# Cross-task stress comparison

Same tiered mass/friction protocol on all four manipulation primitives with paired seeds. Shows how the same perturbation budget degrades Lift, Stack, PickPlaceCan, and Door differently.

---

Same tiered mass/friction protocol on all four manipulation primitives with paired seeds. Shows how the same perturbation budget degrades Lift, Stack, PickPlaceCan, and Door differently.

## One perturbation budget, four manipulation primitives — they do not degrade the same way.

Same gate tier (success-ratio-min) applied to all four tasks. Lift and PickPlaceCan hold to moderate then collapse; Stack degrades earlier; Door shows no detectable response. The gate is relative to each task's own nominal, so low-nominal tasks are not mis-gated. Run-to-run reproducibility check shows Door's tiers can shift by up to 0.16.

## Methodology

1. **Same protocol, four tasks**: Run the same tiered mass/friction protocol on Lift, Stack, PickPlaceCan, and Door with paired seeds across conditions.
2. **Gate per task**: Each task is gated against its own nominal success (success_ratio_min × nominal). This prevents mis-gating low-nominal tasks.
3. **Reproducibility check**: Re-run Door on identical seeds to measure run-to-run spread. Documented spread up to 0.00 tiers.

Seeds: 0..49 paired across conditions (50 episodes × 4 conditions × 4 tasks)

Thresholds:

- gate: success_ratio_min × nominal per task
- Wilson 95% CIs on all rates

## Footnote

Sim-only cross-task comparison. The gate is relative to each task's own nominal; an absolute threshold would mis-gate Door.

Source: https://haga.mushoodhanif.com/