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
127 cards matching “sim-veto-needs-real-confirmation”.
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 The hip_roll (l+r) asymmetry scalar predicted real-robot lateral drift - promote validated sim scalars into the gate
hip-roll-sum-predicts-lateral-driftHunt for cheap sim scalars that predict real-robot behaviors, validate them on direction AND ordering across multiple policies, then promote them into the acceptance battery; treat later violations as debt to justify in writing, not noise to ignore.
Symptom
A persistent hip_roll left/right asymmetry row in the sim2sim symmetry table had been dismissed as "calibration or mechanical asymmetry" noise; meanwhile real deployments drifted sideways by policy-dependent amounts.
Context
Forward-kinematics analysis reframed the scalar: both hip_rolls move the feet in +y for positive angle, so a same-signed (l+r) sum IS a lateral translation mode - the scalar is a direct lateral-drift bias estimate. Checked against real deployments: s1e (l+r = -0.0178, smallest magnitude) was the steadiest with least drift; 700 (+0.0253) drifted mildly left; A800 (+0.0267) drifted clearly left with the largest tilt 12.9 deg. Direction correct 3/3, ordering correct 3/3 (the log's heading calls it "四枚四中", four-for-four).
Change
The scalar was promoted into the acceptance battery as a posture-class criterion alongside tilt-max median: "hip_roll 左右不对称 |l+r| 不得比父代大" - doubling as a heat proxy (error ~ torque ~ heating).
Outcome
Used at every later gate; when the C4 product exceeded it by +0.005 rad (~+0.3 deg vs parent), the criterion was not silently waived - it was booked as explicit debt with a mechanism argument (the increment is task-required, far smaller than the sidewalk amplitude +/-2.2 deg) plus a related account (stand saturation 32.4% -> 37.2%).
Mechanism
A policy's static joint-angle bias in a translation-producing mode integrates into real-world drift; sim can measure that bias precisely and cheaply. A sim scalar earns gate status exactly when its predictions are validated against hardware in both direction and ordering - and a validated gate may only be exceeded with a written mechanism-level justification, never silently.
Conflicts
The log's heading says "四枚四中" (4/4) but the evidence table lists three policies and the text says "方向 3/3、排序 3/3"; the fourth instance is not shown in this file.
Applies when
- a real robot drifts or leans in a policy-dependent way
- deciding which sim measurements deserve gate status
- a validated gate criterion is marginally exceeded by a new product
“s1e | −0.0178（绝对值最小）| 微右、最不飘 | 三者中最稳、飘最小 ✓ … A800 | +0.0267 | 左、最飘 | 明显左飘、倾角最大 12.9° ✓ 方向 3/3、排序 3/3。 → 正式纳入验收表（与「倾角 max 中位」并列为姿态类判据）。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3e. 顺带：hip_roll 左右不对称 (l+r) 就是横移偏置 —— 四枚四中 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) 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 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) Order hardware runs by sim risk, gate each stage on the last, and put the fragile cell last with a spotter
risk-ordered-real-deploymentScript hardware sessions as a risk ladder: baseline first, sim-riskiest last with a spotter, suspended smoke before ground, each stage gated on the previous, environment (floor mu) recorded as a selection input - and stop at the stage that misbehaves.
Symptom
Five policy-x-gain combinations had to go on hardware in one session, with sim survival ranging from 20/20 down to 17/20 (and zero-command survival down to 2/20) - an unordered session risks breaking the robot on an avoidable run.
Context
The execution sheet fixed the order as sim-risk low to high, control baseline first (current SOTA establishes the floor reference), the fragile cell (fric-2400@kd1.0) last with a person spotting throughout. Stage gating: suspended smoke (feet off ground, 10 s each, all five pass before anything touches down) -> suspended with IMU and forward command (gait forms in the air) -> grounded runs -> speed raise only for combos that survived the previous stage -> zero-command tests only with a spotter, ordered by sim zero-cmd survival, with the 2/20 cell skipped by default. Preconditions include recording the floor material and estimating mu (if mu <~0.6, sim says pick the kd1.2 gain as main), port/CAN self-check, calibration frozen. Any stage failing stops the session at that stage: "任一段出问题就停在那一段, 不要跳到下一段".
Change
Session structured as a risk ladder with per-stage gates instead of a flat checklist; per-combo sim survival numbers written into the run table as the ordering key.
Outcome
The session design localized any failure to the cheapest stage that could reveal it, kept the robot safe for the informative fragile run, and made the control baseline available before any comparison run.
Mechanism
Hardware sessions consume a shared budget (robot integrity, battery, floor time); ordering by predicted risk means information is bought cheapest-first, and stage gates convert an expensive failure into a cheap earlier one. Baselines run first because every later reading is relative to them.
Applies when
- taking multiple policies/configs to hardware in one session
- a candidate is known-fragile in sim but must be measured
- writing a deployment runbook for a new robot
“跑序 = sim 风险从低到高, 最险的放最后 (依据 = 存活门/零指令存活) … ⑤ 是 sim 里最脆的一格 … 放最后跑, 全程留人扶, 起步即给 cmd, 零指令不做。… 任一段出问题就停在那一段, 不要跳到下一段。”
train/REAL_RUN_S2.md § 上机名单 / 全部命令 Real robot walked at half the sim clock for two generations - resolved by racing a reward-side and a plant-side evidence line, not by guessing
period-doubling-evidence-raceFor a hardware-only pathology, refuse to guess: pre-register one probe per side of the sim2real boundary (can the reward mechanism change it on hardware? can fitted plant parameters reproduce it in sim?) and let the first positive result direct the next version.
Symptom
The number-one sim2real gap: on hardware v6/v7 stepped at 1.23-1.32 Hz - almost exactly half the 2.50 Hz gait clock they were trained and simulated at; sim never reproduced it, two generations running.
Context
Instead of committing training budget to a guess, v8 pre-registered two mutually controlled evidence lines and kept the clock OUT of the training variables: (a) reward-side - if the v8 saturation fix revives joint_pos_ref (the term that pins the gait to the clock), re-run hardware and see whether frequency returns to 2.5 Hz (hypothesis: v7's frozen actions meant NO reward was pinning the gait to the clock, and the real plant - with armature and friction making high frequencies expensive - slid down to the leg's pendulum natural frequency ~1.1 Hz); (b) plant-side - record suspended joint data (fit_actuator), fit armature/friction, load the fitted values into sim2sim and see whether the 1.25 Hz reproduces IN SIM. Decision rule fixed in advance: "谁先给出阳性结果谁定 v9 的方向 (奖励侧 vs plant 侧)" - whichever line goes positive first sets the next version's direction.
Change
Period-doubling excluded from the v8 change set; both diagnostic lines scheduled in parallel as non-blocking work; frequency reported factually in acceptance with no pass/fail attached ("倍周期是否消失 不设判定,它是 §9 的关键证据").
Outcome
The gap was routed into a decisive-experiment structure rather than a speculative retrain; the plant-side line pointed at exactly the unmodeled armature/friction that were later measured and installed as the plant baseline. Resolution (era-2c full-plant retest): the family had TWO causes - v8's low-speed period-doubling vanished once measured armature+friction were installed (1.30 -> 2.50 Hz, bifurcation-edge machine sensitivity), while v7's stood untouched at 1.20 Hz (saturation-freeze-driven policy property) - both evidence lines paid off, one per case.
Mechanism
A behavior appearing only on hardware has candidate causes on both sides of the sim2real boundary; changing training to fix it tests only one side per expensive cycle. Two cheap parallel probes - one intervening on the reward mechanism, one making sim reproduce the real behavior - localize the cause to a side before any training money is spent, and sim-reproduction of a real pathology is itself the strongest form of plant validation.
Applies when
- a gait pathology appears on hardware but never in any simulator
- deciding whether a sim2real gap is reward-side or plant-side
- tempted to change the gait clock/reward to chase a hardware symptom
“倍周期(真机 1.23~1.32 Hz ≈ 时钟一半,v6/v7 连续两代;sim 从不出现):两条证据线互为对照——(a)… 真机重跑看频率是否回 2.5 Hz(假说:v7 没有任何奖励把步态钉在时钟上,真机 plant 有 armature/摩擦、高频贵,自由滑落到复摆自然频率 ~1.1 Hz);(b)真机吊挂录 fit_actuator.py … 看能否在仿真里复现 1.25 Hz。谁先给出阳性结果谁定 v9 的方向。”
train/WALK_V8_SPEC.md § 9. 平行线 (倍周期) Before training a one-leg stand, the accounts and a probe showed the default gains could not hold it at all - kp 20 needs 0.39 rad of error to carry the static roll moment, more than the whole adduction range - so per-joint gains came first, and thermal limits set the session length
single-support-gain-authority-probeBefore training a posture that loads one joint statically, compute the steady tracking error load/kp and the series stiffness against m*g*h, and prove with a simple hand-written controller that the posture can be held under the deployment gains - change the gains first if it cannot; then size session length from the thermal account.
Symptom
The one-leg line (standing on one foot, the other folded back, no hopping) had to decide whether the existing gain profile could hold single support before any reward was designed.
Context
Hardware accounts (9.792 kg, COM 0.234 m high, 170 x 80 mm feet, legs 80% of the mass): moving the COM over one foot needs 107 mm of shift and the 20 deg hip-roll adduction range gives 131 mm - geometrically enough. The static frontal moment is 7.8-9 N*m, within RS02's 17 N*m - torque is enough. But at kp 20 carrying 7.8 N*m needs 0.39 rad of tracking error, more than the entire adduction range, and the real robot had already shown it: commanded +0.17, actual -0.04 (0.21 rad droop) under load, 0.0008 rad hanging - load, not the motor. A probe (probe_oneleg.py) then showed open-loop PD cannot hold single support on physics grounds, so the criterion became "an equilibrium exists and a hand-written 4-gain COM feedback can hold it": single-support roll stiffness is hip and ankle in series and must exceed m*g*h_com = 22.5 N*m/rad; ankle kp 12 in series with hip kp 80 gives only 10.4 (open loop 16/16 fell), ankle 60 with hip 80 gives 34.3 (52% margin).
Change
A per-joint gain profile (rl_oneleg: hip_roll kp 80, ankle_roll kp 60, the rest as rl_default) - which needed per-joint gain support in robot.yaml, the bridge, deploy and the trainer's actuator groups - decided before training. Thermal account: single support makes hip_roll the dominant heat load (about 7.8 N*m against a 7 N*m continuous rating), so acceptance and demos run in segments of at most 60 s with a temperature check.
Outcome
Under rl_oneleg the hand-written feedback held six cells cleanly for 6 s (hip_roll steady torque 2.1-3.4 N*m, half the thermal budget); under rl_default the same feedback on the same cells fell 0/4. The trained V0 policy then passed its 40-cell acceptance.
Mechanism
With PD position control, the steady error needed to carry a static load is load/kp; when that error exceeds the joint's range the posture is unreachable whatever the policy does, and series compliance between joints lowers the effective stiffness below the gravity stiffness that single support demands.
Applies when
- single-support, crouched or one-arm-load postures on PD actuators
- a joint "droops" under load on hardware but tracks well when hanging
- deciding whether a new skill needs its own gain profile
“但 kp=20 时撑住 7.8 N·m 需要 **0.39 rad 跟踪误差 > 整个内收行程**。真机已实测: 命令 +0.17 实际 −0.04（droop 0.21 rad），悬挂时 0.0008 rad——是负载不是电机。 … 单支撑滚转是 hip/ankle **串联**刚度，必须 > m·g·h_com = 22.5 N·m/rad；ankle kp12 串 hip80 只有 10.4（开环 16/16 全摔），60 串 80 = 34.3（裕 52%） … **rl_default 同反馈同格 0/4 全摔**（增益档必要性对照）”
git:Lucen V2@origin/oneleg-line:train/ONELEG_V0_SPEC.md § §1-1 单脚站: 几何可行，卡点是 hip_roll 增益权限 / §2 A 线增益 / §5 probe 定谳 A hardware run without its log is an anecdote - the first real get-up's policy, gain profile and log were never recorded, two CSVs stayed "to be reported", and runbook commands wrote different policies' logs under one copied filename
hardware-log-is-the-attribution-inputMake the log part of the run: name it from the policy and conditions automatically (never by hand-copied filenames), record the policy digest and gain profile inside it, include what the open questions need (torque, joint positions and targets), and treat a session without a collected log as incomplete.
Symptom
The recovery line's oldest open question - whether Isaac or MuJoCo reads torque demand correctly - was waiting on real-robot logs that never arrived, and the verdicts that did arrive could not be tied to files.
Context
deploy_policy writes a CSV per run (--log); the runbook's own analysis snippet reads its joint-position, target and action columns (q_, tgt_, act_), and the recovery hanging checklist asks for torque and joint logs for the whole run, to be compared with simulation. The first real get-up (08-09): policy, gain profile and log "to be recorded later". The first real A/B (08-11): v2_5b's result and both policies' CSVs "to be reported". In the runbook's walking commands, three runs of two different c4 policies log to real_s1e_pw08_teleop_0808.csv, and s1e and s2e_fric runs log to real_c2_700_pw08_teleop_0808.csv - filenames copied from other commands.
Change
None recorded; the spec kept listing the open-loop comparison as waiting for real logs.
Outcome
No real-robot log appears in the recovery spec through §50, so the simulator disagreement stayed unresolved and hardware verdicts stayed unattached to data.
Mechanism
Attribution needs the run's identity (policy digest, profile, conditions) and its signals in one artifact; a filename copied from another command mislabels the file, and a log not collected at the session is rarely collected later.
Applies when
- planning a hardware session whose result should settle a sim question
- log filenames are typed or pasted by hand
- hardware feedback arrives as prose without files
“python tools/deploy_policy.py --policy train/policies/omni_c4_ff800_pj.onnx … --log train/real_logs/real_s1e_pw08_teleop_0808.csv … q,t,a=d[:,c("q_")],d[:,c("tgt_")],d[:,c("act_")]”
RL系统/FOLLOW THIS copy 2.md § Walk 遥控 / S2 / csv 分析片段 (operator runbook, undated) A proposal in the runbook - torque and action limits as versioned safety tiers (classroom / research / expert) written to motor RAM and read back, separate from the reward's effort penalty - recorded as a proposal, its implementation unrecorded
safety-limits-are-a-layer-not-a-rewardKeep hardware limits as an explicit, versioned safety layer (tiers written and read back at start, the persisted default the safest one) and the effort penalty as a behaviour layer; when a skill needs more torque, change tier deliberately rather than trading one layer against the other.
Symptom
Running and jumping need more torque than the deployed limits allow, and the temptation is to trade the training-side effort penalty against the hardware limit, or to hand a new user a robot "tuned however the last person left it".
Context
A message pasted into the operator runbook (undated, citing Berkeley's practice of storing the full motor configuration as JSON with write and read-back scripts) proposes: configuration is a versioned artifact, not a verbal agreement; three safety tiers in robot.yaml beside the gain and policy profiles - classroom (RS06 limited to 10 N*m, lateral joints clamped: "however bad the policy, it only moves awkwardly"), research (14 N*m, clamps at twice the measured need, the default) and expert (the 36 N*m rating, joint limits only, requiring an explicit flag); deploy writes the tier to motor RAM at start and reads it back, while the stored copy stays classroom so a power cut returns to the safest state. It frames limits as the safety layer and the effort penalty as the behaviour layer - more torque for running means switching tier, not weakening the penalty.
Change
None recorded: the message ends by asking which to do first, a rollback or the tiers.
Outcome
The sources do not record the tiers being implemented; the deployed limits stayed at 12/17/11 N*m through the recovery and one-leg lines (the one-leg spec treats raising the RS06 limit as a separate, unapproved hardware decision). Related and recorded elsewhere: torque limits were written to RAM only in a scripted, self-reversing field experiment.
Mechanism
Hardware limits bound the damage any policy can do; reward terms shape what a policy prefers. Mixing them either weakens safety to buy behaviour or distorts behaviour to buy safety.
Applies when
- a new skill needs more torque than the deployed limits
- robots are handed to students or new users
- motor configuration lives in people's heads or in the firmware only
“配置是版本化的产物,不是口头约定。 … deploy_policy 启动时按档写进电机 RAM 并读回校验(落盘的那份永远保持 classroom,断电自动回到最安全状态)。 … 限幅是安全层,dof_torques_l2 是行为塑造层,它们在不同的层,不冲突。跑步要更大力矩就换档,而不是去动训练里的省力惩罚。”
RL系统/FOLLOW THIS copy 2.md § 面向 developer / 教育机构该怎么做 (pasted proposal, undated) When hardware underperforms, audit deployment knobs before prescribing retraining
deploy-knob-attribution-before-retrainingBefore any "retrain it" decision, reproduce the symptom in sim under the exact deployment configuration; if the symptom follows the deployment knob rather than the checkpoint, fix the knob or randomize it in training - never top-up-train the skill.
Symptom
Real-robot feedback after the C4 deployment - "turning is weak" - with two retraining options on the table: top up turn training, or restart from the s1e root.
Context
The sim account showed the policy turned well (75-81% at pw1.0); the robot was deployed at power-scale 0.8. The 3-6 pp difference between C2 and C4 policies at the same power was noise; the 40-50 pp difference between power levels was the entire effect. Both proposed retraining paths would have burned budget on a non-existent training gap, and restarting from s1e would additionally have discarded the sidewalk skill that took four rungs and a coordinate-bug hunt to obtain.
Change
Decision: retrain nothing. (1) Try pw1.0 on hardware first - sim says net gain; (2) only if 1.0 is unacceptable (heat/feel), the correct training fix is power/torque randomization in the S2 plant line (one variable, fixes turn and backward together) - not skill top-up; (3) restart-from-root explicitly ranked worst.
Outcome
The "weakness" was fully explained by the deployment knob; the sim/real signatures matched the earlier power-derating law verbatim ("与 C2 时代 power 衰减主要伤非前进轴 逐字吻合").
Mechanism
The policy's competence is defined under its training plant; deployment knobs (power scale, teleop mapping, command bands) silently define a different plant. Attributing a deploy-plant effect to a training gap produces exactly the wrong fix - more training on the wrong variable.
Applies when
- real robot underperforms a skill that sim says is fine
- proposals on the table include retraining or re-rooting
- deployment uses any override the trainer never saw (power scale, remapped commands, different control rate)
“正确的训练修法不是补训转向，而是训练时加 power/力矩随机化让策略在 0.8 下自己补偿 —— 单变量，属 S2 plant 线，一次同时修好转向与后退；从 s1e 重训是最差选项：丢掉四轮 + 一个指标 bug 才换来的侧走，而 C2 的转向本来就没问题。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3p. 三 处置顺序（回答「补训转向 还是 回 s1e 重训」：都不该） 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 The real robot's right-leg kicking was over-trained-delay times loop gain - irreducible pipeline latency is plant, model it fully from day one
pipeline-latency-is-plant-not-drMeasure the end-to-end action pipeline delay and build it into the nominal plant and every acceptance gate from day one; treat power/scale deratings that "fix" oscillation as gain-reduction crutches flagging an unmodeled delay, and expect higher-feedback-gain policies to be MORE delay-fragile.
Symptom
On hardware, s1c/s1d at action scale 1.0 always kicked wildly with the right leg (s1c only ran as SOTA at power 0.8; s1d only at 0.7) - while sim showed nothing under default evaluation.
Context
Sim reproduced the incident item by item once the real pipeline delay was injected: s1d@1.0 with --delay 1 fell at 10.2 s, --delay 2 at 5.2 s; s1c@1.0 stressed (r_hip_roll saturation 5 -> 16%; "右脚" = the policy's chirality makes the right leg its high-gain leg); and the combos that worked on hardware (s1c@0.8+delay2, s1d@0.7+delay2) all survived in sim. Mechanism: the real pipeline is ~1-2 ticks (BusWorker next-cycle pickup + CAN round trip) but S1.1 trained only to 1 tick - "超训延迟 × 全环路增益 = 振荡;衰减 = 压环路增益换稳定" (delay beyond training x full loop gain = oscillation; the power derating had been buying stability by compressing loop gain). s1d was MORE fragile than s1c because its yaw 3-layer stack had learned higher feedback gain - higher gain, lower delay tolerance. Three changes: latency DR widened to cover reality; acceptance gates and smoke runs moved permanently to --delay 2 ("门必须在真机条件下预测 真机"); and the doctrine written twice-paid: "不可约的管线属性(延迟、 限速)不是'随机化选项',是 plant 本体,第一天就该全额建模" - S1's nominal-then-robust staging falsified by hardware for the second time. The later s1e hardware run at power 1.0 (no kicking, normal force) closed the loop: "0.8 = 旧代拐杖" - the derating had been a crutch for the under-modeled delay, not a real requirement.
Change
Latency modeled as plant from day one of any lineage (measured 1-2 ticks covered, bridge-layer rate limits likewise modeled by default); every gate and smoke evaluation issued under --delay 2.
Outcome
Kicking reproduced, explained, and eliminated in the s1e generation at full scale and full power; the deploy-side crutches (0.7/0.8) retired for the new lineage.
Mechanism
Feedback oscillation onset is a product of loop gain and phase lag; a policy trained below the real delay learns gains that sit past the real stability margin, and any output derating masks it by scaling gain down. Since pipeline delay is deterministic hardware property - not an uncertainty - it belongs in the nominal plant, and every evaluation must include it or the gate predicts a robot that does not exist.
Applies when
- hardware oscillation/kicking that sim only reproduces with added delay
- a policy only runs on hardware at reduced power/scale
- defining what belongs in the nominal plant vs the DR list
“真实链路延迟 ~1~2 拍 … S1.1 只训到 1 拍——超训延迟 × 全环路增益 = 振荡;衰减 = 压环路增益换稳定。s1d 比 s1c 更脆 = yaw 三层栈学出更高反馈增益,增益越高延迟容忍越低。… 教训入账:S1「先标称后鲁棒」第二次被真机证伪——不可约的管线属性(延迟、限速)不是"随机化选项",是 plant 本体,第一天就该全额建模。”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 3. S1.4(真机右脚乱踢事故强制) 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 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) Deployment power derating damages non-forward axes far more than forward - sweep it in sim before deploying
power-scale-hurts-nonforward-axesTreat deployment power/torque scaling as a plant parameter: evaluate the policy in sim at the exact deployment scale, expect non-dominant axes to degrade first under derating, and either deploy at the training power or train with power randomization.
Symptom
Policies deployed at power-scale 0.8 (a safety derating of commanded torque) looked fine walking forward but were weak at backward and turning, inviting the wrong diagnosis "the skill was not trained well".
Context
Measured repeatedly: on s1e, going 1.0 -> 0.8 cost forward 18% but backward 58%; on C4-ff800, turn tracking was +25%/+40% at pw0.8 vs +75%/+58% at pw1.0, backward 51-52% vs 97-103%, while forward stayed 96-98% at both. Sim evaluation numbers in the plan were all pw1.0, but the robot was being run at 0.8.
Change
Pre-deploy protocol added: sweep the exported policy across power in sim (for PW in 0.8 0.9 1.0: eval_c_matrix --power $PW --seeds 20) and deploy at the first level where both turn directions reach >=50%. For C4 the recommendation was raise the robot to pw1.0 - the sweep showed it nearly free (saturation 47%->33%, left foot-clipping danger zone 25%->6%, cost only tilt 6.7->8.3 deg).
Outcome
Turning "weakness" resolved without any retraining; the sim sweep correctly predicted the real-robot signature at both power levels.
Mechanism
Forward walking is the reward-dominant, torque-cheapest skill with the most margin; backward/turn/sidewalk live closer to the torque envelope, so a uniform torque derating consumes their margin first. Training ran at power 1.0 (the trainer does no power scaling), so deploying at 0.8 is a systematic underactuation the policy never experienced.
Applies when
- deploying with any torque/power derating or safety scale
- secondary skills (backward, turn, lateral) underperform on hardware while forward walking looks fine
- choosing the deployment power level for a new policy
“power 衰减对非前进轴的伤害远大于前进轴（s1e：前进 1.0→0.8 掉 18%，后退掉 58%）。转向是非前进轴，0.8 下很可能明显跟不动。”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3c. A-2 上机前先定部署力度档 / 3p. 二 A stand gate judged by survival passes a robot that wanders a meter - judge posture instead
stand-gate-posture-not-survivalFor every gate, ask what behavior the metric is a proxy for and validate its ordering against real observations; replace metrics whose ordering disagrees with reality, and demote them explicitly rather than silently.
Symptom
Real robot "standing" drifted 0.5-1.4 m across the floor while the sim stand gate scored a clean 20/20 - because the gate's metric was episode survival, which wandering does not violate.
Context
C2's stand condition was originally written as "survival regression <=2/20". A real-robot counter-example on 2026-08-08 forced the re-judgment: wandering robots survive. Cross-checking candidate sim metrics against real-robot feel showed max-tilt median ordering agreed with hands-on ranking, while displacement ordering was actually OPPOSITE to real impressions - so displacement was demoted to a reference quantity, not a gate.
Change
Stand PASS criterion rewritten from survival to posture: "stand tilt max median <= root baseline +1.5 deg"; displacement kept only as reference. Applied to all subsequent rungs (C4 and redo levels inherit it).
Outcome
Later rungs gated stand on tilt (e.g. C4 product: 7.7 deg vs parent 7.1 deg, +0.6 deg PASS); the wandering failure mode became visible to the battery instead of hidden by survival.
Mechanism
A gate metric is a proxy for an intended behavior; survival is a proxy for "did not fall", not "stood still". Metric choice must be validated against ground truth (real-robot feel/measurement), and a proxy whose ordering disagrees with reality on real data is worse than no metric - it steers selection backwards.
Applies when
- writing PASS conditions for stand/idle/hold behaviors
- a gate passes policies that visibly misbehave on hardware
- choosing between candidate metrics for an acceptance battery
“stand 必须用位姿判，不能用存活判（2026-08-08 真机反证改判）：站着乱走 0.5~1.4 m 时存活照样 20/20 —— C2 的 stand 条件原写「存活退化 ≤2/20」，选错了指标。改为: stand 倾角 max 中位 ≤ 根基线 +1.5°（倾角与真机手感排序一致；位移排序与真机相反，降为参考量）”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3b. PASS 条件 ⚠️ stand 必须用位姿判 Ideal PD is not enough - add a delay buffer and fit armature/friction/delay per joint
actuator-delay-buffer-fittingNever ship ideal PD to hardware: add a measured delay (in control steps) and per-joint armature/friction fitted from step and sine responses, and treat remaining actuator mismatch as your standing largest sim2real residual.
Symptom
Standard ideal PD actuator model transfers poorly; sim assumes targets take effect instantly and joints reach arbitrary acceleration.
Context
A developer with a successful on-hardware Isaac Lab biped modified the actuator model in two ways and calibrated it against the real robot: step-response plus sine-sweep tests (positive step, negative step, sine tracking), overlaying sim curves on measured curves and hand-tuning.
Change
(1) Delay buffer: action targets take effect after a uniform 6 time-step delay on all joints; (2) acceleration limiting so the actuator cannot reach arbitrary acceleration; (3) per-joint fit of armature / friction / delay - different joints genuinely needed different values.
Outcome
Hip joints fit worst, knee best; the developer rated the result "not perfect, the best I could do" and still listed actuator-model improvement as next work - i.e. even the fitted model remained the dominant residual.
Mechanism
Real actuation is a lagged, bandwidth-limited system; a delay buffer and acceleration cap are the two cheapest structures that reproduce its phase and magnitude response. Per-joint differences come from differing load, wiring, and friction states, so a single global constant underfits.
Applies when
- actuator model in sim is ideal PD with no delay
- step-response of real joint visibly lags or overshoots the sim's
- budgeting which sim2real gap to attack first
“标准 ideal PD actuator 不够用，他改了两处：延迟缓冲：目标不是立即生效，全部关节统一 6 个 time step 延迟 / 加速度曲线：执行器不能瞬间达到任意加速度 … 用 armature / friction / delay 三个参数逐关节拟合，标定方法是阶跃响应 + 正弦扫描 … 髋部关节偏差最大，膝关节最好。”
Experience.md § 执行器建模 —— 最值得抄的一条 (lines 50-59) A constant-value plant rung passed every binary gate with record scores - and shipped 60% thinner posture margins that hardware exposed
constant-value-dr-overfits-marginRandomize deployment-critical axes over a narrow band spanning the measured real support - never a single value, never a fictitious tail - and report graded margin quantities (tilt margin) next to binary gates, because saturated gates rank thin-margin and thick-margin policies identically.
Symptom
s2_lag1 (trained at constant 1-frame latency) posted the strongest sim gate sheet in history (20/20 everywhere) yet was unstable on hardware, while s1e (trained across the full 0-3 frame band) was the every-run-stable SOTA at the same power.
Context
The sim autopsy (new --delay-jitter harness modeling the BusWorker's time-varying phase drift): 18 runs across constant and time-varying delays ALL survived - time variation alone does not kill - but the tilt-margin ordering reproduced hardware exactly: s1e 7.7-9.1 deg (thickest) < s2_lag1 10.7-15.0 < s1c 16.2-18.2. Attribution: constant-value training permits precise specialization to that one value; s1e's band diversity forced cross-value robustness - "恒定 1 帧训练 vs s1e 的 0~3 帧全带——分布多样性逼出跨值鲁棒,恒定值允许精确 特化" - so the constant-rung policy's margins were ~60% thinner, fine in sim's clean world, pushed over the line by real-world disturbances. Tool lesson booked: "存活门二值饱和后掩盖裕度差" - binary survival gates saturate and hide margin differences; graded margin columns (tilt-max) belong in the report. The synthesis with the opposite failure (wide tails cause drag-glide): the proposed resolution was a NARROW uniform band (0.02, 0.04) covering exactly the real 1-2 ticks - diversity inside the measured support, no tail, no single point. s1e's root selection later leaned on the same property: its full-band latency training "预装" the delay rungs and delivered "全工况稳定裕度" that survived power derating.
Change
DR-on-an-axis design refined to a three-way distinction: no wide fictitious tails (drag), no single constant values (thin margins), but a narrow band spanning the measured real support; acceptance reports gained graded margin columns alongside binary gates.
Outcome
The tilt-margin column entered the standard report; the s1e root (band-trained) carried the C ladder while the constant-value branch was archived with its three contributions credited.
Mechanism
Robustness margins are shaped by the diversity of the training distribution, not just its support: a point-mass distribution lets the optimizer trade margin for on-point performance, while a band forces solutions that keep margin across the band - and binary survival metrics cannot see the difference until the margin is spent on hardware.
Conflicts
The narrow-band (0.02,0.04) resolution was a pending recommendation ("裁决建议(待用户)") at the time of writing; the lineage instead moved root to s1e whose full-band training predated the staged ladder - the deterministic-staging card and this card record the two failure modes the final design must avoid simultaneously.
Applies when
- a rung trained at a fixed plant value aces sim but wobbles on hardware
- binary acceptance gates are all saturated across candidates
- choosing between constant, banded, and wide DR on one axis
“18 跑全活,时变性单独不足以击杀;但 tilt_max 裕度排序完整复现真机:s1e 7.7~9.1°(最厚)< s2_lag1 10.7~15.0 … 恒定 1 帧训练 vs s1e 的 0~3 帧全带——分布多样性逼出跨值鲁棒,恒定值允许精确特化 … 存活门二值饱和后掩盖裕度差(s2_lag1 sim 门 20/20 史上最强却真机不稳)”
train/README.md § s2_lag1 真机不稳 × s1e 稳的 sim 对拍(2026-08-07,时变延迟实验) Ungated phase shaping made standing 42x more expensive than stepping - and the stepping was cooking the hip motors
moving-gate-42x-stand-taxGate every phase/clock-driven shaping term on the command that justifies motion, price the cmd=0 case explicitly during design - and when a reward flaw is sim-only, book it with trigger conditions instead of operating immediately on a working lineage.
Symptom
At cmd = 0 the sim policy never stood still - it stepped in place and crept 0.98 m per 20 s; on the real robot the same lineage's stepping made hip_roll motors run 20 degC hotter than every other joint (43-48 degC vs 25-28).
Context
The arithmetic closed it: the three phase-shaping terms (joint_pos_ref 1.6, feet_contact_number 1.2, feet_clearance_swing 1.6) are driven by the gait clock with NO command gating, so standing at cmd=0 forfeits 3.32/step of shaping while honest standing earns only 0.078 of tracking - stepping wins 42x. The heat chain: perpetual stepping = perpetual single support = one hip_roll stalled at ~4.3 N*m (25% of torque limit) carrying the torso's frontal-plane moment - two hip_rolls = 90% of whole-machine steady-state I2R; measured stand-vs-step comparison: total heat -71% when actually standing. The suspended test acquitted the actuator (0.21 rad sag -> 0.0008 rad in air) and mechanics vetoed the easy fix ("降 kp 救不了热" - equilibrium torque equals the external load regardless of kp). The fix (moving_gate: hard-gate the three shaping terms on |cmd| > eps) was designed - then DEFERRED by the user because the real robot at the time stood fine: "真机不表现该问题, 为真机不存在的病改奖励表不划算", with written trigger conditions (C-ladder stand row persistently failing, or real robot starting to step/drift at cmd=0) and the known hazard tag (this is exactly the reward-change class that triggers the B-arm signature). When the real robot later DID step and cook, the booked trigger fired and moving_gate moved from debt to to-do with its benefit re-priced: "停止空烧 hip_roll,稳态发热降 ~71%".
Change
moving_gate designed with the gate_by_cmd convention; deferral, triggers, and expected heat recovery all pre-registered instead of patching the reward for a then-sim-only symptom.
Outcome
The cmd=0 stepping went from mystery to closed arithmetic; the thermal measurement (hip_roll +20 degC) quantitatively confirmed the 90%-of-heat prediction; the reward change waited for real-world justification instead of spending a risky revision early.
Mechanism
Clock-driven shaping terms define a perpetual-motion bounty unless gated by command; the resulting idle gait is not a training bug but the table's optimum. Its cost surfaces on hardware as stall-torque heating set by statics (mass x lateral offset), which no gain change can remove - only removing the motion (gating) or widening the stance can.
Applies when
- the policy steps in place or creeps at zero command
- specific joints run hot in idle behaviors
- deciding when a known reward flaw justifies a risky mid-lineage fix
“塑形合计 −3.32/步 … 净: 站定亏 42 倍 … 两颗 hip_roll 4.29 / 4.09 N·m(各占限扭 25%),占全机稳态 I²R 的 90% … 吊挂实测 hip_roll 跟踪误差 0.21 rad → 0.0008 rad … 降 kp 救不了热 … 真机不表现该问题, 为真机不存在的病改奖励表不划算”
train/README.md § C1 FAIL 节 (cmd=0 的 sim/真机分歧记账) / C2 真机 A/B 三b 发热定性 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) Under continuous 3-axis uniform sampling, pure straight-line walking is a zero-measure event the policy never trained
zero-measure-commands-need-mode-samplingEnumerate the exact command points users will actually issue (straight, stop, in-place turn) and give each explicit probability mass via mode sampling with off-axes pinned to zero - never assume a continuous sampler covers its measure-zero subsets.
Symptom
"The robot drifts even in sim when told to walk straight" persisted across reward tunings - because with commands drawn as vx in [0.15,0.5] x vy ~ U(+/-0.2) x wz ~ U(+/-0.6), the event vy=0 AND wz=0 has probability zero: pure straight-line walking was never sampled even once.
Context
Restart evidence item #3: "纯直行是零测度点 … 'sim 里直行就漂'是分布的 必然,不是 reward 没调好" - the drift metric was legitimately drowned by commanded turning (v11's own comment self-documented this). The structural fix is discrete mode sampling: a custom ModeVelocityCommand that first draws a mode by share (stand/forward/back/turn/side/mixed), then draws values only on that mode's axes with all others pinned to exact zero - which is also what preserves single-variable discipline in the C ladder (native 3-axis uniform "采不出'离散模式桶' … 把 C1~C4 的单变量纪律直接毁掉"). The mixed mode later got an ellipsoid constraint rather than a cube for the same reason in reverse - corner combinations of a cube are unrepresentative extremes.
Change
Command generation moved from independent per-axis uniforms to mode-bucket sampling with pinned-zero off-axes (plus 20% rel_standing); acceptance likewise evaluates per mode.
Outcome
Straight-line behavior became a trained, testable mode instead of a measure-zero hope; the C ladder could add one mode per rung with provable isolation.
Mechanism
A policy optimizes expected reward under the command distribution; events of probability zero contribute nothing to the objective, so exact-zero-command behaviors (straight walk, stand, in-place turn) are only learned if the sampler gives them mass. Product-of-uniforms distributions concentrate mass on mixtures and give none to the pure behaviors users actually command.
Applies when
- a "simple" command (straight, stop) underperforms mixtures in sim
- designing command distributions for velocity-tracking tasks
- a ladder needs per-mode isolation for attribution
“纯直行是零测度点:最终 command 为 vx∈[0.15,0.5] × vy∈U(±0.2) × wz∈U(±0.6) 连续均匀,vy=0∧wz=0 从未被专门采样 —— "sim 里直行就漂"是分布的必然,不是 reward 没调好 … Isaac 原生 UniformVelocityCommand 是三轴各自 uniform,采不出"离散模式桶"”
train/OMNI_V0_SPEC.md § 0. 为什么从零 (3) / 三件前置 (1) Removing a foot-spacing wall passed every simulated gate and made the feet collide on the real robot - nothing priced stance width in the two-foot phase, the policy narrowed to the simulator's self-collision floor, and real calibration offsets closed the last millimetres; the wall came back with a gate
removed-wall-returns-on-hardwareWhen a constraint is removed, name what will govern that quantity instead and add a gate for it; never let a simulator's collision floor be the margin, and when a gate is exceeded by a hair, record the exact numbers and hand the release decision to a person instead of quietly passing it.
Symptom
On the first real-robot try of oneleg_v0 (2026-09-16) the two feet collided; the user also judged the folded foot not high enough.
Context
The V0 reward table had dropped the feet_lateral_distance wall because it seemed to conflict with the hip adduction single support needs. In the two-foot command bucket no remaining term governed stance width, so the policy drifted narrower until the simulator's self-collision stopped it; the sim acceptance had no foot-spacing gate, so 40/40 said nothing about it. On the robot, calibration offsets consumed the margin.
Change
V0.1: the wall restored (-10, minimum 0.16 m), re-checked against measured numbers (a swing-phase lateral spacing of ~148 mm costs 0.12 per step, acceptable); fold weight 0.8 -> 2.0; a ninth gate: minimum foot spacing >= 100 mm and zero leg-contact frames. The removal was kept on record.
Outcome
oneleg_v0_1 (V0r2 model_2200) passed 39/40 with the spacing gate 40/40. The single miss (a 15.4 deg tilt transient against a < 15 deg limit during a side switch, steady 6.9 deg, everything else green) was recorded with its numbers and released for the user to overrule.
Mechanism
An unpriced degree of freedom drifts to wherever the simulator stops it; if that stop is the simulator's own collision model, the policy's margin on hardware is whatever the calibration error leaves.
Applies when
- dropping a reward term that looked redundant or conflicting
- hardware shows a failure no simulated gate measures
- a release candidate misses one gate row by a small amount
“V0 撤墙被真机证伪（2026-09-16）：双脚桶没有任何项管站宽，策略贴 sim 自碰撞底线收窄，真机标定偏差一吃**双脚相碰**。 … min ≥ 100 mm 且腿碰 0 帧（eval_straight 同判据）—— … V0 真机双脚相碰暴露 sim 门未看脚距的缺口 … L s2 标称 tilt 瞬态 15.4°（门限 <15, 超 0.4°, 稳态 6.9°, 该跑其余全绿）——换侧瞬态蹭线, 判定放行留档, 用户可否决。”
git:Lucen V2@origin/oneleg-line:train/ONELEG_V0_SPEC.md § §4 feet_lateral_distance 行 / §6 验收门 ⑨ / §8 核查单 7 Privileged signals (true velocity, foot force, foot height) go to the critic only
observation-honesty-critic-onlyTreat the actor observation vector as a hardware contract: every element must exist on the real robot with realistic noise; privileged simulator truths belong in the critic only.
Symptom
Policies trained on ground-truth base linear velocity work in sim and fail on hardware, where only a drifting IMU and encoders exist - the policy has learned to depend on a signal that does not survive deployment.
Context
Many open-source locomotion stacks feed simulator ground-truth linear velocity to the actor. The reference team refused: the real robot has no ground-truth velocity. Asymmetric actor-critic keeps the training benefit of privileged information without deploying the dependency.
Change
Route ground-truth velocity, foot contact forces, and foot heights to the critic only; the actor observes exclusively signals that exist on hardware (IMU-derived quantities, encoders, commands, previous actions).
Outcome
Recorded as adopted doctrine in Lucen's experience log; the trained actor's input contract matches what the real robot can actually produce.
Mechanism
The critic is discarded at deployment, so it may consume any privileged state to reduce value-estimation variance; the actor's observation set is a deployment contract - anything in it that hardware cannot supply (or supplies with different noise/drift) becomes a train/deploy distribution shift the policy was never trained to handle.
Applies when
- designing actor/critic observation spaces
- reviewing a config where the actor sees base_lin_vel or contact forces
- sim policy is strong but real robot drifts, oscillates, or falls without obvious actuator cause
“很多开源代码库把真值线速度喂给策略，Asimov 团队没有，因为真机上没有真值速度，只有会漂的 IMU 和编码器；用完美速度训练出来的策略会依赖它，然后在硬件上失效。真值速度、足底力、足高统统只给 critic”
Experience.md § 观测空间的诚实性 (line 7) 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) action_rate weight is the sim2real bandwidth knob - re-tune it whenever a rate limiter is removed
action-rate-weight-vs-bandwidthSet action_rate weight relative to real actuator bandwidth, and re-tune it any time another smoothing/limiting element (filter, slew limiter, gain) changes - reward weights are load-bearing parts of the actuator model.
Symptom
With a low action_rate_l2 weight the policy learns fast actions; the unmodeled part of the actuator response is then excited hardest, and sim2real "直接崩" (collapses outright). With too high a weight, actions become so slow the robot cannot maintain balance.
Context
The reference developer called action_rate_l2 the single most important reward for transfer, with side-by-side video evidence that the high-penalty, slower policy is clearly better on hardware. Lucen context: the team had just removed the SOFT_SPD=1.0 velocity limiter, which had been an implicit actuator-bandwidth constraint - leaving action_rate as the only remaining constraint on action speed.
Change
Decision recorded: after removing SOFT_SPD, re-evaluate the action_rate weight rather than keep the old value, since its effective role changed from "additional smoother" to "sole bandwidth constraint".
Outcome
Logged as a priority follow-up ("重新评估 action_rate 权重 - 拆掉 SOFT_SPD 之后这一项的作用变了"); the failure mode it guards against is training high-frequency actions the real actuators cannot track.
Mechanism
Slower actions stay inside the frequency band where the ideal-PD sim actuator and the real actuator agree; fast actions probe the band where unmodeled delay, inductance, and bandwidth limits dominate, so model error is amplified in exact proportion to action speed. Any removed external rate limit transfers that constraint's entire job onto the action_rate penalty.
Conflicts
The low/high tradeoff evidence is the external developer's report (with video); the Lucen-side entry is a pre-registered risk and decision, not yet an on-robot A/B at the time of writing.
Applies when
- removing or adding an action filter, slew limiter, or low-level speed cap
- real robot shows high-frequency chatter or overheating absent in sim
- tuning smoothness rewards before a hardware deployment
“权重低 → 动作快 → 执行器模型不准的部分被放大，sim2real 直接崩 / 权重高 → 动作慢 → 好迁移，但可能慢到无法维持平衡 … 我们刚拆掉 SOFT_SPD=1.0 的限速器，等于把执行器带宽约束整个移除了。action_rate 惩罚现在是唯一还在约束动作速率的东西，需要重新评估权重”
Experience.md § action_rate_l2 是他认为最关键的 reward (lines 61-70) Armature must be N^2 x rotor inertia, never 0 - measure it no-load
armature-n2-rotor-inertiaEvery geared actuator carries N^2 * I_rotor of reflected inertia at the joint; set armature from a no-load measurement, never leave it 0 and never guess it.
Symptom
Sim joints accelerate more easily than real joints; old MJCF had armature = 0 (rotor reflected inertia entirely unmodeled), a systematic sim2real gap on every joint.
Context
Original hand-written MJCF plant used armature 0. The team derived and then measured the correct value: torque needed at the rotor is I_rotor * N * alpha; after the N:1 gearbox the output shaft "feels" an extra N^2 * I_rotor of inertia. With a 9:1 reduction that is an 81x amplification of the rotor inertia, far too large to ignore.
Change
Set per-motor armature from no-load (motor out of the robot) measurement instead of 0: RS06 = 0.0070 kg*m^2, RS02 = 0.0032 kg*m^2, RS00 = 0.0015 kg*m^2. Landed together with measured friction as the first fully-measured plant parameter set.
Outcome
Plant parameters "第一次全部来自实测" (first time all from measurement); became the frozen plant baseline for all subsequent training generations.
Mechanism
Reflected inertia scales with the square of the gear ratio: the rotor spins N times faster than the joint, so its kinetic energy (and the torque needed to accelerate it) appears N^2 larger at the output. Omitting it makes simulated joints unrealistically fast/light, so policies learn action rates the real actuator cannot deliver.
Applies when
- building or auditing a simulation plant model for a geared/QDD actuator
- sim policy moves joints faster or snappier than the real robot can
- MJCF/URDF review shows armature or rotor inertia set to 0 or a default
“armature 转子反射惯量有问题 在sim里面一定要处理 不能是0，空机测试。转子处需要的力矩 = I_rotor × N × α 经减速箱放大 N 倍后 = N² × I_rotor × α 所以输出轴"感觉到"多了一个 N² × I_rotor 的惯量。 这就是 armature。… 关键是那个平方。减速比 9:1 就放大 81 倍。”
Experience.md § # armature 转子反射惯量有问题 (line 9) FK-verify a borrowed reference's structure, then size its amplitude by the reference's job - it pins phase, the policy adds lift
reference-structure-fk-amplitude-divisionWhen borrowing a reference trajectory: verify its structural claim against your own kinematics (an invariant like flat-foot), assign it the phase-pinning job, and size amplitude low enough that the policy contributes the lift - moving toward a proven foreign value in halves, not jumps.
Symptom
walk_v4 had big knee swing (40-46 deg) but only 18-24 mm foot lift - amplitude without hip/knee/ankle phase coordination; later, walk_v5's real-robot swing ballooned to 73.6 deg (sim 55.7) with violent footfalls - amplitude over-driven by the reference.
Context
Structure first: Humanoid-Gym's 1:2:1 hip:knee:ankle reference was verified on the local model before adoption - the ratio exactly satisfies the locally derived flat-foot constraint hip - knee + ankle = 0, FK-tested at multiple amplitudes with sole pitch 0.00 deg throughout. Amplitude second, and here the first reasoning failed honestly: FK said shorter legs need LARGER reference scale (0.30 for 30 mm lift), and the FK was correct - but the premise was wrong ("FK 没错, 但前提错了"): it assumed foot lift must come from the reference. HighTorque Pi, same scale, uses 0.08 with a 0.02 m foot-height target - proof that lift is added by the policy ON TOP of the reference, whose actual job is pinning the phase relationship. Scale 0.30 made the reference the entire gait: over-constrained and over-driven. The correction went to 0.15, deliberately not Pi's 0.08: "一次只走一半, 留退路" (walk half the distance, keep a retreat).
Change
target_joint_pos_scale 0.30 -> 0.15 as one of v6-minimal's three changes, treating both the footfall force and the lateral kicking (yaw momentum scales with leg swing amplitude).
Outcome
v6 improved landing force 1.72x -> 1.55x, suspended tilt 45.9 -> 23.0 deg, turn-gain asymmetry 70% -> 19%; the later v6-halved-shaping experiment (35 mm -> 4 mm collapse) confirmed the reference still carries the gait's existence on this machine - the division of labor is real but machine-specific.
Mechanism
A joint-space reference plays two separable roles: encoding structure (phase relations that keep the foot flat) and injecting amplitude (energy). Structure transfers across robots and is checkable by FK against an invariant; amplitude is a negotiation with the policy, and over-assigning it to the reference removes the policy's freedom to modulate lift with state.
Applies when
- importing a reference gait / imitation target from another codebase
- reference amplitude reasoning based on leg length alone
- real swing amplitude far exceeds sim's under a strong reference
“FK 没错, 但前提错了。我默认抬脚必须由参考轨迹产生。HighTorque Pi 同尺度机器人 … 用 0.08, 而它 target_feet_height = 0.02 m —— 说明抬脚是策略在参考之上加出来的, 参考只负责钉住髋/膝/踝的相位配合。我们取 0.30 等于让参考本身就是整个步态, 过约束 + 过驱动”
train/WALK_V6_MINIMAL.md § ① target_joint_pos_scale 0.30 → 0.15 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 Run acceptance under measured contact parameters - honest condim/torsional-friction flipped a false PASS into a real-matching FAIL
eval-plant-honesty-contact-paramsPin the evaluation plant's contact model to measured values (contact dimension, torsional/rolling friction, mu) before trusting any gate that involves slip, impact, or drift - a gate can only fail a policy for physics its simulator contains.
Symptom
walk_v5 passed the old acceptance battery yet failed on the real robot (footfall force, drift, kicking) - the evaluation plant was flattering the policy.
Context
The battery was re-run under "honest contact parameters" - condim 4 (adding torsional contact) with measured torsional friction 0.035 - and v5 then FAILED exactly the rows corresponding to its real problems: heading 185 deg (limit 30), support-foot yaw slip 284 deg (limit 80), landing force 1.72x (limit 1.5x), suspended tilt 45.9 deg (limit 10). The slip physics depends on torsional friction, which the default contact model (condim 3) does not even simulate - a slip problem is invisible to an evaluator that cannot represent yaw friction at the foot. Term-sizing measurements for the new rewards were likewise taken under the same honest parameters (cmd 0.45, skipping the 5 s start transient).
Change
Acceptance harness pinned to condim 4 / torsion 0.035 (measured); verdicts issued under defaults declared non-citable for these rows.
Outcome
Sim acceptance verdicts began agreeing with hardware ("现在失败, 与真机一致"); the v6 fixes could be developed and validated against an evaluator that could actually see the disease.
Mechanism
An evaluator is a plant model too: contact dimensionality and friction values decide which failure modes exist in the simulation at all. Evaluating under default contact parameters tests the policy in a world where its real failure is physically impossible, producing structurally false PASSes.
Applies when
- sim acceptance passes policies that fail on hardware
- slip/drift/impact gates run under default simulator contact settings
- setting up a cross-simulator evaluation harness
“accept_v2.py 已加三条判据, walk_v5 在诚实的接触参数下(--condim 4 --torsion 0.035)现在失败, 与真机一致:直行 15s 航向累计 <30° | 185° ✗ … 落脚力峰值 <1.5× 体重 | 1.72× ✗”
train/WALK_V6_MINIMAL.md § 5. 验收 PPO's Gaussian noise cannot compose phase-locked oscillations - deliver them as feed-forward and let the policy learn the residual
feedforward-for-phase-locked-skillsIf a skill needs a temporally coherent (phase-locked) action component, do not expect step-wise exploration to find it: inject a verified feed-forward and train the policy as a residual stabilizer, keeping the feed-forward inside the deployment contract.
Symptom
Four different reward arrangements (no reference / wrong-sign reference / correct-sign reference / cage released) all failed to elicit sidewalk, while open-loop probes proved the behavior existed and was safe on the same platform with the same policy as base.
Context
Producing lateral velocity requires a phase-locked hip_roll oscillation synchronized to the gait clock. PPO's exploration is per-step, zero-mean, uncorrelated Gaussian noise - it can never compose a sustained phase-locked component, so the behavior is unreachable by exploration regardless of how it is rewarded. The fix changed the delivery channel: target = default + scale*action + lat_ff(cmd_vy, phi). The policy's action becomes a residual on top of the feed-forward, retaining full balance authority (it can even cancel the feed-forward); the feed-forward supplies exactly the component exploration cannot. This mirrors why the sagittal joint_pos_ref worked (it also delivered phase structure), just via a different channel.
Change
Contract-level change, done cleanly: new profile omni_ff (= omni + lat_ff_gain -0.5), existing omni profile bit-identical; feed-forward applied after the action delay stage; missing cmd/phase raises instead of silently dropping; deployment must use the same phi as build_obs (recomputing gives a one-tick phase misalignment).
Outcome
From C2-700, +100 iterations sufficed: product omni_c4_ff800 scored vy +120%/+125% (from +4%/-1%), 260/260 cells at 20/20 survival, zero old-skill regression, left/right gap 5 pp - the entire C4 saga resolved by changing the delivery mechanism, not the reward.
Mechanism
Exploration noise spans only the subspace its correlation structure can express; skills requiring coherent oscillation lie outside the span of i.i.d. per-step noise. Feed-forward moves the required structure into the action pipeline where it needs zero probability mass to appear, reducing the learning problem to stabilizing around a demonstrated behavior - which PPO does well.
Applies when
- a periodic/oscillatory skill trains flat under every reward variant
- open-loop injection of the behavior already works
- considering GRU/curriculum/exploration tricks for a rhythmic skill
“病因不在奖励，在探索形式：产生侧向速度需要相位锁定的 hip_roll 振荡，PPO 的逐步高斯噪声零均值无相关，合不出相位锁定分量。… target = default + scale·a + lat_ff(cmd_vy, φ)。策略动作因此是前馈之上的残差，保留全部平衡权限”
train/C_LADDER_RUN.md § 3j. C4-redo4：唯一变量 = 侧步参考改为前馈注入（契约级） 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 Model CAN polling skew - joint observations are 6-9 ms stale by read order
can-timing-skew-modelingIf joints are read sequentially over a shared bus, reproduce the per-group observation staleness in sim (or randomize it over the measured range) - synchronous observations are a privileged fiction.
Symptom
Policies trained with synchronous joint observations degrade on hardware where motors are polled sequentially over CAN - hip data is already 6-9 ms old by the time ankle data arrives.
Context
Menlo's core sim2real finding on a leg platform of almost identical mass to Lucen's. CAN is a sequential bus: one poll cycle reads motors in a fixed order, so the observation vector mixes timestamps. Lucen runs 6:6 motors on a dual CAN split, so the problem transfers one-to-one.
Change
Explicitly model CAN timing skew in sim: give the joint groups different observation delays matching physical read order. Menlo went further - running real firmware in the loop with a motor simulator between MuJoCo and firmware injecting 0.4-2 ms uniformly distributed delay.
Outcome
Reported by the reference team as their core sim2real enabler on a same-scale platform; recorded in Lucen's experience log as directly applicable ("这个问题一模一样").
Mechanism
A policy exploits any cross-joint temporal coherence present in training observations; when hardware breaks that coherence per bus position, the learned feedback acts on inconsistent state estimates, injecting phase error exactly at the control bandwidth.
Conflicts
Second-hand episode: outcome numbers are the reference team's report, not a Lucen-run experiment; Lucen adopted the requirement but the corpus has no Lucen A/B of skew-on vs skew-off.
Applies when
- robot polls actuators sequentially over CAN/RS485 or similar shared bus
- sim2real degradation appears as jitter or oscillation not seen in sim
- designing the observation/delay model before a training run
“电机走 CAN 是顺序轮询的，髋部电机的数据到踝部电机上报时已经陈旧了 6-9 ms，他们直接在仿真里显式建模了 CAN 时序偏斜，按读取顺序给三组关节不同的观测延迟。… 注入 0.4–2 ms 的均匀分布延迟。你们是 6:6 双 CAN 分总线，这个问题一模一样”
Experience.md § 执行器 + 时序建模 (line 6) A 10 s acceptance episode left 6-7 s of standing to observe - a narrow stance held for that window and split on hardware; a gate cannot see instability slower than its own horizon
episode-length-bounds-what-a-gate-seesSize the standing phase of an acceptance episode, and its disturbances and floor friction, to what deployment will impose; a pass on a short static window certifies only that window.
Symptom
v2_6 passed every simulation gate (success 99.6%, re-falls 0-1%) and then, on the real robot, stood up and slid into the splits several times; prone starts stood and then fell backwards.
Context
Acceptance ran 10 s episodes; a ~1-2 s get-up left roughly 6-7 s of static standing on a nominal floor with no disturbance. The narrow stance's lateral margin and the straight-knee stance's lack of any flex buffer are both failure modes that need time, disturbance or lower friction to show.
Change
The gap was booked as a known blind spot of the gate ("long-duration standing stability") alongside the task-space stance criterion; later rungs added MuJoCo friction sweeps at mu 0.4 to every checkpoint scan.
Outcome
The spec through §50 records the blind spot but no longer standing window or disturbance row in the recovery acceptance itself.
Mechanism
An acceptance episode observes only the dynamics that unfold within its horizon under its conditions; slow drifts and disturbance-triggered failures are outside it by construction.
Applies when
- a policy passes sim gates and fails on hardware after a delay
- acceptance episodes are short relative to deployment use
- stability is judged without pushes or friction variation
“**sim 门为什么没逮住**:10 s episode 起身后只站 ~6-7 s,静态窗口内窄站距 撑得住;真机站立时长/扰动谱在门口径之外 —— 长时站立稳定性记为口径缺口。”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §43 判读:sim 门为什么没逮住 The +/-50 mm lateral COM randomization meant to spread the legs coincided with legs pulling IN - rolled back per its own pre-registered contract
com-dr-rollback-on-symptomWhen adopting a DR value that covers no local measurement, write its intent and rollback trigger into the config at adoption time; roll it back as the control arm the moment the symptom contradicts the intent, and promote the symptom's metric into the acceptance battery.
Symptom
After v7 adopted the reference developer's oversized lateral COM randomization (+/-50 mm) explicitly to force leg spread, the real robot's legs narrowed instead - lateral mean 154 mm / closest 107 mm in sim (nominal 214.5), narrower still on hardware with occasional leg contact.
Context
The rollback was clean because the adoption had been honest: the robot.yaml comment recorded the intent AND that the +/-50 value covered no local measurement (only a 16/7 mm measured offset existed; even the prior widening to +/-20 was subjective), plus the reference's own reported side effect (base sway) and the note "这一项要单独跑、 单独归因". When the opposite symptom appeared, v8 returned y to +/-20 mm as the control arm ("要么没起作用、要么帮了倒忙 … 按约定退回做 对照"), kept x/z untouched (a noise-level difference not worth another variable), and named the second suspect: the landing penalty itself, via the reference's own three-link chain (landing penalty -> stance narrows -> spacing penalty needed). A gate lesson was booked in the same table: v7's sim numbers had ALREADY crossed the line (154/107 vs v5's 182/147) - "这个指标本可拦下 v7" - so foot-distance became a standing acceptance row (min >120 mm, zero leg-leg contacts).
Change
base_com_offset_m y: 0.050 -> 0.020 (x/z kept), regenerated through the export tool rather than hand-editing derived files; foot-distance acceptance row added.
Outcome
A borrowed DR lever with no local measurement basis was retired the moment its symptom contradicted its purpose, at single-variable cost; the metric that would have caught it pre-hardware entered the gate.
Mechanism
DR ranges shape behavior through the policy's robustness strategy, which is jointly determined with every reward term; a lever that forces stance width on one robot can be dominated by a stronger narrowing pressure (landing softness) on another. Levers adopted without local measurement must carry their own rollback trigger, because there is no nominal to argue from when they misbehave.
Conflicts
Causality is not fully closed in the source: the narrowing may come from the landing penalty rather than the COM lever ("腿距的第二嫌疑人是 ④ 本身"); the rollback is the pre-agreed control experiment, not a verdict that the lever caused the narrowing.
Applies when
- importing DR ranges or behavioral-forcing randomizations from references
- a DR lever's observed effect contradicts its documented purpose
- a sim metric existed that would have caught a shipped regression
“⑥ 的本意 … 是逼策略把脚分开;真机结果是脚向内收且偶发相碰——要么没起作用、要么帮了倒忙。… 注释当时就写了"这一项要单独跑、单独归因"。现在症状出现了,按约定退回做对照。”
train/WALK_V8_SPEC.md § 3. 改动 C — 质心随机化退回(撤销 v7-⑥ 的 y 项) 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） A policy's gain profile is part of its contract - the one-leg policy needs per-joint gains the default profile lacks, and the manifest refused an evaluation under the default once; the recovery contract's beta was never stamped, a known gap not to repeat
gain-profile-belongs-in-the-stampStamp everything that defines the closed loop a policy was trained in - gains included - into its manifest, and make every consumer refuse a mismatch; a profile field that is not in the stamp is a silent misconfiguration waiting for an operator to forget a flag.
Symptom
A policy trained with hip_roll kp 80 and ankle_roll kp 60 behaves differently, or falls, under the default kp 20/12 profile - and the gain profile is a command-line flag an operator can forget.
Context
The one-leg line added a gain_profile field to the contract so the stamped manifest carries it; the spec's deployment note says the manifest guard blocks rl_default and that it had already bitten once in simulation (an evaluation run without the one-leg profile). The same spec states the general rule - any new profile field must be synced into the manifest builder - and names the counter-example: the recovery line's beta was never put into the manifest. The recovery line itself had decided that its anchored authority is computed from the base rl gains and written into the contract so it cannot drift with the gain flag, and that the older kp x 0.9 profile chosen in the V0 era does not match the beta contract and must not be used.
Change
Gain profile as a contract field checked at load; per-contract gain choices written into the run sheets.
Outcome
Evaluations and hardware runs of the one-leg policy run under rl_oneleg or are refused; the recovery beta gap stayed recorded as known.
Mechanism
A policy is trained against a closed loop whose gains are part of the plant; running it under other gains is an out-of-distribution plant, exactly like a wrong observation scale.
Applies when
- a skill introduces per-joint or skill-specific gains
- deployment gains are chosen by a command-line flag
- adding any new field to a policy profile
“增益档 `--profile rl_oneleg` 必须给 —— manifest 防线会拦 `rl_default`（sim 已咬合一次） … （recovery 的 β 未进 manifest 是已知缺口，不再复制）”
git:Lucen V2@origin/oneleg-line:train/ONELEG_V0_SPEC.md § §9b AGX 真机手顺 要点 / §3 契约 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) Fall recovery was defined as the whole chain - any fallen pose, a stable stand, a clean hand-back to walking - and built as a second policy behind a deploy-side switch, not folded into the walking PPO
recovery-two-policies-and-a-state-machineDefine a recovery skill by the whole chain it must complete, including the hand-back to the next controller; if it is built as a separate policy, make the switching logic and its handoff contract a deliverable of their own, and keep the recovery observation contract a subset of the locomotion one so a unified policy stays possible later.
Symptom
A walking robot that falls needs a human to stand it back up. The design question on 2026-08-09 was whether to teach getting up inside the existing omni walking policy or beside it.
Context
The user set the goal as "any fallen pose -> stand up alone -> stand stably", and the spec named the real difficulty as the full chain fall -> recovery -> stable stand -> correctly initialised walking history and clock -> walking, making the deploy state machine a first-class deliverable. A unified single policy had a real-robot precedent (arXiv:2605.18611, a state-dependent gate near 37 deg tilt) but was deferred until a recovery policy and an omni policy were each reliable. The line ran on its own branch and worktree with every walk/stand/omni/run config path untouched. The development path copied the G1 learned get-up logic (arXiv:2502.12152): first find any feasible get-up (ugly accepted), then add smoothing, torque and real-robot constraints. The recovery contract kept the base 45-dim observation (command slice held at 0, no gait phase, no frame history - their reasons do not apply to a skill without a clock or a velocity task), so it stays a prefix of the 215-dim omni contract and a later merge is not foreclosed.
Change
Two policies and a deploy-side switch instead of one retrained walking policy; recovery got its own minimal contract (45 dims, full-range action, later the beta-anchored profile) and its own acceptance battery.
Outcome
The split held for the whole line: on 08-14 deploy_policy gained a second (PolicyIO, ONNX) pair behind --recovery-policy, each loaded under its own manifest contract, and the runbook runs stand_v1b or omni_c4_ff800 as the locomotion side with recovery_v3_1p1c. The literature scan of 08-10 found that every verified get-up implementation deploys one end-to-end policy (or softly gated experts) and stages only on the training side - so the runtime state machine here is the walk/recovery switch, not a staged get-up.
Mechanism
A separate policy keeps each reward table single-purpose and lets a proven walking lineage stay byte-frozen; the cost moves to the handoff, where every piece of state one policy leaves behind (history, clock, last action, command) must be reset for the other.
Applies when
- adding fall recovery or get-up to a robot that already walks
- choosing between one unified policy and a switched pair of policies
- designing the observation/action contract of a secondary skill
“先做 recovery policy + omni policy 两个策略,部署侧状态机切换;不把 recovery 硬塞进现有 omni PPO。 … 任务定义:**任意跌倒姿态 → 自己站起来 → 稳定站立**。真正的难点不只是"起身", … omni walk**(§6 部署状态机是本 spec 的一等公民,不是附录)”
git:Lucen-recovery@origin/recovery:train/RECOVERY_V0_SPEC.md § §0 目标口径与架构判决(用户 2026-08-09 定) 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