant 1-frame latency) posted the strongest sim gate sheet in history (20/20 everywhere) yet was unstable on hardware, while s1e (trained across the full 0-3 frame band) was the every-run-stable SOTA at the same power.
Context
The sim autopsy (new --delay-jitter harness modeling the BusWorker's time-varying phase drift): 18 runs across constant and time-varying delays ALL survived - time variation alone does not kill - but the tilt-margin ordering reproduced hardware exactly: s1e 7.7-9.1 deg (thickest) < s2_lag1 10.7-15.0 < s1c 16.2-18.2. Attribution: constant-value training permits precise specialization to that one value; s1e's band diversity forced cross-value robustness - "恒定 1 帧训练 vs s1e 的 0~3 帧全带——分布多样性逼出跨值鲁棒,恒定值允许精确 特化" - so the constant-rung policy's margins were ~60% thinner, fine in sim's clean world, pushed over the line by real-world disturbances. Tool lesson booked: "存活门二值饱和后掩盖裕度差" - binary survival gates saturate and hide margin differences; graded margin columns (tilt-max) belong in the report. The synthesis with the opposite failure (wide tails cause drag-glide): the proposed resolution was a NARROW uniform band (0.02, 0.04) covering exactly the real 1-2 ticks - diversity inside the measured support, no tail, no single point. s1e's root selection later leaned on the same property: its full-band latency training "预装" the delay rungs and delivered "全工况稳定裕度" that survived power derating.
Change
DR-on-an-axis design refined to a three-way distinction: no wide fictitious tails (drag), no single constant values (thin margins), but a narrow band spanning the measured real support; acceptance reports gained graded margin columns alongside binary gates.
Outcome
The tilt-margin column entered the standard report; the s1e root (band-trained) carried the C ladder while the constant-value branch was archived with its three contributions credited.
Mechanism
Robustness margins are shaped by the diversity of the training distribution, not just its support: a point-mass distribution lets the optimizer trade margin for on-point performance, while a band forces solutions that keep margin across the band - and binary survival metrics cannot see the difference until the margin is spent on hardware.
Conflicts
The narrow-band (0.02,0.04) resolution was a pending recommendation ("裁决建议(待用户)") at the time of writing; the lineage instead moved root to s1e whose full-band training predated the staged ladder - the deterministic-staging card and this card record the two failure modes the final design must avoid simultaneously.
Applies when
- a rung trained at a fixed plant value aces sim but wobbles on hardware
- binary acceptance gates are all saturated across candidates
- choosing between constant, banded, and wide DR on one axis
“18 跑全活,时变性单独不足以击杀;但 tilt_max 裕度排序完整复现真机:s1e 7.7~9.1°(最厚)< s2_lag1 10.7~15.0 … 恒定 1 帧训练 vs s1e 的 0~3 帧全带——分布多样性逼出跨值鲁棒,恒定值允许精确特化 … 存活门二值饱和后掩盖裕度差(s2_lag1 sim 门 20/20 史上最强却真机不稳)”
train/README.md § s2_lag1 真机不稳 × s1e 稳的 sim 对拍(2026-08-07,时变延迟实验) Before resuming a checkpoint, diff the current cfg against what the checkpoint was trained with
resume-state-dr-audit"One variable per rung" counts variables against what the checkpoint actually experienced: audit the checkpoint's logged training config and align every unintended difference before resuming.
Symptom
Two consecutive rungs (C1 back-mode, C2' forward-turn) failed from the same root with the same full-regression signature despite adding different new modes - so the mode was not the cause.
Context
Both runs resumed s1e-500 with the then-current cfg, which carried PD band (0.8,1.2) plus three DR events (base_com, joint_friction, push_robot) accumulated by later lineages. Verified on the training machine from the source of truth (the run's logged params/env.yaml): s1e-500's actual training state was PD +/-10% (0.9,1.1) and all three DR events None. Resuming it under the new cfg meant eating 4 new plant variables plus a new mode at once - the intended "1 variable" was actually 5. A worse variant (c1_redo from s2e_pd-1400) added push +/-0.3 to a root that had never seen it: near-total collapse within +100 iters.
Change
C2 aligned the cfg to the checkpoint's training state before resuming (PD back to (0.9,1.1), three DR events off) - making the new mode the only true variable. Permanent rule recorded: compare the checkpoint's training-time DR with the current cfg before any resume.
Outcome
C2 trained successfully from the same root that had "failed" twice (wz 20/20 with genuine sign-antisymmetric response by iter 700-800); the A/B falsification ("两个不同模式同签名崩") plus the env.yaml verification closed the attribution.
Mechanism
A resumed policy is instantly evaluated (and its value function trained) under whatever plant distribution the cfg specifies; every DR term the checkpoint never adapted to is a distribution shift applied on day one, compounding with the intended change. Single-variable discipline is therefore a property of (cfg diff) x (checkpoint history), not of the cfg diff alone.
Applies when
- resuming or forking any checkpoint under an evolved config
- a resumed run degrades broadly within the first few hundred iterations
- two different changes from the same root fail with the same signature
“A/B 定谳：两个不同模式同签名崩 → 病因不是模式，是「从 s1e-500 续训」。… s1e-500 训练态 = kp/kd ±10% (0.9,1.1)，base_com / joint_friction / push_robot 全 None；而 cfg 里带着 (0.8,1.2) + … 三个 DR —— 从它续训等于一次吃 4 个新 plant 变量 + 新模式 … 永久教训：续训前必须比对 checkpoint 的训练态 DR 与现行 cfg。单变量纪律不只看「我改了什么」，还要看「checkpoint 见过什么」。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3b. 这不是重复实验 —— 前两次的病根已定位并修掉 Prove an armless get-up exists before training it - a connected static domain, 25% torque on the cheapest path, an 8 mm hand-over gap, a static roll-over - and write down what each scan cannot represent
get-up-feasibility-accounts-before-trainingBefore training a get-up or any multi-contact skill, compute the quasi-static accounts - connectivity of the static domain, torque along the cheapest path, hand-over gaps, COM shift available for rolling - and state which configurations each scan cannot represent; when a policy gets stuck in one of those, extend the scan before blaming the reward.
Symptom
A torso-and-legs robot has no arms to push off the ground; whether it can get up from the floor at all was unknown when the line opened.
Context
recovery_feasibility.py ran three accounts before any training (the run line's "hard accounts first" discipline): a sagittal quasi-static scan (0.05 rad grid, 44,520 configurations, MuJoCo FK, flat-foot assumption). (1) The static standing domain (COM over the feet, torques in limit) has 29,586 cells, flood-fill connected with no islands, from a 0.097 m deepest squat to the 0.384 m stand. (2) The minimum-torque path peaks at 25% of the limits (knee 2.9/12, ankle 3.7/17 N*m) - a 4x margin. (3) All 508 ground-contact configurations have the contact behind the COM; the smallest gap to pure foot support is 8 mm. A roll-over account: swinging both straight legs to one side shifts the COM 96 mm against a 62 mm torso half-width - 1.6x, so rolling needs no momentum. Three conclusions were written down for later attribution: the legs are 80% of the mass (swinging them moves the COM), prone has no flat-foot hand-over face (merge into a supine/side sit first), and supine needs no sit-up (hip flexion is limited to 75 deg).
Change
The accounts gated opening the line and were cited in every later argument about what the robot can physically do.
Outcome
They held where they applied: in V1.0 every fall category was righted under a hard rate limit, which the spec records as the quasi-static roll-over account verified by training, and the 25% torque path was the basis for pursuing a slow get-up. They also misled once: account (3) is sagittal, and on 08-09 the spec corrected its scope - it cannot represent the splayed W-sit where the policy actually stalled. A follow-up prone hip-ROM scan (471,625 cells) found 3,912 two-foot-contact cells and none with both soles within 25 deg of level (best 40.2 deg): a flat-footed push-up from prone is infeasible on this robot, so the fix became where the feet go after sitting up.
Mechanism
A get-up needs a connected path through statically feasible configurations and enough torque along it; quasi-static accounts bound both cheaply, and momentum can only make the real problem easier. A reduced-dimensional scan, though, only speaks for the configurations it can express.
Conflicts
In R0.1-R0.2 the spec read account (3)'s "prone has no front hand-over" as "prone lacks the roll-over skill"; R0.3's confusion matrix showed prone had righted its torso 159/159, and the spec then restricted account (3) to the sagittal configurations it models.
Applies when
- opening a get-up, recovery or climbing skill on a new robot
- a robot lacks arms or other obvious contact options
- a policy stalls in a configuration a feasibility scan never modelled
“本机 **torso + legs、无手臂可撑地**,开训前先证明存在不依赖手臂的物理解 … 双腿同侧直腿摆最大横移 **96 mm = 1.6×** … **静态摆腿即可翻身,无需动量**”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §1 机械可行性判决(2026-08-09,recovery_feasibility.py 三笔账) Low-friction robustness traced to kd DR bandwidth, not friction training - by digging resolved params across 8 lineages, 3840 cells
kd-bandwidth-mu-law-attributionAttribute 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。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 4. 地面 μ 鲁棒性 = kd DR 带宽的副产物 (2026-08-08) Diagnose a behavior failure by enumerating hypotheses and auditing each against the actual config, cheapest first
hypothesis-table-code-auditBefore changing anything, write the full hypothesis list for the symptom and audit each against the resolved config and measured magnitudes, cheapest check first; train only on the survivors.
Symptom
Real robot leaned forward "wanting to walk" but dragged its feet instead of lifting them - a symptom with many plausible causes and no obvious single fix.
Context
Seven hypotheses were listed and each checked against the actual training config files (velocity_env_cfg.py, isaac_values.py), ordered by check cost: missing foot clearance term (CONFIRMED, primary - feet_air_time existed but no swing-height term at all); energy penalties dominating (REJECTED - energy terms total -0.19 vs tracking +1.2, 16%); command range too narrow (CONFIRMED - (0.15,0.35)); nominal pose too crouched / action scale too small (HALF - knee 0.5 rad = 28.6 deg deep, scale fine); mixed PD across motor types (REJECTED - already grouped); missing base-height reward (REJECTED - present at -5.0); height-drop termination (REJECTED - none exists, which itself became finding #4 of the fix list).
Change
The audit produced a ranked fix list (add clearance penalty; widen speed range; reduce nominal crouch) with each rejected hypothesis documented so it would not be re-litigated.
Outcome
Three confirmed causes fixed over v5/v6: swing height went 22-23 mm -> 34 mm, tracking 81% -> 87%; the rejected hypotheses stayed rejected (no wasted rungs on energy weights or PD grouping).
Mechanism
Multi-cause symptoms invite guess-and-train loops; a written hypothesis table forces each candidate to be confirmed or rejected against actual values (not impressions), and cost-ordering the checks means most hypotheses die for the price of reading a config.
Applies when
- a real or sim behavior failure has multiple plausible causes
- the team is about to "try a fix" without an audit
- post-mortems keep re-proposing already-rejected causes
“真机现象:躯干前倾像要走,脚抬不起来(拖着蹭)。按成本从低到高逐条核查 … | 1 | 缺 foot clearance | ✅ 成立,首要 | 有 feet_air_time,无任何摆动足高度项 | | 2 | 能量惩罚压过跟踪 | ❌ 不成立 | 能量类合计 −0.19,跟踪 +1.2,只占 16% |”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § walk 拖地问题 — 七条假设的代码核查结果 Training-log reward values and fixed-command eval values live on different distributions - comparing them once claimed a 44% improvement that was really 6-10%
same-distribution-reward-comparisonQuote reward-term values only with their distribution attached (command range, DR on/off, environment), and compare across runs only when those match; re-measure in a common environment before claiming any improvement percentage.
Symptom
A v6-era analysis concluded slip had dropped 44% by comparing the training log's Episode_Reward against values calibrated in a fixed-command play environment; a same-condition re-measurement showed the true improvement was 6-10%.
Context
The training log's reward is an expectation over the training command distribution (vx 0.15-0.5, yaw +/-0.6, with pushes and domain randomization); play-environment calibrations are taken at a single fixed command with DR off. Subtracting one from the other compares apples to oranges - the warning was written into the v7 pre-flight: "奖励数值只能在同一指令分布下比较 … 拿它和固定 cmd 的 play 环境标定值相减会得出错误结论(v6 那轮已经栽过一次)".
Change
Rule adopted: any before/after reward-term comparison must hold the command distribution, DR state, and evaluation environment fixed; training-log values compare only against training-log values of runs with identical command/DR configs.
Outcome
The phantom 44% improvement was retracted; later term-level accounting (e.g. the C4 ignore-floor work) consistently specified its distribution before quoting numbers.
Mechanism
A reward term's expectation depends on the visited-state distribution as much as on the policy; changing the command distribution or DR moves every term's baseline. Cross-distribution differences therefore measure the distributions, not the policy change.
Applies when
- comparing reward telemetry across training runs or vs play evals
- claiming improvement percentages from training logs
- term-level reward accounting for diagnosis
“奖励数值只能在同一指令分布下比较。训练日志的 Episode_Reward 是在训练指令分布上算的(vx 0.15~0.5 / 偏航 ±0.6 / 带推力与域随机化), 拿它和固定 cmd 的 play 环境标定值相减会得出错误结论(v6 那轮已经栽过一次: 据此以为滑移降了 44%, 同条件对拍只有 6~10%)。”
train/WALK_V7_SPEC.md § 3. 开训自查 ⚠️ The real robot's right-leg kicking was over-trained-delay times loop gain - irreducible pipeline latency is plant, model it fully from day one
pipeline-latency-is-plant-not-drMeasure the end-to-end action pipeline delay and build it into the nominal plant and every acceptance gate from day one; treat power/scale deratings that "fix" oscillation as gain-reduction crutches flagging an unmodeled delay, and expect higher-feedback-gain policies to be MORE delay-fragile.
Symptom
On hardware, s1c/s1d at action scale 1.0 always kicked wildly with the right leg (s1c only ran as SOTA at power 0.8; s1d only at 0.7) - while sim showed nothing under default evaluation.
Context
Sim reproduced the incident item by item once the real pipeline delay was injected: s1d@1.0 with --delay 1 fell at 10.2 s, --delay 2 at 5.2 s; s1c@1.0 stressed (r_hip_roll saturation 5 -> 16%; "右脚" = the policy's chirality makes the right leg its high-gain leg); and the combos that worked on hardware (s1c@0.8+delay2, s1d@0.7+delay2) all survived in sim. Mechanism: the real pipeline is ~1-2 ticks (BusWorker next-cycle pickup + CAN round trip) but S1.1 trained only to 1 tick - "超训延迟 × 全环路增益 = 振荡;衰减 = 压环路增益换稳定" (delay beyond training x full loop gain = oscillation; the power derating had been buying stability by compressing loop gain). s1d was MORE fragile than s1c because its yaw 3-layer stack had learned higher feedback gain - higher gain, lower delay tolerance. Three changes: latency DR widened to cover reality; acceptance gates and smoke runs moved permanently to --delay 2 ("门必须在真机条件下预测 真机"); and the doctrine written twice-paid: "不可约的管线属性(延迟、 限速)不是'随机化选项',是 plant 本体,第一天就该全额建模" - S1's nominal-then-robust staging falsified by hardware for the second time. The later s1e hardware run at power 1.0 (no kicking, normal force) closed the loop: "0.8 = 旧代拐杖" - the derating had been a crutch for the under-modeled delay, not a real requirement.
Change
Latency modeled as plant from day one of any lineage (measured 1-2 ticks covered, bridge-layer rate limits likewise modeled by default); every gate and smoke evaluation issued under --delay 2.
Outcome
Kicking reproduced, explained, and eliminated in the s1e generation at full scale and full power; the deploy-side crutches (0.7/0.8) retired for the new lineage.
Mechanism
Feedback oscillation onset is a product of loop gain and phase lag; a policy trained below the real delay learns gains that sit past the real stability margin, and any output derating masks it by scaling gain down. Since pipeline delay is deterministic hardware property - not an uncertainty - it belongs in the nominal plant, and every evaluation must include it or the gate predicts a robot that does not exist.
Applies when
- hardware oscillation/kicking that sim only reproduces with added delay
- a policy only runs on hardware at reduced power/scale
- defining what belongs in the nominal plant vs the DR list
“真实链路延迟 ~1~2 拍 … S1.1 只训到 1 拍——超训延迟 × 全环路增益 = 振荡;衰减 = 压环路增益换稳定。s1d 比 s1c 更脆 = yaw 三层栈学出更高反馈增益,增益越高延迟容忍越低。… 教训入账:S1「先标称后鲁棒」第二次被真机证伪——不可约的管线属性(延迟、限速)不是"随机化选项",是 plant 本体,第一天就该全额建模。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 3. S1.4(真机右脚乱踢事故强制) Symmetrizing the config made the gait MORE asymmetric - the asymmetry lived in the policy weights
asymmetry-in-weights-not-configLocalize a persistent asymmetry by intervening at the config layer first: if the symptom survives (or worsens), it is in the weights - fix it with symmetry-constrained training, not with trims or offsets.
Symptom
walk_v1 on hardware: straight-line command curved 149 deg in 15 s (9.9 deg/s) with 3.06 m lateral runout; turn gain +31% one way vs +129% the other (75% difference); knee asymmetry 4.4 deg in sim, 9.6 deg on the robot.
Context
The obvious suspect was the asymmetric default pose in the config. The decisive test: symmetrize standing_pose and run the SAME policy in sim - the asymmetry got LARGER (hip_pitch 6.8 -> 9.3 deg). Root cause therefore not in the config but baked into the policy weights: PPO without a symmetry constraint commonly converges one-sided, because splitting the work 50/50 and loading one side yield the same return, and the gradient falls randomly into one of the equivalent optima.
Change
Fix redirected from config trimming to retraining with mirror data augmentation (walk_v2 spec) - a weights-level fix for a weights-level disease.
Outcome
With augmentation (and the symmetric-default precondition), stand_v1 reached 0.0 deg asymmetry on all six joint pairs (from 4.4-7.7 deg), height fluctuation 7 mm -> 1 mm, mean |action| down 33%.
Mechanism
Reward-equivalent solution families (who carries the load) leave the symmetric solution unpreferred; SGD picks an arbitrary member and entrenches it. Config changes move the coordinate frame around the entrenched asymmetric function - they cannot move the function. The counterfactual test (change config, watch symptom) localizes the layer the disease lives in.
Applies when
- a robot veers or loads one side despite a symmetric-looking config
- deciding between config trims and retraining for an asymmetry
- mirrored-turn gains differ by tens of percent
“根因不在配置里:把 standing_pose 对称化后在 sim 里跑同一策略,不对称反而变大(hip_pitch 6.8°→9.3°)—— 说明不对称烙在策略权重里。这是无对称约束的 PPO 的常见收敛结果(左右各担一半与一边多担的回报相同,梯度会随机落进其中一个)。”
train/RETRAIN_v2.md § 1. 为什么是对称增强(证据) An auto-curriculum ratchet capped out at iter 248 and never engaged - stage difficulty manually or verify engagement
auto-curriculum-engagement-checkPrefer manually staged difficulty with gated transitions; if you use an automatic curriculum, instrument its internal state and alarm when it stops engaging - a saturated curriculum is constant DR wearing a curriculum's name.
Symptom
A curriculum mechanism intended to grow difficulty adaptively (s1f's ratchet) hit its cap at iteration 248 and never bit again - for 96% of the run its effect was equivalent to constant DR, i.e. the curriculum existed in name only.
Context
When external advice suggested graded wz bands (start ±0.15, then ±0.30), the team agreed with grading but explicitly rejected automatic curriculum, citing the s1f episode. The same logic had already been paid for with push grading: ±0.6 failed twice, ±0.3 was feasible - grading matters, but the grade transitions were made by hand at verified checkpoints.
Change
Ladder policy: difficulty staged manually, one band per rung, each transition gated by the acceptance battery; automatic ratchets not used unless their engagement is monitored and demonstrated.
Outcome
Every C-ladder band change (wz ±0.12-0.25 first, wider later) was an explicit, attributable rung; no silent constant-DR-in-disguise runs recurred.
Mechanism
Adaptive curricula couple their own state machine to noisy training metrics; a ratchet that saturates early stops adapting but keeps its name, so the operator believes difficulty is progressing when it is frozen. Manual staging costs more decisions but each decision is observable and reversible.
Applies when
- choosing between auto-curriculum and staged bands for a new skill
- a curriculum's difficulty parameter plateaus early in training
- post-hoc attribution of what difficulty a lineage actually saw
“C2 的 wz 分级（±0.15 → ±0.30，不要一上来 ±0.6）—— 与我们付过学费的 push 分级同形（±0.6 两轮 FAIL，±0.3 才可行）。但必须手动分级，不做自动课程 —— s1f 的课程化棘轮 iter 248 封顶未咬合，96% 时长等价常量 DR”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 1. 采纳 3 条 (C2 的 wz 分级) Torque caps cannot soften footfalls - impact is falling-mass momentum, only the reward can treat it
landing-impact-not-fixed-by-torque-capsClassify each hardware symptom by the physics that sets it: quantities fixed by ballistic momentum at contact must be treated through the policy's trajectory (reward terms on approach velocity/force), never through actuator caps - and size such penalty weights against your own tracking reward, not a lighter robot's.
Symptom
Footfalls slammed at 1.78x body weight in sim baseline (human walking: 1.2-1.5x); the tempting hardware-side fix was cutting actuator torque limits.
Context
Measured directly: scaling torque limits from x1.0 down to x0.4 left peak landing force essentially unchanged (1.75 -> 1.78x body weight) - the impact force comes from the momentum of the falling mass at touchdown, not from motor effort. The fix has to change the trajectory, i.e. the policy, i.e. the reward: feet_contact_forces penalty above a threshold of 113 N (= 1.2x the 9.58 kg robot's weight), clipped, weight -0.005. The weight was sized locally, not copied: the reference robot's -0.001 would amount to 0.9% of tracking reward on this robot ("策略不会理它" - the policy would ignore it); -0.005 gives 4.4%.
Change
Added threshold-type contact-force penalty (-0.005, threshold 1.2x body weight) as one of v6-minimal's three changes; hardware torque cuts explicitly rejected as a footfall treatment.
Outcome
Landing force 1.72x -> 1.55x by v6 (target <1.5x, missed by 3% - progress booked honestly); the torque-cap dead end was documented so it would not be retried.
Mechanism
At touchdown the ground stops a ballistic mass; the impulse is set by approach velocity and effective inertia, which motors can no longer influence in the final instant. Only earlier trajectory choices (approach velocity, timing) reduce it - and those are selected by the reward, not by actuator limits.
Applies when
- footfall impact or landing noise on hardware
- proposals to derate torque as a softness fix
- importing contact-force penalty weights from another robot
“⚠️ 硬件限扭降不了落脚力 —— 砸地力来自下落质量的动量: 实测 tau ×1.0→×0.4, 落脚力 1.75→1.78× 体重纹丝不动。只有这条奖励能治。… ⚠️ 权重不能用 Pi 的 −0.001 —— 实测在我们身上只占跟踪奖励的 0.9%, 策略不会理它 (Pi 6.94 kg 更轻)。−0.005 给到 4.4%。”
train/WALK_V6_MINIMAL.md § ③ 新增 feet_contact_forces Four consecutive fixes were each continued from the previous fix's degraded state until the user stopped the ladder - "change parameters, don't stack errors" - rolled back to the last good checkpoint and audited the target geometry first
stop-stacking-roll-back-and-auditWhen successive rungs each start from the previous rung's output and the target symptom does not move, stop, roll back to the last good checkpoint and re-derive the next change from an audit; keep the measurements, discard the stacked remedies.
Symptom
After the real-robot splits, the V2.7 ladder tried to widen the stance: a term swap (A), a new stance knife (b), more iterations (甲), a doubled weight (乙). Stance barely moved while hip yaw ratcheted 46.7 -> 49.9 -> 52.5 deg toward its 60 deg limit.
Context
Each rung started from the previous rung's output. The user ruled on 2026-08-11 that things had gone wrong from V2.7-A: go back to v2_6 and rethink which parameters to change instead of stacking errors.
Change
乙 was killed at start and not counted; the product baseline rolled back to v2_6c model_29399; every measurement and law learned on the ladder was kept ("the data is real; what stacked was the treatment"). Before any new training, a zero-training kinematic audit of the stance targets was run.
Outcome
The audit found the stand_pose target itself rewarding the narrow stance (pose-target-geometric-audit) and showed geometrically why the yawed stance could not be widened with flat feet - so 乙 was proven unnecessary without running it. The next in-lineage attempts still failed, which is what established that the stance is set by the get-up path.
Mechanism
A rung continued from a degraded state inherits its compensations, so each new fix answers the previous fix's side effects; the yaw ratchet was the visible trace of that stacking.
Applies when
- three or more corrective rungs in a row without progress on the target metric
- a side-effect metric ratchets in one direction across rungs
- a new rung is being planned from the latest (not the best) checkpoint
“用户裁:"从 V2.7-A 开始就出问题了,应该回到 2.6 再思考如何改变参数而不是 错误叠加。"认账:A 的补丁 → b 的新刀 → 甲的加时 → 乙的加权,每级都从上级 的**退化状态**续(yaw 46.7→52.5° 的棘轮就是叠加痕迹)。 … 数据是真的,叠加的是处置。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §44 方法论裁定(2026-08-11,用户):V2.7 全阶梯叫停,回滚 v2_6 After seven patch-generations, freeze the lineage as a regression baseline, fix the structural debts, and retrain from zero
freeze-lineage-fix-structure-restartWhen successive rungs keep trading one symptom for another, ask whether the remaining problems are structural (contracts, latency, sampling, reward-table architecture); if so, freeze the lineage as regression baselines, pay the structural debts, and restart minimal - carrying forward laws and instruments, not weights and weights' patches.
Symptom
The v5-v11 walk lineage had accumulated interacting patches (reward terms, gates, clamps, per-joint scales) faster than it converged on the user's goal; v12's spec itself was superseded before training by an external review's verdict that the remaining problems were structural, not parametric.
Context
The 2026-08-05 status banner records the pivot: the walk profile was rolled back wholesale to v10b parameters, the v5-v11 lineage frozen "只作回归对照" (kept only as regression baselines), and four structural debts were named as prerequisites for a from-zero straight-walk baseline: the action-latency FIFO (fixed with its own test), the ONNX manifest contract, discrete command sampling, and a minimal reward table. The v12 spec - fully designed, partially implemented - was suspended: "本规格挂起,不再按此开训".
Change
Strategy switched from "one more patch generation" to freeze-fix-restart: lineage checkpoints retained as comparison anchors, infrastructure hardened first, then a clean retrain with a minimal reward table (this restart produced the s* generation that later became the real-robot SOTA line).
Outcome
A designed-and-ready training generation was deliberately not run - the review's structural findings outranked sunk design cost; the restart line inherited seven generations of laws (calibrations, gate batteries, falsified fixes) without inheriting their entangled reward table.
Mechanism
Patch lineages accumulate coupled terms whose interactions eventually cost more to reason about than a restart costs to train; the knowledge worth keeping is the laws and instruments (measured plant values, calibrated gates, falsified directions), not the entangled weights. A restart on hardened structure converts the lineage's lessons into a clean initial design instead of another delta.
Applies when
- repeated rungs shuffle symptoms without net progress
- an external review flags infrastructure/contract debts
- deciding between another patch generation and a clean retrain
“同日外部评审定调换路线:冻结 v5~v11 血统(只作回归对照),修结构性问题(latency FIFO 已修 tests/test_action_latency.py、ONNX manifest 契约、离散命令采样、最小奖励表)后从零训直行基线。本规格挂起,不再按此开训。”
train/WALK_V12_SPEC.md § ⚠️ 状态 (2026-08-05) Real robot walked at half the sim clock for two generations - resolved by racing a reward-side and a plant-side evidence line, not by guessing
period-doubling-evidence-raceFor a hardware-only pathology, refuse to guess: pre-register one probe per side of the sim2real boundary (can the reward mechanism change it on hardware? can fitted plant parameters reproduce it in sim?) and let the first positive result direct the next version.
Symptom
The number-one sim2real gap: on hardware v6/v7 stepped at 1.23-1.32 Hz - almost exactly half the 2.50 Hz gait clock they were trained and simulated at; sim never reproduced it, two generations running.
Context
Instead of committing training budget to a guess, v8 pre-registered two mutually controlled evidence lines and kept the clock OUT of the training variables: (a) reward-side - if the v8 saturation fix revives joint_pos_ref (the term that pins the gait to the clock), re-run hardware and see whether frequency returns to 2.5 Hz (hypothesis: v7's frozen actions meant NO reward was pinning the gait to the clock, and the real plant - with armature and friction making high frequencies expensive - slid down to the leg's pendulum natural frequency ~1.1 Hz); (b) plant-side - record suspended joint data (fit_actuator), fit armature/friction, load the fitted values into sim2sim and see whether the 1.25 Hz reproduces IN SIM. Decision rule fixed in advance: "谁先给出阳性结果谁定 v9 的方向 (奖励侧 vs plant 侧)" - whichever line goes positive first sets the next version's direction.
Change
Period-doubling excluded from the v8 change set; both diagnostic lines scheduled in parallel as non-blocking work; frequency reported factually in acceptance with no pass/fail attached ("倍周期是否消失 不设判定,它是 §9 的关键证据").
Outcome
The gap was routed into a decisive-experiment structure rather than a speculative retrain; the plant-side line pointed at exactly the unmodeled armature/friction that were later measured and installed as the plant baseline. Resolution (era-2c full-plant retest): the family had TWO causes - v8's low-speed period-doubling vanished once measured armature+friction were installed (1.30 -> 2.50 Hz, bifurcation-edge machine sensitivity), while v7's stood untouched at 1.20 Hz (saturation-freeze-driven policy property) - both evidence lines paid off, one per case.
Mechanism
A behavior appearing only on hardware has candidate causes on both sides of the sim2real boundary; changing training to fix it tests only one side per expensive cycle. Two cheap parallel probes - one intervening on the reward mechanism, one making sim reproduce the real behavior - localize the cause to a side before any training money is spent, and sim-reproduction of a real pathology is itself the strongest form of plant validation.
Applies when
- a gait pathology appears on hardware but never in any simulator
- deciding whether a sim2real gap is reward-side or plant-side
- tempted to change the gait clock/reward to chase a hardware symptom
“倍周期(真机 1.23~1.32 Hz ≈ 时钟一半,v6/v7 连续两代;sim 从不出现):两条证据线互为对照——(a)… 真机重跑看频率是否回 2.5 Hz(假说:v7 没有任何奖励把步态钉在时钟上,真机 plant 有 armature/摩擦、高频贵,自由滑落到复摆自然频率 ~1.1 Hz);(b)真机吊挂录 fit_actuator.py … 看能否在仿真里复现 1.25 Hz。谁先给出阳性结果谁定 v9 的方向。”
train/WALK_V8_SPEC.md § 9. 平行线 (倍周期) A reward on a quantity the actor cannot observe teaches "produce less of it", never "correct it" - closed-loop correction needs an outer loop
reward-observability-limitBefore adding a reward, check the actor can observe (or infer) the quantity: unobservable-error rewards buy only average suppression - route correction tasks to an outer loop whose commands stay in distribution, and do not break a frozen contract to add an observation a deploy-side loop can supply.
Symptom
Heading kept drifting despite world-frame yaw rewards, and a reviewer proposed heading-error rewards - raising the question of what yaw shaping can even teach this actor.
Context
The adopted architectural verdict: the actor's 45-dim base observation cannot see accumulated heading at all - projected_gravity is invariant to rotation about the gravity axis, and omega_z is a rate, not an angle. World-frame yaw-rate rewards are therefore privileged shaping that can only teach "少产生旋转" (generate less rotation), never "偏了以后拉回原线" (pull back to the line after drifting) - the policy cannot represent the error it would need to correct. The S1 gate (<=5 deg / 10 s) demands exactly the former, so the stack is right for its gate; active heading correction is assigned to the deployment outer loop (--heading P-loop converting heading error into in-distribution wz commands) plus small-wz training - and the 215-dim contract is explicitly NOT extended with a heading observation ("契约不加 heading 观测,冻结不动"). The reviewer's companion bias hypothesis was adjudicated with data: drift is bimodal - a basin mechanism decides whether you leave (seeds vary +/-16-46 deg vs -385 to -391 deg), and once out, rotation direction is constant (weight chirality; candidate root: the phase clock always swings left first).
Change
Yaw shaping kept as rate-tracking (three-layer stack); heading correction owned by the deploy outer loop; contract frozen; the "which behaviors need an outer loop" question settled by observability analysis rather than reward tuning.
Outcome
Stopped a contract change and a futile reward direction; drift work split correctly into rate-suppression (trainable) and error correction (outer loop), consistent with the earlier measured 10x drift reduction from the deploy-side loop.
Mechanism
A policy can only condition on its observation sigma-algebra; rewards on functions outside it shift the marginal action distribution (open-loop average effects) but cannot create feedback on the unobserved variable. Whether to add an observation, an outer loop, or accept average-shaping is decided by the task's gate: suppression gates need shaping, correction gates need the variable in some loop's view.
Applies when
- adding rewards on accumulated/世界-frame quantities (heading, position)
- deciding between a new observation, an outer loop, and shaping
- a drift symptom persists across reward-weight changes
“actor 的 45 维基座观测不到累计航向(projected_gravity 对绕重力轴旋转不变,ωz 是速率不是角度)——世界系 yaw 奖励是特权塑形,只能教「少产生旋转」,不能教「偏了以后拉回原线」。… 主动纠偏闭环 = S3 把小 wz 进分布 + deploy --heading 外环 … 215 契约不加 heading 观测,冻结不动。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 3. 评审④判决(2026-08-06,S1.3 开训前) Before training a one-leg stand, the accounts and a probe showed the default gains could not hold it at all - kp 20 needs 0.39 rad of error to carry the static roll moment, more than the whole adduction range - so per-joint gains came first, and thermal limits set the session length
single-support-gain-authority-probeBefore training a posture that loads one joint statically, compute the steady tracking error load/kp and the series stiffness against m*g*h, and prove with a simple hand-written controller that the posture can be held under the deployment gains - change the gains first if it cannot; then size session length from the thermal account.
Symptom
The one-leg line (standing on one foot, the other folded back, no hopping) had to decide whether the existing gain profile could hold single support before any reward was designed.
Context
Hardware accounts (9.792 kg, COM 0.234 m high, 170 x 80 mm feet, legs 80% of the mass): moving the COM over one foot needs 107 mm of shift and the 20 deg hip-roll adduction range gives 131 mm - geometrically enough. The static frontal moment is 7.8-9 N*m, within RS02's 17 N*m - torque is enough. But at kp 20 carrying 7.8 N*m needs 0.39 rad of tracking error, more than the entire adduction range, and the real robot had already shown it: commanded +0.17, actual -0.04 (0.21 rad droop) under load, 0.0008 rad hanging - load, not the motor. A probe (probe_oneleg.py) then showed open-loop PD cannot hold single support on physics grounds, so the criterion became "an equilibrium exists and a hand-written 4-gain COM feedback can hold it": single-support roll stiffness is hip and ankle in series and must exceed m*g*h_com = 22.5 N*m/rad; ankle kp 12 in series with hip kp 80 gives only 10.4 (open loop 16/16 fell), ankle 60 with hip 80 gives 34.3 (52% margin).
Change
A per-joint gain profile (rl_oneleg: hip_roll kp 80, ankle_roll kp 60, the rest as rl_default) - which needed per-joint gain support in robot.yaml, the bridge, deploy and the trainer's actuator groups - decided before training. Thermal account: single support makes hip_roll the dominant heat load (about 7.8 N*m against a 7 N*m continuous rating), so acceptance and demos run in segments of at most 60 s with a temperature check.
Outcome
Under rl_oneleg the hand-written feedback held six cells cleanly for 6 s (hip_roll steady torque 2.1-3.4 N*m, half the thermal budget); under rl_default the same feedback on the same cells fell 0/4. The trained V0 policy then passed its 40-cell acceptance.
Mechanism
With PD position control, the steady error needed to carry a static load is load/kp; when that error exceeds the joint's range the posture is unreachable whatever the policy does, and series compliance between joints lowers the effective stiffness below the gravity stiffness that single support demands.
Applies when
- single-support, crouched or one-arm-load postures on PD actuators
- a joint "droops" under load on hardware but tracks well when hanging
- deciding whether a new skill needs its own gain profile
“但 kp=20 时撑住 7.8 N·m 需要 **0.39 rad 跟踪误差 > 整个内收行程**。真机已实测: 命令 +0.17 实际 −0.04（droop 0.21 rad），悬挂时 0.0008 rad——是负载不是电机。 … 单支撑滚转是 hip/ankle **串联**刚度，必须 > m·g·h_com = 22.5 N·m/rad；ankle kp12 串 hip80 只有 10.4（开环 16/16 全摔），60 串 80 = 34.3（裕 52%） … **rl_default 同反馈同格 0/4 全摔**（增益档必要性对照）”
git:Lucen V2@origin/oneleg-line:train/ONELEG_V0_SPEC.md § §1-1 单脚站: 几何可行，卡点是 hip_roll 增益权限 / §2 A 线增益 / §5 probe 定谳 Adapting a lineage to one plant increment needs hundreds of iterations, not thousands - long runs only buy specialization
continuation-budget-not-from-zeroBudget continuation rungs by increment class (hundreds of iterations for plant pins and smooth shifts, ~1000-1500 only for behavior-demanding changes like push), enforce a hard cap with frequent evaluation, and treat remaining budget as a reason to stop, not to continue.
Symptom
The default "6000 iterations per rung" (a from-zero-scale budget) was about to be applied to continuation rungs whose only change is one plant/DR increment - overspending compute and, worse, giving each rung thousands of iterations to specialize away retained skills.
Context
The 2026-08-07 budget table replaced the default with "最低适应窗口 + 每 100 iter 验收 + hard cap" scaled to the increment's difficulty: fixed-latency levels 300-500 (cap 500-800; the base has already seen in-band values, this only pins the plant); PD full-band 700 (cap 1000; kp+/-20%/kd+/-30% clearly widens the actuator family); COM +/-20 mm 500 (cap 800; a smooth dynamics shift); friction DR 700 (cap 1000; contact and actuator friction change the gait/contact solution together); push 1000 (cap 1500; a non-static plant change requiring recovery behavior - hardest). Rationale: "续训适应一个 plant 增量不需要从零量级的预算,跑长了只是给特化时间". The C ladder reused the scheme (per-rung caps 500-2000 by increment type), and the deep-training hazard got its own name when long runs sold quality ("深适应卖质量" - deep adaptation sells quality).
Change
Per-rung iteration budgets set by increment class with hard caps and 100-iter watch loops; checkpoint selection inside the window by the smoke curve, never "run to cap because budget remains".
Outcome
S2/C rungs completed in 300-1500 iterations each; the recurring late-run degradations (collapse valleys at 1500+, vx+0.30 decay) fell outside most rungs' caps instead of inside their runs.
Mechanism
A continuation rung's learning problem is local robustification around an existing optimum - low sample complexity; iterations past adaptation are spent sharpening onto the current distribution, which is exactly how retained skills and margins erode. Budgets sized to the increment bound both compute and the specialization damage window.
Applies when
- planning iteration budgets for a robustification or command ladder
- a continuation run keeps improving its training metric late
- retained skills decay in the back half of long continuation runs
“「最低适应窗口 + 每 100 iter 验收(watch_ckpt --every 100)+ hard cap」—— 续训适应一个 plant 增量不需要从零量级的预算,跑长了只是给特化时间 … ⑥ push | 1000 | 1500 | 非静态 plant 变化,要学 recovery 行为,最难”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 4. 每级 iter 预算(2026-08-07 用户定) Reward fixes come in causal chains - foot height, then landing impact, then foot spacing
reward-chain-foot-height-landing-spacingPlan reward shaping as a chain, not a point fix: when you patch a degenerate gait behavior, pre-register which adjacent behavior the optimizer will exploit next and watch for it.
Symptom
Three problems appeared strictly in sequence: (1) swing feet lifted too low; (2) after fixing that, feet slammed down - "实际比视频里暴力得多" (far more violent in person than on video); (3) after fixing that, feet drifted too close together and collided.
Context
Each reward fix removed one degenerate optimum and exposed the next. The fix for foot spacing (COM lateral randomization +/-5 cm to force leg spread) itself caused base side-to-side sway, requiring a further foot-to-centerline distance penalty. Lucen had just solved its own foot-height problem (19mm -> 40mm swing height) and logged landing impact and foot spacing as the predicted next two problems.
Change
Chain of additions - (1) penalty when swing foot below 5 cm; (2) landing vertical-velocity penalty at touchdown; (3) COM lateral randomization +/-5 cm, then foot-centerline distance penalty to cancel the induced sway.
Outcome
Reference robot progressed through each stage; each individual fix worked and predictably surfaced the successor problem. For Lucen the chain served as a pre-registered roadmap of what breaks next.
Mechanism
Locomotion rewards are coupled through contact dynamics: raising swing height adds potential energy that must go somewhere at touchdown (impact); penalizing impact and forcing robustness to COM shifts changes lateral support strategy (spacing/sway). The optimizer always exploits the cheapest unpenalized channel, so fixing one channel routes the exploit to its neighbor.
Applies when
- adding a foot-height / clearance reward
- feet slam or landing impact grows after a clearance fix
- feet converge toward the centerline or self-collide
- any single-reward fix to a coupled gait behavior
“抬脚太低 → 加惩罚：摆动足低于 5 cm 就扣分 / 加完之后砸脚 → 抬起来了但落地极猛，"实际比视频里暴力得多" → 加落地速度惩罚 … / 两脚太近甚至互撞 → 先试质心横向随机化 ±5 cm … 有效但引发新问题——基座开始左右摇摆 → 再加足-中心线距离惩罚 … 这三条是串联的：每个修复都会暴露下一个问题。”
Experience.md § 三个问题的解法链 (lines 72-77) The first real-robot get-up was "very violent, kicking on the floor, dangerous" - a sim-perfect policy with no reason to be slow, unbounded absolute targets, no domain randomization and a rate limiter that filtered nothing; the task was restated as "safe, slow, transferable"
first-real-get-up-violent-stage-one-policyDo not put a get-up policy on hardware until its action is bounded (hard bound or state-anchored targets), smoothed, randomized and tested at the real pipeline's latency, and say explicitly that the task is "safe, slow and transferable" - a simulation-perfect policy optimizes only "gets up".
Symptom
On 2026-08-09 the user ran a V0-lineage recovery policy on the real robot and stopped it: very violent, kicking on the floor, dangerous. The planned next rung (a heavier torque_headroom) was never started.
Context
The spec had pre-registered that R0/R1 products stay in simulation and that the real-robot precondition was the R3 smoothing rungs plus a bridge-slew check plus a hanging protocol; the robustness (DR) rungs had not run. In simulation the policy passed 100% with a get-up of about a second. Which ONNX, which gain profile and whether a torque/joint log existed were left "to be recorded later" and never were.
Change
The V0 ladder was stopped at its best product (R3.1, sim only) and a re-rooting proposal was put to the user. The spec's four-layer account: style (the reward pays for standing early and nothing pays for slowness - HumanUP's "Stage I" get-up, "fast but unsafe ... infeasible for real-world deployment"); impact (full-range absolute targets with no hard bound, raw |a| up to 4.77, action saturation 100%, a single-step change of 0.306 saturating hip_pitch); transfer (zero DR, friction pinned at 1.0, the learned leg bracing); link (the bridge's RL slew equals vel_limit, 0.2-0.66 rad per step, while the real pipeline has 1-2 steps of time-varying latency and acceptance ran at delay 0).
Outcome
The line was re-rooted twice (training-side rate limit, then the beta-anchored action space) and gained a hang protocol before the next real attempt; on 08-11 a beta-anchored policy produced the line's first real get-up.
Mechanism
A task reward that pays for standing early selects the fastest feasible get-up; with absolute full-range targets every large target jump is a torque impulse bounded only by the clip; zero DR and braced-leg solutions do not transfer; and a limiter set at the velocity limit does nothing at 50 Hz.
Conflicts
The four layers are the spec's reconstruction from simulation probes and the literature; the real run's policy file, gain profile and log were never recorded, so no layer was confirmed against hardware data.
Applies when
- a first hardware trial of a high-effort skill is being scheduled
- sim success is high but the policy saturates actions or torques
- pre-registered hardware preconditions are not all met
“用户真机反馈:**非常猛、地上乱踢、危险**,叫停(R3.3 torque_headroom 加档已选型 weight −0.5→−1.5,未启动)。真机细节(哪个 onnx、什么档、有无 τ/q log)**待补记** … 任务从"能起来"变成 **"安全、慢、可迁移"** … **链路层**:桥层 slew RL 档 = vel_limit(10/20/33 rad/s ≈ 每拍 0.2~0.66 rad), 对 recovery 形同虚设;真机 1~2 拍时变延迟,验收默认 delay 0。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §26 真机叫停与换根判决(2026-08-09) A curriculum ramp keyed to the process step counter re-fires on every resume - and shipped policies never saw the penalty
curriculum-counter-lineage-stepsKey every curriculum/ramp schedule to lineage-cumulative progress, not per-process counters; and audit where your shipped checkpoints sit relative to every ramp - a penalty that no product ever experienced is not part of your training.
Symptom
vx+0.30 died at a fixed relative time in every resumed run: resume at 500 -> slide at 1100, zero at 1300; resume at 700 -> slide at 1300, zero at 1500 - absolute depths offset by exactly the resume offset, relative timetable identical.
Context
ramp_reward_weight (the saturation penalty ramp) read env.common_step_counter, which restarts at 0 for every run including --resume. So start_step=600 meant "600 iters after THIS resume", not "lineage iteration 600". The A/B arm pair was the clean proof: their env.yaml differed only in log_dir, only resume point distinguished them, and the omni CurriculumManager had exactly one active term - nothing else could produce that timetable. Second consequence: every shipped checkpoint (s1e-500 at +500, C2-700 at +200, A800 at +100) was selected before its run's +600, so the saturation penalty weight was 0.000 for every product ever shipped - explaining saturation 33% and raw |action| 1.9 against clip 1.0 (hip_roll in bang-bang), i.e. half the heat budget.
Change
Two independent recommendations recorded: (1) make the ramp count lineage steps (add the checkpoint's iteration offset on resume) or pin terminal weights in downstream rungs instead of ramping; (2) give the saturation penalty its own rung - never mixed into a skill-learning rung (that would be two variables again).
Outcome
Explained the recurring +600 death of the highest-amplitude command and the persistent actuator saturation of all shipped products with one root cause; honest caveat booked (at +800 the weight is only -0.086, small, but vx+0.30 is the command demanding the largest action amplitude, so it is squeezed first).
Mechanism
Resumable training splits "the lineage" from "the process"; any schedule keyed to process-local counters silently re-applies its transient to every descendant run, and any product-selection habit that picks checkpoints early systematically samples the pre-ramp regime - the curriculum exists in the config but never in any shipped policy.
Applies when
- resumed/forked training with any scheduled reward or DR ramp
- a metric dies at a fixed offset after each resume
- shipped policies show behavior a late-schedule penalty should prevent
“ramp_reward_weight 读的是 env.common_step_counter，它每个 run 从 0 开始，--resume 也不例外。… 原始 run / 臂B | 500 | 1100 = +600 | 1300 = +800；臂A | 700 | 1300 = +600 | 1500 = +800 … 所有出品其实从没见过饱和罚。… 这解释了 sat_max_pct 33%、raw |a| 最大 1.9（clip 是 1.0）—— hip_roll 一直在 bang-bang，而罚它的那一项权重恒 0。热账的一半在这里。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3g. 系统性问题：saturation_ramp 每次 resume 归零 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 worked
curriculum-history-is-part-of-the-productA 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。**”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §42 V3.0 判决(2026-08-11):从零单 run 全机制 FAIL 于坐姿盆地 Export every CAD part in the whole-machine frame so URDF rotations are zero and inertia is exact
urdf-shared-origin-exportGenerate the model so that correctness is structural: shared-origin STL export, zero rotations, subtraction-only origins, and an explicit 1e-9 g*mm^2 -> kg*m^2 conversion - never hand-rotate inertia tensors.
Symptom
Hand-assembled URDFs accumulate per-link rotation/origin errors and unit-conversion mistakes in inertia tensors - silent plant corruption that no later calibration can cleanly fix.
Context
Documented CAD -> URDF -> USD procedure from a successful Isaac Lab deployment, kept as the recipe if Lucen regenerates its model.
Change
(1) In CAD, align the whole robot to Z-up, X-forward (Isaac Lab convention) and ground the assembly; (2) export each STL with other parts hidden but the machine's shared origin kept, so all parts share one origin, every URDF rotation is 0, and inertia matrices equal CAD values directly; (3) units: Fusion 360 gives g*mm^2, URDF wants kg*m^2 - multiply by 1e-9; (4) link origin = negative of the joint position; link COM = CAD COM minus joint position; joint origin = difference of the two joint positions; (5) after URDF -> USD import, open the USD separately and set it instanceable before saving.
Outcome
A URDF whose rotations are all zero and whose inertia tensors are CAD-exact, eliminating an entire class of hand-transcription plant errors.
Mechanism
Keeping one shared origin turns every frame transform into a pure translation computable by subtraction, and leaves inertia tensors in the frame CAD already computed them in - no rotation of inertia tensors, the most error-prone manual step, is ever needed.
Applies when
- building or regenerating URDF/MJCF from CAD
- inertia or frame bugs suspected in the plant model
- importing URDF into Isaac Lab / USD
“导出 STL 时隐藏其他零件但导出整机——这样所有零件共享同一原点，URDF 里所有 rotation 全是 0，惯量矩阵直接等于 CAD 值 / 单位：Fusion 360 给 g·mm²，URDF 要 kg·m²，乘 1e-9 / link origin = 该关节坐标取负 … URDF → USD 导入后必须单独打开 USD 设成 instanceable 再存”
Experience.md § URDF 制作流程 (lines 87-92) Ungated phase shaping made standing 42x more expensive than stepping - and the stepping was cooking the hip motors
moving-gate-42x-stand-taxGate 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”
train/README.md § C1 FAIL 节 (cmd=0 的 sim/真机分歧记账) / C2 真机 A/B 三b 发热定性 Isaac splits Coulomb friction into static and dynamic columns - wiring only static means zero loss during motion, silently discarding the identified value
sim-api-friction-columnsWhen installing identified actuator parameters, map each measured quantity to the simulator's exact API column for the operative regime (dynamic for moving loss, viscous for damping), verify per joint after landing, and audit how randomization intervals fall on each column's nominal.
Symptom
The hardware-identified Coulomb friction (tau_c) was about to be installed into the trainer through the friction= field alone - which in Isaac 5 populates only STATIC friction, so during motion the joints would lose no torque at all: "只给 static 则运动中不损耗, 辨识的 τ_c 走路时等于没接" (the identified tau_c would effectively not be connected while walking).
Context
The v12 integration wired all three columns deliberately: armature= and friction= from the 2026-08-04 hardware identification, PLUS dynamic_friction= (Isaac 5 splits Coulomb into static/dynamic; the moving-loss column is dynamic) and viscous_friction= (= the measured joint damping 0.02, aligned to MJCF's damping). Each value was re-checked per joint after landing. A DR interaction was audited and booked rather than hidden: randomize_joint_parameters jitters ALL friction columns with ONE interval - the [-0.05, +0.10] band was calibrated against the Coulomb nominal, and landing on the viscous nominal 0.02 it becomes [0, 0.12], "偏宽但保守" (wide but conservative), accepted with the note that pre-viscous behavior was already [0, 0.10] on a base of 0.
Change
Measured actuator parameters installed across all applicable API columns (armature, static, dynamic, viscous), with the DR side effect on shared randomization intervals audited and recorded.
Outcome
The first generation where the identified plant actually acts during motion in the trainer; the silent-column failure mode documented before it cost a training run.
Mechanism
Physics engines decompose "friction" differently (single coefficient vs static/dynamic/viscous columns); a measured parameter is only installed when it reaches the column the solver reads in the regime that matters (motion, not stiction). Randomizers that share one interval across columns rescale the band by each column's nominal - a hidden unit change.
Applies when
- installing identified friction/armature into any trainer
- porting plant parameters between simulators or engine versions
- joint losses in sim do not match bench measurements during motion
“并额外传 dynamic_friction=(Isaac 5 把库仑拆 static/dynamic 两列,只给 static 则运动中不损耗,辨识的 τ_c 走路时等于没接)与 viscous_friction=(= joint_damping 0.02,对齐 MJCF damping)。… randomize_joint_parameters 用同一个 friction 区间抖三列, [-0.05,+0.10] 是按库仑标称标的,落到粘滞标称 0.02 上成了 [0,0.12]”
train/WALK_V12_SPEC.md § 7. 核查单 (Isaac 接 V.ACTUATORS 新字段)