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
60 cards matching “push-test-chirality-protocol”.
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) Push DR helped one lineage and hurt another at the same dose - robustness budget is conserved and gets borrowed, not created
push-dr-conditional-budget-conservationBefore opening a disturbance-DR rung, measure whether the untrained policy already meets the spec; if training it anyway, expect the benefit to be conditional on the lineage's existing DR load, grade the intensity, and audit retained margins - budget spent elsewhere will be borrowed back.
Symptom
The push rung's outcome flipped with the lineage: direct +/-0.6 m/s push failed outright on first attempt (base walking collapsed - kd1.2 scan 0/3 from iter 3300, sim2sim self-falls with pushes OFF - no PASS point existed); staged +/-0.3 then gave the narrow-kd single-working-point lineage real gains (push survival 1/5 -> 4/5) while the SAME dose made the dual-working-point balanced-band lineage WORSE (20-seed survival 18 -> 12/20 plus across-the-board push regression).
Context
The four-ladder verdict ("四梯定案", s2e/s2f at both intensities) named the pattern: "push DR 收益条件性" - the benefit is conditional on how much robustness budget the lineage has already spent. The law candidate: "DR 总预算守恒, 平衡带鲁棒性从抗扰余量借" - total DR budget is conserved; a lineage already covering a wide plant band pays for push tolerance out of its disturbance margin. Both S2 ladders therefore closed at the friction rung, with the decisive numerator: untrained push tolerance already met the 4-6 N*s requirement, so the rung was not needed at all ("⑥ push 不训(收益条件性,免训 ±0.6 已达 标)"). The same accounting later justified the C-before-S2 ordering ("push/μ 两轮已实证 DR 预算有限且会被重分配") and trimmed the second S2 pass to three rungs.
Change
Push removed from the standing ladder; graded intensity retained as the method IF a lineage ever needs push training; "does the untrained policy already meet the disturbance spec" instituted as the first check before opening any disturbance rung.
Outcome
Two rungs (push, ground mu) deleted from the second S2 pass on measured grounds; the ladder's real yield was re-stated honestly as precision, not robustness (speed gate 0 -> 20/20, zero-command drift 0.98 -> 0.06 m, but push 159 -> 125/160).
Mechanism
A fixed-capacity policy allocates representation and margin across the training distribution; adding a disturbance axis to a lineage that already spans a wide plant family forces reallocation - the new tolerance is bought with existing margins. Lineages with narrow plant coverage have free budget, so the identical DR dose lands as gain. Benefit is a property of (dose x lineage state), never of the dose alone.
Applies when
- proposing push/perturbation training on a hardened lineage
- the same DR rung helped one lineage and hurt another
- accounting where a ladder's robustness gains actually came from
“push DR 收益条件性 —— s2e⑥a (单工作点血统 kd 窄带) ±0.3 得抗推 1/5→4/5; s2f⑥ (双工作点平衡带血统) 同档反而 20-seed 存活 18→12/20 且抗推全面倒退。规律候选: DR 总预算守恒, 平衡带鲁棒性从抗扰余量借。两阶梯均以 ⑤ 摩擦级收官 … 抗推 4~6 N·s 免训已达标。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 4. ⑥ push 四梯定案 (2026-08-07) Single-impulse push recovery is a binary chaotic quantity - cross-machine floating-point divergence can flip the outcome
single-impulse-recovery-is-chaoticNever gate or compare single-event recovery outcomes across machines or domains: evaluate disturbances as survival distributions over phases and seeds, compare longitudinally on one machine, and treat any single-point cliff as unconfirmed until it survives the statistical protocol.
Symptom
Mac evaluation found a hard "0.8 N*s cliff" (0/3 survival) that the training machine flatly contradicted: the identical protocol (0.8 impulse at 8 s, cmd 0.2) survived 3/3 there, and a 0.6/0.8/2/4 cross sweep survived everything.
Context
The verdict became a named lesson ("跨机混沌课文"): whether one specific push at one specific phase is survived depends on a trajectory that diverges across machines from floating-point differences alone - "单次冲量恢复是二值混沌量, 跨机浮点发散可翻结局". The boundary was drawn precisely: the 20-seed statistical gates DO agree across machines (established precedent), but that agreement cannot be extrapolated to single-point recovery tests. Protocol amended: disturbance evaluation uses multiple push phases (8/10/12 s), >=10 seeds, and only same-machine longitudinal comparisons; the Mac-side recommendation built on the unreproducible cliff was not adopted, while its directionally-consistent small-impulse data was kept.
Change
Push evaluation redefined from single-event pass/fail to multi-phase multi-seed statistics, with cross-machine comparison banned for event-level results and allowed for distribution-level ones.
Outcome
A false hardware-relevant "cliff" was prevented from steering the ladder (the s2e push rung decisions were made on same-machine statistics); the chaos lesson was cited again when real push tests were restricted to qualitative cross-domain use.
Mechanism
Perturbation recovery near the viability boundary has sensitive dependence on initial conditions; different BLAS/GPU reduction orders yield different trajectories from identical configs, so a binary outcome at one phase is machine-specific noise. Averaging over phases and seeds restores a quantity whose expectation is machine-stable.
Applies when
- a push/disturbance result differs between machines or sim and real
- designing push-recovery acceptance tests
- a sharp pass/fail cliff appears in a chaotic-regime evaluation
“训练机上 Mac 原协议 (0.8 @8s cmd0.2) 3/3 全活 … 与 Mac 的 +0.8 0/3 直接矛盾。定性: 单次冲量恢复是二值混沌量, 跨机浮点发散可翻结局;统计门 (20-seed 八门) 跨机吻合的先例不能外推到单点恢复测试。协议改判: 抗推评测多相位 (push 时刻 8/10/12s) + ≥10 seed + 只做同机纵向比”
train/README.md § s2e 支线终章 (跨机混沌课文) Score left and right separately - averages hide chirality breaking that mirror augmentation does not prevent
chirality-scored-separatelyReport every mirrored skill as two numbers with an explicit gap budget; never accept an average, and never assume augmentation guarantees symmetry - measure it per lineage and treat breakage as hard to reverse.
Symptom
Policies developed quantified left/right asymmetry (e.g. C2-700 turned right at 82% but left at 67% - a 15 pp gap; push tolerance 40/40 symmetric on the root vs 17/40 on a deep-trained descendant), and averaged metrics would have reported healthy midpoints.
Context
The repo had policy-level symmetry-breaking evidence strong enough to make separate scoring a battery rule: "左右必须分开打分 … 平均 vy 跟踪会把它掩盖". Notably, chirality broke and never recovered even though mirror augmentation (command-level mirror_prob 0.5) was on the whole time - augmentation reduced but did not prevent asymmetry, and once broken it stayed broken through subsequent rungs. PASS conditions therefore carried explicit symmetry budgets (left/right tracking gap <=10 pp), and sim's predicted asymmetry (700: right faster than left) was flagged for direct real-robot timing confirmation.
Change
Battery rule: every directional skill reports left and right (CW/CCW) as separate rows with a max-gap budget; mirror augmentation treated as mitigation, not proof of symmetry.
Outcome
The 700-vs-A800 asymmetry gap (15 pp vs 7 pp) became a first-class selection criterion; C4 product shipped with a measured 5 pp gap.
Mechanism
Averaging over mirrored conditions cancels antisymmetric error exactly where it matters; and symmetry lost during training is a lineage injury (like plasticity loss) that later rungs do not spontaneously heal, so it must be gated, not assumed.
Applies when
- evaluating turn/sidewalk/push-recovery or any mirrored skill
- relying on mirror/symmetry augmentation
- selecting between checkpoints with similar average scores
“左右必须分开打分（left/right lateral、CW/CCW turn 各自一行）—— 本仓已有 policy-level symmetry breaking 的量化证据，平均 vy 跟踪会把它掩盖。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 5. 固定验收矩阵 (左右分开打分) A 2-degree joint-zero calibration fix moved the whole runnable envelope - re-test old "cannot run" verdicts after recalibration
zero-offset-calibration-shifts-envelopeDate every hardware verdict with the calibration state; after any zero/mount recalibration, re-test previously condemned policy-power combinations and previously "unexplainable" posture offsets before attributing either to training or model.
Symptom
s1d was on record as "only runs at power 0.7" (kicked wildly at 0.8); after a calibration pass, the same policy ran 12 s at 0.8 with no kicking at all.
Context
The calibration had fixed a 2.08 deg zero offset on r_hip_roll - exactly the constant error source on the dominant joint of the kicking oscillation loop ("恰是乱踢振荡环主导关节的常值误差源"). The three-generation post-calibration hardware sweep also closed a second case: the robot's mysterious "backward lean" disappeared after calibration, and the sim-real posture difference collapsed from opposite-sign 5+ deg to same-sign ~2 deg ("后仰案实质了结") - the lean had been a sensing/zero artifact, not a mass-model error. Booked consequence: if the s1d recovery re-verifies, "真机可跑档整体 上移" - every policy's runnable power envelope shifts up, and downstream lineages' hardware expectations get revised.
Change
Joint-zero and mount calibration promoted from setup chore to a variable that dates hardware verdicts: verdicts about which power/scale levels a policy can run are conditioned on the calibration state they were measured under.
Outcome
One policy rehabilitated at a higher power level; one standing sim-real posture discrepancy closed without touching model or training; a pending re-verification booked rather than asserted.
Mechanism
A constant joint-zero error acts as a persistent disturbance injected at the feedback loop's most-loaded joint; near an oscillation threshold, removing a 2-degree bias is the difference between a stable and an unstable loop. Since the error is additive and machine-side, it shifts every policy's stability envelope simultaneously - which is why verdicts must carry their calibration date.
Conflicts
The s1d rehabilitation awaited one confirming re-run at the time of writing ("待复核一跑坐实") - the offset-as-cause reading is the head suspect, not a closed verdict.
Applies when
- a policy oscillates at a power level others tolerate
- sim and real disagree on a constant posture offset
- deciding whether to re-test old hardware verdicts after maintenance/calibration
“发现①:s1d@0.8 能跑了(旧账「只有 0.7 能跑」)——12s 无乱踢。头号嫌疑 = 标定修正:r_hip_roll offset 修 2.08°,恰是乱踢振荡环主导关节的常值误差源。… 发现②:「后仰」标定后消失 … sim-real 姿态差从反号 5°+ 收敛到同号 2°,后仰案实质了结。”
train/README.md § 真机 @0.8 三代横评(2026-08-07 标定后) A 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 A joint-velocity penalty meant to slow the get-up cut joint speed 16% and left the get-up time unchanged - the knob never moved the variable, so the idea it was meant to test stayed untested
dof-vel-penalty-is-not-a-pacing-knobBefore reading a result as a test of an idea, check that the knob actually moved the independent variable; velocity regularizers smooth a schedule they do not set, and a schedule driven by per-step task income moves only when that income's time structure does.
Symptom
The get-up took 0.6-0.9 s in Isaac with large torque demand; the user proposed getting up more slowly so less torque would be needed.
Context
The idea had support in the accounts: the acceptance bound is an upper bound of 5 s (5-8x margin), the quasi-static squat path peaks at 25% of the limits, and rolling over needs no momentum. R3.2 raised dof_vel from -1e-3 to -5e-3 as the single variable.
Change
dof_vel -1e-3 -> -5e-3 (child-run from R3.1).
Outcome
Get-up medians moved +0.02-0.04 s (noise); raw joint velocity -16%; torque demand median got worse (hip_pitch 46-48% -> 63-67%) as the new term competed with torque_headroom on the same joints; MuJoCo 98 -> 96%. Verdict FAIL on the knob, not on the idea, and the rung was not adopted. When pace was later attacked through the income's time structure (V2.5/V2.5b), the MuJoCo get-up moved into the 3.5-4.5 s design band.
Mechanism
The pace was set by base_height_progress paying for every step spent high (stand earlier, earn more); a velocity regularizer only smooths motion along the same schedule and does not change when the robot stands up.
Applies when
- trying to make a skill slower or gentler with smoothness penalties
- an experiment's primary metric did not move and a verdict is being written
- two penalties act on the same joints
“**关键判读:`dof_vel` 罚只把关节速度压了 16%,而起身用时一点没变。** 也就是说**这一级根本没有把"慢下来"这个自变量推动起来** —— 所以它**不构成对 用户假说的检验** … 起身节奏由 `base_height_progress` 的逐步计酬决定(早站起来就多 拿),速度正则只在同一条时间轨迹上把动作抹匀,不改变何时站起来。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §25 R3.2(dof_vel −1e-3→−5e-3,慢一点起身) Record-high training reward hid a fully-failing DR subgroup - aggregate metrics average over draws, gates must test per condition
aggregate-metrics-mask-subgroup-failureNever gate on metrics aggregated across DR draws: evaluate at fixed representative conditions (especially the deployment-critical stratum), and if a difficulty axis matters, ramp it on measured per-stratum success rather than sampling the full range from iteration zero.
Symptom
omni_s1e trained under constant-wide latency DR (0, 0.06 s) posted the lineage's highest-ever Isaac reward (129) - while the --delay 2 smoke evaluation showed 3/3 falls from iter 1500 onward, persisting to early stop; the usable checkpoint window shrank to iters 500-1000.
Context
Diagnosis written plainly: "聚合奖励掩盖重延迟尾部子群体失败" - the aggregated reward averages over latency draws, so the majority of light-delay environments can mask the total failure of the heavy-delay tail. The remedy for the training side was a survival-gated ratchet curriculum (survival_gated_latency): the sampling cap starts at 0.02 s and rises +0.01 only when a 4096-reset window's survival (time_out share) reaches >=90%, capped at 0.06, ratchet up-only - "增益与延迟耐受一起长,不升到策略撑不住的 地方" (gain and delay tolerance grow together; never raise past what the policy can hold). The detection side was already in place from the noise-crutch episode: the per-condition smoke curve, not the training reward, is the health readout.
Change
Latency exposure made curriculum-gated on measured subgroup survival instead of uniform-from-zero; per-condition (--delay 2) smoke evaluation kept as the authoritative curve; watcher scoring adjusted (survival weighted 3x) so recovery during hard phases is not early-stopped away.
Outcome
The failure mode was caught by the smoke curve within one generation; the follow-up redesign (deterministic staged latency) superseded the ratchet, but the aggregate-masking lesson held through both.
Mechanism
Expected-return training weights each DR draw by probability, so a subgroup can contribute bounded loss while being catastrophically failed; any scalar averaged over the randomization cannot distinguish "uniformly decent" from "great on easy draws, dead on hard ones". Only conditioning the evaluation on the stratum reveals the split, and curricula should raise difficulty on measured stratum success, not on schedule.
Applies when
- training reward hits records while a fixed-condition eval degrades
- wide DR on an axis where deployment sits at one known value
- designing curricula for difficulty axes (delay, push, terrain)
“常量 latency DR (0,0.06) 从零训被证伪——Isaac reward 129 历代最高,但 --delay 2 冒烟 iter1500 起 3/3 全摔持续到早停(聚合奖励掩盖重延迟尾部子群体失败,可用窗口只剩 500/1000)。… 采样上限 0.02 起步 … ≥90% 才 +0.01s,0.06 封顶,棘轮只升不降。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 3. S1.5(s1e 训练塌方复盘) The deploy-side walk/recovery switch - into recovery at tilt > 65 deg held 0.3 s, back at tilt < 15 deg with angular rate < 1 rad/s and straight knees held 1 s, a 15 s timeout, last action cleared both ways - and the handoff steps the design required are only partly implemented
walk-recovery-fsm-handoffSpecify a deploy-time controller switch as hysteretic, time-filtered predicates the robot can measure (proxy what it cannot, e.g. straight knees for height), a timeout that ends in a safe stop, and a complete handoff (history, clock, last action, command ramp) - then test that the code performs every handoff step, because the design document is not the implementation.
Symptom
With a recovery policy and a locomotion policy as separate networks, the robot needs a switch: when is it "fallen", when is it "up", and what state must be reset so the next policy does not act on the previous one's history.
Context
The 08-09 design: enter recovery when fallen (tilt > 55 deg or height < 0.60 x 0.384 m) for 150 ms, leave for a stand-hold when upright (tilt < 12 deg, height > 0.85 x 0.384 m, feet steady, |omega| < 0.8) for 400 ms - wide entry, strict exit, hysteresis - then a mandatory handoff trio before walking resumes (reset the walking policy's observation history, restart its phase clock at 0, clear its previous action and latency buffer) and a command ramp instead of a jump. The 08-14 implementation in deploy_policy (--recovery-policy): each policy under its own manifest contract (walk: nominal + scale; recovery: beta-anchored), the same rl_default gains, the tilt cutoff disabled; RECOVERY at tilt > 65 deg for 0.3 s; LOCO again at tilt < 15 deg and |omega| < 1 and knees straight (< 0.35 rad) for 1 s - the robot's computer has no height estimate, and straight knees stand in for height so a V3.0-style upright kneel cannot pass as standing; RECOVERY longer than 15 s ends in a safe stop; last_action cleared on both switches; command forced to 0 during RECOVERY; power scaling applies to LOCO only.
Change
An open account was written down with it: the recovery end state (0.355 m stance, hip yaw -/+27 deg) is outside the walking policy's training start distribution, so the first test must use stand / zero command as LOCO, and the long-term fix is to widen the walking policy's initial states rather than bend recovery's stance to suit walking.
Outcome
The spec records only a successful compile (py_compile); the hang test was left to be done on site. The operator runbook carries the three-step procedure (hang with stand as LOCO, mat and push, then omni walk as LOCO) but no outcome.
Mechanism
Two policies trained separately each assume their own history, clock and last action; a switch that carries any of them across feeds the next policy a state it never saw - the design called this "the walking policy seeing a ghost history".
Conflicts
The 08-09 design requires resetting history, clock and previous action plus a command ramp; the 08-14 implementation records last_action clearing and a zero command during recovery; the one-leg spec of 2026-09-14 lists the handoff hygiene as specified but not implemented - reset_history() is called by nothing (a 215-dim policy would carry four frames of pre-fall history), the phase clock is not zeroed, and there is no command ramp back to LOCO. No hardware run of the FSM is recorded in either source.
Applies when
- switching between separately trained policies on hardware
- a policy with history or phase observations is re-enabled mid-run
- the robot lacks a sensor the switching criterion was designed around
“**判据**:进 RECOVERY = 倾角 >65°(`--fall-tilt-deg`)持续 0.3 s;回 LOCO = §5 真机可测子集:倾角 <15° ∧ |ω|<1 ∧ **膝直 <0.35 rad(NX 无高度观测, 高度门用膝直代理 —— 防 V3.0 型"跪坐但直立"误判)** 持续 1 s (`--recover-hold`);RECOVERY 单次 >15 s(`--recovery-max-time`)安全停。 … **切换卫生**:两向切换 last_action 清零;RECOVERY 态 cmd 强制 0”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §50 FSM 双策略调度(2026-08-14,用户令):deploy_policy --recovery-policy 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 The action-delay was implemented as lerp - beyond one step it extrapolated BACKWARD, so a whole lineage trained on a fictitious actuator
latency-lerp-reverse-extrapolationUnit-test plant-model code (delays, filters, randomizers) against hand-computed truth across its FULL configured range, not just the nominal case - a delay must be a queue, and any interpolation used outside [0,1] is a silent plant corruption that training will faithfully absorb.
Symptom
Every walk/stand model up to v11 had been trained on a silently wrong plant: the action-latency implementation lerp(cur, prev, lag) is only an interpolation for lag <= 1 - at lag 3 it computes 3*prev - 2*cur, a REVERSE extrapolation. With the configured (0, 0.06) s at 50 Hz (lag in [0,3]), about 2/3 of environments were adapting to actuator dynamics that do not exist.
Context
Listed as evidence item #1 for the full restart: "全部旧模型训在错误 plant 上" and the head suspect for the real robot's wild kicking. The fix replaced it with a true FIFO delay line (commit 7f13793) plus its own regression test (tests/test_action_latency.py) - but every exported ONNX predated the fix, which is part of why the lineage was frozen rather than patched.
Change
Delay implementation rewritten as an honest FIFO with unit tests; the restart baseline trained on the corrected plant from day one.
Outcome
A generation-scale training investment was revealed to have a corrupt plant underneath; the class of bug (plausible-looking math that silently changes meaning outside its valid range) got a permanent test.
Mechanism
lerp(a, b, w) leaves the segment for w > 1; used as a delay it fabricates high-gain inverted dynamics precisely in the largest-delay draws, so the policy learns compensation for an actuator that cannot exist - and DR then trains robustness to the artifact rather than to reality. No training metric can catch this: the sim is self-consistent, just wrong.
Applies when
- implementing or auditing action delay / filtering in a trainer
- a lineage behaves as if compensating dynamics nobody modeled
- deciding whether old checkpoints are salvageable after a plant bug
“动作延迟旧实现 lerp(cur, prev, lag) 在 lag>1 时是反向外插(w=3 → 3·prev−2·cur),配置 [0,0.06]s@50Hz 即 lag∈[0,3],约 2/3 env 在适应不存在的执行器动态。7f13793 已换真 FIFO,但所有 ONNX 均训于修复之前 —— 真机"乱踢"的头号嫌疑。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 0. 为什么从零 (1) 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 Choose the fork root by which candidate's shortfalls are recoverable, not by headline score
fork-root-recoverable-shortfallWhen picking a checkpoint to fork from, rank candidates by whether their weaknesses are trainable-back, not by current headline metrics; prefer the candidate whose deficits the upcoming training directly pays for.
Symptom
Multiple candidate checkpoints for the omni-command ladder root, each best at something different: fric-3000 had the best tracking precision (vx 88-91%) and hardened plant robustness; s1e-500 had lower precision (vx 82%) but was the only candidate that could still walk backward.
Context
Root selection ran as a data probe, not a preference vote: 6 candidates x 8 out-of-distribution omni commands x 20 seeds = 960 cells (probe_omni_0808.json). s1e-500 @pw1.0 survived 20/20 in all eight conditions including backward at 67% tracking; the deep-trained fric lineage scored backward 0-3/20 despite better forward precision.
Change
Decision criterion made explicit: list what each candidate exclusively wins at, then ask which of those wins the loser could train back. fric-3000's exclusive wins (precision, plant robustness) are both retrainable - precision is directly optimized by the reward, plant hardening is a planned later pass. s1e-500's exclusive wins (backward plasticity 20/20 vs 2/20, disturbance margin 159/160 vs 125/160, push chirality symmetry 40/40 vs 17/40) had all been shown unrecoverable - push-level rungs failed twice, chirality never recovered even with mirror augmentation on. Root = s1e-500.
Outcome
s1e-500 carried the whole C ladder; its backward skill was preserved through C2/C4 gates (regress budget <=2/20 enforced), and the final C4 product passed a 260-cell battery at 20/20 everywhere.
Mechanism
Training can re-earn anything the objective directly pays for, but capabilities that earlier training destroyed and never restored (plasticity, symmetry, robustness margins) are empirically one-way doors. The information-bearing comparison is therefore recoverability of each candidate's deficit, which the team stated as "独占项的可恢复性正好相反 —— 这就是判据" (the exclusive items' recoverability is exactly opposite - that is the criterion).
Applies when
- selecting a resume/fork root among several checkpoints
- one candidate is more precise but another retains a skill the rest lost
- planning a task-extension ladder from an existing lineage
“fric-3000 赢在精度（vx 88~91%…）与 plant 鲁棒性 → 两样都训得回来…；s1e-500 赢在可塑性（C1 20/20 vs 2/20）、抗扰余量（159/160 vs 125/160）、手性对称（推 ±6 N·s 40/40 vs 17/40）→ 三样都训不回来 … 独占项的可恢复性正好相反 —— 这就是判据。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 0. 为什么根是 s1e-500（数据，不是偏好） Adapting a lineage to one plant increment needs hundreds of iterations, not thousands - long runs only buy specialization
continuation-budget-not-from-zeroBudget continuation rungs by increment class (hundreds of iterations for plant pins and smooth shifts, ~1000-1500 only for behavior-demanding changes like push), enforce a hard cap with frequent evaluation, and treat remaining budget as a reason to stop, not to continue.
Symptom
The default "6000 iterations per rung" (a from-zero-scale budget) was about to be applied to continuation rungs whose only change is one plant/DR increment - overspending compute and, worse, giving each rung thousands of iterations to specialize away retained skills.
Context
The 2026-08-07 budget table replaced the default with "最低适应窗口 + 每 100 iter 验收 + hard cap" scaled to the increment's difficulty: fixed-latency levels 300-500 (cap 500-800; the base has already seen in-band values, this only pins the plant); PD full-band 700 (cap 1000; kp+/-20%/kd+/-30% clearly widens the actuator family); COM +/-20 mm 500 (cap 800; a smooth dynamics shift); friction DR 700 (cap 1000; contact and actuator friction change the gait/contact solution together); push 1000 (cap 1500; a non-static plant change requiring recovery behavior - hardest). Rationale: "续训适应一个 plant 增量不需要从零量级的预算,跑长了只是给特化时间". The C ladder reused the scheme (per-rung caps 500-2000 by increment type), and the deep-training hazard got its own name when long runs sold quality ("深适应卖质量" - deep adaptation sells quality).
Change
Per-rung iteration budgets set by increment class with hard caps and 100-iter watch loops; checkpoint selection inside the window by the smoke curve, never "run to cap because budget remains".
Outcome
S2/C rungs completed in 300-1500 iterations each; the recurring late-run degradations (collapse valleys at 1500+, vx+0.30 decay) fell outside most rungs' caps instead of inside their runs.
Mechanism
A continuation rung's learning problem is local robustification around an existing optimum - low sample complexity; iterations past adaptation are spent sharpening onto the current distribution, which is exactly how retained skills and margins erode. Budgets sized to the increment bound both compute and the specialization damage window.
Applies when
- planning iteration budgets for a robustification or command ladder
- a continuation run keeps improving its training metric late
- retained skills decay in the back half of long continuation runs
“「最低适应窗口 + 每 100 iter 验收(watch_ckpt --every 100)+ hard cap」—— 续训适应一个 plant 增量不需要从零量级的预算,跑长了只是给特化时间 … ⑥ push | 1000 | 1500 | 非静态 plant 变化,要学 recovery 行为,最难”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 4. 每级 iter 预算(2026-08-07 用户定) 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 Every new penalty ships with a pre-registered withdrawal clause - if healthy gait must pay above the cap, the term stands down
calibration-threshold-with-withdrawal-clauseIntroduce every new penalty with: the zero-cost-option audit, a replay-calibrated weight formula (healthy pays a fixed small fraction of tracking), and a pre-registered withdrawal condition - and let the clause fire without argument when the calibration says the term cannot be afforded.
Symptom
Three same-shaped crashes had established a failure archetype: v4's clearance, v8a's landing window (weight off by 58x uncalibrated), and v6a's bare hip_yaw suppression all combined a zero-cost "don't move" option with a fee on any motion - a reverse barrier that pushes policies toward standing still.
Context
The v11 landing-window penalty was therefore introduced under a calibration-threshold protocol: (1) shape chosen with the window tightened (h_gate 0.03 -> 0.02, because 0.03 equaled the clearance target and priced the entire descent); (2) weight from a FORMULA, not judgment: measure the term's raw value on healthy replays (v5/v10b), set w = -(0.10-0.15 x tracking reward) / raw_healthy; (3) withdrawal clause pre-registered: if healthy gait must pay >15% of tracking no matter the tuning, the term is withdrawn to the next version rather than forced in - "不硬上". The companion hip_yaw quieting term ran the same protocol (calibrate on replays, healthy pays <=5%) and was later retired entirely when a structural fix (zero action scale) made its shaping tax unnecessary.
Change
Penalty introduction protocol: shape audit (what is the zero-cost option?), replay-based weight formula, healthy-pay cap with a written stand-down condition - all before training.
Outcome
The landing term was in fact withdrawn under its clause (v12 records "P5 落地窗口罚 已撤 … 维持撤下"), demonstrating the protocol firing as designed instead of the fourth same-type crash.
Mechanism
A penalty's damage mode is mispricing healthy behavior; since the healthy price is measurable in advance on replays, both the weight and the go/no-go decision can be computed rather than discovered by a ruined training run. The withdrawal clause converts "make it work" pressure into a clean deferral.
Applies when
- adding any motion-taxing penalty to a working gait
- a proposed term's weight has no measurement behind it
- a previous same-shaped term crashed training
“权重公式而非拍脑袋:先在 v5/v10b 回放上量 h_gate=0.02 的原始值,w = −(0.10~0.15 × 跟踪奖励) / raw_健康;标定门槛:若健康步态无论如何要付 >15% 跟踪,本项撤下留 v12,不硬上 (v4 clearance/v8a-B/v6a 三次同型翻车的教训:代价为零的"不动"选项 + 一动就收费 = 反向壁垒)。”
train/WALK_V11_SPEC.md § 6. P5 —— 落地窗口罚(三代欠账,标定门槛制) 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) 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) Changing the gait clock silently flipped a hardwired threshold's meaning - write derived constants as expressions
derived-constants-must-track-their-baseBefore changing any base parameter (clock, control rate, scale), enumerate every constant derived from it and every constant that must NOT change; convert derived literals into expressions of the base so the next change cannot silently flip a term's meaning.
Symptom
Slowing the clock 0.40 -> 0.50 s would have silently inverted the feet_air_time threshold's semantics: the 0.25 s threshold was hardwired, so at ct 0.40 the swing window (~0.20 s) sat below it (constant pressure to lengthen strides), while at ct 0.50 the window (~0.25 s) equals it - the term's meaning flips from "push longer" to "neutral" with no code error anywhere.
Context
The clock change audit walked every dependent quantity: most followed automatically (joint_pos_ref / clearance / contact_number cycle_time params, gait_phase observation, deploy/sim2sim/policy_io, export) - wiring confirmed, zero hand edits; the air_time threshold was the one hardwired constant, fixed by preserving the RATIO: 0.25 -> 0.3125 = 0.625 x ct, with the recommendation to commit it as the expression 0.625*ct "一劳永逸" (solved once and forever). The same audit also listed what must NOT follow the clock (50 Hz control rate, physics dt/decimation, 47-dim contract, action_latency absolute seconds, PD/torque limits) - the change's blast radius stated in both directions.
Change
feet_air_time threshold re-expressed as a fraction of cycle_time; auto-following vs must-not-change lists written into the spec for the clock migration.
Outcome
The clock migration (v10, repeated in v11) carried no silent semantic flips; the expression form removed the trap for every future clock change.
Mechanism
Constants derived from a base parameter encode a ratio at their birth; storing the evaluated number severs the dependency, so changing the base leaves stale semantics with no failing test. Expressions preserve the intent; and an explicit both-directions dependency list (follows / must-not-follow) is what makes a base-parameter change reviewable.
Applies when
- changing gait clock, control frequency, or units
- a reward threshold interacts with a phase/window duration
- config audit finds literals that encode ratios
“feet_air_time 阈值 0.25 是写死的,不跟 ct 走——0.40 时摆动窗 ~0.20s<0.25(恒拉长压力),0.50 时摆动窗 ~0.25s≈阈值(语义翻转)。按比例保原压力:0.25 → 0.3125(=0.625×ct;建议直接写成 0.625 * ct 表达式,一劳永逸)。”
train/WALK_V10_SPEC.md § 3. T —— 慢时钟 (训练侧必做一件) 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) Prove an armless get-up exists before training it - a connected static domain, 25% torque on the cheapest path, an 8 mm hand-over gap, a static roll-over - and write down what each scan cannot represent
get-up-feasibility-accounts-before-trainingBefore training a get-up or any multi-contact skill, compute the quasi-static accounts - connectivity of the static domain, torque along the cheapest path, hand-over gaps, COM shift available for rolling - and state which configurations each scan cannot represent; when a policy gets stuck in one of those, extend the scan before blaming the reward.
Symptom
A torso-and-legs robot has no arms to push off the ground; whether it can get up from the floor at all was unknown when the line opened.
Context
recovery_feasibility.py ran three accounts before any training (the run line's "hard accounts first" discipline): a sagittal quasi-static scan (0.05 rad grid, 44,520 configurations, MuJoCo FK, flat-foot assumption). (1) The static standing domain (COM over the feet, torques in limit) has 29,586 cells, flood-fill connected with no islands, from a 0.097 m deepest squat to the 0.384 m stand. (2) The minimum-torque path peaks at 25% of the limits (knee 2.9/12, ankle 3.7/17 N*m) - a 4x margin. (3) All 508 ground-contact configurations have the contact behind the COM; the smallest gap to pure foot support is 8 mm. A roll-over account: swinging both straight legs to one side shifts the COM 96 mm against a 62 mm torso half-width - 1.6x, so rolling needs no momentum. Three conclusions were written down for later attribution: the legs are 80% of the mass (swinging them moves the COM), prone has no flat-foot hand-over face (merge into a supine/side sit first), and supine needs no sit-up (hip flexion is limited to 75 deg).
Change
The accounts gated opening the line and were cited in every later argument about what the robot can physically do.
Outcome
They held where they applied: in V1.0 every fall category was righted under a hard rate limit, which the spec records as the quasi-static roll-over account verified by training, and the 25% torque path was the basis for pursuing a slow get-up. They also misled once: account (3) is sagittal, and on 08-09 the spec corrected its scope - it cannot represent the splayed W-sit where the policy actually stalled. A follow-up prone hip-ROM scan (471,625 cells) found 3,912 two-foot-contact cells and none with both soles within 25 deg of level (best 40.2 deg): a flat-footed push-up from prone is infeasible on this robot, so the fix became where the feet go after sitting up.
Mechanism
A get-up needs a connected path through statically feasible configurations and enough torque along it; quasi-static accounts bound both cheaply, and momentum can only make the real problem easier. A reduced-dimensional scan, though, only speaks for the configurations it can express.
Conflicts
In R0.1-R0.2 the spec read account (3)'s "prone has no front hand-over" as "prone lacks the roll-over skill"; R0.3's confusion matrix showed prone had righted its torso 159/159, and the spec then restricted account (3) to the sagittal configurations it models.
Applies when
- opening a get-up, recovery or climbing skill on a new robot
- a robot lacks arms or other obvious contact options
- a policy stalls in a configuration a feasibility scan never modelled
“本机 **torso + legs、无手臂可撑地**,开训前先证明存在不依赖手臂的物理解 … 双腿同侧直腿摆最大横移 **96 mm = 1.6×** … **静态摆腿即可翻身,无需动量**”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §1 机械可行性判决(2026-08-09,recovery_feasibility.py 三笔账) Cutting swing amplitude 40% raised yaw-momentum demand 53% - the falsified fix is recorded so nobody walks that road again
amplitude-cut-falsified-yaw-fixTest gait fixes against the quantity the ground must actually supply (torque/force rates vs friction ceilings), not against kinematic proxies; record falsified fixes with their mechanism so the search space shrinks permanently.
Symptom
Support-foot yaw slip stayed at ~223 deg (vs 225 deg) after walk_v6 cut joint swing amplitudes by ~40% (hip_pitch 20.6->10.4 deg, knee 31.3->18.8 deg) - the change built on the theory "smaller swing = less yaw momentum to dump into the ground".
Context
Direct measurement inverted the theory: yaw-momentum amplitude ROSE 16% (+/-0.1000 -> +/-0.1159) and its rate of change rose 53% (1.86 -> 2.84 N*m demanded from the ground), pinned exactly at the foot's supply ceiling (2.8-3.3 N*m at mu 0.6-0.7) - so slip could not drop. The extra demand lives in higher harmonics: v6's crisper foot placement (better clearance 34 mm, lower landing force) shortens the momentum- exchange window, concentrating the same exchange into less time. The verdict was written as a closed road: "下一轮不要再走这个方向". An honest residue was also booked: WHY amplitude down but momentum up 16% remained unresolved, with the named next step (per-rigid-body decomposition of H_z, since per-joint RMS sensitivity ignores phase correlations).
Change
The "reduce amplitude to reduce yaw momentum" lever was removed from the planning space; future yaw-slip work redirected toward the supply side (friction) and momentum-rate mechanics.
Outcome
Slip unchanged (225 -> 223 deg); the falsification and its mechanism became a permanent constraint on the fix search space.
Mechanism
Ground yaw torque demand scales with the rate of change of angular momentum, not its amplitude; kinematic amplitude cuts that also sharpen contact timing can raise dH/dt while lowering range. When demand exceeds the friction-limited supply ceiling, slip is set by the ceiling, so demand-side changes below the ceiling do nothing visible.
Applies when
- attacking foot slip or yaw drift via gait shape changes
- a fix targets an amplitude while the constraint is a rate
- documenting a failed intervention after a version comparison
“walk_v6 | ±0.1159 (+16%) | 2.50 Hz | 2.84 N·m (+53%) … 脚的供给上限 2.8~3.3 N·m(μ 0.6~0.7)—— v6 正好顶在天花板上, 所以滑移一点没降。… 结论: "减小摆动幅度以降低偏航动量"这条被 v6 证伪 —— 砍 39% 幅度, 需求反升 53%。下一轮不要再走这个方向。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § ② 未生效的机理: 减小摆动幅度反而让偏航需求上升 A single run's drift direction may be a limit cycle, not a policy bias - check the sign distribution across seeds
multiseed-sign-test-for-driftDistinguish "bias" from "broken symmetry limit cycle" by the sign distribution over many seeds; report drift as (mean, sign split), and never compare single-run drift magnitudes across versions.
Symptom
Net yaw over 15 s appeared to worsen from -41 deg (v2) to -84 deg (v4), inviting the conclusion that the new version drifted more.
Context
The Isaac-side view across 32 environments told a different story: per-env yaw was mixed-sign (20 negative / 12 positive) with mean ~0 - the drift is a limit cycle whose direction depends on initial conditions, not a systematic policy bias. The single MuJoCo run had sampled one draw from that distribution, so its magnitude could not be compared across versions as if it were a property.
Change
Evaluation rule: before classifying drift as systematic, run multiple seeds and examine the sign distribution; single-trajectory drift magnitudes are samples, not properties.
Outcome
The v2-vs-v4 drift "regression" was reclassified as not-established; later drift work (hip_roll l+r bias) used cross-policy, cross-seed evidence instead.
Mechanism
Symmetric dynamical systems can settle into either of two mirrored limit cycles; the selected cycle is decided by noise and initial state. A statistic whose sign is initial-condition-dependent has no meaning as a single sample - only its distribution does.
Applies when
- comparing heading drift or lateral drift across policy versions
- a symmetric-looking behavior shows a consistent direction in one run
- deciding whether to fix "drift" in reward or calibration
“偏航反而变差(−41° → −84°):注意 Isaac 侧 32 env 的逐 env 偏航是正负混合(20/12)、均值 ≈0,说明这是极限环性质(方向随初值)而非策略偏置 —— MuJoCo 单次跑测到的是分布里的一个样本,不能当作系统性偏差。要判断需多种子统计。”
train/WALK_DIAGNOSIS.md § walk_v4 独立验收 读法 (偏航) A nonzero response with the same sign for + and - commands is bias, not ability
same-sign-response-is-yaw-biasBefore crediting any directional skill, test both command signs: response must flip sign with the command; a same-signed pair is a bias to subtract, not an ability to report.
Symptom
Root-selection probe showed nonzero wz "tracking percentages" on turn commands, tempting the read that candidates could partially turn.
Context
During C-ladder root selection, s1e-500's measured yaw rate was +0.084 rad/s for cmd +0.3 and +0.093 rad/s for cmd -0.3 - same sign both ways. The same check on the C2 baseline gave wz+0.20 -> -0.13 and wz-0.20 -> +0.12 (again same sign), while the alternative root s2e_pd-1400 gave +0.16 / -0.16 - opposite signs, i.e. a genuine 16% command response.
Change
Reading corrected and written into the execution sheet: percentages on directional commands are meaningless unless the +cmd and -cmd responses have opposite signs; all three candidates were re-classified as "cannot turn, cannot sidewalk - C2/C3/C4 learn from zero". Acceptance criteria thereafter required "tracking >=50% AND left/right opposite-signed".
Outcome
Prevented crediting turn/sidewalk ability that did not exist; the antisymmetry clause became a standing part of every turn and sidewalk PASS condition (C2, C4, C4-redo levels all carry "且左右反号").
Mechanism
A constant yaw (or lateral) bias projects onto any command's sign convention and shows up as fake fractional tracking; only sign-antisymmetry under command reversal distinguishes a feedback response to the command from an open-loop offset.
Applies when
- evaluating turn/sidewalk/any signed-command tracking percentages
- a candidate shows partial tracking on an axis it was never trained on
- writing PASS criteria for a new directional skill
“C2/C3 那些非零的 wz 百分比不是转向能力 —— 转向+ 与 转向− 的实测同号（s1e：cmd +0.3 → +0.084，cmd −0.3 → +0.093 rad/s），那是恒定偏航偏置。… 三个候选都不会转、都不会侧走。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 0. 读数纠正（重要，别引错） 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 The run policy never left the ground and fell in the second simulator from the frontal plane - its DR (gains and latency only) covered the actuator axis, not the frontal-plane contact and inertia disturbances the doubled stride amplified; "is DR on" is the wrong question
thin-dr-judged-by-channel-coverageJudge a DR recipe by whether its randomized terms cover the channel where the skill can lose stability, not by whether DR is enabled; when a new skill lengthens single support or enlarges motion in one plane, add disturbances in the plane it destabilizes before training.
Symptom
run R1 (6,000 iterations, 78 min): no flight phase ever appeared, and every one of 13 checkpoints failed the eight-gate MuJoCo smoke. In Isaac: zero terminations in 6,000 iterations, 4.2 deg tilt. In MuJoCo at delay 2: 1/6 survived, falls within 1.9-6.2 s at 50.8-58.7 deg, the most saturated joints all roll joints.
Context
The run contract doubled sagittal travel (knee action scale 0.9, knee swing peak 1.14 rad) with a 0.60 s period and 0.40 duty - long single support - while roll/yaw scales were deliberately left at 0.5. DR copied the s1e recipe: kp/kd (0.9, 1.1) and latency on; mass, COM, joint friction and push all off; ground friction pinned at (1.0, 1.0). Flight was read two independent ways: Isaac's per-foot contact reward stayed 0.845-0.857, never above 0.87 - the arithmetic ceiling of a gait with zero flight - and 30 of 36 MuJoCo seeds had flight fraction exactly 0 (the nonzero six were all tumbling falls). Foot lift itself worked (46-59 mm against a 50 mm design point): the walk-era "not enough travel" failure did not recur.
Change
Verdict FAIL, with the pre-registered first knob (exploration noise 1.0 -> 1.2) explicitly rejected as aimed at a different axis. The lesson was generalized and applied at the next line's design review: the one-leg spec made push, body mass, base COM and friction DR mandatory for its permanent single support and banned the thin recipe.
Outcome
The run line did not continue past R1 in the sources. The one-leg V0 with the wider DR passed its friction-variant gate (mu 0.4 and 1.2) inside a 40/40 acceptance.
Mechanism
Randomizing gains and latency covers the actuator's axis; a skill whose failure lives in frontal-plane contact and inertia needs randomization on that channel (push, mass, COM, friction), or the trainer's exact plant becomes the only one the policy can stand on - the omni_s1 transfer trap a second time, this time with DR switched on.
Applies when
- a policy is flawless in the trainer and falls immediately in a second simulator
- reusing a DR recipe from a skill with a different support pattern
- failures concentrate on one axis (roll, yaw) the DR does not touch
“**机理**: 矢状面行程翻倍 (膝摆动峰 1.14 rad) + T 0.60 + duty 0.40 的长单支撑, 把额状面扰动放大了一个量级; 而 roll/yaw 通道按 §3 **刻意没有放大** (仍 0.5), DR 又是 s1e 复刻的薄配方 (mass/COM/关节摩擦/push **四关全关**, 地面摩擦钉死 (1.0, 1.0))。 … 说明**薄 DR 的判据不能只看"有没有开 DR"**, 要看**开的那几项 是否覆盖失稳所在的通道** —— kp/kd 与延迟是执行器轴向的, 对额状面接触/惯性 扰动零覆盖。 … 0.87 正是「零腾空的走路步态」的天花板算术”
git:Lucen V2@origin/run-line:train/README.md § run R1 FAIL (2026-08-09, run 21-30-30_run_r1): 腾空零, 但病根在额状面不在探索 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 After installing the measured plant, re-run all generations paired on old and new plant - identity metrics carry verdicts, physics metrics re-baseline
plant-swap-invariants-vs-shiftsTreat every plant upgrade as an era boundary: re-run the retained policy set paired (same seeds/flags) on both plants, carry forward only verdicts whose metrics proved plant-invariant, re-baseline the rest - and mine the systematic shifts as measurements of the old plant's biases.
Symptom
With the plant finally fully measured (weighed masses 9.792 kg, bench-identified armature, in-situ friction), no historical sim number was comparable to new runs - "历史 sim 数字跨纪元不可比" - and it was unknown which historical verdicts still held.
Context
The era-2c cross-test ran all seven walk generations on the complete plant under one harness (14/14 survived), then re-ran the same 14 configurations on the OLD plant retrieved from git, same flags and seeds, with a self-check (one historical record reproduced digit-for-digit). The split was clean. Policy-identity metrics moved essentially zero across the plant swap - dominant frequency (v7's period-doubling 1.20 -> 1.20), knee amplitude (9.9 -> 10.0), foot distance (+/-2 mm), saturation (100 -> 100, 0 -> 0) - so all seven cross-generation verdicts (freeze signature, saturation-line closure, knee-collapse location, slip-penalty accounting, N2 lineage, v6's balance, v11's triad) were re-confirmed on the honest plant. Plant-physics metrics shifted systematically with ordering preserved: slip down 10-25% (measured friction makes ground-twisting costlier), landing vertical velocity down 15-50% ("旧 plant 高估落地 凶度"第二次独立证实), landing force mixed (mass up 2.2% vs friction braking the swing - two effects fighting). Exactly ONE behavior-level change: v8's low-speed period-doubling vanished (1.30 -> 2.50, lift normalizing) - confirming it had been machine-dependent bifurcation-edge behavior that armature+friction push off the knife edge, while v7's period-doubling stood untouched: saturation-freeze-driven, a policy property, not a numerical accident.
Change
Era re-baselining protocol: after any plant upgrade, one paired same-seed sweep of all retained generations on old and new plant; verdicts keyed to identity metrics carry over, thresholds re-read against the new-plant table, and the differences themselves become plant-physics findings.
Outcome
Seven verdicts survived with evidence rather than assumption; two causes of the period-doubling family were separated with plant-side proof; and the sim's landing-violence overestimate was independently confirmed a second time.
Mechanism
A policy's structural properties (frequencies, amplitudes, frozen joints) are functions of its weights and survive plant changes; contact-mediated quantities are joint properties of policy and plant and shift when the plant becomes honest. Pairing seeds across plants isolates the plant's contribution exactly, so the sweep both validates history and measures what the old plant had been lying about.
Applies when
- installing measured masses/armature/friction into the sim
- historical thresholds are cited across a plant change
- a hardware-only behavior might be bifurcation-edge sensitivity
“策略身份指标逐位不动:主频(v7 1.20→1.20)、膝摆 … 这些是策略属性,plant 换代携带无损,历史定论因此全部成立。… 唯一行为级变化:v8@0.15 的倍周期消失(主频 1.30→2.50…)——印证当时"分岔边缘、机器相关"的判定:armature+摩擦把 v8 推离刀锋;v7 的倍周期纹丝不动(1.20→1.20),它是饱和冻结驱动的深层属性,不是数值巧合。”
train/README.md § 纪元 2c 全代同机横测 (2026-08-04): 完全体 plant 上历史结论全部存活 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 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 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) 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) 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) 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) 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 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) Every rung gets written stop criteria - hit any one, stop; tightened when priors say results should come fast
preregistered-stop-criteria-per-rungFreeze per-rung stop criteria (old-skill floors, new-skill deadline, oscillation signature, known pathology signatures) before training, stop on first hit - and shorten the deadline in proportion to how fast your mechanism says results should appear.
Symptom
Continued training past the point of degradation had previously destroyed capabilities (C1 trained away the root's backward skill); without hard stop rules, sunk-cost reasoning keeps runs alive too long.
Context
Standard rung protocol - eval_c_matrix every 100 iters at 5 seeds with a fixed criteria list, frozen before training ("开训前写死，事后不许改"): (1) stand or vx+0.15 at <=3/5 for two consecutive points; (2) vx+0.15 tracking <70% for two consecutive points (vs recorded root baseline); (3) oscillation signature - survival repeatedly crossing zero between adjacent checkpoints, stop on first occurrence, do not wait for confirmation; (4) new-skill-no-progress deadline (e.g. wz tracking <30% or still same-signed after iter 400); (5) a known lineage pathology signature (s1c arm-B: scatter -> half-recover -> collapse).
Change
Stop budgets scale with prior knowledge: when C4-redo4's feed-forward was already proven open-loop, the no-progress deadline was tightened from +500 to +100 iters ("前馈是开环就给 71~96% 的 … 若 +100 还没有 … 不值得再烧").
Outcome
Multiple rungs were stopped exactly on criterion (C4-redo criterion 4 at iter 1200; redo2/redo3 at absolute 900), converting each into a clean hypothesis test instead of a drifting run; no rung burned its full cap on a dead hypothesis.
Mechanism
Degradation of retained skills is a lineage-level injury that later training often cannot undo, so detection latency is capital loss; and a stop rule written before the run cannot be bent by hope. Tightening deadlines when priors predict immediate results converts "no result yet" into evidence against the mechanism.
Applies when
- starting any resumed/curriculum training rung
- deciding whether to keep training a run that shows early regression
- a mechanism-backed change should produce results immediately
“每 100 iter eval_c_matrix.py --seeds 5，命中任一即停 … 存活在相邻 checkpoint 间反复跨越 0（出现即停）… 收紧版：绝对 iter 900（= +200）时 vy±0.10 跟踪仍 <30% 即停”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3h. 预注册停梯判据（开训前写死，事后不许改） Before resuming a checkpoint, diff the current cfg against what the checkpoint was trained with
resume-state-dr-audit"One variable per rung" counts variables against what the checkpoint actually experienced: audit the checkpoint's logged training config and align every unintended difference before resuming.
Symptom
Two consecutive rungs (C1 back-mode, C2' forward-turn) failed from the same root with the same full-regression signature despite adding different new modes - so the mode was not the cause.
Context
Both runs resumed s1e-500 with the then-current cfg, which carried PD band (0.8,1.2) plus three DR events (base_com, joint_friction, push_robot) accumulated by later lineages. Verified on the training machine from the source of truth (the run's logged params/env.yaml): s1e-500's actual training state was PD +/-10% (0.9,1.1) and all three DR events None. Resuming it under the new cfg meant eating 4 new plant variables plus a new mode at once - the intended "1 variable" was actually 5. A worse variant (c1_redo from s2e_pd-1400) added push +/-0.3 to a root that had never seen it: near-total collapse within +100 iters.
Change
C2 aligned the cfg to the checkpoint's training state before resuming (PD back to (0.9,1.1), three DR events off) - making the new mode the only true variable. Permanent rule recorded: compare the checkpoint's training-time DR with the current cfg before any resume.
Outcome
C2 trained successfully from the same root that had "failed" twice (wz 20/20 with genuine sign-antisymmetric response by iter 700-800); the A/B falsification ("两个不同模式同签名崩") plus the env.yaml verification closed the attribution.
Mechanism
A resumed policy is instantly evaluated (and its value function trained) under whatever plant distribution the cfg specifies; every DR term the checkpoint never adapted to is a distribution shift applied on day one, compounding with the intended change. Single-variable discipline is therefore a property of (cfg diff) x (checkpoint history), not of the cfg diff alone.
Applies when
- resuming or forking any checkpoint under an evolved config
- a resumed run degrades broadly within the first few hundred iterations
- two different changes from the same root fail with the same signature
“A/B 定谳：两个不同模式同签名崩 → 病因不是模式，是「从 s1e-500 续训」。… s1e-500 训练态 = kp/kd ±10% (0.9,1.1)，base_com / joint_friction / push_robot 全 None；而 cfg 里带着 (0.8,1.2) + … 三个 DR —— 从它续训等于一次吃 4 个新 plant 变量 + 新模式 … 永久教训：续训前必须比对 checkpoint 的训练态 DR 与现行 cfg。单变量纪律不只看「我改了什么」，还要看「checkpoint 见过什么」。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3b. 这不是重复实验 —— 前两次的病根已定位并修掉 Fix the task first, harden the plant second - DR budget spent on a dying task is wasted
task-shaping-before-plant-hardeningFreeze the task/command distribution before spending DR budget on plant robustness; if the task will still change, schedule plant hardening as a final pass and book the interim robustness gap explicitly.
Symptom
Tempting default ordering was to keep the plant-hardened (S2) lineage and teach it new commands; but the S2 plant adaptation had been earned on the straight-walk task, and the new omni tasks (sidewalk, in-place turn) use completely different contact patterns.
Context
The team had direct evidence that DR robustness is a budget that gets reallocated when the data distribution changes ("push/μ 两轮已实证 DR 预算有限且会被重分配") - robustness trained under one task/command distribution does not persist when training continues under another.
Change
Ladder order set to: first C (task shaping - add command modes until the task family is final), then a second S2 pass (plant hardening) on the C product. The plant-robustness gap this creates mid-ladder is accepted and booked explicitly ("此处不欠账" - the debt is assigned to the second S2 pass, not denied).
Outcome
The first S2 pass was not wasted: its laws (kd bandwidth <-> low mu, push need not be trained, ground mu need not be trained, bistability) let the second pass drop from five rungs to three. The C ladder itself ran on the softer plant band without incident.
Mechanism
DR robustness is carried by the policy's visited-state distribution; changing the task changes that distribution, so robustness bought under the old task partially dissolves. Hardening before the task is final means paying for robustness on states that will no longer be visited - "给一个即将不存在的任务花预算" (spending budget on a soon-to-not-exist task).
Applies when
- deciding ordering between skill/command expansion and DR hardening
- a hardened lineage is proposed as the root for a task change
- robustness regressions appear after adding new command modes
“S2 的 plant 适应是为直行步态调的，C4 侧走/C3 原地转是完全不同的接触模式，先硬化再改任务 = 给一个即将不存在的任务花预算（push/μ 两轮已实证 DR 预算有限且会被重分配）。故顺序改为 先 C（任务定型）→ 再 S2（plant 硬化）。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 0. 决策逻辑 = 短板可不可恢复 (末段) 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）