Our summary
The notes preserve a failed simulator run before a corrected route through four target points. The simulator is a software-only robot world. A control loop repeatedly reads position, chooses movement, and checks what happened, making the failure useful evidence rather than hiding it.
A bridge connects the robot software to the decision client. The correction changes the meaning and range of the Score scale, then adds stall detection: noticing when repeated commands produce no progress. Evidence from each connection layer helps locate the problem.
The author reports one successful simulated route after one failed design. This is not evidence about physical robots, general speed, or safety. Real machinery needs independent movement limits, emergency stops, repeated trials, and qualified control engineering beyond this demonstration.
Key takeaways
- Keep failed runs when they explain a design correction.
- Check each connection between components before blaming the model.
- Never treat a simulator result as proof of physical safety.