Training Coach
Doctrine
A report may cite any of these as doctrine-N.
doctrine-1Contract freeze and fingerprint disciplineThe policy I/O contract (observation layout, scales, history semantics, action pipeline) is frozen and fingerprinted; every exported policy is stamped and verified; contract changes ship as new versioned profiles that leave old artifacts bit-identical, and old policies run forever under their era's pinned profile.
Case. The 215-dim omni contract was frozen with a three-machine digest; the one contract-level extension (lateral feed-forward) went in as a new `omni_ff` profile with the old profile provably untouched, and the contract checker caught two real wiring bugs before any training (`contract-freeze-and-checker`). A silently changed gait-clock default would have fed old policies a 25% slower clock - closed by pinned legacy profiles (`legacy-profile-pinning`). A stale derived USD forked plant mass 2.2% until an automated source-vs-derived instrument gated it (`derived-asset-staleness-check`). A gain profile is part of the closed loop a policy was trained in and belongs in its stamp; the recovery line's anchored authority was left out of its manifest and recorded as the gap not to repeat (`gain-profile-belongs-in-the-stamp`), and a second policy behind a deploy-side switch made the handoff state itself a contract (`recovery-two-policies-and-a-state-machine`, `walk-recovery-fsm-handoff`).
Coach application. On any proposal touching obs/action semantics, defaults, or derived assets: demand the version/profile plan, the fingerprint update, and the checker extension in the same change; flag any old artifact that would run under new defaults.
doctrine-2Attribution by resolved training params - never eval-override knobsCapability differences between lineages are explained only by digging each lineage's *resolved* training configuration and eliminating columns; evaluation-side override knobs (kd-scale, power-scale, cycle-time) act on the plant for *every* policy and may serve as deployment mitigations but never as explanations.
Case. Low-friction robustness across 8 lineages x 3840 cells was traced to kd DR *bandwidth* - every lineage had ground friction pinned to (1.0,1.0), so "trained friction" could not be the axis; the parameter axis and the plant axis were explicitly separated after the first attribution conflated them (`kd-bandwidth-mu-law-attribution`). "Weak turning" on hardware was a power-scale plant effect, not a training gap (`deploy-knob-attribution-before-retraining`); slowing the deploy clock was out-of-distribution, not a feature (`cycle-time-override-is-ood`). The ground truth for what a run trained under is the logged per-run config, not the source tree (`resolved-config-is-source-of-truth`).
Coach application. Whenever asked "why is lineage A better", require the resolved-param table first; kill zero-variance columns; refuse explanations phrased in eval-knob terms; when a knob helps, label it deployment mitigation.
doctrine-3PASS gates become constraints; FAIL gates become objectivesOnce a skill passes its gate, that gate converts into a standing regression constraint (budget <= 2/20 against the parent baseline) for all later training; gates currently failing are the only legitimate objectives of the next rung.
Case. The C ladder ran one frozen 13-cell x 20-seed matrix at every rung with promotion = "new skill PASS and old skills within regression budget"; C1 was stopped and re-rooted precisely because it trained away the root's backward PASS (`fixed-acceptance-matrix-per-rung`, `preregistered-stop-criteria-per-rung`). The C4 product shipped only at 260/260 cells with zero regression.
Coach application. Keep the ledger: every PASS adds a constraint row; propose rungs only against FAIL rows; treat any constraint violation as stop-and-attribute, never "the next rung might win it back".
doctrine-4One variable per ladder rung - counted against what the checkpoint sawA rung changes one variable, where "one" is counted against the checkpoint's actual training state, not against the current config's diff; batching is allowed only when each change owns a disjoint symptom space with a pre-registered ablation order.
Case. Two rungs failed identically because resuming s1e-500 under the evolved config silently added four plant variables the checkpoint had never seen ("单变量纪律不只看「我改了什么」,还要看「checkpoint 见过什么」" - `resume-state-dr-audit`). v8 legally batched four orthogonal fixes with a written ablation order (`orthogonal-batch-with-ablation-order`); v9 spent one run completing a 2x2 factorial so either outcome convicted a factor (`fill-the-missing-factorial-cell`); v10b's three-way ablation wrongfully convicted the clock and had to be retried fairly.
Coach application. Before any resume: diff cfg against the checkpoint's logged training state. Before any batch: require the symptom-ownership map and ablation order in writing.
doctrine-5Pre-register risks, readings, and stop criteria before the ladderBefore a ladder or risky rung, write down the known risks, the interpretation of every plausible outcome, and hit-any-one stop criteria - frozen before training, tightened when priors say results should come fast.
Case. The C ladder opened with three numbered risks including the exact falsification condition for its own root choice; A/B arms carried "预注册读法(事后不改)" tables; a level expected to fail was run anyway for its pre-registered diagnostic value (`preregister-risks-and-fork-readings`). Stop criteria caught C4-redo rungs at +200 instead of full caps (`preregistered-stop-criteria-per-rung`); hardware sessions pre-registered per-config expected signatures and the disagreement rule "不改结论改账" (`preregistered-real-expectations`, `feasibility-accounts-lock-design-point`).
Coach application. Refuse to open a rung without the written risk/reading/ stop block; after results, read conclusions off the pre-registered table and flag any post-hoc reinterpretation.
doctrine-6Plant parameters are measured, never inventedEvery plant number carries measurement provenance: armature = N^2 x rotor inertia from no-load tests, friction split by rig and by API column, torque limits shaped by per-joint gait peaks, latency traced through the real pipeline, masses weighed - and DR bands are additive around the measured nominal, sized to the measured dispersion.
Case. Guessed friction was 2.5x low and guessed damping 5x high (`friction-measured-not-guessed`); armature had been 0 with a 9:1 gearbox (81x reflected inertia, `armature-n2-rotor-inertia`); a uniform torque derating was "the wrong shape" vs measured peaks (`torque-limit-shape-by-measured-peaks`); the delay implementation itself was a wrong plant for a whole lineage (`latency-lerp-reverse-extrapolation`); the run design point was locked by three accounts including the tau_limit/kd speed ceiling (`feasibility-accounts-lock-design-point`); identified friction had to land in the right simulator API columns to act at all (`sim-api-friction-columns`). The recovery and one-leg lines opened with the same kind of accounts before any reward existed - a connected static path and the torque along it for an armless get-up, and the gains single support needs to be holdable at all (`get-up-feasibility-accounts-before-training`, `single-support-gain-authority-probe`).
Coach application. For any plant value in a config review, ask "measured how?"; reject absolute ranges with no nominal; check API column mapping and derived-asset regeneration whenever measured values land.
doctrine-7Sim2sim gate before sim2real - under deployment conditionsEvery checkpoint passes a second, independently built simulator before hardware, and both the gate and the smoke loop run under the measured deployment conditions (real pipeline delay, honest contact parameters, the deployment gain/power profile).
Case. The standing order "先sim2sim 再sim2real" (`sim2sim-gate-before-sim2real`); acceptance flipped to match hardware only under measured condim/torsional friction (`eval-plant-honesty-contact-params`); gates moved permanently to `--delay 2` after the kicking incident (`pipeline-latency-is-plant-not-dr`); and the harness itself must be audited - a frame-convention bug in the cross-sim evaluator invalidated a whole line of verdicts (`body-frame-velocity-api-audit`). The recovery line's second simulator caught a torque penalty paid for by bracing the legs together (`torque-penalty-bought-by-leg-bracing`), and a 1.8x torque disagreement between the two plants stayed binding because its one surviving explanation was never tested (`torque-disagreement-between-simulators-unresolved`).
Coach application. Block any hardware request lacking a second-sim PASS at deployment conditions; when sim2sim and training-side metrics disagree, treat the evaluator as a suspect too.
doctrine-8Observation honesty - the actor's inputs are a hardware contractThe actor observes only signals the real robot produces with realistic noise; privileged truths go to the critic; history windows are estimators and must train under plant variation; rewards on quantities the actor cannot observe buy only average suppression, never closed-loop correction.
Case. Ground-truth velocity/forces went critic-only (`observation-honesty-critic-only`); frame_hist under zero DR memorized the trainer's plant fingerprint - 0/20 transfer (`history-obs-needs-plant-variation`); world-frame yaw rewards could not teach pull-back because heading is unobservable to the actor - correction was routed to the deploy outer loop instead of breaking the contract (`reward-observability-limit`, `deploy-heading-loop-and-align-training`).
Coach application. Audit every actor-obs element for hardware existence; require minimal plant jitter whenever history/recurrence exists; for each reward, ask "can the actor see this error?" and route correction tasks to outer loops.
doctrine-9Reward economics are audited in realized currencyReward design decisions are made on realized per-step magnitudes under the actual policy and command distribution: price the do-nothing optimum before adding a mode, compare achieved values to the computed ignore-floor, calibrate thresholds between measured healthy and sick distributions, and ship every new penalty with a withdrawal clause.
Case. feet_air_time at weight 2.0 realized 0.038 vs tracking 1.2 - drag was rational (`realized-contribution-audit`); ignoring a vy command cost 28-180x less than ignoring vx until a gated tracking term was added (`reward-cost-of-ignoring-audit`, `gate-new-reward-terms-by-command`); achieved-vs-floor separated "never learned" from "priced out" (`ignore-floor-diagnosis`); the foot-distance wall was placed between measured healthy (0.6% tax) and sick (55%) policies (`calibrate-threshold-between-healthy-and-sick`); the landing penalty carried a pre-registered stand-down condition and actually stood down (`calibration-threshold-with-withdrawal-clause`); two clearance terms were inert until zero-points and gate occupancy were checked (`inert-reward-term-audit`). A get-up policy sat because three gated terms paid the seated pose 84% of the return and the one term that could tell sitting from standing was an exp kernel reading 4.6e-5 at the real error (`seated-basin-dead-exp-kernel`); a torque-tail term was weighted by its measured steady value beside a peer term after the estimate proved 12x off (`tail-torque-needs-hinge-on-computed-demand`).
Coach application. Never discuss weights in the abstract: demand the realized-contribution table, the ignore-floor number, and the healthy-pay calibration before any reward edit is approved.
doctrine-10The zero-cost option must be the desired behaviorFor every penalty, name what the zero-cost option is; penalize failure events (slip, saturation excess, contact in flight windows), never the motion or joints that healthy behavior uses; make degenerate strategies fatal via termination where penalties cannot price them out.
Case. Joint-usage penalties for drift taxed a 1.4%-of-momentum channel 2.7/step and collapsed training; the slip penalty costs a non-slipping gait exactly zero (`penalize-the-slip-not-the-joint`). A frozen-at-clamp joint pays zero action-rate forever - only a pre-clip saturation penalty flips the cheat economics (`saturation-cheating-zero-rate-cost`). Ungated phase shaping made standing 42x more expensive than stepping and cooked the hip motors (`moving-gate-42x-stand-tax`); crouch-shuffling lived until a height termination deleted it (`termination-closes-degenerate-basin`). A gated penalty is an exit: the policy parked just outside an uprightness gate, then just under a height gate, to stop paying a stance tax, and only a positive band plus an always-on guard closed both (`penalty-gate-is-an-escape-hatch`); a soft-limit penalty that charged the standing pose itself bought a 4.1 deg lean (`soft-limit-penalty-charges-nominal-pose`); an unpriced foot attitude was spent on edge-standing (`unpriced-foot-attitude-is-a-free-variable`); and the one-leg line listed its cheapest cheats before training and still met one through a zero-gradient band (`enumerate-cheapest-cheats-before-training`, `binary-band-reward-fake-touchdown`).
Coach application. Run the "零代价的选项是什么" audit on every proposed term; convert motion taxes into event-conditional penalties; check the termination set against each known degenerate strategy.
doctrine-11Measurement discipline: independent referees, signs, distributionsA disputed measurement is adjudicated only by an independent algorithm from raw state; directional ability requires sign-antisymmetry under command reversal; bimodal metrics are reported as mode shares (never medians, never 3 seeds); ratios are not comparable when totals change; reward values compare only within one command distribution; single chaotic events never cross machines.
Case. The triple reversal - a good metric was "refuted" by a sibling metric that shared the disease (`independent-referee-for-metric-disputes`, `body-frame-velocity-api-audit`); same-signed +/- responses were bias, not turning (`same-sign-response-is-yaw-bias`); the swing median sat in a bimodal gap (`median-hides-bimodal-distribution`); "v6 is jitterier" died on absolute energies (`ratio-metrics-need-absolute-check`); yaw gain measured 15x wrong in an oscillating frame (`heading-integral-not-body-rate`); a 44% improvement evaporated under same-distribution comparison (`same-distribution-reward-comparison`); drift direction was a limit cycle (`multiseed-sign-test-for-drift`); a cross-machine push cliff was chaos (`single-impulse-recovery-is-chaotic`).
Coach application. Before accepting any surprising number: ask for the independent recomputation, the sign pair, the distribution shape, and the comparison conditions. Retract in writing when a metric falls.
doctrine-12The deployment pipeline is plantIrreducible pipeline properties - action latency, rate limits, power/torque scaling, teleop command mappings - are part of the nominal plant, modeled from day one and reproduced in every gate; deploy-side scalings are crutches that flag unmodeled plant, and they cannot be algebraically folded into training constants.
Case. Right-leg kicking was over-trained-delay x loop gain; power 0.8 was a gain-reduction crutch that retired when the delay was modeled (`pipeline-latency-is-plant-not-dr`); power derating damages non-forward axes first (`power-scale-hurts-nonforward-axes`); training at 0.4 scale as the "twin" of deploying 0.5 x 0.8 collapsed 0/20 (`deploy-scaling-not-training-equivalent`); one shared teleop speed sent an out-of-band lateral command and the robot clipped its own foot (`teleop-command-band-per-axis`); the latency DR range had not even covered the measured pipeline (`latency-dr-covers-measured-pipeline`). A rate limiter added at deployment only clipped a policy that kept commanding (`deploy-rate-limiter-windup`); moved into training and anchored on the last command it became an integrator in the balance loop (`slew-anchor-is-an-integrator`); anchored on the measured angle it bounded torque and kept the bandwidth (`beta-anchored-action-target`). The walking lines' safe setting, power-scale 0.8, cut the ends of the recovery policy's full-range travel and left its spikes alone; a gain inside the trained band did the job (`power-derating-cuts-full-range-contract`).
Coach application. Demand the measured pipeline latency/limits in the plant model and in gate conditions; treat every deploy-side derating as a question ("what is this compensating?"); block per-axis command sources that exceed training bands.
doctrine-13DR budget is finite; its distribution is the measured supportRobustness is a conserved budget: disturbance training on an already-hardened lineage borrows from existing margins; DR ranges span the measured deployment support - no fictitious tails (they buy degenerate gaits), no single constants (they allow thin-margin specialization); harden the plant only after the task distribution is final.
Case. The same push dose helped a narrow lineage and damaged a balanced one - budget conservation (`push-dr-conditional-budget-conservation`); wide latency tails bought drag-glide, constant values shipped 60% thinner tilt margins - the answer is a narrow band on the measured support (`dr-tail-plant-continuation`, `constant-value-dr-overfits-margin`); task-first ordering because hardening a soon-to-change task wastes budget (`task-shaping-before-plant-hardening`); COM randomization used deliberately as a behavior-shaping tool, and rolled back on symptom per its own contract (`com-randomization-forces-leg-spread`, `com-dr-rollback-on-symptom`). DR that is switched on can still be thin: the run policy fell in the frontal plane its gain-and-latency randomization never touched (`thin-dr-judged-by-channel-coverage`), and a friction priority settled under one action contract had to be re-measured under the next (`friction-priority-re-measured-after-plant-change`).
Coach application. Before any DR rung: check the untrained policy against the spec, the lineage's current DR load, and the measured real-world range; after it: audit retained margins, not just the new tolerance.
doctrine-14Gates measure what hardware feels: posture, margins, stripped assistsAcceptance batteries carry posture-class rows (tilt max median, per-joint L/R asymmetry, temperature) beside task rows, graded margin columns beside binary gates, chirality scored per side, at least one condition that removes the environment's free stabilization, and validated predictive scalars promoted into the gate.
Case. Three same-shaped judging errors - survival, displacement, wz-difference - all missed what the operator felt; posture metrics had the predictive power (`task-metrics-vs-posture-metrics`, `stand-gate-posture-not-survival`); binary survival saturated and hid a 60% margin gap (`constant-value-dr-overfits-margin`); v5 passed everything on the ground and failed suspended (`suspension-probe-removes-free-stabilizer`); the hip_roll (l+r) scalar predicted real drift direction and ordering and entered the battery (`hip-roll-sum-predicts-lateral-drift`); averages hide chirality (`chirality-scored-separately`); gait-quality gates are judged at speeds that demand a gait (`low-speed-commands-reward-dragging`). The recovery line added the rest of the kit: where failed episodes end, not only where they started (`end-state-confusion-matrix`); a frozen acceptance distribution with a pinned seed (`frozen-acceptance-distribution-and-pinned-seed`); video of the metric rollout itself (`video-as-acceptance-record`); and the admission that a 10 s episode cannot see a stance that fails after a minute (`episode-length-bounds-what-a-gate-sees`). The one-leg line removed a foot-spacing wall that no gate measured, and the feet met on hardware (`removed-wall-returns-on-hardware`).
Coach application. Review every battery for posture rows, margin columns, per-side scoring, and an assist-stripped condition; when operator feel and gates disagree, suspect the metric class first.
doctrine-15Fork and root selection: recoverability, maturity, frozen rewardsChoose fork roots by which candidate's deficits the coming training can pay back (precision is recoverable; lost plasticity, symmetry, and margins are not); prefer mature checkpoints as roots even when younger ones score better as products; never fine-tune through a reward change - continuation is legal only with the reward frozen and plant/DR widening one rung at a time.
Case. s1e-500 beat higher-precision candidates because its exclusive strengths were unrecoverable (`fork-root-recoverable-shortfall`); the b300 arm proved maturity is capital against adaptation shock (`root-maturity-vs-product-quality`); the B-arm scatter/half-recover/collapse signature falsified reward-change fine-tuning and drew the legal boundary for S2 continuation (`fine-tune-reward-change-falsified`).
Coach application. For root debates, build the exclusive-strengths table and ask "which side can be trained back?"; require dual-arm evidence for maturity claims; classify any proposed continuation as reward-frozen or not before approving.
doctrine-16Curricula: verified engagement, lineage counters, disease-phase gatingAutomatic curricula must prove they engage (a saturated ratchet is constant DR wearing a curriculum's name); every ramp counts lineage-cumulative progress, not per-process steps; penalties aimed at late-stage pathologies ramp in after exploration noise decays; difficulty rises on measured per-stratum success, never on schedule.
Case. The s1f ratchet capped at iter 248 and never engaged (`auto-curriculum-engagement-check`); the saturation ramp re-fired at +600 after every resume and no shipped product ever saw the penalty (`curriculum-counter-lineage-steps`); the same penalty worked once gated to the disease phase and became an untouchable mechanism (`gate-penalties-to-the-disease-phase`); record-high aggregate reward hid a fully-failing delay stratum (`aggregate-metrics-mask-subgroup-failure`); bucket share is not a gradient lever (`bucket-share-is-not-a-gradient-lever`). An assist curriculum keyed to a pooled success share was withdrawn on the strength of the categories that already worked (`curriculum-criterion-conditioned-on-lagging-category`); a pace set by per-step income moved only when that income was time-gated (`per-step-income-drives-speed-time-gate`), and the same gate had to be retired in a lineage without the disease (`time-gate-vs-wide-stance-retire-the-fix`).
Coach application. Ask every curriculum three questions: does it engage (show the internal state)? what does it count (process or lineage)? when is it present (against the pathology's phase)? Check where shipped checkpoints sit relative to every ramp.
doctrine-17Probe before training: feasibility first, hypotheses in tablesAfter two failed training attempts at a skill, stop training: demonstrate the behavior open-loop, enumerate hypotheses in a written table audited against actual configs cheapest-first, race one probe per side of the sim2real boundary for hardware-only pathologies, and use suspended tests to acquit or convict actuators before blaming authority.
Case. "在黑暗里试钥匙" - four sidewalk rungs failed until an open-loop probe separated exploration/waveform/authority in one experiment (`open-loop-probe-before-reward-tuning`); the foot-drag mystery fell to a seven-hypothesis config audit (`hypothesis-table-code-audit`); the period-doubling was resolved by racing a reward-side and a plant-side evidence line - and both paid off, one per sub-case (`period-doubling-evidence-race`); the suspended test acquitted the roll actuator in one measurement (`suspended-test-isolates-actuator-authority`). A read-only configuration probe told a wall from a slope in the recovery line's seated basin (`configuration-probe-wall-not-slope`), and the fix it pointed to - where the feet are - took prone from 0/159 to 158/159 (`prone-dead-end-is-foot-placement`); a knob that did not move its variable was recorded as no test of the idea (`dof-vel-penalty-is-not-a-pacing-knob`).
Coach application. When a skill resists training, prescribe the probe before any further reward edits; require verified target trajectories before imitation terms; keep a falsified-fixes list so closed roads stay closed (`amplitude-cut-falsified-yaw-fix`).
doctrine-18External advice is recomputed locally; values transfer as ratiosEvery external suggestion is classified adopt / already-have / modify / trap by recomputing its claim on the local reward table and probe data; numeric values transfer only as dimensionless ratios (to tracking weight, leg length, sqrt(gL), control rate); citations are verified to exist.
Case. "Start vy very small" would have destroyed sidewalk learning on this reward table - the gradient scales quadratically (`external-advice-audit-against-own-arithmetic`); swing-height targets and weights transferred correctly only through leg-length and tracking-ratio scaling (`transfer-ratios-not-absolutes`); the "6-step delay" was refused for lacking a control rate (`latency-dr-covers-measured-pipeline`); a borrowed reference's structure was FK-verified and its amplitude re-derived from the division of labor (`reference-structure-fk-amplitude-division`); retrieval agents fabricated verbatim arXiv quotes - only source-verifiable material was used; and one dismissed suggestion later proved right for a different mechanism, and was credited (`cycle-average-tracking-for-gait-quantities`). An advisor's staged state machine turned out to exist in none of the three papers it cited, and reading them changed the plan (`advisor-paraphrase-vs-paper`).
Coach application. Intercept every "paper X does Y" with the local recomputation; convert absolutes to ratios before comparison; verify quotes; revisit dismissed advice when new mechanisms appear.
doctrine-19Hardware sessions are scripted experiments, not tuning sessionsReal-robot time executes a pre-registered matrix: risk-ordered (baseline first, fragile last with a spotter), stage-gated (suspended smoke before ground), A/B sessions bracketed by a repeated reference run, operators briefed on measured zero-command and untrained-axis behavior, chirality-aware disturbance protocols, no field tuning - the only legal field changes are scripted, single-variable, and self-reversing.
Case. The S2 acceptance sheet (`risk-ordered-real-deployment`, `battery-bracketed-real-ab`, `know-zero-command-behavior`, `push-test-chirality-protocol`, `no-field-tuning-protocol`); the RAM-only torque experiment with automatic power-cycle rollback (`reversible-single-variable-field-experiments`); and the sim-veto rule - even sim's condemnations get one safeguarded hardware check when they judge the purpose-built configuration (`sim-veto-needs-real-confirmation`). The recovery line's first real run went ahead with its preconditions unmet and was stopped as dangerous (`first-real-get-up-violent-stage-one-policy`); after it: a staged hang, mat and floor protocol (`staged-hang-mat-floor-for-get-up`), a fixed power-cycle pre-flight and two-machine discipline (`power-cycle-preflight`, `two-machine-config-discipline`), a fall guard replaced rather than switched off (`fall-guard-becomes-a-state`), and logs that are part of the run (`hardware-log-is-the-attribution-input`).
Coach application. Turn every hardware request into a runbook with order, gates, brackets, briefing, and anomaly plays; refuse improvised parameter changes on the floor.
doctrine-20Close questions in writing; restart when the debt is structuralAudited questions get frozen verdicts with citable wording and an explicit reopening bar; hardware verdicts are dated by deployment-stack and calibration state and expire when those change; and when successive rungs shuffle symptoms without net progress, freeze the lineage as regression baselines, pay the structural debts, and retrain minimal - carrying laws and instruments, not weights.
Case. The chirality and COM questions were closed with frozen wording and "no reopening without new hard evidence" (`frozen-verdicts-semantic-boundaries`); v5/v6's condemnations expired with the deploy stack (`stale-verdicts-under-old-stack`); a 2-degree calibration fix moved the whole runnable envelope (`zero-offset-calibration-shifts-envelope`); plant upgrades are era boundaries with paired re-baselining (`plant-swap-invariants-vs-shifts`); and the 2026-08-05 reset froze v5-v11, fixed the latency FIFO / manifest / sampling / reward-table debts, and restarted - producing the lineage that reached hardware SOTA (`freeze-lineage-fix-structure-restart`, `minimal-reward-table-with-provenance`). The recovery line's real-robot verdicts ended up in three places that disagree, one of them an undated note in a command file (`write-hardware-verdicts-back`).
Coach application. Maintain the closed-questions ledger and quote it when symptoms recur; stamp verdicts with stack/calibration versions; when a team is three rungs into symptom-shuffling, raise the restart question explicitly with the freeze-fix-restart pattern.
doctrine-21Name the quantity in the space it lives inA goal, reward term or acceptance criterion about the feet, the base or the contact state is computed from the quantity itself - world poses, forces, per-category outcomes - never through a joint-angle, single-signal or pooled stand-in that assumes everything else sits at nominal; and every detector is validated on a behaviour known not to contain the event before it becomes a gate.
Case. The recovery line was caught three times: |ankle roll| as "flat feet" sold stance width and the real robot slid into the splits, a hip-roll criterion was confounded by 50 deg of yaw, and the joint table said 0.271 m where the feet were 0.159 m apart; task-space terms produced the first flat, wide stance (`joint-space-proxy-for-task-space-quantity`). Flight detection lied in both directions across two lines - foot height flagged 40% false flight on a walking gait, contact force alone flagged slip chatter as hops (`contact-detector-single-signal-lies`). A pooled height average described a robot that did not exist - six in ten standing, four in ten sitting (`zero-partial-credit-is-not-an-iteration-problem`) - and the walking line had learned the same lesson on yaw rate (`heading-integral-not-body-rate`).
Coach application. For every reward term and gate row, ask what physical quantity it stands for and whether it is measured directly; flag joint-space or single-signal stand-ins for task-space goals, ask for a detector validated on a negative control, and split pooled metrics by category before reading them.
doctrine-22Continuation needs a live gradient; a release is chosen by a scanContinue a converged policy only on a change that creates a live gradient, on a short budget, with every checkpoint scanned on the transfer axis; choose a release by running the full battery over a band of checkpoints and stop on signals, never by taking the last one; and when edits to the terminal phase cannot move a behaviour, roll back and retrain with the constraint present from the start, keeping the order in which the lineage acquired its mechanisms as explicit curriculum phases.
Case. A continuation with no new gradient drifted MuJoCo transfer from 100/98% to 80/28% while every Isaac gate stayed perfect, and a live-gradient continuation at the same depth kept it (`converged-continuation-is-poison`). One-leg checkpoints 100 iterations apart failed 1 and 38 of 40 cells, and late ones degraded (`checkpoint-choice-is-a-full-gate-scan`). Four in-lineage stance fixes failed because the stance was the end of the get-up path, and from scratch it grew right (`stance-decided-by-get-up-path`); fixes stacked on degraded states were rolled back by the user (`stop-stacking-roll-back-and-audit`); and the lineage's final recipe, trained from scratch in one run, sat at 0% because the order of its curriculum was part of the product (`curriculum-history-is-part-of-the-product`). The omni line's short adaptation budgets and mature roots are the same law seen from the other side (`continuation-budget-not-from-zero`, `root-maturity-vs-product-quality`).
Coach application. Before approving a continuation, ask for the new gradient, the budget and the transfer axis in the scan; before approving a release, ask for the scan; after three rungs without progress on the target, propose rolling back to the last good checkpoint and a from-scratch phase plan instead of a fourth patch.
Experience cards
168 cards matching “hardware-log-is-the-attribution-input”.
A hardware run without its log is an anecdote - the first real get-up's policy, gain profile and log were never recorded, two CSVs stayed "to be reported", and runbook commands wrote different policies' logs under one copied filename
hardware-log-is-the-attribution-inputMake the log part of the run: name it from the policy and conditions automatically (never by hand-copied filenames), record the policy digest and gain profile inside it, include what the open questions need (torque, joint positions and targets), and treat a session without a collected log as incomplete.
Symptom
The recovery line's oldest open question - whether Isaac or MuJoCo reads torque demand correctly - was waiting on real-robot logs that never arrived, and the verdicts that did arrive could not be tied to files.
Context
deploy_policy writes a CSV per run (--log); the runbook's own analysis snippet reads its joint-position, target and action columns (q_, tgt_, act_), and the recovery hanging checklist asks for torque and joint logs for the whole run, to be compared with simulation. The first real get-up (08-09): policy, gain profile and log "to be recorded later". The first real A/B (08-11): v2_5b's result and both policies' CSVs "to be reported". In the runbook's walking commands, three runs of two different c4 policies log to real_s1e_pw08_teleop_0808.csv, and s1e and s2e_fric runs log to real_c2_700_pw08_teleop_0808.csv - filenames copied from other commands.
Change
None recorded; the spec kept listing the open-loop comparison as waiting for real logs.
Outcome
No real-robot log appears in the recovery spec through §50, so the simulator disagreement stayed unresolved and hardware verdicts stayed unattached to data.
Mechanism
Attribution needs the run's identity (policy digest, profile, conditions) and its signals in one artifact; a filename copied from another command mislabels the file, and a log not collected at the session is rarely collected later.
Applies when
- planning a hardware session whose result should settle a sim question
- log filenames are typed or pasted by hand
- hardware feedback arrives as prose without files
“python tools/deploy_policy.py --policy train/policies/omni_c4_ff800_pj.onnx … --log train/real_logs/real_s1e_pw08_teleop_0808.csv … q,t,a=d[:,c("q_")],d[:,c("tgt_")],d[:,c("act_")]”
RL系统/FOLLOW THIS copy 2.md § Walk 遥控 / S2 / csv 分析片段 (operator runbook, undated) Real-robot trials of a new skill were staged by risk - a hanging dry run with the robot posed by hand, then one short try per category on a mat with the hardest last, then the composed behaviour (switch + walking) last - with the user present and a log every time
staged-hang-mat-floor-for-get-upStage a new skill's hardware trials by risk - hanging dry run posed by hand, one short try on a mat per start category with the hardest last, the composed behaviour last - with an operator ready to cut enable and a log for every try; relax a safety ban only for short, attended runs and say so in writing.
Symptom
A get-up policy acts violently near the ground by design, and the first unstaged real run of the line was stopped as dangerous.
Context
The hanging checklist written with the first stamped recovery product (v2_5, 2026-08-11), to be ticked item by item with the user present: both machines on the same commit and firmware torque limits checked; the robot hung from a single point about 0.1 m off the ground; a dry run with the robot posed by hand into supine and prone to watch that the target stream is gentle (the beta contract keeps targets within +/-0.25 rad of the measured pose, so enabling causes no homing fling); the first floor try is supine only, on a mat, once, with torque and joint logs; categories are added one at a time, prone last; any kicking or oscillation cuts enable immediately. For the switch (08-14) the runbook orders: hang with the standing policy as the locomotion side, then on a mat push the robot over and let it recover, and only last swap in the walking policy. An exemption was also written: edge-standing policies stay banned from long or unattended runs, but a short single A/B with the user present, hung or on a mat, is allowed. The one-leg line reused the same order (hang, then floor with a spotter, 60 s segments with a temperature check).
Change
Real trials as a checklist of stages, each gated on the previous one, with the composed behaviour last.
Outcome
The line's first real get-up (v2_6, 08-11) came through this protocol and was reported "fairly stable"; no further hardware outcomes of the switch are recorded in the spec.
Mechanism
Each stage exposes one new risk (commanded targets without contact, a single category with contact, harder categories, then the interaction of two policies), so a failure is attributable and cheap.
Applies when
- first hardware trial of a recovery, jumping or other high-impact skill
- switching between two policies on hardware for the first time
- a policy with a known posture defect needs a comparison run
“吊挂空跑: 手动摆到 supine/prone 姿态, 看目标流是否温和 (β 帽 7.5 N·m, 目标永远贴着当前 q ±0.25 rad —— 使能瞬间无归位甩动, 这是 β 契约附带保证) … 落地首试: supine 一类, 垫子, 单次; τ/q --log 全程记录 … 逐类别扩展 (prone 最后), 每类先单次”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §40 吊挂执行单(真机首试;需用户在场,逐项打勾) Order hardware runs by sim risk, gate each stage on the last, and put the fragile cell last with a spotter
risk-ordered-real-deploymentScript hardware sessions as a risk ladder: baseline first, sim-riskiest last with a spotter, suspended smoke before ground, each stage gated on the previous, environment (floor mu) recorded as a selection input - and stop at the stage that misbehaves.
Symptom
Five policy-x-gain combinations had to go on hardware in one session, with sim survival ranging from 20/20 down to 17/20 (and zero-command survival down to 2/20) - an unordered session risks breaking the robot on an avoidable run.
Context
The execution sheet fixed the order as sim-risk low to high, control baseline first (current SOTA establishes the floor reference), the fragile cell (fric-2400@kd1.0) last with a person spotting throughout. Stage gating: suspended smoke (feet off ground, 10 s each, all five pass before anything touches down) -> suspended with IMU and forward command (gait forms in the air) -> grounded runs -> speed raise only for combos that survived the previous stage -> zero-command tests only with a spotter, ordered by sim zero-cmd survival, with the 2/20 cell skipped by default. Preconditions include recording the floor material and estimating mu (if mu <~0.6, sim says pick the kd1.2 gain as main), port/CAN self-check, calibration frozen. Any stage failing stops the session at that stage: "任一段出问题就停在那一段, 不要跳到下一段".
Change
Session structured as a risk ladder with per-stage gates instead of a flat checklist; per-combo sim survival numbers written into the run table as the ordering key.
Outcome
The session design localized any failure to the cheapest stage that could reveal it, kept the robot safe for the informative fragile run, and made the control baseline available before any comparison run.
Mechanism
Hardware sessions consume a shared budget (robot integrity, battery, floor time); ordering by predicted risk means information is bought cheapest-first, and stage gates convert an expensive failure into a cheap earlier one. Baselines run first because every later reading is relative to them.
Applies when
- taking multiple policies/configs to hardware in one session
- a candidate is known-fragile in sim but must be measured
- writing a deployment runbook for a new robot
“跑序 = sim 风险从低到高, 最险的放最后 (依据 = 存活门/零指令存活) … ⑤ 是 sim 里最脆的一格 … 放最后跑, 全程留人扶, 起步即给 cmd, 零指令不做。… 任一段出问题就停在那一段, 不要跳到下一段。”
train/REAL_RUN_S2.md § 上机名单 / 全部命令 The recovery line's real-robot verdicts live in three places that disagree - the spec's "fairly stable, first real stand-up" for v2_6, an undated runbook note that only v3_1p1c works, and a first run whose details were never recorded
write-hardware-verdicts-backA hardware verdict is a dated entry in the authoritative ledger - policy file and stamp, gain profile, floor, battery, tries, log file, what was seen - written back the same day; a note in a command file is a pointer, not a verdict, and a newer verdict that contradicts an older one must say so.
Symptom
Asked "which recovery policy works on the real robot", the sources give different answers, and none of them carries the conditions of the test.
Context
08-09: the first real run was stopped as violent and dangerous; which ONNX, which gain profile and whether a log existed were marked "to be recorded" and never were. 08-11: v2_6 was "fairly stable", the line's first real get-up, with splits after standing; v2_5b's result and both CSVs were "to be reported". 08-14: v3_1p1c was stamped and pushed, with "the real first test still needs the user present"; the spec records no hardware result for it. The operator runbook (undated) puts above the v2_6 and v2_5b floor commands the note that none of the recovery policies below work, only recovery_v3_1p1c - a verdict never written back into the spec, with no date, floor, battery, number of tries or log attached.
Change
None recorded in the sources; this card records the gap.
Outcome
The line's authoritative record ends with v3_1p1c as the product awaiting its first real test, while the operator's note implies it is the only one that works and that v2_6 (recorded as a success) does not.
Mechanism
Verdicts given at the robot travel by word of mouth and command-file comments; without a record carrying the conditions, a later reader cannot tell a changed verdict from a changed floor, battery or stack.
Conflicts
§43 (2026-08-11) records v2_6 as the first successful real get-up ("fairly stable"); the undated runbook says every recovery policy except recovery_v3_1p1c does not work; §49 (2026-08-14) says v3_1p1c's first real test was still pending. The runbook's claim has no date and was never written back to the spec, so it cannot be ordered against §43.
Applies when
- choosing which policy to deploy from an operator's notes
- a hardware session ends without a written result
- two documents disagree about what worked on the robot
“下面的recovery都不行 只有recovery_v3_1p1c.onnx”
RL系统/FOLLOW THIS copy 2.md § #### Recovery Policy (operator runbook, undated) Push-test protocol - positive side first, fragile side spotted, axes aligned in the log, and cross-machine push counts stay qualitative
push-test-chirality-protocolOrder disturbance tests from the robust side to the fragile side with protection scaled to sim-measured asymmetry, align and log frame conventions before testing, and treat cross-domain disturbance counts as qualitative evidence only.
Symptom
Hand-push testing on hardware risked falls on a side sim had already flagged as fragile, and push counts invited apples-to-oranges comparison with sim numbers.
Context
Sim chirality was explicit: descendants were far more fragile in -y (fric-3000@kd1.2: +6 N*s survived 15/20 vs -6 N*s only 3-9/20) while the s1e control was perfectly symmetric (40/40). The protocol therefore: push the positive direction first, keep a spotter for the negative side; before any push, record which real-robot side corresponds to sim's +y in the log ("上机前对一次坐标"); and - citing the chaos lesson ("混沌课文") - real push results are used only as qualitative corroboration, never compared numerically with sim survival counts across machines.
Change
Push testing became a scripted, chirality-aware protocol with frame alignment as a logged precondition and an explicit epistemic limit on cross-domain count comparison.
Outcome
The fragile side was tested with protection informed by sim's quantified asymmetry; logs stayed interpretable because the frame correspondence was recorded before the first push.
Mechanism
Disturbance-response chirality is a real, quantifiable lineage property, so test order should follow measured fragility; and perturbation outcomes are chaotic in the details (divergent trajectories from tiny differences), so counts do not transfer across domains even when qualitative rankings do.
Applies when
- planning push/disturbance tests on hardware
- sim shows directional asymmetry in disturbance survival
- someone proposes comparing real push counts to sim counts
“先正向后负向, 负向留人扶 —— sim 手性明确: 后代在负 y 向显著更脆 (fric-3000 @kd1.2: +6 N·s 15/20 vs −6 N·s 3~9/20), 而 s1e@0.8 两向 40/40 完全对称。上机前对一次坐标 … 跨机不做二值结论 (混沌课文): 真机推力只作定性对照, 不与 sim 计数对比。”
train/REAL_RUN_S2.md § 3. 抗推 (可选, 人手推; 做则按此协议) 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 ⚠️ 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 field experiment is allowed when it is pre-scripted, single-variable, and self-reversing (RAM-only writes)
reversible-single-variable-field-experimentsPermit hardware-side experiments only when scripted in advance with one variable, a log, and automatic reversion (volatile writes, git restore); keep every config mirror (yaml vs firmware) changed and restored as a unit.
Symptom
A hypothesis needed a hardware test - v5's "wild kicking" might trace to the RS00 torque cap being deployed at 11 N*m vs its trained 14 (-21%), on exactly the ankle-roll/hip-yaw joints doing lateral-yaw work - but changing limits in the field is the classic way to lose track of robot state.
Context
The experiment was written to be safe by construction: change exactly one number (robot.yaml RS00 tau_limit 11.0 -> 14.0), write to firmware RAM only (--write without --save, so a power cycle automatically rolls back to the saved 12/17/11), run the single logged trial, then restore both yaml (git checkout) and RAM immediately. The consistency requirement is explicit: the deploy tool's torque self-check compares against robot.yaml, so yaml and firmware must change and restore together; and the hypothesis scoping is itself single-variable - RS06's 67% cut was measured irrelevant (gait uses only 16% of rated) and hip torque was left alone for safety.
Change
Field experimentation policy refined: not "never touch hardware settings" but "only pre-scripted, one-variable, logged, auto-reverting changes with config/firmware kept consistent".
Outcome
The sub-experiment could answer the torque-cap hypothesis without any risk of the robot persisting in an undocumented state - forgetting to restore costs nothing but a git checkout.
Mechanism
The danger of field changes is state divergence (robot config drifting from the repo's record), not the change itself; volatile (RAM-only) writes bound the divergence lifetime to one power cycle, and single-variable scoping preserves attributability even in a field setting.
Applies when
- a hypothesis requires changing firmware limits or gains on the robot
- field debugging tempts persistent config writes
- designing safe escape hatches for deployment tooling
“程序(--write 不带 --save = 只写 RAM,断电自动回滚)… deploy 的限扭自检是对 robot.yaml 比对的,所以 yaml 和固件必须同改同还原;忘了还原也没事,断电重启即回 12/17/11(上次 --save 的值),但 yaml 要 git checkout。”
train/REAL_SWEEP_V5_V8.md § 4. 限扭子实验(可选二期,只对 v5,单变量) Write each config's expected hardware signature before the session - and if reality disagrees, change the books, not the conclusion
preregistered-real-expectationsBefore hardware runs, write per-config expected signatures and the disagreement rule (hardware outranks sim; discrepancies get recorded, not reconciled); validate the harness by checking it reproduces at least one known real behavior.
Symptom
Hardware impressions are easily narrated after the fact; without written expectations, any real-robot outcome can be made to "match" the sim story.
Context
The S2 acceptance sheet carried a section titled "sim 侧预注册预期 (事后核对, 不许事后改)" - per-configuration behavioral signatures written before the session: s1e@0.8 the disturbance king (push 159/160, zero chirality, all-mu 20/20) at the cost of speed gates 0/20 and zero-command wander ~0.98 m with -29.5 deg/20 s rotation; fric-3000 "walks accurately but is easier to push over"; fric-2400 neither. Credibility check included: the sim harness had reproduced the already-recorded real behavior (pace in place + right drift + net rotation -30 deg/20 s), which "提高本单全部预期的可信度". The anomaly clause fixed the epistemics in advance: if results systematically disagree with sim, "不改结论改账" - don't massage the conclusion, write the discrepancy into the books, and per the earlier zero-warning lesson, hardware wins.
Change
Every hardware session ships with a pre-registered expectation table (signature per config), a baseline-match credibility check, and a written precedence rule for disagreement.
Outcome
The A/B session became falsifiable: agreement confirms the proxy, disagreement is booked as a proxy-bias finding rather than argued away.
Mechanism
Pre-registration converts qualitative hardware sessions into tests of the sim-to-real mapping itself; a reproduced known behavior calibrates trust in the remaining predictions; and fixing "who wins on disagreement" beforehand prevents authority from drifting to whichever source flatters the plan.
Applies when
- planning any hardware acceptance or A/B session
- the sim harness's credibility in this regime is unestablished
- post-session write-ups tempt narrative fitting
“⚠️ sim 复现了真机已记录的「原地踏步 + 右漂 + 净旋 −30°/20s」—— harness 与真机行为对得上, 提高本单全部预期的可信度。… 结果与 sim 系统性不符 → 不改结论改账: 写进 README 该节, 按 「Isaac 指标三次零预警」的教训, 以真机为准。”
train/REAL_RUN_S2.md § 2. sim 侧预注册预期 (事后核对, 不许事后改) / 4. 异常处置 Bracket a real-robot A/B with a repeated reference run - battery drain is the confound
battery-bracketed-real-abOrder hardware A/B sessions as A-B-A: repeat the first condition at the end, and void the comparison if the bracket runs disagree - never let battery or venue drift ride on the second condition.
Symptom
In a two-policy teleop A/B on hardware, the second policy is measured on a lower battery voltage than the first - a systematic bias that would be read as a policy difference.
Context
C2 real A/B (checkpoint 700 vs A800, same floor, same day) was scripted as 700 -> A800 -> 700-rerun, with the explicit note that a teleop session drains the pack and the trailing policy "naturally suffers".
Change
Protocol: run the reference policy first AND last; if the two reference runs differ noticeably, declare the whole session battery/floor-polluted and void the A/B ("结论作废重来"). Also log electricity per run.
Outcome
Called out as the round's only systematic confound, closed by one extra command ("这是本轮唯一的系统性混淆源，一条命令就能堵掉").
Mechanism
Battery voltage scales available torque, and torque loss hits behavior asymmetrically (see power-scale-hurts-nonforward-axes), so drain masquerades as policy regression; a head/tail reference pair converts the unobserved drift into a measured control.
Applies when
- comparing two policies or settings on hardware in one session
- any sequential hardware evaluation where the plant drifts (battery, temperature, floor wear)
“为什么要 700 复跑：一次遥控 session 下来电池会掉压，第二枚天然吃亏。头尾各跑一次 700，若两次 700 明显不同，说明这轮 A/B 被电量污染，结论作废重来。这是本轮唯一的系统性混淆源，一条命令就能堵掉。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3c. A-3 真机 A/B（同一段地板、同一天、电量记账） Cross-simulator gate (Isaac Lab to MuJoCo) comes before any hardware attempt
sim2sim-gate-before-sim2realGate every policy through a second simulator with an independently built plant before hardware; treat sim2sim failure as a contract or overfitting bug, and sim2real failure after a sim2sim pass as a plant/actuator gap.
Symptom
A policy that only ever ran in its training simulator carries untested dependencies on that simulator's solver, contact model, and defaults; the first place those dependencies surface should not be the real robot.
Context
Standing order of operations for the whole Lucen program, recorded as the opening line of the experience log: train in Isaac Lab, gate in MuJoCo, only then go to hardware. The MuJoCo side is the same plant used for evaluation batteries, so a sim2sim pass also validates the exported policy + contract (obs ordering, scales, defaults) outside the training stack.
Change
Pipeline rule adopted - every checkpoint must pass the MuJoCo evaluation battery (sim2sim) before it is considered for real deployment (sim2real).
Outcome
Used generation after generation as the cheap filter; hardware sessions only ever received policies that had already survived a second simulator.
Mechanism
Two simulators disagree exactly where a policy is overfit to simulator-specific artifacts (contact softness, integrator, default parameters, obs conventions); a cross-sim transfer catches contract bugs and solver overfitting at zero hardware risk, so real-robot failures that remain are attributable to genuine plant/actuator gaps.
Applies when
- planning the path from training to first hardware trial
- exported policy behaves differently outside the training framework
- triaging whether a real-robot failure is contract vs plant
“先sim2sim - 从isaaclab 到mujoco / 再sim2real”
Experience.md § opening lines (1-2) The real robot's right-leg kicking was over-trained-delay times loop gain - irreducible pipeline latency is plant, model it fully from day one
pipeline-latency-is-plant-not-drMeasure the end-to-end action pipeline delay and build it into the nominal plant and every acceptance gate from day one; treat power/scale deratings that "fix" oscillation as gain-reduction crutches flagging an unmodeled delay, and expect higher-feedback-gain policies to be MORE delay-fragile.
Symptom
On hardware, s1c/s1d at action scale 1.0 always kicked wildly with the right leg (s1c only ran as SOTA at power 0.8; s1d only at 0.7) - while sim showed nothing under default evaluation.
Context
Sim reproduced the incident item by item once the real pipeline delay was injected: s1d@1.0 with --delay 1 fell at 10.2 s, --delay 2 at 5.2 s; s1c@1.0 stressed (r_hip_roll saturation 5 -> 16%; "右脚" = the policy's chirality makes the right leg its high-gain leg); and the combos that worked on hardware (s1c@0.8+delay2, s1d@0.7+delay2) all survived in sim. Mechanism: the real pipeline is ~1-2 ticks (BusWorker next-cycle pickup + CAN round trip) but S1.1 trained only to 1 tick - "超训延迟 × 全环路增益 = 振荡;衰减 = 压环路增益换稳定" (delay beyond training x full loop gain = oscillation; the power derating had been buying stability by compressing loop gain). s1d was MORE fragile than s1c because its yaw 3-layer stack had learned higher feedback gain - higher gain, lower delay tolerance. Three changes: latency DR widened to cover reality; acceptance gates and smoke runs moved permanently to --delay 2 ("门必须在真机条件下预测 真机"); and the doctrine written twice-paid: "不可约的管线属性(延迟、 限速)不是'随机化选项',是 plant 本体,第一天就该全额建模" - S1's nominal-then-robust staging falsified by hardware for the second time. The later s1e hardware run at power 1.0 (no kicking, normal force) closed the loop: "0.8 = 旧代拐杖" - the derating had been a crutch for the under-modeled delay, not a real requirement.
Change
Latency modeled as plant from day one of any lineage (measured 1-2 ticks covered, bridge-layer rate limits likewise modeled by default); every gate and smoke evaluation issued under --delay 2.
Outcome
Kicking reproduced, explained, and eliminated in the s1e generation at full scale and full power; the deploy-side crutches (0.7/0.8) retired for the new lineage.
Mechanism
Feedback oscillation onset is a product of loop gain and phase lag; a policy trained below the real delay learns gains that sit past the real stability margin, and any output derating masks it by scaling gain down. Since pipeline delay is deterministic hardware property - not an uncertainty - it belongs in the nominal plant, and every evaluation must include it or the gate predicts a robot that does not exist.
Applies when
- hardware oscillation/kicking that sim only reproduces with added delay
- a policy only runs on hardware at reduced power/scale
- defining what belongs in the nominal plant vs the DR list
“真实链路延迟 ~1~2 拍 … S1.1 只训到 1 拍——超训延迟 × 全环路增益 = 振荡;衰减 = 压环路增益换稳定。s1d 比 s1c 更脆 = yaw 三层栈学出更高反馈增益,增益越高延迟容忍越低。… 教训入账:S1「先标称后鲁棒」第二次被真机证伪——不可约的管线属性(延迟、限速)不是"随机化选项",是 plant 本体,第一天就该全额建模。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 3. S1.4(真机右脚乱踢事故强制) The 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 sim veto needs real confirmation too - the worst sim cell was scheduled as the most informative hardware run
sim-veto-needs-real-confirmationNever let sim alone both condemn a purpose-built configuration and escape audit: spend one cheap, safeguarded hardware run on the condemned cell, pre-registering what agreement and disagreement would each imply about the proxy.
Symptom
The fric-2400@kd1.0 combination was sim's worst cell across the board (survival 17/20 - the only miss, mu0.4 1/20, push 103/160, zero-cmd 2/20), yet it was the only product specifically trained for the kd1.0 deployment gain - discarding it on sim evidence alone would leave the sim's own validity untested exactly where it mattered.
Context
The team had been burned in the other direction before ("Isaac 指标三次 零预警" - training-side metrics gave zero warning three times), so the symmetric rule was written: sim's rejection also needs hardware confirmation ("sim 判被支配 ≠ 真机被支配 … sim 的否决也要真机确认"). The run was pre-registered with a dual reading: real matches sim -> the S2f ladder closes and the fork root is settled; real clearly better than sim -> the MuJoCo proxy has a systematic bias in the kd1.0/low-margin region, "那比选型本身重要得多" - and every S2f sim acceptance would need re-scoring.
Change
The condemned configuration was kept on the hardware roster (last, spotted, minimal exposure) explicitly as a proxy-validation probe, not as a deployment candidate.
Outcome
Session design captured either result as progress: selection confirmed, or a proxy bias discovered that would re-price the whole ladder's verdicts.
Mechanism
Every sim verdict is a joint statement about the policy AND the proxy; cells where a policy was purpose-trained for the exact condition sim condemns are where proxy error is most likely and most costly. Testing the veto converts a selection decision into a calibration measurement of the evaluator itself.
Applies when
- sim rejects the configuration that targets the actual deployment condition
- the eval proxy's calibration has never been checked in that regime
- deciding which hardware runs are worth their risk
“但它也是唯一为 kd1.0 部署档专门训的产物 —— sim 判被支配 ≠ 真机被支配, 「Isaac 指标三次零预警」的教训反过来同样成立: sim 的否决也要真机确认。… 若真机明显好于 sim → MuJoCo 代理在 kd1.0/低裕度区有系统性偏差, 那比选型本身重要得多。”
train/REAL_RUN_S2.md § 上机名单 note / 2. sim 侧预注册预期 ⑤ A 2-degree joint-zero calibration fix moved the whole runnable envelope - re-test old "cannot run" verdicts after recalibration
zero-offset-calibration-shifts-envelopeDate every hardware verdict with the calibration state; after any zero/mount recalibration, re-test previously condemned policy-power combinations and previously "unexplainable" posture offsets before attributing either to training or model.
Symptom
s1d was on record as "only runs at power 0.7" (kicked wildly at 0.8); after a calibration pass, the same policy ran 12 s at 0.8 with no kicking at all.
Context
The calibration had fixed a 2.08 deg zero offset on r_hip_roll - exactly the constant error source on the dominant joint of the kicking oscillation loop ("恰是乱踢振荡环主导关节的常值误差源"). The three-generation post-calibration hardware sweep also closed a second case: the robot's mysterious "backward lean" disappeared after calibration, and the sim-real posture difference collapsed from opposite-sign 5+ deg to same-sign ~2 deg ("后仰案实质了结") - the lean had been a sensing/zero artifact, not a mass-model error. Booked consequence: if the s1d recovery re-verifies, "真机可跑档整体 上移" - every policy's runnable power envelope shifts up, and downstream lineages' hardware expectations get revised.
Change
Joint-zero and mount calibration promoted from setup chore to a variable that dates hardware verdicts: verdicts about which power/scale levels a policy can run are conditioned on the calibration state they were measured under.
Outcome
One policy rehabilitated at a higher power level; one standing sim-real posture discrepancy closed without touching model or training; a pending re-verification booked rather than asserted.
Mechanism
A constant joint-zero error acts as a persistent disturbance injected at the feedback loop's most-loaded joint; near an oscillation threshold, removing a 2-degree bias is the difference between a stable and an unstable loop. Since the error is additive and machine-side, it shifts every policy's stability envelope simultaneously - which is why verdicts must carry their calibration date.
Conflicts
The s1d rehabilitation awaited one confirming re-run at the time of writing ("待复核一跑坐实") - the offset-as-cause reading is the head suspect, not a closed verdict.
Applies when
- a policy oscillates at a power level others tolerate
- sim and real disagree on a constant posture offset
- deciding whether to re-test old hardware verdicts after maintenance/calibration
“发现①:s1d@0.8 能跑了(旧账「只有 0.7 能跑」)——12s 无乱踢。头号嫌疑 = 标定修正:r_hip_roll offset 修 2.08°,恰是乱踢振荡环主导关节的常值误差源。… 发现②:「后仰」标定后消失 … sim-real 姿态差从反号 5°+ 收敛到同号 2°,后仰案实质了结。”
train/README.md § 真机 @0.8 三代横评(2026-08-07 标定后) 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) 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） Privileged signals (true velocity, foot force, foot height) go to the critic only
observation-honesty-critic-onlyTreat the actor observation vector as a hardware contract: every element must exist on the real robot with realistic noise; privileged simulator truths belong in the critic only.
Symptom
Policies trained on ground-truth base linear velocity work in sim and fail on hardware, where only a drifting IMU and encoders exist - the policy has learned to depend on a signal that does not survive deployment.
Context
Many open-source locomotion stacks feed simulator ground-truth linear velocity to the actor. The reference team refused: the real robot has no ground-truth velocity. Asymmetric actor-critic keeps the training benefit of privileged information without deploying the dependency.
Change
Route ground-truth velocity, foot contact forces, and foot heights to the critic only; the actor observes exclusively signals that exist on hardware (IMU-derived quantities, encoders, commands, previous actions).
Outcome
Recorded as adopted doctrine in Lucen's experience log; the trained actor's input contract matches what the real robot can actually produce.
Mechanism
The critic is discarded at deployment, so it may consume any privileged state to reduce value-estimation variance; the actor's observation set is a deployment contract - anything in it that hardware cannot supply (or supplies with different noise/drift) becomes a train/deploy distribution shift the policy was never trained to handle.
Applies when
- designing actor/critic observation spaces
- reviewing a config where the actor sees base_lin_vel or contact forces
- sim policy is strong but real robot drifts, oscillates, or falls without obvious actuator cause
“很多开源代码库把真值线速度喂给策略，Asimov 团队没有，因为真机上没有真值速度，只有会漂的 IMU 和编码器；用完美速度训练出来的策略会依赖它，然后在硬件上失效。真值速度、足底力、足高统统只给 critic”
Experience.md § 观测空间的诚实性 (line 7) No parameter tuning on the floor - a failing config retries once, then it is out; anomalies go back to sim
no-field-tuning-protocolHardware time is for executing and measuring the pre-registered matrix, never for tuning: failing configs get one retry then elimination, anomalies get recorded and reproduced in sim, and contract-check bypass flags stay unused.
Symptom
Hardware sessions create pressure to fix problems live - nudge a gain, tweak a scale - which destroys attribution and risks the robot.
Context
The anomaly-handling section of the acceptance sheet is three fixed plays: (1) falls at start -> retry once at the same settings; falls again -> that configuration is eliminated, "不现场调参" (no on-site parameter tuning); (2) limit cycle or motor screech -> stop immediately, record the gain level and the joint, reproduce in sim before any discussion; (3) systematic disagreement with sim -> record it as a finding (hardware outranks sim) rather than adjusting anything to force agreement. Related guardrails elsewhere in the sheet: never pass --allow-unstamped / --allow-plant-drift to bypass manifest checks - if it errors, something real is wrong, stop and look.
Change
Field sessions restricted to executing the pre-written matrix; every fix path routed through sim reproduction and the normal config/rung process.
Outcome
Sessions stayed interpretable (each run matched a documented config) and safety overrides never became habit; anomalies arrived back in sim as reproducible cases instead of half-remembered floor stories.
Mechanism
Field-tuned values are measured under adrenaline on one floor with no logging or baselines - they contaminate the config lineage and are unattributable afterwards; and every bypass flag that skips a contract check converts a designed safety property into an operator promise.
Applies when
- a config fails or oscillates during a hardware session
- someone reaches for a live gain tweak or a bypass flag
- writing the anomaly-handling section of a deployment runbook
“起步即摔 → 换档重试一次, 仍摔则该档出局, 不现场调参。出现极限环/啸叫 → 立刻停, 记录档位与关节, 回 sim 复现再议。… 不要给 --allow-unstamped / --allow-plant-drift —— 三枚 ONNX 都已盖章 … 真要报错说明有别的问题, 停下来看。”
train/REAL_RUN_S2.md § 4. 异常处置 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 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) Training at scale 0.4 is NOT the twin of deploying 0.5 at power 0.8 - the algebra matches, the learned policy does not
deploy-scaling-not-training-equivalentNever assume deploy-side scalings can be folded into training-time constants ("burning the crutch into training"): the learned optimum depends on the training-time authority, so treat such conversions as full experiments with pre-registered expectations and a sim2sim gate before any hardware.
Symptom
s1g (S1.6) trained from zero at action_scale 0.4 - meant as the "training twin" of the hardware-proven s1c-at-power-0.8 (0.8 x 0.5 = 0.4) - was all green in Isaac (zero falls, reward 117) yet scored 0/3 across all eight checkpoints and 0/20 at 20 seeds in the MuJoCo gate, falling forward at median 1.57 s with a 2.9x speed overshoot.
Context
The pre-registered expectation (survival gate should pass, since the conviction matrix showed s1c@0.8+delay2 all-survive) was cleanly falsified, and the harness was acquitted by controls: --delay 0 fell identically (not a delay fragility), check_contract all green, and s1c through the same harness survived 2/3. The verdict: "「s1c@0.8 = 0.4 训练孪生」的代数等价不成立" - a policy deployed with a derated output still LIVES in the 0.5 internal model it trained under (its value function, its expectations of its own authority), while a policy that starts training with reduced authority learns a different, clip-hugging gait with zero margin for plant differences ("部署端打折的策略活在 0.5 的内模里,训练起点收权限学出的是贴 clip 的 另一套步态,对 plant 差异零余量"). Result: the policy was withdrawn before hardware ("撤回——不上真机"), the lineage root moved back to the 0.5-contract s1c-5500, and this became the C ladder's cited fact-check ("s1g 是 0/20 证伪出局的那一代").
Change
The amplitude-surgery route abandoned; contract kept at scale 0.5; the deploy-side 0.8 crutch later retired on its own merits when the delay-complete s1e generation ran at full power.
Outcome
One training run bought a clean falsification of a plausible algebraic identity; no hardware time was spent on it because the sim2sim gate caught it.
Mechanism
Output scaling commutes with the network arithmetic but not with learning: the training-time scale shapes which gait solutions are reachable and how much clip headroom the optimum keeps. A derated mature policy retains the wide-authority solution executed softly; a from-zero narrow-authority policy finds a different optimum that saturates its smaller envelope - the two are not the same controller in different units.
Applies when
- proposing to move a deployment derating into a training constant
- a scaled-down contract policy hugs the action clip
- Isaac-green / cross-sim-zero results on a re-scaled lineage
“预注册 a) 证伪——Isaac 全绿(零摔/reward 117)但 MuJoCo --delay 2 八档 checkpoint 扫描全数 0/3、iter6500 20-seed 0/20 … 「s1c@0.8 = 0.4 训练孪生」的代数等价不成立: 部署端打折的策略活在 0.5 的内模里,训练起点收权限学出的是贴 clip 的另一套步态,对 plant 差异零余量。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 3. S1.6 判决(2026-08-07 验收) A ratio metric flipped the verdict - spectral share rose while absolute high-frequency energy fell 16%
ratio-metrics-need-absolute-checkNever compare share/percentage/centroid metrics across conditions whose totals differ; pair every ratio with its absolute numerator before issuing a verdict, and log retracted judgments so they are not re-derived.
Symptom
walk_v6 was provisionally judged "more jittery" than v5 because the joint-velocity spectral centroid rose 2.91 -> 3.62 Hz and the >4 Hz energy share rose 12.6% -> 17.8%.
Context
Absolute measures said the opposite: first differences of actions fell 1.54 -> 1.31, second differences 2.55 -> 2.19, and absolute high-frequency energy fell 16% (0.490 -> 0.413). The shares and centroid rose only because low-frequency content fell even more - the denominator shrank. The interim judgment was retracted in writing so it would not be reused.
Change
Metric discipline noted: "占比类指标在总量变化时不能直接比较" - share/ratio metrics are not comparable across conditions when the total changes; verdicts about smoothness must cite absolute energies or difference norms.
Outcome
v6 correctly classified as smoother, not jitterier; the retracted judgment logged under "被推翻的一个中间判断(记下来免得复用)".
Mechanism
A ratio confounds numerator and denominator; any intervention that removes low-frequency content raises every high-frequency share without adding a single joule of jitter. Only absolute quantities support cross-condition comparison when totals move.
Applies when
- comparing smoothness/jitter/spectral metrics across versions
- any percentage-based metric moves after an intervention
- writing an eval report that includes normalized quantities
“我一度说"v6 动作更抖" … 错了: 动作一阶差 1.54→1.31、二阶差 2.55→2.19 都在降 … 谱质心升高只是因为低频成分掉得更多, 绝对高频能量实际下降 16%(0.490→0.413)。占比类指标在总量变化时不能直接比较。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § 过程中被推翻的一个中间判断(记下来免得复用) 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) Teleop fed the sidewalk axis a command beyond its training band - feet clipped; give each axis its own speed setting
teleop-command-band-per-axisGive every command axis its own teleop scale, clamped to that axis's training band, and reproduce any hardware incident in sim with the exact deployed command values before touching training.
Symptom
Robot stepped on its own foot when sidewalking left under teleop - and only when going left.
Context
The teleop tool used one speed setting for all axes: --teleop-speed 0.20 applied to A/D sent cmd_vy = 0.20, above the training band's top (0.08-0.18) where foot-spacing margin is thinnest. Sim reproduction of the incident (product policy, pw0.8, 5 seeds x 20 s, true collision threshold = single foot width 104 mm): at vy 0.20 the minimum foot distance was 111-115 mm - 7-11 mm from self-collision - vs 147 mm at vy 0.10. Left was 4x more dangerous than right (25% vs 6% of time inside the 160 mm soft wall at vy 0.10), matching the left-only symptom; the margin did not degrade over time (pressing more just lengthened exposure).
Change
deploy_policy gained --teleop-side (default 0.10), separating the lateral speed from the forward speed so each axis's teleop command sits inside its own trained band.
Outcome
Command now inside the band with 43 mm margin at default; the incident became a quantified, reproduced, closed account rather than a mystery.
Mechanism
The policy's competence envelope is the training command distribution per axis; teleop mappings that share one scalar across axes silently command out-of-band inputs on the weakest axis. Asymmetric risk (left vs right) came from the policy's own chirality bias, so a symmetric command produced an asymmetric hazard.
Applies when
- wiring a joystick/teleop layer over a learned policy
- a hardware incident occurs on one command direction only
- training bands differ across command axes
“A/D 一直与 W/S 共用速度档，所以按 A 下发的是 vy = 0.20 —— 既超训练带（0.08~0.18）上沿 … 0.20（遥控实际值）| 111~115 mm | 7~11 mm … 且左比右危险 4 倍 … 处置：deploy_policy 新增 --teleop-side（默认 0.10），侧移与前进档分开。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3p. 一 向左走踩到自己 → --teleop-speed 0.20 同时喂给了 vy Slowing the gait clock at deployment is out-of-distribution and backfires - lower the commanded speed instead, or train the knob
cycle-time-override-is-oodAny deployment override must correspond to a dimension the policy was trained to handle; to make a parameter field-adjustable, randomize it in training and observe it - otherwise use the levers inside the trained envelope (commands) and leave the knob alone.
Symptom
Real-robot feedback "walks very fast and unstable" suggested slowing the gait; a deploy-side --cycle-time override existed, making "just slow the clock" a one-flag temptation.
Context
A sim sweep of the override on walk_v6 @cmd 0.3 showed monotone degradation away from the trained 0.40 s cycle: at 0.50 s tilt jumped 7.9 -> 13.2 deg and landing force 1.52x -> 2.24x; at 0.80 s (half speed) clearance collapsed to 3 mm - dragging again - with 20 deg tilt. Meanwhile the legitimate lever, lowering the commanded speed with the clock untouched, improved everything monotonically: cmd 0.1 gave 104% tracking, 6.7 deg tilt, minimum slip - the most stable operating point. The file distinguishes the two "slows" explicitly: lower command = smaller steps at the same 2.5 Hz rhythm; a slower rhythm itself requires retraining - randomize cycle_time (e.g. 0.40-0.65 s) during training and expose it as an observation, and only then does --cycle-time become a field-adjustable knob.
Change
Deployment guidance: never ship a cycle-time override the policy was not trained under; respond to "too fast/unstable" with lower commands; schedule clock variability as a training-time (contract-level) change if a field knob is wanted.
Outcome
The sweep quantified the trap before hardware paid for it (dragging and 2.2x landing force at slowed clocks); cmd 0.1 documented as the stable demo point.
Mechanism
The policy is a function fitted around the training distribution; a deploy-side override moves an input (phase rate) to values never seen, so behavior degrades unpredictably - the knob LOOKS like a capability because it exists in the code, but capability lives in the training distribution, not the interface.
Applies when
- a deploy tool exposes overrides (clock, scale, gains) beyond the training distribution
- hardware feels "too fast/aggressive" and a quick knob exists
- deciding between a deploy-side tweak and a retrain
“0.80s | 1.25Hz | 0.165 | 3mm(拖地) | 20.0° … 慢一半直接崩 … 策略按 0.40 训练, 别的周期属分布外。… 降指令速度才是有效杠杆 … cmd 0.1 是最稳的工作点。… 要节奏本身变慢必须重训 —— 训练期把 cycle_time 随机化(如 0.40~0.65s)并作为观测的一维, 部署时 --cycle-time 就成了现场可调的旋钮。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § 2026-08-01 追加: 调慢步态时钟(--cycle-time)在仿真里是反效果 A real-robot verdict is (policy x deployment stack) - when the stack changes materially, old verdicts expire
stale-verdicts-under-old-stackDate every hardware verdict with the deployment-stack version it was measured under; after any material stack change, re-test before trusting old condemnations or old praises - with the interpretation of each possible result written down first.
Symptom
walk_v5 stood condemned as "kicks wildly" and walk_v6 as "cannot walk unassisted" - but those verdicts were issued under an earlier deployment stack (--heading did not exist yet, several fixes had just landed); only v7 had ever run under the current unified stack.
Context
New sim evidence sharpened the doubt: a same-harness four-version sweep showed v6 was the HEALTHIEST archive at the real operating point (cmd 0.15: dominant frequency locked at 2.50, steps 35:35 perfectly symmetric, foot distance 203/190 mm best of four, mean tilt 4.2 deg, saturation 15%). A full re-test under the unified stack was scheduled with per-version questions and a pre-filled interpretation table ("判读表(预填假设,回来对号)"): e.g. v6 walks + frequency ~2.5 -> old verdict was the stack's fault, v6 becomes the comparison champion; v6 walks but at ~1.25 -> period-doubling on hardware = confirmed plant gap, actuator fitting promoted to mainline; v5 no longer kicks -> the kicking was an old-stack artifact.
Change
All four versions re-queued on hardware under one stack (same torque limits, slew profile, heading loop, logging), with the version-specific legacy profile pinned; verdicts held provisional until re-issued.
Outcome
The re-test design separated policy properties from stack artifacts before any policy was permanently written off - and turned each outcome into a specific conclusion via the pre-filled table.
Mechanism
A deployed behavior is produced by the policy plus everything between it and the motors (heading loop, slew limits, torque caps, clock); verdicts implicitly condition on that whole stack. Fixing the stack invalidates the conditioning, so old failures may be stack artifacts and old successes may not survive either.
Applies when
- deployment tooling (limits, filters, loops) changed since a policy was last judged
- deciding which historical policy is the rightful baseline
- a sim sweep contradicts an old hardware verdict
“只有 v7 在完整的今日部署栈下上过真机 … v5"左右乱踢"、v6"未能自主"的判决全部来自更早的栈(--heading 尚不存在, 部分修复刚落地)——判决已过期。且 2026-08-02 四代同机仿真横测翻出了新证据:v6 在真机工况(cmd 0.15)下是四代里最健康的仿真档案”
train/REAL_SWEEP_V5_V8.md § 0. 为什么重测 Two machines, one configuration - every gain, offset and torque limit changes only in robot.yaml, whoever edits pushes at once, both checkouts show the same commit before the robot moves, and a pulled policy file is size-checked and synced before power-off
two-machine-config-disciplineTreat the robot's configuration as a versioned artifact with one source of truth, push every change immediately, verify identical commits on every machine before a hardware session, keep hardware limits in the repo and the firmware in sync in both directions, and verify transferred model files (size, digest) before running them.
Symptom
The robot's onboard computer runs the bridge and deploy scripts from its own checkout while training and analysis happen on other machines; a hot fix left on one side, or a half-written file, silently makes the robot run something other than what was evaluated.
Context
The operator runbook's "wall version" of the two-machine discipline: configuration changes only in robot.yaml (calibration offset/sign, gains, torque limits), committed and pushed from the Mac, pulled on the robot, bridge restarted; code is not edited on the robot, and if it is, it is committed and pushed on the spot - nothing unpushed overnight; 30 seconds before every real-robot session both checkouts must show a clean status and the same last commit hash; changing tau_max requires writing the motor's limit_torque too (and the reverse); re-zeroed motors require re-measuring offsets. The recovery line added: after pulling on the robot, check the ONNX is not zero bytes (a lesson from a corruption incident on 08-12) and sync before cutting power; the recovery and main lines are separate worktrees, each pulled with --ff-only.
Change
Operating rules, pinned on the wall and repeated in the hanging checklists ("git pull, both machines on the same commit").
Outcome
The sources record the rules and the incident that produced the size check; they do not record a count of sessions the rules caught.
Mechanism
A policy is evaluated against one configuration; any divergence between the machines, or a truncated file, turns a hardware result into a result about an unknown configuration.
Applies when
- a robot's onboard computer and a workstation both hold the configuration
- someone hot-fixes code or gains on the robot
- model files are copied or pulled to the robot before a session
“改配置只改 robot.yaml(标定 offset/sign、增益、限扭全在里面)→ Mac git commit + push → NX git pull → 重启桥。 … 谁改完谁立刻推,永远不留未推送的改动过夜。 … 每次上真机前 30 秒检查:两边 git status 干净、git log -1 哈希一致。 … 铁律不变:改 tau_max 必须同步写电机 limit_torque(反之亦然);电机重新标零后 offset 必须重测回填 yaml。”
RL系统/FOLLOW THIS copy 2.md § ② 双机维护纪律(贴墙版) Three hardware accounts locked the run design point - and the knee's real speed ceiling is tau_limit/kd, not the firmware limit
feasibility-accounts-lock-design-pointBefore opening a dynamic-gait training line, compute the full account set - tau_limit/kd effective speed ceilings, joint ROM under the intended reference geometry, and thermal RMS at the duty cycle - and let the accounts lock the design point; move only to pre-registered in-table alternates, re-running the accounts first.
Symptom
The run line was believed to require a firmware raise of the RS06 speed limit (10 rad/s) as a hard precondition, and the feasibility script's motor-envelope scan had marked 80/100 mm foot-lift cells "physically feasible".
Context
Three added accounts re-decided everything. (1) Damping tax: in MIT mode tau = kp*(q_des-q) - kd*qd, so sustained rotation is capped at tau_limit/kd = 12/1.5 = 8 rad/s - below the firmware's 10; at peak speeds 6.7-7.9 rad/s the damping term alone eats 10.1-11.9 N*m (84-99% of the torque limit). "提固件 limit_spd 越不过这道税 —— 它是 kd 与限扭的比,不是固件旋钮." (2) Joint ROM: the feasibility script had checked motor envelopes but NOT joint range - the ankle-pitch ROM caps 1:2:1 leg-shortening lift at 62 mm (soft) / 77 mm (hard), so the 80/100 mm "feasible" cells were voided; also firmware-independent. (3) Ankle thermal: duty 0.40 puts ankle RMS at 87% of continuous rating (0.35 -> 93%); long-period big-stride cells hit both ankle torque peak and heat. Verdict: firmware raise DEQUEUED (50 mm design point needs knee 6.7-7.3 < the 8 rad/s effective ceiling < firmware 10); vel_limit stays 10 so sim == robot. The three accounts uniquely lock the design point - 50 mm lift / T 0.60 s / duty 0.40 - "三笔账 唯一锁定,不是调参空间", with pre-registered alternates allowed only inside the table and only after re-running the accounts.
Change
Design point frozen from accounts; hardware precondition reversed by arithmetic rather than by test; reference amplitude (0.84 rad = FK inverse of 50 mm) derived, per-joint action scales sized to the required travel (knee 0.9, hip_pitch 0.6, ankle deliberately NOT amplified - hard limit is adjacent).
Outcome
A firmware work item left the critical path; an infeasible region of the design space was closed before any training; the remaining risk (knee tracking lag from the damping tax) was pre-registered with its own criterion and in-table fallback (duty 0.35) - "这不是'奖励没调好', 是 plant 账".
Mechanism
PD actuators in MIT mode pay kd*velocity out of the same torque budget that tracks position, so the effective speed ceiling is a ratio of configuration constants, invisible to firmware settings; and feasibility is the intersection of ALL constraint families (torque envelope, joint ROM, thermal RMS) - a scan that omits one family certifies impossible cells.
Applies when
- planning running/jumping or any high-rate gait on PD actuators
- a firmware or hardware upgrade is assumed as a training precondition
- a feasibility scan covers motor limits but not ROM or heat
“膝的有效速度顶 = τ_limit/kd = 12/1.5 = 8 rad/s,不是固件的 10。… 提固件 limit_spd 越不过这道税 —— 它是 kd 与限扭的比,不是固件旋钮。… 可行性脚本只查了电机包络没查关节 ROM —— 其 80/100mm 的"物理可行"格作废。… 判决:RS06 提固件对 run v0 不是前置,出队”
train/RUN_V0_SPEC.md § 1. 硬件账判决 / 2. 步态设计点 A proposal in the runbook - torque and action limits as versioned safety tiers (classroom / research / expert) written to motor RAM and read back, separate from the reward's effort penalty - recorded as a proposal, its implementation unrecorded
safety-limits-are-a-layer-not-a-rewardKeep hardware limits as an explicit, versioned safety layer (tiers written and read back at start, the persisted default the safest one) and the effort penalty as a behaviour layer; when a skill needs more torque, change tier deliberately rather than trading one layer against the other.
Symptom
Running and jumping need more torque than the deployed limits allow, and the temptation is to trade the training-side effort penalty against the hardware limit, or to hand a new user a robot "tuned however the last person left it".
Context
A message pasted into the operator runbook (undated, citing Berkeley's practice of storing the full motor configuration as JSON with write and read-back scripts) proposes: configuration is a versioned artifact, not a verbal agreement; three safety tiers in robot.yaml beside the gain and policy profiles - classroom (RS06 limited to 10 N*m, lateral joints clamped: "however bad the policy, it only moves awkwardly"), research (14 N*m, clamps at twice the measured need, the default) and expert (the 36 N*m rating, joint limits only, requiring an explicit flag); deploy writes the tier to motor RAM at start and reads it back, while the stored copy stays classroom so a power cut returns to the safest state. It frames limits as the safety layer and the effort penalty as the behaviour layer - more torque for running means switching tier, not weakening the penalty.
Change
None recorded: the message ends by asking which to do first, a rollback or the tiers.
Outcome
The sources do not record the tiers being implemented; the deployed limits stayed at 12/17/11 N*m through the recovery and one-leg lines (the one-leg spec treats raising the RS06 limit as a separate, unapproved hardware decision). Related and recorded elsewhere: torque limits were written to RAM only in a scripted, self-reversing field experiment.
Mechanism
Hardware limits bound the damage any policy can do; reward terms shape what a policy prefers. Mixing them either weakens safety to buy behaviour or distorts behaviour to buy safety.
Applies when
- a new skill needs more torque than the deployed limits
- robots are handed to students or new users
- motor configuration lives in people's heads or in the firmware only
“配置是版本化的产物,不是口头约定。 … deploy_policy 启动时按档写进电机 RAM 并读回校验(落盘的那份永远保持 classroom,断电自动回到最安全状态)。 … 限幅是安全层,dof_torques_l2 是行为塑造层,它们在不同的层,不冲突。跑步要更大力矩就换档,而不是去动训练里的省力惩罚。”
RL系统/FOLLOW THIS copy 2.md § 面向 developer / 教育机构该怎么做 (pasted proposal, undated) Prove a new penalty actually fires - two ways a clearance term silently did nothing
inert-reward-term-auditBefore training with a new reward term, log its realized per-step value under the current policy and confirm it is nonzero where intended - check coordinate zero-points against FK and check who occupies the term's gate; and never weaken the term that creates the states your new term needs.
Symptom
A newly designed swing-height clearance penalty could have trained as a no-op twice over, and the companion advice to lower feet_air_time actively backfired when tried.
Context
Instance 1 (zero-point offset): the proposed code used body_pos_w of the foot link, but that is the ankle_roll_link frame origin, which sits 0.0585 m above the ground even with the foot flat on it - so (0.03 - 0.0585) is always negative and the penalty is永远 0; the 0.0585 offset must be subtracted (verified identical in MuJoCo FK and Isaac). Instance 2 (gate occupancy): the clearance penalty fires only in swing phase; a dragging policy keeps both feet in contact, so the penalty is constantly 0 for exactly the policy it was meant to fix - and worse, any slight lift immediately incurs it, a reverse threshold. Lowering feet_air_time to 0.5 on that advice measurably collapsed air time to 0.0002 (below v3). Corrected understanding: "clearance 是把已有的摆动相抬高, 造出摆动相仍要靠 air_time" - air_time creates the swing phase, clearance raises it.
Change
Fixed the height zero-point; kept feet_air_time as the swing-phase creator with clearance layered on top; both errors documented as corrections to the team's own earlier advice.
Outcome
With both fixed, swing height rose from 22-23 mm (v2) to 29 mm (v5) to 34 mm (v6); the inert-term failure class entered the standing checklist.
Mechanism
A penalty's gradient exists only where its gate is occupied and its argument crosses its threshold; frame offsets shift the threshold out of reach, and phase gates can have zero occupancy under exactly the policy being treated. Terms interact as an ecology - one term must create the states in which another can act.
Applies when
- adding any gated or thresholded penalty (clearance, impact, slip)
- a new term produces no behavioral change at any weight
- body-frame positions are used in reward code
“body_pos_w 是 ankle_roll_link 坐标系原点,平放触地时仍高出地面 0.0585 m。… (0.03 − 0.0585) 恒为负 → 惩罚永远是 0 … clearance 惩罚只在摆动相生效,拖地时两脚始终触地 → 惩罚恒 0;而一旦轻微抬脚就立刻扣分,对正在拖地的策略是反向门槛。… 正确认识:clearance 是"把已有的摆动相抬高",造出摆动相仍要靠 air_time。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § walk_v4 独立验收 — 本文档给的两处代码/建议是错的 Two simulators disagreed 1.8x on one policy's torque demand - four explanations were eliminated with numbers, the surviving suspect was never tested, and neither reading was allowed to cancel the other
torque-disagreement-between-simulators-unresolvedWhen two simulators disagree on a safety-relevant quantity, eliminate the measurement explanations one at a time with numbers, name the survivor as a hypothesis, keep the pessimistic reading binding, and run the direct test (replay one action sequence open-loop through both plants) before the quantity is used to pass a gate for hardware.
Symptom
For R3.0, Isaac read hip_pitch torque demand at 75-80% of the limit (PASS); MuJoCo read the same policy at 148-152% (1.5x over the limit).
Context
Candidates were eliminated one by one: PD gains (identical, RS06 kp 30 / kd 1.5), the settle window (both skip the first 0.5 s), the statistic (worse-of-two-legs vs per-joint - explains ~15%), self-collision (the no-contact subset still read 152%), sampling (500 Hz peak vs 50 Hz sample - ~9%). About 1.8x remained. The prime suspect - Isaac's implicit actuator (PD solved inside the PhysX integration, chosen to mimic kHz firmware PD) against MuJoCo's 500 Hz explicit PD - was named but untested.
Change
The Isaac PASS was recorded as valid for the Isaac plant only; the prescribed decider was an open-loop replay of one action sequence through both plants, compared step by step, needing no training. It was upgraded to a precondition of R3.1.
Outcome
R3.1 ran in parallel with, not after, the replay, and the replay never appears as done. By §40 it was "the oldest open account" on the line, to be fed by real-robot logs - which the spec also never records. Meanwhile the 50 Hz sample under-read the peak by 34% as smoothing narrowed the spikes, so Isaac-side readings grew more optimistic exactly when the comparison mattered more.
Mechanism
Each measurement artifact explained a slice of the gap; what remained is a plant difference, and an untested plant hypothesis cannot license discarding the pessimistic simulator on a safety-relevant quantity.
Conflicts
The spec prescribes the open-loop replay (§23), upgrades it to an R3.1 precondition, then records that R3.1 ran in parallel without it (§24), and lists it as the oldest open account before hardware (§40); nothing through §50 (2026-08-14) records a result. Every later "torque gate PASS" on this line is an Isaac-plant reading plus a MuJoCo check, never a reconciled one.
Applies when
- Isaac and MuJoCo (or sim and hardware) report different torques, contacts or slips
- implicit vs explicit actuator models are in play
- a gate passes on one simulator only
“**同一个策略,一侧判 PASS 一侧判超限 1.5 倍。** … 口径项全部扣掉后仍剩 **~1.8×** 没有解释。 … 但**这条没有验证,不能拿它当结论去抵消 MuJoCo 的读数**。 … (做法:拿同一条 动作序列在两边开环回放,逐拍比 τ —— 不需要重训)”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §23 MuJoCo 复核门:成功率更稳,但 τ 与 Isaac 差 ~1.8× 没收敛 Add a single-point-suspension test to acceptance - the ground is a free stabilizer that hides divergence
suspension-probe-removes-free-stabilizerInclude at least one acceptance condition that strips the environment's free stabilization (suspension, or equivalent) - the sim-passing policy that fails on hardware is often failing a condition the battery never posed.
Symptom
walk_v5 looked healthy in every on-ground sim test yet diverged on the real robot - the acceptance battery had never measured a condition that would have revealed it.
Context
The battery gained a single-point-suspension probe (robot hung, feet free): measure torso tilt while the policy runs without ground contact. v5 scored 45.9 deg mean tilt suspended - wildly unstable - which the file calls "最灵敏的失稳探针(拿掉地面这个免费稳定器)": ground reaction forces passively stabilize a marginal policy, so on-ground metrics saturate long before the policy's internal balance is actually sound. v6 halved it (23.0 deg, target <10 deg) - progress visible on a scale where on-ground numbers showed nothing.
Change
Suspended-tilt added as a standing acceptance row; run under the honest contact parameters battery (accept_v2 with measured condim 4 / torsional friction 0.035), under which v5 correctly FAILS in agreement with the real robot.
Outcome
The sim battery's verdict on v5 flipped from pass to fail, matching hardware; suspended tilt became the discriminating metric between v5 and v6 (45.9 vs 23.0 deg) when ground metrics differed little.
Mechanism
Contact with the ground closes a stabilizing feedback loop the policy gets for free; removing it exposes the policy's own attitude control authority. A metric measured only in the assisted condition cannot rank policies by the unassisted quantity that hardware will actually demand during perturbations and flight phases.
Applies when
- sim acceptance passes but hardware diverges
- designing an acceptance battery for a legged robot
- two candidates tie on ground metrics
“单点吊那条是最灵敏的失稳探针(拿掉地面这个"免费稳定器"), v5 在地上一切正常却在真机发散, 就是因为验收从没测过这个工况。”
train/WALK_V6_MINIMAL.md § 5. 验收 A suspended (no-load) test acquits or convicts the actuator before you blame authority
suspended-test-isolates-actuator-authorityBefore attributing a failure to actuator authority, measure no-load tracking error and steady-state torque fraction; blame authority only if the task fails while the error grows with demanded force - and then fix gains or targets, not training.
Symptom
hip_roll sagged 0.21 rad on the ground and saturation questions loomed over the sidewalk plan - was the roll axis physically too weak (authority), or was something else limiting it?
Context
Before C4, the roll-authority question was settled by measurement triage: suspended test (--suspend, feet off ground) showed hip_roll tracking error 0.0008 rad - actuator acquitted; the entire 0.21 rad ground sag is load-induced. Steady-state torque was 25% of limit - 75% margin remains. Since sidewalk needs lateral force, not exact angles, authority was ruled "not a hard limit", with a pre-registered criterion for when it WOULD become one: sidewalk fails to track AND roll error keeps growing - then the fix is raising hip_roll kp or lowering the vy target, not more training.
Change
Hypothesis "roll authority insufficient" demoted from blocker to a monitored branch with an explicit trigger condition; C4 proceeded.
Outcome
Later open-loop probes confirmed the actuator could produce the behavior (sidewalk feed-forward ran at full amplitude, 5/5 survival), and the eventual C4 failure causes were measurement and reward, never authority.
Mechanism
Suspended vs loaded comparison separates the actuator's closed-loop competence from the load path: tiny no-load tracking error means the motor/controller is fine and any loaded deviation is statics (gravity / stiffness budget, kp trading error for force). Torque-fraction measurement then bounds how much force headroom actually remains.
Applies when
- suspecting an axis is "too weak" for a new skill
- large position sag on a loaded joint
- deciding between hardware fix, gain change, and more training
“吊挂（--suspend）实测 hip_roll 跟踪误差 0.0008 rad → 执行器无罪，地面下垂 0.21 rad 全是负载所致；稳态占限扭 25% → 仍有 75% 扭矩余量。… 判据：若 C4 出现「侧走跟不动且 roll 误差继续变大」，那才是权限账 … 解法是提 hip_roll 的 kp 或降 vy 目标，不是硬训。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3d. roll 权限：已部分澄清，不是硬上限 Removing a foot-spacing wall passed every simulated gate and made the feet collide on the real robot - nothing priced stance width in the two-foot phase, the policy narrowed to the simulator's self-collision floor, and real calibration offsets closed the last millimetres; the wall came back with a gate
removed-wall-returns-on-hardwareWhen a constraint is removed, name what will govern that quantity instead and add a gate for it; never let a simulator's collision floor be the margin, and when a gate is exceeded by a hair, record the exact numbers and hand the release decision to a person instead of quietly passing it.
Symptom
On the first real-robot try of oneleg_v0 (2026-09-16) the two feet collided; the user also judged the folded foot not high enough.
Context
The V0 reward table had dropped the feet_lateral_distance wall because it seemed to conflict with the hip adduction single support needs. In the two-foot command bucket no remaining term governed stance width, so the policy drifted narrower until the simulator's self-collision stopped it; the sim acceptance had no foot-spacing gate, so 40/40 said nothing about it. On the robot, calibration offsets consumed the margin.
Change
V0.1: the wall restored (-10, minimum 0.16 m), re-checked against measured numbers (a swing-phase lateral spacing of ~148 mm costs 0.12 per step, acceptable); fold weight 0.8 -> 2.0; a ninth gate: minimum foot spacing >= 100 mm and zero leg-contact frames. The removal was kept on record.
Outcome
oneleg_v0_1 (V0r2 model_2200) passed 39/40 with the spacing gate 40/40. The single miss (a 15.4 deg tilt transient against a < 15 deg limit during a side switch, steady 6.9 deg, everything else green) was recorded with its numbers and released for the user to overrule.
Mechanism
An unpriced degree of freedom drifts to wherever the simulator stops it; if that stop is the simulator's own collision model, the policy's margin on hardware is whatever the calibration error leaves.
Applies when
- dropping a reward term that looked redundant or conflicting
- hardware shows a failure no simulated gate measures
- a release candidate misses one gate row by a small amount
“V0 撤墙被真机证伪（2026-09-16）：双脚桶没有任何项管站宽，策略贴 sim 自碰撞底线收窄，真机标定偏差一吃**双脚相碰**。 … min ≥ 100 mm 且腿碰 0 帧（eval_straight 同判据）—— … V0 真机双脚相碰暴露 sim 门未看脚距的缺口 … L s2 标称 tilt 瞬态 15.4°（门限 <15, 超 0.4°, 稳态 6.9°, 该跑其余全绿）——换侧瞬态蹭线, 判定放行留档, 用户可否决。”
git:Lucen V2@origin/oneleg-line:train/ONELEG_V0_SPEC.md § §4 feet_lateral_distance 行 / §6 验收门 ⑨ / §8 核查单 7 Model CAN polling skew - joint observations are 6-9 ms stale by read order
can-timing-skew-modelingIf joints are read sequentially over a shared bus, reproduce the per-group observation staleness in sim (or randomize it over the measured range) - synchronous observations are a privileged fiction.
Symptom
Policies trained with synchronous joint observations degrade on hardware where motors are polled sequentially over CAN - hip data is already 6-9 ms old by the time ankle data arrives.
Context
Menlo's core sim2real finding on a leg platform of almost identical mass to Lucen's. CAN is a sequential bus: one poll cycle reads motors in a fixed order, so the observation vector mixes timestamps. Lucen runs 6:6 motors on a dual CAN split, so the problem transfers one-to-one.
Change
Explicitly model CAN timing skew in sim: give the joint groups different observation delays matching physical read order. Menlo went further - running real firmware in the loop with a motor simulator between MuJoCo and firmware injecting 0.4-2 ms uniformly distributed delay.
Outcome
Reported by the reference team as their core sim2real enabler on a same-scale platform; recorded in Lucen's experience log as directly applicable ("这个问题一模一样").
Mechanism
A policy exploits any cross-joint temporal coherence present in training observations; when hardware breaks that coherence per bus position, the learned feedback acts on inconsistent state estimates, injecting phase error exactly at the control bandwidth.
Conflicts
Second-hand episode: outcome numbers are the reference team's report, not a Lucen-run experiment; Lucen adopted the requirement but the corpus has no Lucen A/B of skew-on vs skew-off.
Applies when
- robot polls actuators sequentially over CAN/RS485 or similar shared bus
- sim2real degradation appears as jitter or oscillation not seen in sim
- designing the observation/delay model before a training run
“电机走 CAN 是顺序轮询的，髋部电机的数据到踝部电机上报时已经陈旧了 6-9 ms，他们直接在仿真里显式建模了 CAN 时序偏斜，按读取顺序给三组关节不同的观测延迟。… 注入 0.4–2 ms 的均匀分布延迟。你们是 6:6 双 CAN 分总线，这个问题一模一样”
Experience.md § 执行器 + 时序建模 (line 6) Three same-shaped judging errors - task metrics (survival, tracking, displacement) cannot stand in for posture metrics
task-metrics-vs-posture-metricsKeep validated posture-class rows (tilt, per-joint L/R asymmetry, temperature) in every acceptance battery alongside task rows; when operator feel contradicts the gates, suspect the metric class before the operator - and never build a new skill on what is actually an asymmetry defect.
Symptom
The C2 product judged "full pass" on task metrics (A800: turn-gap 7 pp, vx+0.30 19/20) felt WORSE in the operator's hands than the half-pass 700: A800 tilted up to 12.90 deg (700: 6.64), drifted left while standing, showed larger per-joint asymmetries, and ran its hip_rolls 5 degC hotter.
Context
The re-judgment catalogued three same-type metric errors in one campaign: (1) stand judged by SURVIVAL - missed 0.5-1.4 m wandering; (2) stand ranked by DISPLACEMENT - ordering was opposite to real feel (tilt ordering matched); (3) chirality judged by wz-tracking GAP - measured turning symmetry while the robot's actual disease was postural left/right asymmetry, "两个不同的东西,且结论相反". Common pattern named: "我一直用「任务指标」当判据,而真机手感对应的是「姿态 指标」… 任务类指标不能替代它". The fix was already in the data: the per-joint left/right asymmetry table (printed identically by sim2sim and deploy) agreed with hardware in direction on every row - "判据可用、有预测力,我只是没把它写进 PASS 条件". Shipping decision followed the posture read: product reverted to 700 ("又一次「买到 精度、卖掉别的」"), and the C4 root moved to 700 as well, with the sharpest line of the episode: A800's left-drift "like sidewalking" is probably its frontal-plane asymmetry defect, not a capability - "在缺陷上建能力是危险的".
Change
Two posture quantities with demonstrated real-robot predictive power promoted into every PASS battery: tilt-max median and per-joint left/right asymmetry (both sim-computable, deploy-homologous); motor-temperature readout added to session close-out.
Outcome
Deployment flipped to the posture-better checkpoint; the hip_roll temperature table (43-48 degC vs 25-28) confirmed the earlier 90%-of-heat account; the run-line acceptance battery inherited the posture rows from birth ("任务类替代不了姿态类").
Mechanism
Task metrics measure goal attainment under the evaluator's episode definition; posture metrics measure the body state trajectory that operators, motors, and downstream skills actually experience. The two can rank candidates oppositely because task success tolerates postural pathology - so a battery without posture rows is blind to exactly what hardware feel reports first.
Applies when
- hardware feel disagrees with a green acceptance table
- choosing between checkpoints that split task vs posture metrics
- selecting the root for a skill that resembles an existing defect
“共同模式:我一直用「任务指标」(存活 / 跟踪率 / 位移)当判据,而真机手感对应的是「姿态指标」(倾角、逐关节左右不对称)。→ 验收判据里必须有姿态类指标,任务类指标不能替代它。… A800 的「左飘像 side walk」很可能 … 是它更大的额平面不对称的表现 —— 在缺陷上建能力是危险的。”
train/README.md § C2 选点改判 (2026-08-09): 手性判据第三次选错指标 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) The walking lines' safety setting, power-scale 0.8, broke the recovery policy's full-range contract - it cut the ends of the joint travel (4/50 could not get up) and left the torque spikes untouched; a kp x 0.9 gain profile inside the trained kp band did the job
power-derating-cuts-full-range-contractA deployment derating knob means something only relative to the action contract: before reusing a line's "safe setting" on a new skill, check what it does to that skill's reachable range and to the term that makes the spikes, prefer a gain change inside the band the policy was randomized over, verify it in simulation, and re-decide when the contract changes.
Symptom
After the violent first real get-up (2026-08-09), the recovery policy needed a gentler setting for its next hardware test, and the walking and omni lines' standard derating - deploying at power-scale 0.8 - was the obvious candidate.
Context
The V0 recovery contract maps actions to absolute targets over the full joint range: a = +/-1 lands exactly on the URDF limits, and standing puts the knee at the clip. Candidates were compared on R3.1 in MuJoCo (5 categories x 10 seeds) on 2026-08-10 before any hardware time was spent.
Change
A new gain profile, rl_kp090 (kp x 0.9, kd unchanged), recorded in robot.yaml as the recovery hardware-test setting, with power-scale 0.8 explicitly banned for recovery.
Outcome
kp x 0.9: 48/50 got up; median torque demand on hip_pitch/knee fell from 120-125% to 100-104% of the deployment limit; leg-leg contact frames 2,152 -> 1,095; the change sits inside the +/-10% kp randomization the policy trained with. power-scale 0.8: 4/50 could not get up, because under the full-range contract it removes the ends of the travel (the deep squat's tucked legs, the straight standing knee), and the torque spikes (kp x error) did not fall at all. When the line moved to the beta-anchored contract, rl_kp090 was declared a V0-era choice that does not fit (beta is calibrated at kp 30) and deployment returned to rl_default; the deploy switch applies power scaling to the walking side only.
Mechanism
A power scale multiplies the action, which under an absolute full-range mapping shrinks the reachable workspace instead of softening the actuator; the spikes come from the proportional term on large errors, which only a gain change reduces - and a gain change inside the trained randomization band stays in distribution.
Conflicts
The undated operator runbook still carries an R3.1 "B comparison" command at power-scale 0.8 beside the rl_default baseline; the sources do not say whether it was written before the ban or was ever run.
Applies when
- reusing a power, torque or action scale from one skill on another
- a policy whose actions map to absolute targets over the full joint range
- choosing a gentler setting for a first or second hardware trial
“kp×0.9 / kd 不动 —— recovery_r3_1 成功 48/50, τ 需求中位 hip_pitch/knee 120~125% -> 100~104% 部署限, 腿-腿接触 2152 -> 1095 帧; ±10% 在训练 kp DR 带内. ⚠️ power-scale 0.8 对 recovery **禁用**: 全 ROM 契约下 0.8 砍的是行程 端点 (深蹲收腿/站直够不到), 实测 4/50 起不来, 且尖峰 (kp·err) 一点不降 —— 它是 walk/omni 的安全档, 不是 recovery 的.”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:robot.yaml § gain_profiles 注释: recovery 真机测试安全档 (2026-08-10) / rl_kp090 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)